PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Read twice and referred to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs.
Congressional Research Service
Version 81 · Passed House without amendment · Sep 25, 2008
(This measure has not been amended since it was introduced. The summary has been expanded because action occurred on the measure.)
Family Self-Sufficiency Act of 2007 - Amends the United States Housing Act of 1937 to revise requirements for the administrative fee payable to public housing agencies (PHAs) to cover the costs of administering family self-sufficiency programs in connection with the housing choice voucher program of the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD).
Prescribes: (1) a base fee for a PHA serving 25 or more program participants equal to the costs of employing one full-time family self-sufficiency coordinator (prorated for an agency serving fewer than 25 such participants); and (2) an additional fee for an agency meeting minimum performance standards to cover the costs of employing a second coordinator if the agency has 75 or more participating families, and a third coordinator if it has 125 or more participating families.
Showing the opening paragraphs of the official summary.
Requires the Secretary to publish a proposed rule specifying the performance standards applicable to funding such additional fees and agencies that have received HUD funding for more than three such coordinators between FY1998-FY2007.
Requires PHAs receiving such funds to collect and report to the Secretary information on the performance of their family self-sufficiency programs.
Directs the Secretary to: (1) conduct a formal and scientific evaluation of the effectiveness of well-run family self-sufficiency programs, using random assignment of participants to the extent practicable; and (2) submit interim and final reports to Congress. Authorizes appropriations for the evaluation.
Permits the Secretary to reserve up to 10% of the amounts available for administrative fees to provide support to or reward family self-sufficiency programs that are particularly innovative or highly successful in achieving program goals.
People & committees
Rep. Biggert, Judy [R-IL-13] · R–IL
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Read twice and referred to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs.
Received in the Senate.
Motion to reconsider laid on the table Agreed to without objection.
On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill Agreed to by voice vote.
Passed/agreed to in House: On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill Agreed to by voice vote.
Considered as unfinished business.
At the conclusion of debate, the chair put the question on the motion to suspend the rules. Mrs. Biggert objected to the vote on the grounds that a quorum was not present. Further proceedings on the motion were postponed. The point of no quorum was withdrawn.
DEBATE - The House proceeded with forty minutes of debate on H.R. 3018.
Considered under suspension of the rules. (consideration: CR H8703-8705; text of measure as introduced: CR H8703)
Ms. Moore (WI) moved to suspend the rules and pass the bill.
Referred to the Subcommittee on Housing and Community Opportunity.
Referred to the House Committee on Financial Services.
Introduced in House
Introduced in House
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
No related bills are listed in this snapshot. This does not establish whether the proposal has appeared in earlier Congresses.
Source last updated: Jan 14, 2025. Consult Congress.gov for the current record.
AI Conversation Starters
Choose a perspective, copy a prompt, and paste it into your preferred AI. Each prompt includes the bill version and available official source links, and asks for counterarguments as well as supporting evidence.
Analyze H.R.3018 as objectively as possible. Explain its main provisions, who would be affected, possible benefits and harms, implementation, exceptions, and uncertainties. Present the strongest arguments for and against it, and identify evidence needed to assess its public impact.
Examine H.R.3018 through a progressive lens, focusing on fairness, access, economic inequality, and effects on vulnerable communities. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and distinguish stated goals from demonstrated outcomes.
Examine H.R.3018 through a conservative lens, focusing on fiscal responsibility, institutional stability, federalism, and the scope of government. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and any provisions that challenge this perspective.
Examine H.R.3018 through a civil-liberties and limited-government lens. Consider individual rights, privacy, voluntary choice, accountability, and government power. Explain tradeoffs, possible safeguards, and the strongest counterarguments without assuming the proposal is beneficial or harmful.