PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Received in the Senate and Read twice and referred to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs.
Congressional Research Service
Version 36 · Passed House amended · Jan 17, 2008
HOPE VI Improvement and Reauthorization Act of 2008 - (Sec. 2) Amends the United States Housing Act of 1937 to make promoting housing choice among low- and very low-income families one of the purposes of the HOPE VI grant program for revitalization of severely distressed public housing.
(Sec. 3) Authorizes the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) to waive the matching contribution requirement in cases of extreme distress or emergency.
(Sec. 4) Prohibits the award of demolition-only grants for any revitalization plan that proposes to demolish public housing without revitalization of any existing public housing dwelling units.
Showing the opening paragraphs of the official summary.
(Sec. 6) Revises the list of activities eligible for the use of grants to carry out revitalization plans. Eliminates rental assistance from such activities, as well as homeownership downpayment assistance for displaced residents. Makes eligible with regard to replacement housing only the acquisition and development of such housing.
Increases from 15% to 25% the amount of any such grant that may be used for necessary supportive services.
Makes eligible for the use of HOPE VI grants: (1) necessary costs of ensuring the effective temporary and permanent relocation of residents displaced as a result of project revitalization; and (2) certain activities undertaken to comply with requirements for green developments and replacement housing for hard-to-house families.
(Sec. 7) Revises factors the Secretary must include when establishing criteria for selection of proposals for grants. Divides such criteria into mandatory core components and mandatory graded components.
Declares that, in the case of any grant application that relies on the allocation of any federal low-income housing income tax credit as part of the revitalization plan proposed in the application, the Secretary shall not require that the first phase of any project to be developed under the plan possess such an allocation at the time of the application.
Directs the Secretary to provide for appropriate HUD officers or employees involved in a final selection of grant applications to visit the site of the public housing involved in the revitalization plan proposed under each such application. Limits the purpose of such a visit to obtaining information to assist in determining whether the projects involved in the application are severely distressed public housing.
Requires the Secretary to exclude any costs of compliance with green building rating systems and levels when determining total development costs for a revitalization plan.
(Sec. 8) Specifies requirements for mandatory core components of revitalization plans, including among others: (1) involvement of public housing residents in planning and implementation; (2) a program for temporary and permanent relocation, including comprehensive relocation assistance; (3) a right for resident households to expanded housing opportunities; (4) one-for-one replacement of demolished dwelling units, including onsite and off-site mixed-income housing; (5) monitoring of displaced households; and (6) green developments.
Provides that, if a public housing agency (PHA) has limited areas within its jurisdiction having low concentrations of poverty, the off-site replacement housing units provided in addition to the on-site mixed income dwelling units may be provided within a 25-mile radius of the mixed-income development required within the PHA's jurisdiction.
Authorizes appropriations for FY2009-FY2015 for replacement vouchers for project-based rental assistance to comply with the one-for-one replacement requirement.
Requires the Secretary to identify green buildings rating systems and levels most likely to encourage a comprehensive and environmentally-sound approach to such ratings and standards.
Requires each PHA receiving a grant to establish performance benchmarks for each component of its revitalization plan. Requires the Secretary to impose specified administrative sanctions for agency failure to meet such benchmarks.
Makes an exception to certain public housing and section 8 eviction provisions of the United States Housing Act of 1937 that require termination of the tenancy of a tenant where the public assistance is provided under a revitalization plan grant, and a member of the tenant's household, or any guest or other person under the tenant's control, engages in certain criminal or drug-related criminal activity. Waives application of such requirement if the tenant: (1) is an elderly person or a person with disabilities; and (2) did not know and should not have known of the activity, or the tenant or member of household was the victim of the criminal activity.
(Sec. 9) Instructs the Secretary to use not less than 2% for grants in a fiscal year to assist certain grant recipients in obtaining technical assistance in carrying out revitalization programs.
(Sec. 13) Authorizes appropriations for FY2008-FY2015.
(Sec. 14) Extends the HOPE VI program through FY2015.
(Sec. 15) Directs the Comptroller General to review and make recommendations to Congress regarding activities, actions, and methods used in revitalization plans assisted under the Act to determine which may be transferable to other federally-assisted housing programs.
(Sec. 16) Prohibits the Secretary, before FY2009, from recapturing any portion of a grant made to a PHA to carry out a revitalization plan, if the PHA has suffered project delays, and cost increases due to shortages in labor and materials, as a direct result of Hurricane Katrina, Wilma, or Rita of 2005.
(Sec. 18) Makes persons not lawfully permitted to be in or remain in the United States ineligible for housing assistance under this Act or its amendments.
Declares that nothing in this Act or the amendments made by it alters the rules under the Housing and Community Development Act of 1980 (prohibiting the Secretary from making assisted housing available to nonimmigrant aliens).
People & committees
Rep. Waters, Maxine [D-CA-35] · D–CA
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Received in the Senate and Read twice and referred to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs.
The Clerk was authorized to correct section numbers, punctuation, and cross references, and to make other necessary technical and conforming corrections in the engrossment of H.R. 3524.
On passage Passed by recorded vote: 271 - 130 (Roll no. 18).
House roll call 18 · Individual votesMotion to reconsider laid on the table Agreed to without objection.
Passed/agreed to in House: On passage Passed by recorded vote: 271 - 130 (Roll no. 18).
House roll call 18 · Individual votesOn motion to recommit with instructions Agreed to by recorded vote: 372 - 28 (Roll no. 17). (consideration: CR H333)
House roll call 17 · Individual votesThe previous question on the motion to recommit with instructions was ordered without objection. (consideration: CR H332)
DEBATE - The House proceeded with 10 minutes of debate on the Graves motion to recommit with instructions. The instructions contained in the motion seek to report the bill back to the House with an amendment clarifying that Hard-to-House families shall include households consisting of or including an individual who served on active duty in the Armed Forces of the United States for a period of not less than 90 days and who was discharged or released from such duty under conditions other than dishonorable.
Mr. Graves moved to recommit with instructions to Financial Services. (consideration: CR H331-333; text: CR H331)
The House adopted the amendment in the nature of a substitute as agreed to by the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union. (text: CR H312-316)
The previous question was ordered pursuant to the rule. (consideration: CR H331)
The House rose from the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union to report H.R. 3524.
POSTPONED PROCEEDINGS - At the conclusion of debate on the Capito amendment, the Chair put the question on adoption of the amendment and by voice vote, announced that the noes had prevailed. Mrs. Capito demanded a recorded vote and the Chair postponed further proceedings on the question of adoption of the amendment until later in the legislative day.
DEBATE - Pursuant to the provisions in H.Res. 922, the Committee of the Whole proceeded with 10 minutes of debate on the Capito amendment.
POSTPONED PROCEEDINGS - At the conclusion of debate on the King(IA) amendment, the Chair put the question on adoption of the amendment and by voice vote, announced that the noes had prevailed. Mr. King(IA) demanded a recorded vote and the Chair postponed further proceedings on the question of adoption of the amendment until later in the legislative day.
DEBATE - Pursuant to the provisions in H.Res. 922, the Committee of the Whole proceeded with 10 minutes of debate on the King (IA) amendment.
DEBATE - Pursuant to the provisions in H.Res. 922, the Committee of the Whole proceeded with 10 minutes of debate on the Lee amendment.
POSTPONED PROCEEDINGS - At the conclusion of debate on the Sessions amendment, the Chair put the question on adoption of the amendment and by voice vote, announced that the noes had prevailed. Mr. Sessions demanded a recorded vote and the Chair postponed further proceedings on the question of adoption of the amendment until later in the legislative day.
DEBATE - Pursuant to the provisions in H.Res. 922, the Committee of the Whole proceeded with 10 minutes of debate on the Sessions amendment.
DEBATE - Pursuant to the provisions in H.Res. 922, the Committee of the Whole proceeded with 10 minutes of debate on the Mahoney amendment.
POSTPONED PROCEEDINGS - At the conclusion of debate on the Neugebauer amendment, the Chair put the question on adoption of the amendment and by voice vote, announced that the noes had prevailed. Mr. Neugebauer demanded a recorded vote and the Chair postponed further proceedings on the question of adoption of the amendment until later in the legislative day.
DEBATE - Pursuant to the provisions in H.Res. 922, the Committee of the Whole proceeded with 10 minutes of debate on the Neugebauer amendment.
POSTPONED PROCEEDINGS - At the conclusion of debate on the Waters amendment, the Chair put the question on adoption of the amendment and by voice vote, announced that the ayes had prevailed. Ms. Waters demanded a recorded vote and the Chair postponed further proceedings on the question of adoption of the amendment until later in the legislative day.
DEBATE - Pursuant to the provisions in H.Res. 922, the Committee of the Whole proceeded with 20 minutes of debate on the Waters amendment.
GENERAL DEBATE - The Committee of the Whole proceeded with one hour of general debate on H.R. 3524.
The Speaker designated the Honorable Hilda L. Solis to act as Chairwoman of the Committee.
House resolved itself into the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union pursuant to H. Res. 922 and Rule XVIII.
Rule provides for consideration of H.R. 3524 with 1 hour of general debate. Previous question shall be considered as ordered without intervening motions except motion to recommit with or without instructions. Measure will be considered read. Specified amendments are in order. All points of order against consideration of the bill are waived except those arising under clause 9 or 10 of rule XXI. It shall be in order to cinsider as an original bill for the purpose of amendment under the five-minute rule the amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the Committee on Financial Services now printed in the bill.
Considered under the provisions of rule H. Res. 922. (consideration: CR H302-334)
TWO-MINUTE AUTHORITY - Ms. Waters asked unanimous consent that, during consideration of H.R. 3524 pursuant to H. Res. 922, the Chair may reduce to two minutes the minimum time for electronic voting under clause 6 of rule 18 and clauses 8 and 9 of rule 20. Agreed to without objection.
Rule H. Res. 922 passed House.
Rules Committee Resolution H. Res. 922 Reported to House. Rule provides for consideration of H.R. 3524 with 1 hour of general debate. Previous question shall be considered as ordered without intervening motions except motion to recommit with or without instructions. Measure will be considered read. Specified amendments are in order. All points of order against consideration of the bill are waived except those arising under clause 9 or 10 of rule XXI. It shall be in order to cinsider as an original bill for the purpose of amendment under the five-minute rule the amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the Committee on Financial Services now printed in the bill.
Placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 308.
Reported (Amended) by the Committee on Financial Services. H. Rept. 110-507.
Reported (Amended) by the Committee on Financial Services. H. Rept. 110-507.
Mr. Frank (MA) asked unanimous consent that the Committee on Financial Services have until 12:00 p.m. on Jan. 3 to file a report on H.R. 3524. Agreed to without objection.
Ordered to be Reported (Amended) by Voice Vote.
Committee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held.
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.
Source last updated: Apr 7, 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.3524 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.3524 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.3524 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.3524 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.