[Congressional Record Volume 153, Number 18 (Tuesday, January 30, 2007)]
[Senate]
[Pages S1328-S1332]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

      By Mr. FEINGOLD:
  S. 427. A bill to provide for additional section 8 vouchers, to 
reauthorize the Public and Assisted Housing Drug Elimination Program, 
and for other purposes; to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban 
Affairs.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, today I am reintroducing the Affordable 
Housing Expansion and Public Safety Act to address some of the housing 
affordability issues faced by my constituents and by Americans around 
the country, including unaffordable rental burdens, lack of safe and 
affordable housing stock, and public safety concerns in public and 
federally assisted housing. My legislation is fully offset, while also 
providing $2.69 billion in deficit reduction over the next 10 years.
  Increasing numbers of Americans are facing housing affordability 
challenges, whether they are renters or homeowners. But the housing 
affordability burden falls most heavily on low-income renters 
throughout our country. Ensuring that all Americans have safe and 
secure housing is about more than just providing families with 
somewhere to live, however. Safe and decent housing provides children 
with stable environments, and research has shown that students achieve 
at higher rates if they have secure housing. Affordable housing allows 
families to spend more of their income on life's other necessities 
including groceries, health care, and education costs as well as save 
money for their futures. I have heard from a number of Wisconsinites 
around my State about their concerns about the lack of affordable 
housing, homelessness, and the increasingly severe cost burdens that 
families have to undertake in order to afford housing.
  This bill is especially needed now, given the breakdown in the fiscal 
year 2007 appropriations process. This week, the House is scheduled to 
pass a joint funding resolution to fund federal agencies through the 
rest of fiscal year 2007. I have heard from Wisconsinites concerned 
that the funding levels in the resolution could affect the ability of 
various local housing authorities to serve the same number of 
individuals as were assisted last year, never mind trying to serve the 
increasing numbers of individuals around the State who need housing 
assistance. Yesterday, the House Appropriations Committee filed the 
joint funding resolution and I am pleased to see the Committee included 
a boost in funding for Section 8 tenant-based and project-based 
vouchers, allowing HUD to renew the vouchers that are currently in use 
by families. In addition to maintaining the current level of vouchers, 
I hope that we in Congress can work together this year to fund new 
Section 8 vouchers to help address the critical rental assistance needs 
throughout the country.
  My bill does not address every housing need out there, but I believe 
it is a good, necessary first step. My legislation does address a 
number of different issues that local communities in my State and 
around the country are facing, including the need for more rental 
assistance, the creation and preservation of more affordable housing 
units, and the ability to more adequately address public safety 
concerns of residents of federally assisted housing.
  Congress needs to act on other vital housing needs this year 
including addressing the large shortfall in the public housing 
operating fund. I have heard from housing authorities ranging in size 
from Menomonie Housing Authority to Milwaukee Housing Authority about 
the shortfall in operating funds and the negative impact it is having 
on the communities these housing agencies are serving. This shortfall 
in operating subsidies impacts public housing authorities and the 
people they serve by reducing funding for maintenance costs associated 
with running buildings and limiting the services that housing 
authorities can provide, such as covering utility cost increases. The 
joint funding resolution filed yesterday also included an increase of 
$300 million for public housing authorities to pay for these important 
operating costs, including the increases in utility costs. This is a 
good start and we must continue working this year to provide much-
needed assistance to these housing authorities and the individuals and 
families they serve.
  Unfortunately, affordable housing is becoming less, not more, 
available in the United States. Research shows that the number of 
families facing severe housing cost burdens grew by almost two million 
households between 2001 and 2004. Additionally, one in three families 
spends more than 30 percent of their earnings on housing costs. The 
National Alliance to End Homelessness reports that at least 500,000 
Americans are homeless every day and two million to three million 
Americans are homeless for various lengths of time each year. Cities, 
towns, and rural communities across the country are confronting a lack 
of affordable housing for their citizens. This is not an issue that 
confronts just one region of the Nation or one group of Americans. 
Decent and affordable housing is so essential to the well-being of 
Americans that the Federal Government must provide adequate assistance 
to our citizens to ensure that all Americans can afford to live in safe 
and affordable housing.
  Congress has created effective affordable housing and community 
development programs, but as is the case with many of the Federal 
social programs, these housing programs are inadequately funded and do 
not meet the need in our communities. We in Congress must do what we 
can to ensure these programs are properly funded, while taking into 
account the tight fiscal constraints we are facing.
  The Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher Program, originally created in 
1974, is now the largest Federal housing program in terms of HUD's 
budget with approximately two million vouchers currently authorized. 
Yet the current number of vouchers does not come close to meeting the 
demand that exists in communities around our country. In my State of 
Wisconsin, the city of Milwaukee opened up their Section 8 waiting list 
for the first time since 1999 earlier this year for twenty four hours 
and received more than 17,000 applications. The city of Madison has not 
accepted new applications for Section 8

[[Page S1329]]

in over three years and reports that hundreds of families are on the 
waiting list.

  Unfortunately, situations like this exist around the country. 
According to the 2005 U.S. Conference of Mayors Hunger and Homelessness 
Survey, close to 5,000 people are on the Section 8 waiting list in 
Boston. Detroit has not taken applications for the past two years and 
currently has a waiting list of over 9,000 people. Phoenix closed its 
waiting list in 2005 and reported that 30,000 families were on its 
waiting list. In certain cities, waiting lists are years long and 
according to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, the typical 
waiting period for a voucher was two and a half years in 2003. Given 
these statistics, it is clear there is the need for more Section 8 
vouchers than currently exist.
  While there are certainly areas of the Section 8 program that need to 
be examined and perhaps reformed, a number of different government 
agencies and advocacy organizations all cite the effectiveness of 
Section 8 in assisting low-income families in meeting some of their 
housing needs. In 2002, the Government Accountability Office determined 
that the total cost of a one-bedroom housing unit through the Section 8 
program costs less than it would through other federal housing 
programs. The same year, the Bipartisan Millennial Housing Commission 
reported to Congress that the Section 8 program is ``flexible, cost-
effective, and successful in its mission.''
  The Commission further stated that the vouchers ``should continue to 
be the linchpin of a national policy providing very low-income renters 
access to the privately owned housing stock.'' The Commission also 
called for funding for substantial annual increments of vouchers for 
families who need housing assistance. This recommendation echoes the 
calls by advocates around the country, many of whom have called for 
100,000 new, or incremental, Section 8 vouchers to be funded annually 
by Congress.
  My bill takes this first step, calling for the funding of 100,000 
incremental vouchers in fiscal year 2008. I have identified enough 
funds in my offsets to provide money for the renewal of these 100,000 
vouchers for the next decade. While this increase does not meet the 
total demand that exists out there for Section 8 vouchers, I believe it 
is a strong first step. My legislation is fully offset and if it were 
passed in its current form, would provide for the immediate funding of 
these vouchers. I believe Congress should take the time to examine 
where other spending could be cut in order to continue to provide 
sizeable annual increases in new vouchers for the Section 8 program. 
According to the Congressional Research Service, incremental vouchers 
have not been funded since fiscal year 2002. During the past three to 
four years, the need for Federal housing assistance has grown and it 
will continue to grow in future years. We need to make a commitment to 
find the resources in our budget to ensure continued and increased 
funding for Section 8 vouchers.
  We should examine doing more than just providing more money for 
Section 8. There have been numerous stories in my home State of 
Wisconsin about various concerns with the Section 8 program, ranging 
from potential discrimination on the part of landlords in declining to 
rent to Section 8 voucher holders to the administrative burdens 
landlords face when participating in the Section 8 program. 
Additionally, there are substantial concerns with the funding formula 
the Bush Administration is currently using for the Section 8 program. I 
look forward to working with my colleagues in this Congress to address 
these and other issues and make the Section 8 program more effective, 
more secure, and more accessible to citizens throughout the country.
  But providing rental assistance is not the only answer to solving the 
housing affordability problem in our country. We must also work to 
increase the availability of affordable housing stock in our 
communities through facilitating production of housing units affordable 
to extremely low and very low income Americans. The HOME Investments 
Partnership Program, more commonly known as HOME, was created in 1990 
to assist states and local communities in producing affordable housing 
for low income families. HOME is a grant program that allows 
participating jurisdictions the flexibility to use funds for new 
production, preservation, and rehabilitation of existing housing stock. 
HOME is an effective federal program that is used in concert with other 
existing housing programs to provide affordable housing units for low 
income Americans throughout the country.
  According to recent data from HUD, since fiscal year 1992, over $23 
billion has been allocated through the HOME program to participating 
jurisdictions around the country. There have been over 800,000 units 
committed, including over 200,000 new construction units. HUD reports 
that over 700,000 units have been completed or funded. Communities in 
my State of Wisconsin have received over $370 million since 1992 and 
have seen over 20,000 housing units completed since 1992. Cities and 
States around the country are able to report numerous success stories 
in part due to the HOME funding that has been allocated to 
participating jurisdictions since 1992. The Bipartisan Millennial 
Housing Commission found that the HOME program is highly successful and 
recommended a substantial increase in funding for HOME in 2002.
  Unfortunately, for the past two fiscal years, the HOME program has 
seen a decline in funding. In fiscal year 2005, HOME was funded at $1.9 
billion and in fiscal year 2006, HOME was funded at a little more than 
$1.7 billion. As a result of this decline in funding, all participating 
jurisdictions in Wisconsin saw a decline in HOME dollars, with some 
jurisdictions seeing a decline of more than six percent. We need to 
ensure these funding cuts to HOME do not continue in the future and we 
must provide more targeted resources within HOME for the people most in 
need.
  But, as successful as the HOME program is, more needs to be done to 
assist extremely low income families. My legislation seeks to target 
additional resources to the Americans most in need by using the HOME 
structure to distribute new funding to participating jurisdictions with 
the requirement that these participating jurisdictions use these set-
aside dollars to produce, rehab, or preserve affordable housing for 
extremely low income families, or people at 30 percent of area median 
income or below.
  As we all know, extremely low income households face the most severe 
affordable housing cost burdens of any Americans. According to data 
from HUD and the American Housing Survey, 56 percent of extremely low 
income renter households deal with severe affordability housing issues 
while only 25 percent of these renters are not burdened with 
affordability concerns. HUD also found that half of all extremely low 
income owner households are severely burdened by affordability 
concerns. Data shows more than 75 percent of renter households with 
severe housing affordability burdens are extremely low income families 
and more than half of extremely low income households pay at least half 
of their income on housing. The Bipartisan Millennial Housing 
Commission has stated that ``the most serious housing problem in 
America is the mismatch between the number of extremely low income 
renter households and the number of units available to them with 
acceptable quality and affordable rents.'' The Commission also noted 
that there is no federal program solely for the preservation or 
production of housing for extremely low or moderate income families.
  Because of these severe burdens and the high cost of providing safe 
and affordable housing to families at 30 percent or below of area 
median income, my bill would provide $400 million annually on top of 
the money that Congress already appropriates through HOME. I have heard 
from a number of housing advocates in Wisconsin that we have effective 
housing programs but the programs are not funded adequately. This is 
why I decided to administer this funding through the HOME program; 
local communities are familiar with the requirements and regulations of 
the HOME program and I think it is important not to place unnecessary 
and new administrative hurdles on local cities and communities.
  Participating jurisdictions will be able to use this new funding 
under the eligible uses currently allowed by HOME to best meet the 
needs of the extremely low income families in their

[[Page S1330]]

respective communities. But participating jurisdictions must certify 
that this funding is going to extremely low income households and must 
report on how the funds are being utilized in their communities. Funds 
are intended to be distributed on a pro-rata basis to ensure 
participating jurisdictions around the country receive funding. I also 
require that the Secretary notify participating jurisdictions that this 
new funding for extremely low income households in no way excuses such 
jurisdictions from continuing to use existing HOME dollars to serve 
extremely low income families. It is my hope that this extra funding 
will provide an increased incentive to local cities and communities to 
dedicate more resources to producing and preserving affordable housing 
for the most vulnerable Americans.
  My bill would also reauthorize a critical crime-fighting grant 
program: the Public and Assisted Housing Crime and Drug Elimination 
Program, formerly known as ``PHDEP.'' Unfortunately, the PHDEP program 
has not been funded since 2001, and its statutory authorization expired 
in 2003. It is time to bring back this important grant program, which 
provided much-needed public safety resources to public housing 
authorities and their tenants. My legislation would authorize $200 
million per year for five years for this program.
  After more than a decade of declining crime rates, new FBI statistics 
indicate that 2005 brought an overall increase in violent crime across 
the country, and particularly in the Midwest. Nationwide, violent crime 
increased 2.3 percent between 2004 and 2005, and in the Midwest, 
violent crime increased 5.6 percent between 2004 and 2005. Housing 
authorities and others providing assisted housing are feeling the 
effects of this shift, but just as the crime rate is rising, their 
resources to fight back are dwindling. We need to provide them with 
funding targeted at preventing and reducing violent and drug-related 
crime, so that they can provide a safe living environment for their 
tenants.
  Reauthorizing the Public and Assisted Housing Crime and Drug 
Elimination Program should not be controversial. The program has long 
enjoyed bipartisan support. It was first sponsored by Senator 
Lautenberg in 1988, and first implemented in 1989 under then-Housing 
and Urban Development Secretary Jack Kemp. When in effect, it funded 
numerous crime-fighting measures in housing authorities all over the 
country.
  In Milwaukee, grants under this program funded a variety of important 
programs. It provided funding to the Housing Authority of the City of 
Milwaukee to hire public safety officers who are on site 24 hours a day 
to respond to calls and intervene when problems arise, and who work 
collaboratively with local law enforcement agencies. According to the 
Housing Authority, by the time the PHDEP program was defunded, public 
safety officers were responding to more than 8,000 calls per year, 
dealing quickly and effectively with thefts, drug use and sales, and 
other problems. Grants under the program also allowed the Housing 
Authority in Milwaukee to conduct crime prevention programs through the 
Boys and Girls Club of Greater Milwaukee and other on-site agencies, 
providing youths and others living in public housing with a variety of 
educational, job training and life skill programs.

  When the PHDEP program was defunded during the fiscal year 2002 
budget cycle, the Administration argued that crime-fighting measures 
should be funded through the Public Housing Operating Fund and promised 
an increase in that Fund to account for part of the loss of PHDEP 
funds. That allowed some programs previously funded under PHDEP to 
continue for a few years. But now there is a significant shortfall in 
the Operating Fund and HUD is proposing limits on how capital funds can 
be used, and housing authorities nationwide--including in Milwaukee--
have been faced with tough decisions, including cutting some or all of 
their crime reduction programs.
  It is time for Congress to step in and reauthorize these grants. 
Everyone deserves a safe place to live, and we should help provide 
housing authorities and other federally assisted low-income housing 
entities with the resources they need to provide that to their tenants.
  But we can do more than just provide public housing authorities with 
grant money. The Federal Government also needs to provide more 
resources to help housing authorities spend those funds in the most 
effective way possible. That is why my legislation also contains 
several provisions to enhance the effectiveness of this grant program. 
It would: Require HUD's Office of Policy Development & Research (PD&R) 
to conduct a review of existing research on crime fighting measures and 
issue a report within six months identifying effective programs, 
providing an important resource to public housing authorities; require 
PD&R to work with housing authorities, social scientists and others to 
develop and implement a plan to conduct rigorous scientific evaluation 
of crime reduction and prevention strategies funded by the grant 
program that have not previously been subject to that type of 
evaluation, giving housing authorities yet another source of 
information about effective strategies for combating crime; and require 
HUD to report to Congress within four years, based on what it learns 
from existing research and evaluations of grantee programs, on the most 
effective ways to prevent and reduce crime in public and assisted 
housing environments, the ways in which it has provided related 
guidance to help grant applicants, and any suggestions for improving 
the effectiveness of the program going forward.
  As with any grant program, it is essential that HUD monitor the use 
of the grants and that grantees be required to report regularly on 
their activities, as was required by HUD regulations when the program 
was defunded. The bill also clarifies the types of activities that can 
be funded through the grant program to ensure that funds are not used 
inappropriately.
  My bill also includes a sense of the Senate provision calling on 
Congress to create a National Affordable Housing Trust Fund. At the 
outset, I want to commend my colleagues in the Senate, Senator Kerry, 
Senator Reed, Senator Sanders and others for all their work on 
advancing the cause of a National Affordable Housing Trust fund. I look 
forward to working with them and others in the 110th Congress to push 
for the creation of such a trust fund.
  I agree with my colleagues that such a trust fund should have the 
goal of supplying 1,500,000 new affordable housing units over the next 
10 years. It should also contain sufficient income targeting to reflect 
the housing affordability burdens faced by extremely low income and 
very low income families and contain enough flexibility to allow local 
communities to produce, preserve, and rehabilitate affordable housing 
units while ensuring that such affordable housing development fosters 
the creation of healthy and sustainable communities.
  Hundreds of local housing trust funds have been created in cities and 
states throughout the country, including recently in the city of 
Milwaukee. I want to commend the community members in Milwaukee for 
working to address the housing affordability issues that the city faces 
and it is my hope that we in Congress can do our part to help 
Wisconsin's communities and communities around the country provide safe 
and affordable housing to all Americans.
  This Nation faces a severe shortage of affordable housing for our 
most vulnerable citizens. Shelter is one of our most basic needs, and, 
unfortunately, too many Wisconsinites and people around the country are 
struggling to afford a place to live for themselves and their families. 
This legislation does not solve all the affordable housing issues that 
communities are facing, but I believe it is a good first step. This 
issue is about more than providing a roof over a family's head, 
however. Good housing and healthy communities lead to better jobs, 
better educational outcomes, and better futures for all Americans. 
Local communities, States, and the Federal Government must work 
together to dedicate more effective resources toward ensuring that all 
Americans have a safe and decent place to live. I look forward to 
working with my colleagues in this new Congress to advance my bill and 
other housing initiatives and work towards meeting the

[[Page S1331]]

goal of affordable housing and healthy communities for all Americans.
  I ask unanimous consent that the text of my bill be printed in the 
Record.
  There being no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be 
printed in the Record, as follows:

                                 S. 427

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Affordable Housing Expansion 
     and Public Safety Act''.

     SEC. 2. INCREASE IN INCREMENTAL SECTION 8 VOUCHERS.

       (a) In General.--In fiscal year 2008 and subject to 
     renewal, the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development shall 
     provide an additional 100,000 incremental vouchers for 
     tenant-based rental housing assistance under section 8(o) of 
     the United States Housing Act of 1937 (42 U.S.C. 1437f(o)).
       (b) Authorization of Appropriations.--
       (1) In general.--There are authorized to be appropriated 
     $8,650,000,000 for the provision and renewal of the vouchers 
     described in subsection (a).
       (2) Availability.--Any amount appropriated under paragraph 
     (1) shall remain available until expended.
       (3) Carryover.--To the extent that any amounts appropriated 
     for any fiscal are not expended by the Secretary of Housing 
     and Urban Development in such fiscal year for purposes of 
     subsection (a), any remaining amounts shall be carried 
     forward for use by the Secretary to renew the vouchers 
     described in subsection (a) in subsequent years.
       (c) Distribution of Amounts.--
       (1) Administrative costs.--The Secretary may not use more 
     than $800,000,000 of the amounts authorized under paragraph 
     (1) to cover the administrative costs associated with the 
     provision and renewal of the vouchers described in subsection 
     (a).
       (2) Voucher costs.--The Secretary shall use all remaining 
     amounts authorized under paragraph (1) to cover the costs of 
     providing and renewing the vouchers described in subsection 
     (a).

     SEC. 3. TARGETED EXPANSION OF HOME INVESTMENT PARTNERSHIP 
                   (HOME) PROGRAM.

       (a) Purpose.--The purposes of this section are as follows:
       (1) To authorize additional funding under subtitle A of 
     title II of the Cranston-Gonzalez National Affordable Housing 
     Act (42 U.S.C. 12741 et. seq), commonly referred to as the 
     Home Investments Partnership (``HOME'') program, to provide 
     dedicated funding for the expansion and preservation of 
     housing for extremely low-income individuals and families 
     through eligible uses of investment as defined in paragraphs 
     (1) and (3) of section 212(a) of the Cranston-Gonzalez 
     National Affordable Housing Act.
       (2) Such additional funding is intended to supplement the 
     HOME funds already allocated to a participating jurisdiction 
     to provide additional assistance in targeting resources to 
     extremely low-income individuals and families.
       (3) Such additional funding is not intended to be the only 
     source of assistance for extremely low-income individuals and 
     families under the HOME program, and participating 
     jurisdictions shall continue to use non-set aside HOME funds 
     to provide assistance to such extremely low-income 
     individuals and families.
       (b) Set Aside for Extremely Low-Income Individuals and 
     Families.--
       (1) Eligible use.--Section 212(a) of the Cranston-Gonzalez 
     National Affordable Housing Act (42 U.S.C. 12742(a)) is 
     amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(6) Extremely low-income individuals and families.--
       ``(A) In general.--Each participating jurisdiction shall--
       ``(i) use funds provided under this subtitle to provide 
     affordable housing to individuals and families whose incomes 
     do not exceed 30 percent of median family income for that 
     jurisdiction; and
       ``(ii) ensure the use of such funds does not result in the 
     concentration of individuals and families assisted under this 
     section into high-poverty areas.
       ``(B) Exception.--If a participating jurisdiction can 
     certify to the Secretary that such participating jurisdiction 
     has met in its jurisdiction the housing needs of extremely 
     low-income individuals and families described in subparagraph 
     (A), such participating jurisdiction may use any remaining 
     funds provided under this subtitle for purposes of 
     subparagraph (A) to provide affordable housing to individuals 
     and families whose incomes do not exceed 50 percent of median 
     family income for that jurisdiction.
       ``(C) Rule of construction.--The Secretary shall notify 
     each participating jurisdiction receiving funds for purposes 
     of this paragraph that use of such funds, as required under 
     subparagraph (A), does not exempt or prevent that 
     participating jurisdiction from using any other funds awarded 
     under this subtitle to provide affordable housing to 
     extremely low-income individuals and families.
       ``(D) Rental housing.--Notwithstanding section 215(a), 
     housing that is for rental shall qualify as affordable 
     housing under this paragraph only if such housing is occupied 
     by extremely low-income individuals or families who pay as a 
     contribution toward rent (excluding any Federal or State 
     rental subsidy provided on behalf of the individual or 
     family) not more than 30 percent of the monthly adjusted 
     income of such individual or family, as determined by the 
     Secretary.''.
       (2) Pro rata distribution.--Section 217 of the Cranston-
     Gonzalez National Affordable Housing Act (42 U.S.C. 12747) is 
     amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(e) Pro Rata Distribution for Extremely Low-Income 
     Individuals and Families.--Notwithstanding any other 
     provision of this Act, in any fiscal year the Secretary shall 
     allocate any funds specifically approved in an appropriations 
     Act to provide affordable housing to extremely low-income 
     individuals or families under section 212(a)(6), such funds 
     shall be allocated to each participating jurisdiction in an 
     amount which bears the same ratio to such amount as the 
     amount such participating jurisdiction receives for such 
     fiscal year under this subtitle, not including any amounts 
     allocated for any additional set-asides specified in such 
     appropriations Act for that fiscal year.''.
       (3) Certification.--Section 226 of the Cranston-Gonzalez 
     National Affordable Housing Act (42 U.S.C. 12756) is amended 
     by adding at the end the following:
       ``(d) Certification.--
       ``(1) In general.--Each participating jurisdiction shall 
     certify on annual basis to the Secretary that any funds used 
     to provide affordable housing to extremely low-income 
     individuals or families under section 212(a)(6) were actually 
     used to assist such families.
       ``(2) Content of certification.--Each certification 
     required under paragraph (1) shall--
       ``(A) state the number of extremely low-income individuals 
     and families assisted in the previous 12 months;
       ``(B) separate such extremely low-income individuals and 
     families into those individuals and families who were 
     assisted by--
       ``(i) funds set aside specifically for such individuals and 
     families under section 212(a)(6); and
       ``(ii) any other funds awarded under this subtitle; and
       ``(C) describe the type of activities, including new 
     construction, preservation, and rehabilitation of housing, 
     provided to such extremely low-income individuals and 
     families that were supported by--
       ``(i) funds set aside specifically for such individuals and 
     families under section 212(a)(6); and
       ``(ii) any other funds awarded under this subtitle.
       ``(3) Inclusion with performance report.--The certification 
     required under paragraph (1) shall be included in the 
     jurisdiction's annual performance report submitted to the 
     Secretary under section 108(a) and made available to the 
     public.''.
       (c) Authorization of Appropriations.--In addition to any 
     other amounts authorized to be appropriated under any other 
     law or appropriations Act to carry out the provisions of 
     title II of the Cranston-Gonzalez National Affordable Housing 
     Act (42 U.S.C. 12701 et seq.), there are authorized to be 
     appropriated to carry out the provisions of this section 
     $400,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2008 through 2012.

     SEC. 4. PUBLIC AND ASSISTED HOUSING CRIME AND DRUG 
                   ELIMINATION PROGRAM.

       (a) Title Change.--The chapter heading of chapter 2 of 
     subtitle C of title V of the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1988 (42 
     U.S.C. 11901 et seq.) is amended to read as follows:

  ``CHAPTER 2--PUBLIC AND ASSISTED HOUSING CRIME AND DRUG ELIMINATION 
                               PROGRAM''.

       (b) Authorization of Appropriations.--
       (1) Amounts authorized.--Section 5129(a) of the Anti-Drug 
     Abuse Act of 1988 (42 U.S.C. 11908(a)) is amended to read as 
     follows:
       ``(a) In General.--There are authorized to be appropriated 
     to carry out this chapter $200,000,000 for each of fiscal 
     years 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, and 2012.''.
       (2) Set aside for the office of policy development and 
     research.--Section 5129 of the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1988 
     (42 U.S.C. 11908) is amended by adding at the end the 
     following:
       ``(d) Set Aside for the Office of Policy Development and 
     Research.--Of any amounts made available in any fiscal year 
     to carry out this chapter not less than 2 percent shall be 
     available to the Office of Policy Development and Research to 
     carry out the functions required under section 5130.''.
       (c) Eligible Activities.--Section 5124(a)(6) of the Anti-
     Drug Abuse Act of 1988 (42 U.S.C. 11903(a)(6)) is amended by 
     striking the semicolon and inserting the following: ``, 
     except that the activities conducted under any such program 
     and paid for, in whole or in part, with grant funds awarded 
     under this chapter may only include--
       ``(A) providing access to treatment for drug abuse through 
     rehabilitation or relapse prevention;
       ``(B) providing education about the dangers and adverse 
     consequences of drug use or violent crime;
       ``(C) assisting drug users in discontinuing their drug use 
     through an education program, and, if appropriate, referring 
     such users to a drug treatment program;
       ``(D) providing after school activities for youths for the 
     purpose of discouraging, reducing, or eliminating drug use or 
     violent crime by youths;
       ``(E) providing capital improvements for the purpose of 
     discouraging, reducing, or eliminating drug use or violent 
     crime; and
       ``(F) providing security services for the purpose of 
     discouraging, reducing, or eliminating drug use or violent 
     crime.''.

[[Page S1332]]

       (d) Effectiveness.--
       (1) Application plan.--Section 5125(a) of the Anti-Drug 
     Abuse Act of 1988 (42 U.S.C. 11904(a)) is amended by adding 
     at the end the following: ``To the maximum extent feasible, 
     each plan submitted under this section shall be developed in 
     coordination with relevant local law enforcement agencies and 
     other local entities involved in crime prevention and 
     reduction. Such plan also shall include an agreement to work 
     cooperatively with the Office of Policy Development and 
     Research in its efforts to carry out the functions required 
     under section 5130.''
       (2)  HUD report.--Section 5127 of the Anti-Drug Abuse Act 
     of 1988 (42 U.S.C. 11906) is amended by adding at the end the 
     following:
       ``(d) Effectiveness Report.--The Secretary shall submit a 
     report to the Congress not later than 4 years after the date 
     of the enactment of the Affordable Housing Expansion and 
     Public Safety Act that includes--
       ``(1) aggregate data regarding the categories of program 
     activities that have been funded by grants under this 
     chapter;
       ``(2) promising strategies related to preventing and 
     reducing violent and drug-related crime in public and 
     federally assisted low-income housing derived from--
       ``(A) a review of existing research; and
       ``(B) evaluations of programs funded by grants under this 
     chapter that were conducted by the Office of Policy 
     Development and Review or by the grantees themselves;
       ``(3) how the information gathered in paragraph (2) has 
     been incorporated into--
       ``(A) the guidance provided to applicants under this 
     chapter; and
       ``(B) the implementing regulations under this chapter; and
       ``(4) any statutory changes that the Secretary would 
     recommend to help make grants awarded under this chapter more 
     effective.''.
       (3) Office of policy development and research review and 
     plan.--Chapter 2 of subtitle C of title V of the Anti-Drug 
     Abuse Act of 1988 (42 U.S.C. 11901 et seq.) is amended by 
     adding at the end the following:

     ``SEC. 5130. OFFICE OF POLICY DEVELOPMENT AND RESEARCH REVIEW 
                   AND PLAN.

       ``(a) Review.--
       ``(1) In general.--The Office of Policy Development and 
     Research established pursuant to section 501 of the Housing 
     and Urban Development Act of 1970 (12 U.S.C. 1701z-1) shall 
     conduct a review of existing research relating to preventing 
     and reducing violent and drug-related crime to assess, using 
     scientifically rigorous and acceptable methods, which 
     strategies--
       ``(A) have been found to be effective in preventing and 
     reducing violent and drug-related crimes; and
       ``(B) would be likely to be effective in preventing and 
     reducing violent and drug-related crimes in public and 
     federally assisted low-income housing environments.
       ``(2) Report.--Not later than 180 days after the date of 
     enactment of the Affordable Housing Expansion and Public 
     Safety Act, the Secretary shall issue a written report with 
     the results of the review required under paragraph (1).
       ``(b) Evaluation Plan.--
       ``(1) In general.--Upon completion of the review required 
     under subsection (a)(1), the Office of Policy Development and 
     Research, in consultation with housing authorities, social 
     scientists, and other interested parties, shall develop and 
     implement a plan for evaluating the effectiveness of 
     strategies funded under this chapter, including new and 
     innovative strategies and existing strategies, that have not 
     previously been subject to rigorous evaluation methodologies.
       ``(2) Methodology.--The plan described in paragraph (1) 
     shall require such evaluations to use rigorous methodologies, 
     particularly random assignment (where practicable), that are 
     capable of producing scientifically valid knowledge regarding 
     which program activities are effective in preventing and 
     reducing violent and drug-related crime in public and other 
     federally assisted low-income housing.''.

     SEC. 5. SENSE OF THE SENATE REGARDING THE CREATION OF A 
                   NATIONAL AFFORDABLE HOUSING TRUST FUND.

       (a) Findings.--Congress finds the following:
       (1) Only 1 in 4 eligible households receives Federal rental 
     assistance.
       (2) The number of families facing severe housing cost 
     burdens grew by almost 2,000,0000 households between 2001 and 
     2004.
       (3) 1 in 3 families spend more than 30 percent of their 
     earnings on housing costs.
       (4) More than 75 percent of renter households with severe 
     housing affordability burdens are extremely low-income 
     families.
       (5) More than half of extremely low-income households pay 
     at least half of their income on housing.
       (6) At least 500,000 Americans are homeless every day.
       (7) 2,000,000 to 3,000,0000 Americans are homeless for 
     various lengths of time each year.
       (8) It is estimated that the development of an average 
     housing unit creates on average more than 3 jobs and the 
     development of an average multifamily unit creates on average 
     more than 1 job.
       (9) It is estimated that over $80,000 is produced in 
     government revenue for an average single family unit built 
     and over $30,000 is produced in government revenue for an 
     average multifamily unit built.
       (10) The Bipartisan Millennial Housing Commission stated 
     that ``the most serious housing problem in America is the 
     mismatch between the number of extremely low income renter 
     households and the number of units available to them with 
     acceptable quality and affordable rents.''.
       (b) Sense of the Senate.--It is the sense of the Senate 
     that--
       (1) Congress shall create a national affordable housing 
     trust fund with the purpose of supplying 1,500,000 additional 
     affordable housing units over the next 10 years;
       (2) such a trust fund shall contain sufficient income 
     targeting to reflect the housing affordability burdens faced 
     by extremely low-income and very low-income families; and
       (3) such a trust fund shall contain enough flexibility to 
     allow local communities to produce, preserve, and 
     rehabilitate affordable housing units while ensuring that 
     such affordable housing development fosters the creation of 
     healthy and sustainable communities.

     SEC. 6. OFFSETS.

       (a) Repeal of Multiyear Procurement Authority for F-22A 
     Raptor Fighter Aircraft.--Effective as of October 17, 2006, 
     section 134 of the John Warner National Defense Authorization 
     Act for Fiscal Year 2007 (Public Law 109-364), relating to 
     multiyear procurement authority for F-22A Raptor fighter 
     aircraft, is repealed.
       (b) Advanced Research for Fossil Fuels.--Notwithstanding 
     any other provision of law, the Secretary of Energy shall not 
     carry out any program that conducts, or provides assistance 
     for, applied research for fossil fuels.
                                 ______