The published law for H.R.4194 includes the restriction of building public housing units

[[Page 112 STAT. 2556]]

        ``(3) Limitation on new construction.--
                ``(A) In general.--Except as provided in 
            subparagraphs (B) and (C), a public housing agency may 
            not use any of the amounts allocated for the agency from 
            the Capital Fund or Operating Fund for the purpose of 
            constructing any public housing unit, if such 
            construction would result in a net increase from the 
            number of public housing units owned, assisted, or 
            operated by the public housing agency on October 1, 
            1999, including any public housing units demolished as 
            part of any revitalization effort.

However, the original law proposed does not include any restriction. I looked through the amendments and was unable to find any of the amendments to include this restriction. My hunch was that it must have been H.Amdt.739, but upon looking at H.R.2 I was unable to find any restriction. My only thought left is that this restriction must have been added by the House Appropriations Committee.

How can I see exactly where and when the restriction was added, and all the people involved in that decision?

EDIT: Based off the list of actions for this bill I was able to find a conference report that adds the restriction. What's unknown to me is the exact events in this conference event, and who proposed the restriction?

1 Answer 1


Where can I find details of [the] conference report that restricted construction of new public housing units, and was added to H.R.4194?

The report, from the Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs, is S. Rept. 105-21 - THE PUBLIC HOUSING REFORM AND RESPONSIBILITY ACT OF 1997 and accompanies S.462 - Public Housing Reform and Responsibility Act of 1997.

From the report —

Prohibition on new construction of public housing

The Committee bill contains a provision prohibiting the construction of any new public housing except for replacement purposes with certain exceptions. The exception allows a PHA to use its Capital and Operating Funds for the construction and operation of new units, but would not have the increased number of units reflected in its formula allocation. In other words, it is permissible for a PHA to develop new housing opportunities if it is efficient and can use its regular formula allocation for such purposes. However, the formula will not provide additional funding to develop and operate the new units. This provision reflects a concern by the Committee that PHAs should not be taking on the responsibility for administering new units at a time when there are insufficient subsidies to operate and maintain the current housing stock.

During the development of S. 462, concerns were raised that such a prohibition would negatively impact a PHA's ability to invest and leverage its funds in mixed-income and mixed-finance housing projects with other public and private partners--an activity that the Committee generally supports and believes should be encouraged. Therefore, the provision was amended in Committee mark-up to clarify that operating and capital funds could be allocated for operating expenses and modernization of new units as long as they were part of a mixed-finance project and the estimated cost over the useful life of the project is less than the estimated cost of providing tenant-based assistance.

  • Thank you. Do you know where I can find the exact events or statements in the Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs that produced S. Rept. 105-21? Jan 17, 2021 at 18:23
  • @user2738206 - The hearing document is S.Hrg. 105-419, April 9, 1997. The report was released May 23, 1997. The hearing document is not available from govinfo.gov, but is available from Boston University or, for a price, the GPO. I did not attempt to "borrow" the document from the BU source. My experience with other hearing documents is that they consist of statements from committee members, but no debate.
    – Rick Smith
    Jan 18, 2021 at 0:03

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .