Barney Frank: “I don't believe any of these are controversial. The first thing we do, we had in the committee an adoption of an amount…”

“I don't believe any of these are controversial. The first thing we do, we had in the committee an adoption of an amount, a minimum amount that would go to each State. Remember, this is largely a distribution to the States. It's not an existing Federal. This would not be administered at the Federal level. It would be sent to the States. And some of the smaller States raised a question, and the smaller communities that they might be excluded. Indeed, while this is not exactly what the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Bilirakis) had wanted to offer, which I thought was perfectly reasonable, it comes close to, it touches on the same area. So this would make sure that no State would go without, and at least one community in every State would get some funding. Next, we had a provision that really didn't make sense requiring a mixed income requirement in elderly projects. We didn't think that was reasonable, and we take it out. We have a clarification involving the number of units that go to people who are below 50 percent, and we say that applies to all units. And finally, in response to concerns in the House, we had language that could be better worded. It was somewhat hastily added at the last minute, and I hope it will be improved as we go forward, which seeks to say that no one who is in the country illegally should be allowed to be a resident of one of these projects. That's the manager's amendment. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.”