[Congressional Record Volume 152, Number 122 (Tuesday, September 26, 2006)]
[Senate]
[Pages S10189-S10190]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

      By Mr. SANTORUM:
  S. 3941. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to fully 
allow students to live in units eligible for the low-income housing 
credit, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Finance.
  Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation 
that will allow families across the country to climb the economic 
ladder of success without fear of losing their affordable housing.
  The Low Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC) program is currently the 
largest Federal program for producing new affordable rental housing. It 
is also a

[[Page S10190]]

``go-to'' program for preserving and revitalizing aging HUD and rural 
properties. As this program becomes an increasingly important option 
for serving the housing needs of low-income families, there is an 
unintended nuance in the occupancy requirements that must be addressed.
  When Congress created the LIHTC, it properly intended that this 
housing should be available to low-income families in need of an 
affordable apartment. Congress included strict occupancy restrictions 
to ensure that these properties did not become cheap off-campus housing 
for college students. Therefore, households made up entirely of full-
time students were prohibited from living in LIHTC apartments. Only 
four narrow exceptions exist for families: those who are receiving 
Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF); those enrolled in a 
Federal, State or local job training program; single parents and their 
children, provided that such parents and children are not dependents of 
another individual; or married full-time students who file a joint 
return.
  While well-intentioned, the occupancy restrictions for full-time 
student households are penalizing low-income families trying to get 
ahead. One of the most common unintended consequences of the current 
policy is that it disqualifies from LIHTC eligibility single parents 
who have returned to school full-time and have school-aged children. 
Under the current law, children in grades K-12 count toward the 
determination of whether family is a full-time student household. 
Therefore, a single mother who has returned to school full-time and 
whose children, in grades K-12, were claimed as dependents on the ex-
husband's tax return becomes ineligible for LIHTC housing. This family 
cannot be allowed to move into the unit or, if they live there already, 
they have to move out. This policy is just plain wrong, and it needs to 
be corrected. It is also contrary to the No Child Left Behind Act's 
commitment to ensure our children receive a quality education. Low-
income families should not have to choose between obeying the law by 
educating children or losing their housing. And it is not just students 
enrolled in four-year programs who have been disqualified from LIHTC 
eligibility. Working adults trying to complete the requirements for a 
high school education have also been adversely affected. Even an 
elderly adult pursuing a GED can be denied occupancy in a LIHTC 
apartment or lose their eligibility to remain in the unit.
  Whenever practical, affordable housing should be used as a stepping 
stone to self-sufficiency. This bill updates the LIHTC program so that 
low-income families can achieve the education necessary to land higher-
paying jobs and eventually own a home or rent a market-rate apartment. 
It makes three specific statutory changes which specify that minor 
children in grades K-12 should not count toward the determination of 
who is a full-time student household; it strikes the requirement that 
single parents and their children must not have been claimed as 
dependents of another individual to qualify for the single parent with 
children exemption; and it adds a new exemption for working adults who 
are full-time students pursuing a high school diploma or GED.
  These updates are consistent with the original legislative intent of 
the student restrictions. At the same time, they recognize current 
economic and workplace realities and the role of education in 
encouraging self-sufficiency. I ask for my colleagues' support to move 
this legislation forward.
                                 ______