PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Read twice and referred to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in Senate · Dec 4, 2009
Asset Management Improvement Act of 2009 - Prohibits the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) from imposing restrictions or limitations on the amount of management and related fees for a public housing project which the public housing agency (PHA) determines reasonable, unless such restriction or limitation: (1) is determined pursuant to a negotiated rulemaking convened by the Secretary no earlier than April 1, 2010, with representatives from interested parties; and (2) is effective only on or after January 1, 2012.
Allows any PHA that owns or operates fewer than 500 public housing units under the United States Housing Act of 1937 to elect to be exempt from asset management requirements imposed by the Secretary.
Prohibits the Secretary from imposing any requirement relating to asset management restricting the use by PHAs of amounts for Capital Fund assistance for costs of any PHA central office.
Requires the Secretary to ensure that PHAs encourage the reasonable efforts of residents to organize.
People & committees
Sen. Kohl, Herb [D-WI] · D–WI
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.
Sponsor introductory remarks on measure. (CR S12414-12415)
Introduced in Senate
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
Source last updated: Aug 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 S.2836 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 S.2836 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 S.2836 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 S.2836 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.