PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Read twice and referred to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in Senate · Mar 8, 2007
HOPE VI Improvement and Reauthorization Act of 2007 - Amends the United States Housing Act of 1937 to extend and authorize appropriations for the HOPE VI revitalization program.
Includes educational and relocation aims among HOPE VI purposes. Requires each HOPE VI grant recipient to establish, in partnership with local schools, a comprehensive educational reform and achievement strategy for transforming the neighborhood schools into high-performing schools (including, in certain circumstances, an alternative strategy).
Revises grant selection criteria.
Authorizes the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) to conduct funding-related site visits for HOPE VI applicants.
Requires: (1) public housing agencies to establish performance benchmarks for each of their HOPE VI projects; and (2) the Secretary to establish specified sanctions for failure to meet such benchmarks.
Cites conditions for extension of such benchmarks.
People & committees
Sen. Mikulski, Barbara A. [D-MD] · D–MD
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Read twice and referred to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs.
Introduced in Senate
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
No related bills are listed in this snapshot. This does not establish whether the proposal has appeared in earlier Congresses.
Source last updated: Aug 14, 2025. Consult Congress.gov for the current record.
AI Conversation Starters
Choose a perspective, copy a prompt, and paste it into your preferred AI. Each prompt includes the bill version and available official source links, and asks for counterarguments as well as supporting evidence.
Analyze S.829 as objectively as possible. Explain its main provisions, who would be affected, possible benefits and harms, implementation, exceptions, and uncertainties. Present the strongest arguments for and against it, and identify evidence needed to assess its public impact.
Examine S.829 through a progressive lens, focusing on fairness, access, economic inequality, and effects on vulnerable communities. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and distinguish stated goals from demonstrated outcomes.
Examine S.829 through a conservative lens, focusing on fiscal responsibility, institutional stability, federalism, and the scope of government. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and any provisions that challenge this perspective.
Examine S.829 through a civil-liberties and limited-government lens. Consider individual rights, privacy, voluntary choice, accountability, and government power. Explain tradeoffs, possible safeguards, and the strongest counterarguments without assuming the proposal is beneficial or harmful.