October 2, 2008, Suspensions
Washington,
Oct 2, 2008 -
Contents:
S. 3641 — A bill to authorize funding for the National Crime Victim Law Institute to provide support for victims of crime under Crime Victims Legal Assistance Programs as a part of the Victims of Crime Act of 1984
S. 3197 — National Guard and Reservists Debt Relief Act of 2008
H.R. 3971 — Death in Custody Reporting Act of 2008
H.R. 6064 — National Silver Alert Bill
H.R. 6503 — Missing Alzheimer’s Disease Patient Alert Program Reauthorization of 2008
H.R. 6838 — Center to Advance, Monitor, and Preserve University Security Safety Act of 2008
H.R. 5464 — A Child Is Missing Alert and Recovery Center Act
H.R. 2352 — School Safety Enhancements Act of 2007
S. 1518/H.R. 7221 — Community Partnership to End Homelessness Act of 2007
Summary of the Bills Under Consideration Today:
Total Number of New Government Programs: 3
Total Cost of Discretionary Authorizations: $2.2 billion in FY 2009 and $7.9 billion over the FY 2009 through FY 2013 period.
Effect on Revenue: Reduced by $22 million
Total Change in Mandatory Spending: $0
Total New State & Local Government Mandates: 0
Total New Private Sector Mandates: 0
|
S. 3641—A bill to authorize funding for the National Crime Victim Law Institute to provide support for victims of crime under Crime Victims Legal Assistance Programs as a part of the Victims of Crime (Kyl, R-AZ)
Order of Business: S. 3641 is scheduled to be considered on Thursday, October 2, 2008, under a motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill.
Summary: S. 3641 would reauthorize the National Crime Victim Law Institute, at current funding levels, through FY 2013. The Institute receives grants through the Department of Justice’s (DOJ) Crime Victims Legal Assistance Program, which was authorized by the Victims of Crime Act of 1984. The bill would authorize the appropriation of $28.5 million in FY 2009 and $114 million over the FY 2010 through FY 2013 period. The funding is divided as follows:
Ø $5 million annually for victim or witnesses assistance programs through the U.S. Attorney’s office.
Ø $5 million annually for the Office for Victims of Crime’s (OVC) Victim Notification System.
Ø $500,000 annually for OVC staff to administer the grant program.
Ø $11 million annually to support organizations that provide legal counsel and support services for victims in criminal cases.
Ø $7 million annually for the OVC to make grants to states and tribal jurisdictions to create “state of the art” victims’ rights laws.
Additional Background: The National Crime Victim Law Institute (NCVLI) was founded at Lewis and Clark University in 1997 as a “national resource for crime victim lawyers and victims to support the assertion and enforcement of victims’ rights in criminal and civil processes.” The program first received federal funding through the DOJ’s Office for Victim’s of Crime (OVC), at the request of Congress, in 1998. According to the DOJ, “many attorneys lack knowledge about victims’ rights, the institute will train them on victims’ rights and effective legal strategies for victims. The institute is also enhancing and formalizing collaboration among victim lawyers through the National Alliance of Victim’s Rights Attorneys. OVC is providing multiyear funding for this initiative and plans to provide extensive technical assistance to other U.S. jurisdictions that are interested in replicating the program after its pilot test and evaluation.” Funding for the program was last reauthorized in the Justice for All Act of 2004 (P.L. 108-405).
Committee Action: S. 3641 was introduced on September 27, 2008, and passed the Senate by unanimous consent the same day. The bill was forwarded to the House and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary, which took no official action.
Cost to Taxpayers: A CBO score for S. 3641 is not currently available. However, the bill would authorize the appropriation of $28.5 million in FY 2010 and $114 million through FY 2013.
Does the Bill Expand the Size and Scope of the Federal Government? No.
Does the Bill Contain Any New State-Government, Local-Government, or Private-Sector Mandates? No.
Does the Bill Comply with House Rules Regarding Earmarks/Limited Tax Benefits/Limited Tariff Benefits? Committee report designating compliance with clause 9 of rule XXI is unavailable.
Constitutional Authority: A Committee report citing Constitutional authority is unavailable. House Rule XIII, Section 3(d)(1), requires that all committee reports contain a statement citing the specific powers granted to Congress in the Constitution to enact the law proposed by the bill or joint resolution. [emphasis added]
RSC Staff Contact: Andy Koenig; andy.koenig@mail.house.gov; 202-226-9717.
S. 3197—National Guard and Reservists Debt Relief Act of 2008
(Durbin, D-IL)
Order of Business: S. 3197 is scheduled to be considered on Thursday, October 2, 2008, under a motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill.
Summary: S. 3197 would exempt members of the Nation Guard and Reserve that had been deployed for more than 90 days from means testing requirements to file for chapter 7 bankruptcies. Under current law, persons filing for chapter 7 bankruptcy must meet a minimum income threshold to establish that the debtor is not financially able to repay the debt. S. 3197 removes the threshold with respect to members of the Nation Guard and Reserve that have been deployed in Iraq or Afghanistan since September 11, 2001.
Additional Background: The Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act of 2005 amended bankruptcy laws in the U.S. in order to limit fraud and abuse in the system and to ensure that debtors with the ability to pay back debt did so. To that end, the law established a minimum threshold of income for debtors filing under chapter 7. Under this law, debtors who earn a certain level of income are not allowed to file for bankruptcy under chapter 7. S. 3197 would remove the income test from consideration if the debtor filing for chapter 7 bankruptcy is a member of the Nation Guard and Reserve that had been deployed in Iraq or Afghanistan for at least 90 days since September 11, 2001. According to a House Committee Report that accompanied H.R. 4044, a nearly identical bill, a similar exemption already exists for service-disabled veterans. The House Report also states that less than one-tenth of one percent of all chapter 7 filers are Nation Guard and Reserve members that were deployed in Iraq or Afghanistan. On June 30, 2008, the House passed H.R. 4044 by voice vote.
Committee Action: S. 3197 was introduced on June 25, 2008, and passed the Senate by Unanimous Consent on September 30, 2008. The bill was then forwarded to the House, which took no official action.
Cost to Taxpayers: According to CBO, S. 3197 would “have no significant impact on the federal budget.”
Does the Bill Expand the Size and Scope of the Federal Government? No.
Does the Bill Contain Any New State-Government, Local-Government, or Private-Sector Mandates? No.
Does the Bill Comply with House Rules Regarding Earmarks/Limited Tax Benefits/Limited Tariff Benefits? Committee report designating compliance with clause 9 of rule XXI is unavailable.
Constitutional Authority: A Committee report citing Constitutional authority is unavailable. House Rule XIII, Section 3(d)(1), requires that all committee reports contain a statement citing the specific powers granted to Congress in the Constitution to enact the law proposed by the bill or joint resolution. [emphasis added]
RSC Staff Contact: Andy Koenig; andy.koenig@mail.house.gov; 202-226-9717.
H.R. 3971—Death in Custody Reporting Act of 2008 (Scott, D-VA)
Order of Business: H.R. 3971 is scheduled to be considered on Thursday, October 2, 2008, under a motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill.
H.R. 3971 would require states receiving certain federal prison funds to make quarterly reports to the Federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP) regarding the death of any person detained by the state at the time of their death. The report must include:
Ø The name, gender, race, and age of the deceased;
Ø The date, time, and location of death;
Ø The law enforcement agency that detained or arrested the deceased; and
Ø A brief description of the events surrounding the death.
Each state would be required to comply with the bill’s stipulations within 30 days of enactment. States that failed to comply would have the amount of their federal funds for prisons reduced by ten percent. H.R. 3971 would require that any funds withheld from a state as a result of noncompliance be reallocated to compliant states.
The bill would also require for the Attorney General to conduct and report a study to determine how the information can be used to reduce prison deaths. The House-passed version of H.R. 3971 authorized $500,000 to carryout the study, however, the authorization was eliminated by a Senate amendment to the bill.
Additional Background: According to House Report 110-512, no federal requirement for reporting deaths of prisoners existed before the enactment of the Death in Custody Reporting Act of 2000. The Committee on the Judiciary reports that the lack of information regarding the circumstances surrounding prisoners’ deaths “made oversight of prisoner treatment inadequate at the very least.” The lack of uniform reporting regulations makes it difficult to collect standard and consistent information regarding the number and types of deaths in prison annually. H.R. 3971 attempts to apply a uniform and regulated accounting procedure to all prisoners’ deaths in order to improve the safety of the prison system nationwide.
Committee Action: H.R. 3971 was introduced on October 25, 2007, and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary’s Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security. On November 1, 2007, the subcommittee forwarded the bill back to the full committee by voice vote. A full committee mark-up was held on November 7, 2007, and the bill was reported, as amended, by voice vote. On January 23, 2008, the House passed the bill by voice vote and sent the bill to the Senate. The Senate passed the bill, with an amendment, on September 25, 2008.
Cost to Taxpayers: A CBO score for the amended version of H.R. 3971 is not available, however, the amended bill does not authorize any funding.
Does the Bill Expand the Size and Scope of the Federal Government? No.
Does the Bill Contain Any New State-Government, Local-Government, or Private-Sector Mandates? No.
Does the Bill Comply with House Rules Regarding Earmarks/Limited Tax Benefits/Limited Tariff Benefits? According to House Report 110-512, H.R. 1943 does not contain any congressional earmarks, limited tax benefits, or limited tariff benefits as defined in clause 9(d), 9(e), or 9(f) of rule XXI.
Constitutional Authority: House Report 110-512 cites constitutional authority in Article I, Section 8, but does not cite a specific clause. However, House Rule XIII, Section 3(d)(1), requires that all committee reports contain “a statement citing the specific powers granted to Congress in the Constitution to enact the law proposed by the bill or joint resolution.” [emphasis added]
RSC Staff Contact: Andy Koenig; andy.koenig@mail.house.gov; 202-226-9717.
H.R. 6064—To encourage, enhance, and integrate Silver Alert plans throughout the United States. (Doggett, D-TX)
Order of Business: The bill is scheduled to be considered on Thursday, October 2, 2008, under a motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill.
Summary: H.R. 6064 directs the Attorney General to establish a National Silver communications network to provide assistance to regional and local research efforts for missing seniors and directs the Attorney General to designate a Silver Alert Coordinator within the Department of Justice. H.R. 6064 requires the Coordinator to submit a report to Congress within one year of enactment “on the activities of the Coordinator and the effectiveness and status of the Silver Act plans of each State that has established or is in the process of establishing such a plan.” The legislation also requires the Coordinator to establish minimum standards for the issuance and dissemination of alerts through silver alert communications.
H.R. 6064 authorizes $10 million a year from 2009-2013 for a grant program to states to support the Silver Alert plans. The bill authorizes $2 million a year from 2009-2014 for the Sammy Kirk Voluntary Electronic Monitoring Program, a voluntary electronic monitoring services program to elderly monitoring services to elderly individuals. H.R. 6064 further authorizes $4 million a year from 2009-2019 for the Kristen’s Act, which provides grants to assist organizations in finding missing adults.
Additional Background: According to the Committee Report 110-825, “Thousands of vulnerable older adults go missing each year as a result of dementia, diminished capacity, foul play, or other unusual circumstances. The Alzheimer’s Foundation of America estimates that over five million Americans suffer from Alzheimer’s disease, and that sixty percent of these are likely to wander from their homes. Alzheimer's disease and other dementia-related illnesses often leave their victims disoriented and confused and unable to find their way home. According to the Alzheimer’s Association, up to 50% of wanderers risk serious illness, injury, or death if not found within 24 hours.”
Possible Conservative Concerns: Some conservatives may be concerned that H.R. 6064 would authorize $85 million over five years to create a new, age-specific grant program which may be duplicative of the Missing Alzheimer’s Disease Patient Alert Program and other federal programs that provide funds to assist states in locating missing adults.
Committee Action: H.R. 6064 was introduced on May 15, 2008, and referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary, which held a mark-up on July 30, 2008 and reported the bill by voice vote. On September 15, 2008, the bill was passed in the House by voice vote.
Cost to Taxpayers: According to CBO, H.R. 6064 would authorize $17 million in FY 2009 and $85 million from FY 2009-FY 2013 period (subject to appropriation).
Does the Bill Expand the Size and Scope of the Federal Government? Yes, it authorizes $85 million of spending over five year (subject to appropriation).
Does the Bill Contain Any New State-Government, Local-Government, or Private-Sector Mandates? No.
Does the Bill Comply with House Rules Regarding Earmarks/Limited Tax Benefits/Limited Tariff Benefits? The Judiciary Committee, in Committee Report 110-825, cites that “In accordance with clause 9 of rule XXI of the Rules of the House of Representatives, H.R. 6064 does not contain any congressional earmarks, limited tax benefits, or limited tariff benefits as defined in clause 9(d), 9(e), or 9(f) of Rule XXI.”
Constitutional Authority: The Judiciary Committee, in Committee Report 110-825, cites constitutional authority in Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution. However, House Rule XIII, Section 3(d)(1), requires that all committee reports contain “a statement citing the specific powers granted to Congress in the Constitution to enact the law proposed by the bill or joint resolution.” [emphasis added]
RSC Staff Contact: Andy Koenig; andy.koenig@mail.house.gov; 202-226-9717.
H.R. 6503—Missing Alzheimer’s Disease Patient Alert Program Reauthorization of 2008 (Waters, D-CA)
Order of Business: H.R. 6503 is scheduled to be considered on Thursday, October 2, 2008, under a motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill.
Summary: H.R. 6503 would reauthorize the Missing Alzheimer’s Disease Patient Alert Program, which provides grants to locally based organizations to protect and locate missing patients with Alzheimer’s disease and dementia. The bill would also create a new competitive grant program to nonprofit organizations to assist in the planning, designing, establishing, and operating of currently existing programs. The bill specifies that national nonprofit organizations shall be given preference for such grant funds. The bill authorizes $5 million for each fiscal year through FY 2015 to fund this new grant program.
Additional Information: According to CRS, the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 authorized the Missing Alzheimer’s Disease Patient Alert program and funding was authorized at $900,000 for each of FY 1996, FY 1997, and FY 1998. Congress has appropriated funding for the program from FY 1996 through FY 2008. These funds, administered by DOJ’s Office of Justice Programs, have been awarded to the Alzheimer’s Association of America.
Committee Action: H.R. 6503 was introduced on June 15, 2008, and referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary, which held a mark-up of the bill on July 30, 2008 and ordered the bill reported by voice vote.
Cost to Taxpayers: According to CBO, implementing the bill would cost $17 million over the 2009-2013 period, and enacting H.R. 6503 would not affect direct spending or revenues.
Does the Bill Expand the Size and Scope of the Federal Government? Yes, the bill creates a new grant program.
Does the Bill Contain Any New State-Government, Local-Government, or Private-Sector Mandates? No.
Does the Bill Comply with House Rules Regarding Earmarks/Limited Tax Benefits/Limited Tariff Benefits? A Committee Report citing compliance with rules regarding earmarks, limited tax benefits, or limited tariff benefits was not available.
Constitutional Authority: A Committee Report citing constitutional authority is not available.
RSC Staff Contact: Andy Koenig; andy.koenig@mail.house.gov; 202-226-9717.
H.R. 6863—CAMPUS Safety Act of 2008 (Scott, D-VA)
Order of Business: The bill is scheduled to be considered on Thursday, October 2, 2008, under a motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill.
Summary: H.R. 6863 would establish a National Center for Campus Public Safety within the Office of Community Oriented Policing Services. The Director would be authorized to make grants to higher education and non-profit agencies to carryout the center’s functions. The bill would authorize $2.7 million annually through FY 2013 to fund the program.
Grants would be awarded to entities that:
Ø “Provide quality education and training for campus public safety agencies of institutions of higher education and the agencies' collaborative partners, including campus mental health agencies;
Ø “Foster quality research to strengthen the safety and security of the institutions of higher education in the United States;
Ø “Serve as a clearinghouse for the identification and dissemination of information, policies, procedures, and best practices relevant to campus public safety, including off-campus housing safety, the prevention of violence against persons and property, and emergency response and evacuation procedures;
Ø “Develop protocols, in conjunction with the Attorney General, the Secretary of Homeland Security, the Secretary of Education, State, local, and tribal governments and law enforcement agencies, private and nonprofit organizations and associations, and other stakeholders, to prevent, protect against, respond to, and recover from, natural and man-made emergencies or dangerous situations involving an immediate threat to the health or safety of the campus community;
Ø “Promote the development and dissemination of effective behavioral threat assessment and management models to prevent campus violence;
Ø “Coordinate campus safety information (including ways to increase off-campus housing safety) and resources available from the Department of Justice, the Department of Homeland Security, the Department of Education, State, local, and tribal governments and law enforcement agencies, and private and nonprofit organizations and associations;
Ø “Increase cooperation, collaboration, and consistency in prevention, response, and problem-solving methods among law enforcement, mental health, and other agencies and jurisdictions serving institutions of higher education in the United States; and
Ø “Develop standardized formats and models for mutual aid agreements and memoranda of understanding between campus security agencies and other public safety organizations and mental health agencies.”
Committee Action: H.R. 6863 was introduced on September 8. 2008, and referred to the House Committee on Judiciary, which took no official action. On September 27, 2008, the bill was passed in the House by voice vote.
Cost to Taxpayers: A CBO score for H.R. 6863 was not available at press time. However, the bill would authorize $2.7 million in FY 2009 and $13.5 million over the FY 2009 through FY 2013 period.
Does the Bill Expand the Size and Scope of the Federal Government? No.
Does the Bill Contain Any New State-Government, Local-Government, or Private-Sector Mandates? No.
Does the Bill Comply with House Rules Regarding Earmarks/Limited Tax Benefits/Limited Tariff Benefits? A Committee Report citing compliance with rules regarding earmarks, limited tax benefits, or limited tariff benefits was not available. Such a report is technically not required because the bill is being considered under a suspension of the rules.
Constitutional Authority: A Committee Report citing constitutional authority was not available.
RSC Staff Contact: Andy Koenig; andy.koenig@mail.house.gov; 202-226-9717.
H.R. 5464—A Child Is Missing Alert and Recovery Center Act
(Kline, D-FL)
Order of Business: H.R. 5464 is scheduled to be considered on Thursday, October 2, 2008, under a motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill.
Summary: H.R. 5464 directs the Attorney General to make annual grants to the “A Child Is Missing Alert and Recovery Center” to assist federal, state, and local law enforcement agencies in recovering missing children.
The bill authorizes $5 million for each of the fiscal years 2009 through 2014.
Committee Action: H.R. 5464 was introduced on February 14, 2008, and referred to the Committee on Judiciary. The Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security held a mark-up of the bill on May 6, 2008, and on May 14, 2007, the full Committee held a markup and reported the bill by voice vote. On July 14, 2008, the House passed H.R. 5464 by voice vote.
Cost to Taxpayers: According to a CBO estimate, “CBO estimates that implementing H.R. 5464 would cost about $15 million over the 2009-2013 period, assuming appropriation of the authorized amounts. Enacting the bill would not affect direct spending or revenues.”
Does the Bill Expand the Size and Scope of the Federal Government? No.
Does the Bill Contain Any New State-Government, Local-Government, or Private-Sector Mandates? No.
Does the Bill Comply with House Rules Regarding Earmarks/Limited Tax Benefits/Limited Tariff Benefits? Committee on the Judiciary House Report 110-753 states, “In accordance with clause 9 of rule XXI of the Rules of the House of Representatives, H.R. 5464 does not contain any limited tax benefits or limited tariff benefits as defined in clause 9(e) or 9(f). The Committee is treating the bill, which authorizes a grant in a specific amount to a specific entity, as an earmark, as defined in clause 9(d), and is treating the sponsor of the bill, Ron Klein, as the requester, the A Child Is Missing Alert and Recovery Center in Fort Lauderdale, FL, as the recipient, and the authorization, $5 million per year for each of fiscal years 2009-2014, as the requested amount.”
Constitutional Authority: Committee on the Judiciary House Report 110-753 cites constitutional authority for H.R. 5465 in Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution.
H.R. 2352— School Safety Enhancements Act of 2007
(Rothman, D-NJ)
Order of Business: H.R. 2352 is scheduled to be considered on Thursday, October 2, 2008, under a motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill.
Note: H.R. 2352 was considered by the House on September 17, 2008, and passed by voice vote. The bill was then reported to the Senate which passed the bill with an amendment. However, according to the Republican Judiciary staff, H.R. 2352, with a Senate amendment, will likely not be brought to the floor for consideration today.
Summary: H.R. 2352 amends the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 in the following ways:
Ø allows the placement and use of surveillance equipment in schools under the matching grant program for public elementary and secondary school security;
Ø allows the use of grant funds to establish hotlines or tip lines for reporting potentially dangerous students and situations and for enhancing facility security;
Ø sets the federal matching share of program costs at 80%;
Ø requires the Secretary of Education establish an interagency task force to develop and promulgate advisory school safety guidelines; and
Ø increases the authorization for the Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 from $30 million to $50 million for FY 2010.
Background Information: This provision was included in the Higher Education Reauthorization Act (HEA), which passed prior to the August recess. The RSC legislative bulletin on the HEA can be found here.
Committee Action: H.R. 2352 was introduced on May 16, 2007, and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary, and the Committee on Education and Labor. On June 11, 2008, the Committee on the Judiciary held a mark-up and reported the bill, as amended, by voice vote.
Cost to Taxpayers: According to the CBO, H.R. 2352 would authorize the appropriation of $50 million for each of fiscal years 2009 and 2010 for the Department of Justice to make grants to state, local, and tribal governments for programs to improve school security. Current law authorizes funding for this program through fiscal year 2009; the existing 2009 authorization is for $30 million. CBO estimates that implementing H.R. 2352 would cost $63 million over the 2009-2013 period, assuming appropriation of the authorized amounts. Enacting the bill would not affect direct spending or receipts.
Does the Bill Expand the Size and Scope of the Federal Government? Yes, the bill authorizes $115 million of federal spending (subject to appropriation).
Does the Bill Contain Any New State-Government, Local-Government, or Private-Sector Mandates? No.
Does the Bill Comply with House Rules Regarding Earmarks/Limited Tax Benefits/Limited Tariff Benefits? According to House Report 110-821, “H.R. 2352 does not contain any congressional earmarks, limited tax benefits, or limited tariff benefits.”
Constitutional Authority: House Report 110-821 cites constitutional authority in Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution.
S. 1518— Community Partnership to End Homelessness Act of 2007
(Reed, D-RI)
Order of Business: S. 1518 is scheduled to be considered on Thursday, October 2, 2008, under a motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill.
Summary: The following is a summary of S. 1518 provided by the House Committee on Financial Services Republican Staff:
Definition of Homelessness: The bill expands the definition of homelessness to include individuals or families who will lose their housing in fourteen days and individuals and families who are attempting to flee domestic violence or other dangerous or life-threatening situations. In addition, the definition includes homeless unaccompanied youth and families with children who have experienced a long term period without living independently in permanent housing, persistent instability as measured by frequent moves over such period, and can be expected to continue in such status for an extended period of time because of a variety of conditions.
Interagency Council on Homelessness: The bill requires the Council to coordinate the Federal response to homelessness and to create a national partnership with government entities and the private sector to maximize the effectiveness of the Federal government in contributing to the end of homelessness. It also requires the Council to make available for public comment a National Strategic Plan to End Homelessness. The bill authorizes $3 million for fiscal year 2009 for this Council and such sums for fiscal years 2010 through 2013.
Emergency Solutions Grants Program: The bill establishes this new grant program and authorizes the Secretary to make grants to States and local governments for the renovation or rehabilitation of buildings to be used as emergency shelters, to provide essential services related to emergency shelter or street outreach, to provide rental assistance, and housing relocation or stabilization services for homeless individuals. The bill expands the overall percentage of McKinney-Vento funds that can be used for homeless prevention to as much as 20 percent (currently it is 3 percent of funds).
Permanent Housing: The bill designates 30 percent of total funds for new permanent housing for families and individuals with disabilities.
Continuum of Care Grants: The bill consolidates the Supportive Housing Program, Shelter Plus Care program, and the Moderate Rehabilitation/Single Room Occupancy program into a single Continuum of Care competitive grant program. The bill authorizes $8 million for each of the fiscal years 2009-2013.
Rural Housing Stability Assistance Program: The bill establishes the Rural Housing Stability Assistance Program. This program would allow rural communities to have greater flexibility in using Homeless Assistance Grants. It also requires the GAO to conduct a study of homelessness and homeless assistance in rural communities.
Authorization Levels: The bill authorizes $2.2 billion for fiscal year 2009 and such sums for fiscal year 2012.
Conservative Concerns: RSC Member Rep. Flake (R-AZ) objected to this legislation when it was to be offered under a unanimous consent agreement earlier this week due to the cost of the legislation and lack of appropriate process. Many conservatives may still be concerned that a bill which authorizes $7.7 billion should not be considered under suspension of the rules, but under regular order.
Committee Action: S. 1518 was introduced by Senator Jack Reed (D-RI) on May 24, 2007. The Senate passed the bill by unanimous consent on October 1, 2008. This bill is identical to H.R. 7221.
Cost to Taxpayers: While no updated CBO score of the legislation is available, when the bill was introduced, CBO estimated that implementing S. 1518 would cost about $7.7 billion in outlays over the next five years, assuming the appropriation of the necessary amounts. In addition, the Joint Committee on Taxation (JCT) estimates that enacting S. 1518 would reduce revenues by $7 million over the 2008-2012 period and by $22 million over the next 10 years.
Does the Bill Expand the Size and Scope of the Federal Government? Yes, the bill expands the definition of homelessness.
Does the Bill Contain Any New State-Government, Local-Government, or Private-Sector Mandates? No.
Does the Bill Comply with House Rules Regarding Earmarks/Limited Tax
Benefits/Limited Tariff Benefits? A Committee Report citing compliance with rules regarding earmarks, limited tax benefits, or limited tariff benefits was not available.
Constitutional Authority: A Committee Report citing constitutional authority was not available. Such a report is not required because the bill is being considered under a suspension of the rules.
