When 74-year-old Penny Sweat was evicted from the HUD-subsidized Glendale Senior Housing in Salt Lake City last month, she moved to a nonsubsidized apartment at five times her previous rent because she was unaware of her rights. It turns out the manager of the seniors complex, its attorneys and government overseers were unaware, too. Lee Kemp, a hearing-impaired World War II disabled vet, also was evicted, but he contacted Utah Legal Services and was told to stay put. Attorney Marty Blaustein then notified Utah Nonprofit Housing Corp., the building's owner, that Kemp's eviction was not legal and that he had a right to a hearing. That didn't stop Utah Nonprofit Housing's attorneys from then sending Kemp a summons to show cause why he had not moved out. Meanwhile, Sweat's granddaughter called Salt Lake City housing officials, federal housing officials, state officials and several agents of Utah Nonprofit Housing to find out about her grandmother's rights. Nobody knew. Blaustein then took Sweat's case along with Kemp's and demanded her ousting be rectified. Utah Nonprofit Housing President Marion Willey returned from an out-of-town trip and learned HUD procedures were not followed. The eviction was activated because of ongoing personality conflicts among seniors in the complex, he said, and the new building manager decided the problems were with Sweat and Kemp. Several tenants blame other neighbors as perpetrators of the rift, however. Willey said when his building manager called attorneys retained by the company, they erroneously told her she could go ahead and kick out the tenants. When she called HUD to make sure, the inquiry got bogged down in bureaucracy and nobody called her back. Willey says he has offered Sweat and Kemp apartments in another complex operated by his company at their old rates. He also is retaining new attorneys.
What question would one ask from this paragraph?
Answer: Who was unaware of the tenants rights?

MALS was formed here more than 30 years ago. Today, 14 staff attorneys, 26 office workers and 21 University of Memphis third- year law students work out of rented offices in the old Claridge Hotel building at 109 N. Main. Offices are spartan. There are no lush rugs or stylish furniture. The large table in the conference room is simple varnished wood. Offices are small and mostly plain, except for the eclectic mix of pop art, African statuary and neon that adorns litigation director Webb Brewer's space. Brewer, who has been at the agency 20 years, said there is a need for lawyers of all stripes to help with the problems of the poor. "The private bar could meet more of the need through pro bono work, but there are still cases that involve the systemic problems for low-income people that we would need to do," said Brewer. "The legal system marketplace just doesn't serve low-income people too well, except in fee-generat-ing type cases," Brewer said. "If a poor person gets run over by a bus, an attorney might take that case because they might be able to recover part of the damage award as attorney fees. But so many of the cases we handle have to do with basic rights and a decent life. There is just no profit motive." Larry Pivnick, law professor at the University of Memphis Law School and director of political programs at MALS, said Legal Services is a great learning laboratory for law students. "There are thousands and thousands of people who have problems that never get an opportunity to appear in court," Pivnick said. "Some people may not be particularly articulate. Courts have rules that clients don't always understand." Brewer said a major focus of the agency's work involves housing. "Although a lot of our work is grant-driven, we find that the lack of safe and decent affordable housing and the prevalence of predatory lending are the biggest problems in our client population," Brewer said, referring to clients such as James.
What question would one ask from this paragraph?
Answer: What does the MALS office look like?

Recommendation: Congressional oversight for intelligence-and counterterrorism-is now dysfunctional. Congress should address this problem. We have considered various alternatives: A joint committee on the old model of the Joint Committee on Atomic Energy is one. A single committee in each house of Congress, combining authorizing and appropriating authorities, is another. The new committee or committees should conduct continuing studies of the activities of the intelligence agencies and report problems relating to the development and use of intelligence to all members of the House and Senate. We have already recommended that the total level of funding for intelligence be made public, and that the national intelligence program be appropriated to the National Intelligence Director, not to the secretary of defense. We also recommend that the intelligence committee should have a subcommittee specifically dedicated to oversight, freed from the consuming responsibility of working on the budget. The resolution creating the new intelligence committee structure should grant subpoena authority to the committee or committees. The majority party's representation on this committee should never exceed the minority's representation by more than one. Four of the members appointed to this committee or committees should be a member who also serves on each of the following additional committees: Armed Services, Judiciary, Foreign Affairs, and the Defense Appropriations subcommittee. In this way the other major congressional interests can be brought together in the new committee's work. Members should serve indefinitely on the intelligence committees, without set terms, thereby letting them accumulate expertise. The committees should be smaller-perhaps seven or nine members in each house-so that each member feels a greater sense of responsibility, and accountability, for the quality of the committee's work. The leaders of the Department of Homeland Security now appear before 88 committees and subcommittees of Congress. One expert witness (not a member of the administration) told us that this is perhaps the single largest obstacle impeding the department's successful development. The one attempt to consolidate such committee authority, the House Select Committee on Homeland Security, may be eliminated. The Senate does not have even this. Congress needs to establish for the Department of Homeland Security the kind of clear authority and responsibility that exist to enable the Justice Department to deal with crime and the Defense Department to deal with threats to national security.
What question would one ask from this paragraph?
Answer:
What are some of the problems Homeland Security faces right now?