[House Hearing, 114 Congress] [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office] THE FUTURE OF HOUSING IN AMERICA: FEDERAL HOUSING REFORMS THAT CREATE HOUSING OPPORTUNITY ======================================================================= HEARING BEFORE THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON HOUSING AND INSURANCE OF THE COMMITTEE ON FINANCIAL SERVICES U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS FIRST SESSION __________ OCTOBER 21, 2015 __________ Printed for the use of the Committee on Financial Services Serial No. 114-56 [GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT] U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE 99-754 PDF WASHINGTON : 2016 _______________________________________________________________________________________ For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing Office, http://bookstore.gpo.gov. For more information, contact the GPO Customer Contact Center, U.S. Government Publishing Office. Phone 202-512-1800, or 866-512-1800 (toll-free). E-mail, [email protected]. HOUSE COMMITTEE ON FINANCIAL SERVICES JEB HENSARLING, Texas, Chairman PATRICK T. McHENRY, North Carolina, MAXINE WATERS, California, Ranking Vice Chairman Member PETER T. KING, New York CAROLYN B. MALONEY, New York EDWARD R. ROYCE, California NYDIA M. VELAZQUEZ, New York FRANK D. LUCAS, Oklahoma BRAD SHERMAN, California SCOTT GARRETT, New Jersey GREGORY W. MEEKS, New York RANDY NEUGEBAUER, Texas MICHAEL E. CAPUANO, Massachusetts STEVAN PEARCE, New Mexico RUBEN HINOJOSA, Texas BILL POSEY, Florida WM. LACY CLAY, Missouri MICHAEL G. FITZPATRICK, STEPHEN F. LYNCH, Massachusetts Pennsylvania DAVID SCOTT, Georgia LYNN A. WESTMORELAND, Georgia AL GREEN, Texas BLAINE LUETKEMEYER, Missouri EMANUEL CLEAVER, Missouri BILL HUIZENGA, Michigan GWEN MOORE, Wisconsin SEAN P. DUFFY, Wisconsin KEITH ELLISON, Minnesota ROBERT HURT, Virginia ED PERLMUTTER, Colorado STEVE STIVERS, Ohio JAMES A. HIMES, Connecticut STEPHEN LEE FINCHER, Tennessee JOHN C. CARNEY, Jr., Delaware MARLIN A. STUTZMAN, Indiana TERRI A. SEWELL, Alabama MICK MULVANEY, South Carolina BILL FOSTER, Illinois RANDY HULTGREN, Illinois DANIEL T. KILDEE, Michigan DENNIS A. ROSS, Florida PATRICK MURPHY, Florida ROBERT PITTENGER, North Carolina JOHN K. DELANEY, Maryland ANN WAGNER, Missouri KYRSTEN SINEMA, Arizona ANDY BARR, Kentucky JOYCE BEATTY, Ohio KEITH J. ROTHFUS, Pennsylvania DENNY HECK, Washington LUKE MESSER, Indiana JUAN VARGAS, California DAVID SCHWEIKERT, Arizona FRANK GUINTA, New Hampshire SCOTT TIPTON, Colorado ROGER WILLIAMS, Texas BRUCE POLIQUIN, Maine MIA LOVE, Utah FRENCH HILL, Arkansas TOM EMMER, Minnesota Shannon McGahn, Staff Director James H. Clinger, Chief Counsel Subcommittee on Housing and Insurance BLAINE LUETKEMEYER, Missouri, Chairman LYNN A. WESTMORELAND, Georgia, Vice EMANUEL CLEAVER, Missouri, Ranking Chairman Member EDWARD R. ROYCE, California NYDIA M. VELAZQUEZ, New York SCOTT GARRETT, New Jersey MICHAEL E. CAPUANO, Massachusetts STEVAN PEARCE, New Mexico WM. LACY CLAY, Missouri BILL POSEY, Florida AL GREEN, Texas ROBERT HURT, Virginia GWEN MOORE, Wisconsin STEVE STIVERS, Ohio KEITH ELLISON, Minnesota DENNIS A. ROSS, Florida JOYCE BEATTY, Ohio ANDY BARR, Kentucky DANIEL T. KILDEE, Michigan KEITH J. ROTHFUS, Pennsylvania ROGER WILLIAMS, Texas C O N T E N T S ---------- Page Hearing held on: October 21, 2015............................................. 1 Appendix: October 21, 2015............................................. 29 WITNESSES Wednesday, October 21, 2015 The witnesses presented no oral testimony at this hearing. Due to time constraints, the Members gave opening statements and proceeded directly to questioning the witnesses. All of the written statements that the witnesses submitted can be accessed in the Appendix (see below).................................... APPENDIX Prepared statements: Bradley-Geary, Heather, Lead Developer, Supportive Housing, The Vecino Group........................................... 30 Burns, Laura, Board Member, National Leased Housing Association................................................ 32 Craig, Evelyn E., President and CEO, reStart, Inc............ 36 Fischer, Will, Senior Policy Analyst, Center on Budget and Policy Priorities.......................................... 38 Gawrilow, Hilary Swab, Director, Federal Policy, Corporation for Supportive Housing..................................... 47 Kelly, Kevin, 2014 Chairman of the Board, National Association of Home Builders............................... 50 Merritt, Stephen W., Executive Director, Norwood Housing Authority, and President, National Association of Housing and Redevelopment Officials (NAHRO)........................ 57 Polychron, Chris, 2015 President, National Association of REALTORS.................................................. 62 Additional Material Submitted for the Record Luetkemeyer, Hon. Blaine: Letter from the Corporation for Supportive Housing, dated October 21, 2015........................................... 78 Letter from the Housing Assistance Council, dated October 20, 2015....................................................... 80 Letter from the National Multifamily Housing Council and the National Apartment Association, dated October 20, 2015..... 81 Letter from representatives of the real estate industry, dated October 20, 2015..................................... 83 THE FUTURE OF HOUSING IN AMERICA: FEDERAL HOUSING REFORMS THAT CREATE HOUSING OPPORTUNITY ---------- Wednesday, October 21, 2015 U.S. House of Representatives, Subcommittee on Housing and Insurance, Committee on Financial Services, Washington, D.C. The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:01 p.m., in room 2128, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Blaine Luetkemeyer [chairman of the subcommittee] presiding. Members present: Representatives Luetkemeyer, Pearce, Ross, Barr, Rothfus, Williams; Cleaver, Capuano, Clay, Green, Ellison, Beatty, and Kildee. Also present: Representatives Sherman and Carney. Chairman Luetkemeyer. The Subcommittee on Housing and Insurance will come to order. Without objection, the Chair is authorized to declare a recess of the subcommittee at any time. And unfortunately, they just called votes, so we may call a recess here in about 5 or 6 minutes. As a matter of fact, they have already called votes, and we are down to 12 minutes left in the vote. I think what we are going to do is, myself and Mr. Cleaver, the ranking member of the subcommittee, will give our opening statements. We will then recess. We have 4 votes, which will probably take about 40, 45 minutes. Then, we will come back, and at that time we will begin the discussion, and we can begin the questions. So with that, let me just continue on. Today's hearing is entitled, ``The Future of Housing in America: Federal Housing Reforms That Create Housing Opportunity.'' Before we begin, I would like to thank the witnesses for appearing before the subcommittee today. We look forward to your insightful comments. I now recognize myself for 3 minutes to give an opening statement. This panel represents a diverse cross section of the housing community. We have a REALTOR, a home builder, a nonprofit executive, a public housing authority director, a witness who specializes in affordable housing development, and housing policy experts. There is a common bond that links these individuals: the mission to provide housing to Americans and to provide the foundation for better lives and build better communities. Many of these witnesses share another commonalty, the desire to see changes in Federal programs so they can more easily serve the families in need. That is why this committee solicits organizations like the ones represented today for ideas on how to cut red tape, and replace it with opportunity. I am proud to have introduced H.R. 3700, the Housing Opportunity Through Modernization Act of 2015. I will be the first to point out that this legislation won't necessarily change the world. It won't end homelessness overnight, or meet the overwhelming need for affordable housing, but it is a first step in a long journey to reforming our housing system. We have to take a first step before we can get a second step. Right? This bill came to be because of the input provided by many of you, and I thank you for your participation. My legislation doesn't include everything I want. I recognize that it doesn't include everything the minority wants, or that housing advocates want. But it does represent an opportunity to show that despite rhetoric and what goes on around here daily, Congress can work together, and in collaboration with a diverse group of stakeholders, to foster a positive change. Also, I want to point out that Chairman Hensarling has asked for additional ideas in the fight against poverty and for a reformed housing system. I know the chairman wants to hear ideas from different points of view in different parts of the country. This is another opportunity to make your voice heard and participate in the process, and I encourage you to take advantage of it. Tomorrow morning, the full Financial Services Committee will hold a hearing to examine 50 years of HUD, and the impact the Department has had on our Nation. Fifty years later, too many Americans are in need, with too few resources to be had. We are past the time to act. It is my hope that the spirit of bipartisanship will last long enough, after H.R. 3700 has been signed into law, that we can all work together to discuss additional reforms to HUD and the Rural Housing Service. The status quo is no longer good enough. The majority of provisions in H.R. 3700 were agreed to years ago by advocacy and interested groups, and it is time Congress put these changes on the President's desk. I want to again thank the witnesses for appearing today, and we look forward to your discussion. With that, I recognize the gentleman from Missouri, the ranking member of the subcommittee, Mr. Cleaver, for 5 minutes for an opening statement. Mr. Cleaver. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the panel giving us your time, and in the spirit of trying to get there in time to vote, I won't take the full 5 minutes. I would like to associate myself with the comments of the chairman of the subcommittee. Political compromising means keeping your shirt on and still getting something off your chest, and I think that is what we have been able to do is to work through knotty problems, and we believe that we will reform, and HUD will perform. The way in which we have dealt with this legislation, I think, is a style that we need to use to get a lot of things done. Congressman Luetkemeyer and I don't think concurrently, but we do think collaboratively, and I think that is one of the benefits of us working together on this bill. And I do have a few remaining questions on the bill, but I do think that we will be able to work those things out, and I am grateful for this hearing and the opportunity to move forward on H.R. 3700. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back the rest of my time. Chairman Luetkemeyer. I thank the gentleman. It took two men from the ``Show Me'' State to show everybody that we can get things done and work together, and we are more than happy to do that. Again, we apologize to the distinguished panel of witnesses today. They schedule votes whenever they feel it is necessary, and as a result we have a duty that we are supposed to take care of, which is to go vote and take care of some of the business of the country, and of our citizens. So with that, we will recess until such time as the votes are concluded. Thank you. [recess] Chairman Luetkemeyer. Okay. I appreciate your indulgence. Sorry for the interruption, but we are back, and we will try and expedite this as quickly as possible. To do so, we are going to forego the oral testimony of all of the witnesses. Your written testimony was all handed out. We have read it already, and we are going to go straight to the questions. So I have a few comments to make, and then introductions, and then Mr. Cleaver has an introduction, and we will go right to questions. Today, we welcome the testimony of Ms. Laura Burns, board member of the National Leased Housing Association; Ms. Heather Bradley-Geary, lead developer for supportive housing, The Vecino Group; Ms. Evelyn Craig, president and CEO of reStart, Incorporated; Mr. Chris Polychron, 2015 president, National Association of REALTORS; Mr. Stephen Merritt, Norwood Housing Authority, on behalf of the National Association of Housing and Redevelopment Officials; Mr. Kevin Kelly, 2014 chairman of the board, National Association of Home Builders; Mr. Will Fischer, senior policy analyst, Center on Budget and Policy Priorities; and Ms. Hilary Swab Gawrilow, director of Federal policy, Cooperation for Supportive Housing. I apologize if I mispronounced any of your names. With a name like ``Luetkemeyer,'' that happens to me regularly, and so my apologies. It never seems to bother me, but if it does you, I certainly apologize. Given the large number of witnesses, the ranking member and I have agreed to waive oral statements from the witnesses, meaning we are going to move directly into the questions. And without objection, your full written statements will be made a part of the record. Before turning to questions, I want to extend a special welcome to two Missourians on today's panel. Ms. Heather Bradley-Geary has long been an advocate for Missourians in need, and has dedicated her career to fighting homelessness, and ensuring that those in need, particularly children, have supporting housing options they need. Heather, thank you for being here today, and we look forward to your testimony. And now I turn to Mr. Cleaver to introduce Ms. Evie Craig, our other witness from Missouri. Mr. Cleaver. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I take great pleasure in introducing Evie Craig from the State's largest City, Kansas City. Ms. Craig, as the chairman mentioned, is the executive director of reStart, Inc., which is an interfaith ministry serving homeless men, women, youth, and families in the urban center of Kansas City. She has been in this position for 13 years, and I am very pleased that she has been there for 13 years. We have been able to work together. She has grown reStart's annual budget from $1.3 million in 2004, to $7.17 million in 2015, which also points out the severity of the issue of homelessness. And she serves on the Jackson County Mental Health Commission, the executive committee of the Greater Kansas City Regional Task Force on Homelessness, and is the local Chair of the 100,000 Homes Campaign to provide housing for vulnerable individuals and families, among her other distinguished accomplishments. Ms. Craig, we are pleased to have you here. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Chairman Luetkemeyer. Thank you. And with that, I recognize myself for 5 minutes to begin the questioning. Obviously, all of you seem to be supportive of H.R. 3700, and I thank you for that. We have worked diligently to try and work with all the parties to come to an agreement on something that we can all find some support for, and along the way, we thank each of you for your help in getting to where we have gotten with this piece of legislation. I recognize there is more work to be done, and with that, I would like to ask what other things you would like to see in the bill, or any things you would like to, in particular, point out that are important to you? Let me start with Ms. Burns. Ms. Burns. Thank you, Chairman Luetkemeyer, Ranking Member Cleaver, and distinguished members of the subcommittee. My name is Laura Burns, and I am here on behalf of the National Leased Housing Association. I am also a national affordable housing developer with 14 properties in Missouri and 2,000 units, so I am proud to own properties in your great State. Chairman Luetkemeyer. And that is a great decision, I can tell you. Ms. Burns. Some of the things that we think are really important in this bill that are really helpful, the steps might seem small to some but they seem quite material to us. The inspection standards changes that is included in the bill is very important to us. Our company provides housing through project-based contracts, through housing choice vouchers, through project voucher contracts, and through tenant vouchers. And some of the changes that are proposed in both the inspection standards, the recertification of fixed-income residents being allowed every 3 years, and the increased flexibility to the project-based voucher program will make a big difference. We have a property, for instance, in St. Louis with a housing choice voucher contract, and some of the program changes that are included here would have really made a difference to how efficiently this property operated over the years. We are in year 12 of our contract and have experienced many of the things that this bill looks to address, including significant delays in occupancy as a result of inspections; 30 days is very normal. Sometimes, we see as long as 90 days before a new resident can move in. Site-based waiting lists are really important when the list is so long, and the rent increase process of having certainty in how the program is going to work when you marry that with the low income housing tax credit program, those are really helpful to our industry and to doing future deals. Chairman Luetkemeyer. Thank you. Ms. Bradley-Geary? Ms. Bradley-Geary. Thank you. I agree with Ms. Burns. There are a lot of great things in H.R. 3700, but I want to focus specifically on the Family Unification Program (FUP) vouchers, which has a horrible acronym, so I apologize. These are vouchers for our young adults who are leaving foster care, and I stand before you with three hats. I am a supportive housing developer who does a lot of development for young people who are aging out of foster care. I am also a foster care parent. Both of my kids are adopted from the foster care system in Missouri, and I am also a social worker. So, as you know, we have 23,000 kids, young adults who leave foster care every year. One in five of those are going to become homeless if we don't do something to stop that. Chairman Luetkemeyer. Is there anything that we can do or change, do something different to-- Ms. Bradley-Geary. I believe-- Chairman Luetkemeyer. --improve it or--we are taking a first step here. What is the next step we need to take? Ms. Bradley-Geary. Absolutely. I believe you have added the language in the bill that we are asking for, and that is to up the time from 18 to 36 months if the voucher is eligible for the youth, and then also to up the age from 21 to 24 for our youth who are aging out of foster care to be eligible for those vouchers. Chairman Luetkemeyer. What is the reason for jumping the age from 21 to 24? Ms. Bradley-Geary. A lot of our kids leave the foster care system, and they still need the support up to age 24--I will use myself as an example. I had a safety net as a child that my parents were there when I was making bad decisions. These youth do not have a safety net. If we up the age to 24, we are able to catch a lot of those youth in those 3 years who do not have a safety net, so that allows us to give them that. Chairman Luetkemeyer. How many kids are we talking about here who utilize this, that you anticipate utilizing it, how many kids do you anticipate utilizing these vouchers? Ms. Bradley-Geary. Using the vouchers? In Missouri alone, our estimates come in at about 1,800 kids who are aging out, about one-fifth of those, so that would be 374 youth who would be eligible for those, and that is just Missouri. Chairman Luetkemeyer. This is a very important issue to me because I think that this is an area where we can actually make a difference. Ms. Bradley-Geary. Absolutely. Chairman Luetkemeyer. I see I am about timed out. Let me stop here and I will-- Ms. Bradley-Geary. Thank you. Chairman Luetkemeyer. --thank you for your testimony. I now recognize the gentleman from Missouri, Mr. Cleaver, the ranking member of the subcommittee, for 5 minutes. Mr. Cleaver. Thank you. I know many, if not almost everybody on the panel, and I appreciate all the work that you all have done over the years, but I want to send this question to Ms. Craig and Ms. Gawrilow. I can see in your facial expression how much you wish you were still here and sitting up here. But your advocates for foster care youth and you championed for changes to help improve housing services for young adults, and Ms. Craig, you were saying in your statement that more than 800 young adults aged out of the foster care system in Jackson County. How has the family unification program in our proposed bill been helpful in addressing the needs of our foster youth? Ms. Craig. I'm sorry, did you want me to answer first, Congressman? Mr. Cleaver. Yes. Ms. Craig. I wanted to say, though, the Royals do play today. Mr. Cleaver. Yes. Oh, my goodness. Ms. Craig. So we are up against some very-- Mr. Cleaver. We need to get out of here. Ms. Craig. --important--just saying. This happened to me 24 hours ago at the city council testifying before the mayor's legislative committee, so it brought good luck, so we can only hope, right. So sorry. Presently, there are lots of barriers to young adults, and specifically young adults in foster care, getting access to these housing resources, and transition age is a very, very, important time because we are looking at young people who haven't had some normal developmental supports, and developmental growth is critical to successful adulthood. So this opportunity to have stable housing, and I think one of the provisions that I understand is--this may seem like a technicality, but it is huge in the life of a young adult--the opportunity to get access to a housing voucher 90 days before you are out of the system. That means, ta-da, it is amazing that you can get services and housing simultaneously for a 90- day period while you wait on that cusp of being independent. That is the kind of support that many people get from their families or extended families, and a lot of the young people that we work with don't have that. They do, as we see, fall not only into homelessness but don't graduate from high school, or 46 percent are unemployed by the age of 24, and what really we end up saying to them is, quite frankly, if you wait long enough and you are homeless long enough, we will get you housing just in time to die. We need to be able to use our Federal housing resources to get young people into housing in order to live their life to its fullest potential, and that is where I really feel very strongly that this bill, it may seem regulatory in nature, I don't know, but I see it as having the capacity to have an amazing impact on the future of our country because these young people have that opportunity, but only if they can get some of these resources. And I think what is for all of us, and we have been talking a little bit as we are here, we work in the world, some of us, of the red tape and the regulations, and there are things that no one--never by intent did anyone mean to put a barrier in front of a young child exiting foster care, but it is there nonetheless because of the inability of agencies to work together or us to be able to provide the resources. So I think the flexibility that has been added into the language around FUP has the possibility to be really simply transformational. Mr. Cleaver. Thank you. Ms. Gawrilow? Ms. Gawrilow. Yes, thank you. I would just like to kind of echo what Evelyn was saying, but I also think--I agree that aligning the transition plans that youth have when they are aging out of foster care, they are supposed to have a transition plan for 90 days prior to when they leave care, and this would align that, the resources with the plans that they have, and make sure that the voucher can be built into the plan so they are not having a lapse in housing. The other thing that I think is really important is the guidance between HUD and HHS and having them work together to help housing authorities work with their local child welfare agencies to improve referral processes, to improve access to supportive services for the young adults who are receiving these vouchers. So I do think the changes contemplated are really important, and I think that they will provide that housing stability and right away as opposed to what Evelyn was saying is when young adults fall into homelessness after leaving care and then they come back into stable housing situations. Mr. Cleaver. Thank you. I yield back, Mr. Chairman. Chairman Luetkemeyer. I thank the gentleman. We are looking to put that in the bill. We thank you for that suggestion, and we also are looking to add the--my sharp staff who keep talking in both ears at the same time, so unfortunately, I can only hear out of one at a time, but we are looking to do that as well. So we thank you for those suggestions, and keep them coming. With that, we go to the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Williams, for 5 minutes. Mr. Williams. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and also thank you to the witnesses today for being here. I appreciate seeing you. The Section 8 housing voucher concept can be one of the most successful public/private initiatives, but as with many other government programs, it has started to sag under the weight of too many burdensome and duplicative requirements. The Housing Modernization Act will make important changes that will improve the program for all stakeholders. My question will be to you, Mr. Merritt, what do you think are the most critical problems facing the assistive housing portfolio and how will the proposed legislation make improvements? Mr. Merritt. Thank you. I just want to speak to that. This is a great bill for us, and it is a start to fix some of those problems that you bring up, Mr. Congressman. A couple of things: increasing the percentage of the limitation on the voucher program for project-based vouching will be critically important to us to help populations who are underserved now, such as persons with intellectual disabilities, which I have done a project in my hometown on. There is a whole population out there of young people aging up over 22 who are in need of housing with supportive services, and the project-based voucher extension would allow us to serve more of those individuals who will need help for a long time. It also, the idea of triannual rent redeterminations will take away some of the administrative burden that we would have having to renew rents every year for people who are on fixed incomes. The rent doesn't change. We are doing recertifications for rent that might change $2 or $3 either way, and that is really a waste of a lot of time and effort that could be used for other more productive issues. The other is the fair market rent issue is becoming a problem, and by allowing us to raise the percentage of fair market rent that we are able to up to 120 percent would be very important, particularly in high-income areas, high-rental areas like where I am in the Boston area. Mr. Williams. Thank you. Mr. Kelly, steps have already been taken to eliminate duplicative inspections through the budget process for assisted housing funded with multiple subsidies, and H.R. 3700 further streamlines the effort by permitting immediate tenant occupancy if the unit has been inspected under the Federal housing program with the same stringent standards. Would you help us understand the financing challenges associated with affordable housing, and does this mean that in order for affordable housing to exist and/or be developed, an owner must find multiple sources of capital to develop these properties? Mr. Kelly. Thank you, Congressman. I am representing the National Association of Home Builders, but I am a builder/ developer, I own and operate some 5,000-plus units of affordable housing, and I have developed over 11,000 units. Securing financing for affordable housing is an extraordinary challenge and becoming more so each and every day. I use both Section 8 project-based assistance. The vouchers are critically important in the development of new properties, primarily the low income housing tax credit where State housing finance agencies, their communities decide to target lower-income families below 50 percent of median income, so those vouchers make it critically important in order to secure the financing. Those transactions also have a multiple number of financing sources besides the debt, the tax credits, often funds from the Federal Home Loan Banks, or home funding, but again, often, if the targeting is such to very-low-income families, the vouchers are critically important in order to make the transaction feasible. Mr. Williams. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, I yield back my time. Chairman Luetkemeyer. The gentleman yields back his time. With that, we go to the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Green, for 5 minutes. Mr. Green. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and may I please take a moment of my time to thank you and the ranking member for working together on this piece of legislation. I think it is exceedingly important, Mr. Chairman, and it has bipartisan support. This is one of those times when I think we can say that we are working together for the good of our country, and I appreciate you very much. And I thank you, also, Mr. Ranking Member. You have been a real friend to those who are in need of housing in this country, and I appreciate both of you. Mr. Chairman, if I may say this, I also would like to speak on behalf of 420 Members of Congress. That is the number who voted for the Homes for Heros Act in the 113th Congress, and I am proud that you have made Section 403 of this legislation, you have dedicated it to the Homes for Heroes legislation. The Homes for Heroes legislation would place a person in HUD whose job it is to look out for veterans. This person would help us to prevent persons from becoming homeless, veterans and their families, and also to provide some relief for those who may be homeless. We believe that those who are willing to risk their lives for this country merit the very best that we can offer, and I think that we can do more. I think this legislation will help us to help our veterans who are in poverty, homeless, and those who may be falling into poverty and homelessness. I would also mention to you, Mr. Chairman, that I am concerned about people who are waiting in line for housing. Most of the housing authorities across this country have persons who are standing in very long lines to get help, and as you know, we have, as of late, seen news stories about persons who are over income and still receiving a housing subsidy, as it were. Perhaps they are paying the max that they can be required to pay, 80 percent of the AMI, but they are still over income. Some of them are over income by a wide margin. My concern is this: We have people who are standing in line who need this housing. Many have been in line for years literally, not figuratively, for years, and we have persons who are over income who are in public housing. The public perception is that as you move up, you move out. You move up, your income is better, and you move out. I am appreciative that you are attempting to address this issue in this piece of legislation. We cannot allow the perception to be that this benefit is for the greedy as well as the needy. It is not for the greedy. It is for needy people. And those who are standing in line are of concern to me. I want to make sure that they have the opportunity to benefit from good decent housing just as the people who are there currently are. And there is much more that we can do. I am not a person who believes that we have done all we can do, but I am a person who believes that we have to give some thought to those who are in line, those who need this housing. So I am appreciative that the legislation addresses this. There may be some tweaking to it. I am amenable to working with you, Mr. Chairman, and Mr. Ranking Member, but this is something that I think is of paramount importance. And finally, if I may say this as I close, across the length and breadth of our country, there are people who are working hard to help those who are homeless. People do a good job every day, and now I am talking about the housing authorities. I find that too often they take heat for things that they are trying their best to do properly and to do correctly, and I just want to say to them, please, continue to do the good work that you are doing. The criticism that you get is something that sort of comes with the job, but there are just so many who are doing a good job, public servants all, working hard for the persons who are in need of housing. With that said, Mr. Chairman, I thank you again, and I will yield back the balance of my time. Chairman Luetkemeyer. The gentleman yields back the balance of his time. Next, the gentleman from New Mexico, Mr. Pearce, is recognized for 5 minutes. Mr. Pearce. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I find myself agreeing with Democrats frequently on many things, but now I am in the awkward position of finding myself agreeing with a Texan on some things, so I would agree with the gentleman as he said thanks to our ranking member and to our chairman for the work that they have done. We began this sort of reform work, I guess you would call it, with Native American housing about 3 years ago. One of the things that we found is that the reforms were fought by HUD more than anybody else. Is that something that you would sort of ring true, and just do a head shake because I have a couple of more questions. Head shakes up and down, or no, yes, no, yes. So yes, the agency is resistant to anything that makes the system work better, and we are not going to overcome that unless you all start calling your Members of Congress to go in and sit with them. Through lengthy processes, HUD actually began to see what we are doing, as not a threat, but as a benefit, but I suspect we are going to have to do the same thing here. And so as you bump up against those physical stops, those emotional stops inside the agency, just consider it worthwhile to get one of us to sit down, you come in, and I think anybody on either side of the aisle, anybody on the committee would be happy to sit and reason through with HUD the reasons for doing these. So again, I appreciate all your passions here working in your particular areas. My question for Mr. Kelly has to do with rural housing. Obviously, New Mexico is a very rural State; 50 percent of the housing in my district is in manufactured housing, so we are always struggling to improve the lot. What are the biggest challenges that are being faced for rural housing right now? Your testimony has things about that, so-- Mr. Kelly. Thank you, Congressman. I am a developer and owner of 515 rural housing developments. I own approximately 18 developments. I have acquired those under the RD demonstration program. This bill talks about making that permanent. I think that would be an extraordinary positive step forward. It is an enormous challenge. There is an inventory of housing out there that the country and private owners have invested in that has the ability to be preserved and maintained for decades to come with utilizing the right programs. It is a challenge. The incomes in rural areas are often depressed, but nonetheless, there is, I think, that program has demonstrated that it can be done and it certainly should be done to meet those crying needs because you rarely find the private lending institutions, or for that matter, FHA providing assistance in those areas. Mr. Pearce. Does the 515 need to be expanded or can the agency do that by itself? Does this legislation need expansion or-- Mr. Kelly. I believe the program should be expanded because of the size of the portfolio. Mr. Pearce. Can it be done by the agency or does it need to be done in legislation, in your opinion? You have much more experience than most on us on the committee. Mr. Kelly. I would say probably legislatively. Mr. Pearce. Okay. Ms. Craig, the--you have a passion there for helping people who need help, and then you have heard again the gentleman from Texas talk about moving up, moving out. How big a problem is this prioritization of need? In other words, do people languish in the housing who should be out and on their own? Ms. Craig. I can't speak to it in general overall in terms of individuals who are in housing authorities, but I certainly will say that I think anything that clarifies and simplifies and provides more options for getting people off the waiting list to--housing authorities have preferences, but because there is such a backlog, that ends up not having an impact on the waiting list, which is frustrating to everybody. And when we went through sequestration, we were finding that in Kansas City, an 8-year-old child previously might be waiting 4 years to get into public housing, and with sequestration, that same kid might be waiting 12 years until he would have his own family-- Mr. Pearce. I have a couple more. I only have 23 seconds. Ms. Craig. Sorry. Mr. Pearce. Ms. Gawrilow, would you happen to have an opinion, or Ms. Burns, either one of you all have an opinion about this moving up and moving out, how bad is the problem, how much could we improve it? Ms. Gawrilow. Yes. One thing that I think could help people who are in assisted housing or families and households who are in assisted housing is looking at the Family Self-Sufficiency Program, which is an asset building and financial capacity program that resides in HUD, and PHAs administer this program, and to better connect families to that program and families who are maybe higher in need. So maybe connecting the HUD-VASH recipients with it. You can connect families who are receiving the FUP voucher, in particular youth who are receiving the FUP voucher. This may be a great tool to help them as an additional service to increase their access to programs and services to lead to independence later on. Mr. Pearce. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back. Chairman Luetkemeyer. The gentleman yields back. Next in line, the gentleman from Minnesota, Mr. Ellison, is recognized for 5 minutes. Mr. Ellison. I would like to thank the chairman and the ranking member for putting together this bill to improve how we provide affordable housing, affordable rental housing to extremely-low-income families, to help home buyers purchase a condo. This is great. I appreciate it. The goal of today's hearing is to examine how the Federal Government can better provide housing assistance in the 21st Century. In light of the fact that incomes remain too low for many workers to afford market rate housing, we need to invest more Federal funds to address the rental housing crisis. While I support many provisions in the bill considered today, the real answer is to--I am, in my opinion, quadruple our investments in rental housing for extremely-low-income families. I have asked for Chart 1 to be shown on screen. Mr. Fischer, this chart is from the Center for Budget and Policy Priorities. Can you explain what it says about our rental housing crisis? Mr. Fischer. Sure. And I will say first, I think it is really important to move forward with the targeted changes in this bill, which I think are well-designed and would deliver real benefits to low-income people, but it is true that the challenges go well beyond what this bill can address. This chart shows--the blue line there is the number of families with what HUD calls worst-case housing needs, which means they are very low-income families who pay more than half of their income for housing or live in severely substandard housing, and that has gone way up. It is up more than 30 percent since before the recession. The red line is the number of families with rental assistance, which has pretty much been stagnant, so this shows that the number of families struggling to afford housing has gone way up, but the programs that are best positioned to address that need have very much been treading water. Mr. Ellison. Thanks a lot. I would like to point out that nationwide, we have more than 1.3 million homeless children. In my own district, in the City of Minneapolis, which is a pretty well-to-do town, we have about 4,000 kids every day going to school from a shelter. Anyway, Mr. Fischer, let me show you Chart 2. We spend more than $270 billion a year on housing, $270 billion in housing in America. But this chart shows that the bulk of the investment, well, it is for better-off families. Can you explain the financial benefits families receive and who receives the most generous housing assistance? Because some people would have us believe that it is the very poor who get all the housing assistance. Is that correct? Mr. Fischer. When you include tax expenditures along with direct rental subsidies, the bulk, close to three-quarters of Federal housing expenditures go towards homeownership, and the biggest share of that is for deductions like the property tax deduction, and especially the mortgage interest deduction that go predominantly to higher-income families, and that is what this chart here shows. About three-quarters of the benefits from those deductions go to families with incomes above $100,000 and more than a third go to families with incomes above $200,000. Mr. Ellison. Okay. So yes, so this is three, and when we think of who receives housing benefits, we don't realize that high-income families receive 4 times more housing benefits than do low-income families. What should we do to right-size housing assistance, and I know you are familiar with my bill, the Common Sense Housing Investment Act, I would welcome your reflections on it, and your reflections on this chart. Mr. Fischer. I think what this chart shows is that it is cause for concern. Low-income people are much more likely than higher-income people to deal with problems like eviction and homelessness, which are bad for everyone but especially bad for children, as you mentioned. And part of what drives that is that Federal housing resources are targeted heavily on higher- income families who could afford housing without help. I think that the issues that your bill raises, like looking at reforms to the mortgage interest deduction that would keep a large mortgage interest benefit in place but reducing it some for higher-income households and expand it for middle-income folks and generate some savings that could be used for other things, I think, is a sensible approach. Mr. Ellison. Thanks a lot. It looks like I am running out of time. Let me see if I can ask Mr. Polychron a question. Mr. Polychron, thank you for being here today. Allow me to ask you about marketing services agreements and control business arrangements. I read the REALTOR'S recent report, ``Definitive Analysis of Negative Game Changers Emerging in Real Estate.'' It is called the ``Danger Report.'' It warns that many REALTORS are most likely in violation of TILA-RESPA rules regarding illegal kickbacks. When the title insurance agency is referred business through an affiliated business arrangement, where does the cost of the referral get absorbed? Who pays for it? Mr. Polychron. The Danger Report, as you may--and thank you for the question, sir, but the Danger Report was something for us to look forward that might happen. It isn't something that is actually happening. It is something that we are trying to prevent from happening. And marketing service agreements are certainly something that not only the DOJ looks at a lot but we have to be careful on how those are initiated. I can tell you that our association is constantly monitoring that to make sure that when we do any type of marketing service, that it is done properly. Mr. Ellison. Thank you, and I yield back the time that I don't have. Chairman Luetkemeyer. The gentleman is correct. His time has expired. With that, we go to the gentleman from Pennsylvania, Mr. Rothfus. He is recognized for 5 minutes. Mr. Rothfus. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I thank the panel for being with us this afternoon. I will address this first question to Mr. Kelly. In your written testimony, you note that it currently costs an apartment owner more to rent to a voucher holder than it does to rent to an unsubsidized resident. One of the reasons for this cost discrepancy is the program's burdensome and often duplicative inspections standards. Can you discuss some of the disincentives for renting to voucher holders? Mr. Kelly. Sure. The inspection process itself is one, certainly, sir. The uncertainty for a landowner or an apartment owner, when a prospective tenant approaches him with a certificate, or a voucher, and explains that their property has to be inspected by a public housing agency, they have to wait for that. The owner can't enter into the agreement at that point in time. It is subject to the inspection process. And, as I think has been indicated in some of the written testimony, those inspections can fail for such innocuous things as a torn screen. And those are the kinds of things that you don't keep secret in the private rental market. Owners know about it. They talk about it. So that is an example of the kinds of disincentives that are out there in the current administration of the program that dissuade private property owners from participating in the program. Mr. Rothfus. By consolidating inspection standards, is there any risk for increased fraud and abuse which would potentially place residents in unsafe housing? Mr. Kelly. I assume there may be, but I think, quite frankly, there is an expeditious process to follow up on the heels of that tenant being approved to live in that residence, and with an owner understanding that if in fact he has defrauded somebody, that will be caught relatively quickly, so I think it is extremely de minimis. Mr. Rothfus. Mr. Merritt, my district is home to many seniors living on fixed incomes, and some of these individuals receive housing assistance. As you know, H.R. 3700 permits income recertification for people living on fixed incomes every 3 years as opposed to yearly. Clearly, this reform reduces burdens on residents by avoiding what can be a stressful and difficult yearly process. Can you comment on how this might impact housing providers and administrators? Mr. Merritt. I'm sorry, how it will protect, sir? Mr. Rothfus. How the moving from every 3 years on income certification to--I'm sorry, annual to every 3 years, can you comment on how this might impact housing providers and administrators? Mr. Merritt. Thank you for the question. The impact would be pretty immediate as to the decline--lower the workload for individuals and offices around the country. The caseload would go down, which would allow us to spend some time on other things that we have had to take time away from. And I would agree with you that the process of rent certification can be very stressful, particularly for seniors on an annual basis. I would also say they are also some of the most prepared when they do come into our office and it can be very easy, so the timeframe to do a residence, a senior residence rent calculation can take anywhere from 5 to 10 minutes to an hour-and-a-half, depending on what their capabilities are and the medical deductions that are allowed and things. So, it is a burdensome administrative activity that would be reduced to every 3 years, and it wouldn't be--I would assume not every resident would come in on the same year. We would stagger it so it would reduce the monthly workload which frees up time that is actually not there anymore. Mr. Rothfus. Thank you. And I am wondering if maybe any panelists would want to comment on this: Section 109 of H.R. 3700 creates flexibility of capital and operating fund amounts by allowing housing authorities in good standing to blend up to 20 percent of their federally appropriated capital and operating funds. Does this create an incentive for public housing authorities to modernize their systems and operations so they can have greater flexibility and control moving forward? Mr. Merritt. I will answer that. Absolutely, affirmatively yes, it would help us to incentivize improving our systems. It allows us to have flexibility to spend that money either on a property issue that we are dealing with and may be short- funded, or administratively in helping our offices maintain computer systems and things like that which come up every so often. So that would go both ways, that fungibility. It is an important tool to help complete capital projects that may need that little bit of extra cash that isn't available through the capital programs. Mr. Rothfus. I thank the chairman. I yield back. Chairman Luetkemeyer. The gentleman's time has expired. Next up is another gentleman from Missouri, the distinguished Mr. Clay. He is recognized for 5 minutes. Mr. Clay. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you, Mr. Cleaver also for conducting this hearing. Let me ask Mr. Polychron about HUD's 223f program. There has been a precipitous drop in the program, and it is because HUD changed the underwriting requirements 2 years ago. What has been the impact of HUD's underwriting changes to its multi- family program? Mr. Polychron. Congressman, with your permission, I am going to defer that to Ms. Burns. I don't do rentals. I am being honest with you. Mr. Clay. I see. Mr. Polychron. It is you either do rentals when you are a REALTOR or you don't, and I am going to defer to Ms. Burns, with your permission. Mr. Clay. Ms. Burns, could you-- Ms. Burns. Sure. Mr. Clay. --talk to me about what has been the impact on the program? Ms. Burns. It is hard to know specifically what could cause that drop, but we do know how complicated it is to put together a transaction and to make all the pieces work in an affordable housing transaction. Every piece of the underwriting matters, and what we understand is that the movement to a longer-term view of replacement reserve needs has created a more difficult program to underwrite, and our understanding is that the change could be made back to a 10- or even a 12-year replacement reserve window, and that would make it more affordable for the developer to put that property together and to be successful in that transaction. Mr. Clay. So it is really then--the rule change has dampened the ability to develop those properties. Ms. Burns. It requires a much larger investment on the front end, which means that you don't have enough money to afford to do something else that may be more important. Mr. Clay. Thank you for that response. Let me go to Mr. Kelly with the Home Builders. Are you familiar with the 223f program? Mr. Kelly. I am, sir, and I have done a number of developments utilizing the program. But as Ms. Burns said--and I have done them typically in conjunction with repositioning a property, utilizing also the low income housing tax credits. The challenge we face is when that kind--those reserves are required up front, additional capital reserves up front, it simply leaves often inadequate resources to rehabilitate the project to meet not only sort of my standards, because I know I am going to be holding on to it for a long time, the investor standards, and also, in many instances, to meet local code requirements that continue to raise the cost of housing, while well-intended, often outstrip the ability of particularly of affordable housing developments to meet and, therefore, render the development infeasible. Mr. Clay. Mr. Kelly, in the best of all worlds, what would be a reasonable modification of this rule? If you had it your way and could go into HUD and direct them to change this rule, what would be a reasonable modification of the rule? Mr. Kelly. Again, a reasonable amount of reserve for replacement up-front, but also earned, over time, as was traditionally done. Put it into the reserves over time, because it is that large, up front cash investment that renders the project infeasible. Obviously, every project is slightly different, and depending on its physical condition, its market, that amount may vary, but there ought to be greater flexibility, depending on the particular circumstances, and that doesn't exist at the moment. Mr. Clay. And it has really dampened the ability to provide affordable housing to larger amounts of the population. Is that right? Mr. Kelly. It does, sir. Mr. Clay. Thank you so much for your responses. Mr. Chairman, I have no other inquiries, so I yield back. Chairman Luetkemeyer. The gentleman yields back. Next, we go to the gentleman from Kentucky, Mr. Barr, who is recognized for 5 minutes. Mr. Barr. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thanks for your leadership in introducing H.R. 3700. And to our witnesses, I want to first address the issue of continuum-of-care grants in combatting homelessness, and I think I will direct my question to Ms. Bradley-Geary and Ms. Craig on this one and anybody else who might want to jump in on this. As I understand it, the continuum-of-care program provides that if a grant is not fully expended in 24 months, the money is recaptured by HUD unless the Secretary re-allocates it to another entity serving in the same geographic area. We have had a problem with this in Kentucky, my home State of Kentucky, where two metropolitan areas, Lexington in my congressional district, and Louisville, are receiving continuum-of-care dollars, but in Lexington in my congressional district, that money goes out the door pretty quickly and we exhaust that funding, but we have had a situation where Louisville has had a surplus of funds, and instead of allowing a reallocation of those dollars to Lexington, which has a significant homelessness need, the Department recaptures that. H.R. 3700 does attempt to address that issue, fortunately, by clarifying geographic area, and my question to you all is, do you think facilitating the convertibility of unspent funds, unspent grant monies between qualifying grantees would increase access to fighting homelessness? Ms. Bradley-Geary. I can address that, and yes, I do. The short answer is yes. I think as long as we leave that up to the continuum of care in the areas that you are serving. So the continuum of care, right, is the plan to end homelessness, and those are your boots on the ground in those communities, and so as long as there is input from that community about how those funds should be spent, yes, I think that would be in the best interest of the people we are serving. Mr. Barr. Our State office has said that even though you have unspent funds in one city, one hour away from another city in need, that Washington HUD wouldn't allow for the convertibility, and it just seems like a little bit of bureaucracy getting in the way of delivering the dollars where they need to go, so I appreciate your thoughts on that. To Mr. Merritt, I want to talk about Moving to Work. The Lexington housing authority, my district, is a Moving to Work jurisdiction, and it has been very successful in terms of the fungibility of dollars, but I want to address work requirements and time limits. My colleague and friend from Texas, Mr. Green, on the other side of the aisle, talked about the need for us to focus on these waiting lists, and I couldn't agree more. We need to not only focus on the beneficiaries of Section 8 vouchers and trying to help them achieve self-sufficiency, but the many people who are waiting in line, and this is an over- subscribed program, these Section 8 vouchers. I would want to see Section 8 modernized to the point where we could encourage work, encourage self-sufficiency, so that those who are deserving and waiting in line can get their opportunity at Section 8 housing. So my question to you is, the President has proposed--in the past, President Obama has proposed expanding Move to Work. Move to Work has worked in my congressional district, that flexibility to encourage work requirements and time limits. My question to you is, do you think it would be a good idea to maybe apply time limits and work requirements to Section 8 nationwide? Mr. Merritt. I think the Moving to Work program is a great program for public housing authorities, and I know the director in your home district office, Mr. Simms, has done a great job at his authority. To apply it nationwide is a little bit dangerous because the Moving to Work program allows the local housing authority to deal with those issues locally, and that is what is really more important, and it needs to be addressed and is a valuable tool, but it needs to be done on the local level because what may work in Kentucky may not work in Massachusetts. Mr. Barr. If I can just jump in, I agree with you, and Austin has done a great job, and I agree with that local flexibility, but generally speaking, I think what we did in 1996 in this country with welfare reform is we recognized that work is a blessing. Work is not a punishment. Work is a blessing. Work is an opportunity for people to achieve self- esteem and a sense of value, and I think that it is not a local issue. I think it is a universal issue, work, work providing able-bodied people who receive taxpayer benefits in the form of a Section 8 voucher, to encourage work as an incentive of receiving this benefit is a way to get people the help that they need and then out of the system, and then open up those vacancies to all those people who are in waiting lines, and again, achieve that self-sufficiency. Mr. Merritt. I agree with you, and the Family Self- Sufficiency Program is one that we run in my office as well, and it has helped many people on that track to work through educational opportunities. We had several young women become nurses or licensed practical nurses and be able to move off the program, and at the same time that they--even before they move off, the subsidy level for that voucher goes down because they are working more, they are paying more. So it is a valuable tool and there should be a way to incentivize that and help that system along. But the Family Self-Sufficiency Program is working out there in many jurisdictions. It is working very well. Mr. Barr. Thank you. My time has expired. I yield back. Chairman Luetkemeyer. The gentleman's time has expired. Next we have the gentlelady from Ohio, Ms. Beatty, who is recognized for 5 minutes. Mrs. Beatty. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and Mr. Ranking Member, and thank you to all of the witnesses here today. First, let me start, Mr. Chairman, by echoing what some of my colleagues have already said, but I think, because of the tone of today's hearing, it is worth repeating, that it is a good day and a good feeling when we can have a bill that we can find so much good and bipartisan in and meet the standards of why we are here in creating housing opportunities. As someone who has spent a lot of time working in the housing areas, working with public housing, I commend all of you for the roles that you play in helping to create and sustain these opportunities that gets us to that self- sufficiency. With that, before I go to my questions, let me also say what we are doing for those young foster care individuals. Recently, I had a number of them who appeared to be somewhat atypical who ended up in my office. They were all college students who had been homeless but found a way through some advocacy group or individual to get all their paperwork done and get into college. Well, at the first face value, you think, how wonderful. Here is a person who is going to college and great, and as the one gentleman looked at me and said everything is fine for the first 45 days of school, and then we read the notice that said people are going home for the holiday, and I didn't have a home to go to. And that just hit me right in the face, that I am thinking, here you are at one of the largest institutions in the country and you are matriculating and doing well. He said, but I ran out of couch surfing, and that was the first time I had heard that term, and so he said I am asking you as an advocate and a member of this committee to make sure that any opportunities you get, to help us have some of the same privileges that we do for veterans or pregnant teenagers because we are the future and we are doing well. So I thank everybody here for pushing with that. With that said, since I am on a roll, I should also say to you, Mr. Chairman, that I think that this bill contains a lot of stuff that I like and that I would be willing to put my signature on, so I want us to note that today. But also, earlier this month I joined 51 of my colleagues in sending a bipartisan letter to HUD Secretary Castro asking for changes to the process of financing condominiums and to ease other requirements like owner occupancy and delinquent condo association dues because I have heard from a lot of my stakeholders that such requirements and restrictions have made the FHA certification process daunting at times and especially for some of the smaller properties and those that don't have the elite management, contracts, or people to operate them. I think I read somewhere last week that the Federal Housing Administration is expected to issue rules by the end of the year that could make it easier for lenders to finance loans for condominiums, sales with government backing. So, Mr. Polychron, you stated in your testimony that FHA has a number of significant restrictions that prohibit many buyers from purchasing a condo despite the fact that condominiums often represent the most affordable options for first-time home buyers. This is important to me because I am seeing so many people in my district in condos. Mr. Polychron. Yes, Congresswoman, and thank you for the opportunity to speak on a subject that I do know something about. Mrs. Beatty. I thought you would like that question. Mr. Polychron. Seriously, I live in the small community of Hot Springs, Arkansas, and it says that we have, in the whole State of Arkansas, 54 condominium developments certified. I know in my own hometown, we have homeowners associations, or POAs, in excess of that number, but because of the certification process, which is 95 pages long and sometimes not only burdensome to finish or daunting, as you said, but expensive to hire--to get a certified financial statement done by a CPA, for instance, the 35 percent rule, and thank you, Mr. Chairman, for putting that in H.R. 3700, the 35 percent rule is a great start. We would like to see it at zero as far as occupancy. The last time we asked for a reduction, the HUD reduced it--or FHA from 51 to 50 percent. We hope we do better this time with your 35 percent suggestion. Condominiums are the lowest of the seriously delinquent rates of any of the FHA-insured mortgages. They are 4.9 percent. The average is 6.96 percent, so we certainly think that they deserve merit in relaxing the requirements for condominium financing. Mrs. Beatty. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Chairman Luetkemeyer. I thank the gentlelady. With that, we go to the gentleman from Florida, Mr. Ross. He is recognized for 5 minutes. Mr. Ross. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I wish to add my name to the list of those who have thanked you and the ranking member for bringing this bill forward. I particularly like certain incentives in there, the incentive to give charitable organizations and nonprofits opportunities to invest in energy and water conservation and the remodification and building of housing. I think that is very, very important. I particularly like what my colleague from Kentucky, Mr. Barr, discussed with the Move to Work programs. Those are great incentives. I think it is important that a lot of this is temporary, but it has become multi-generational and we need to do all we can to make sure that we provide incentives, not only for good housing but also for the opportunities to gain dignity through work. Section 103 of this particular bill is of interest to me, and it has to do more with the modified means testing in terms of those who stay in the homes and whether they are overqualified financially to be in there. For example, my colleague from Florida, Representative Jolly and I have been focused on reducing waste and fraud within HUD and to ensure those who rightfully are in need of assistance are able to receive it. A recent HUD independent inspector general's report revealed that over 25,000 families currently in taxpayer- supported housing exceeded the maximum allowable income threshold to qualify for federally-subsidized housing. In one instance, a New York family with an income of nearly $500,000 is paying $1,574 a month to live in taxpayer-subsidized public housing. In another unfathomable incident, a family had personal assets of over $1 million while living off the backs of taxpayers. With an ever-growing waiting list for housing assistance for those truly in need, these incidences of waste, fraud, and abuse should be eliminated. Therefore, my first question is to Ms. Burns. What is your perspective regarding tenants who remain in public housing but have the financial means to afford nonsubsidized housing, thus opening up an opportunity for those who should be in line for that type of assistance? Ms. Burns. My expertise is in privately owned housing, not public housing, but I can respond this way. I think it is incredibly important to catch fraud and abuse. Just this morning, the National Leased Housing Association, myself and our executive director were meeting with HUD to talk about the EIV program. Mr. Ross. Right. Ms. Burns. And the way that program is working, we believe strongly that it is essential to catch fraud and to put teeth in when we catch residents who have misled us on their income and miscertified, that there be teeth rather than just a slap on the wrist and say please pay us back when you can. Mr. Ross. So would you support Section 103, that after 2 years, if their income is in excess of 120 percent of area median income, to charge the tenant the fair market value for the housing? Ms. Burns. It seems to make sense to me. As I said, I am not a public housing person. Mr. Ross. I agree with you. Moving on. I have a good friend of mine from Florida who now lives in Atlanta, Georgia, who is head of a nonprofit organization called IMPACT! I don't know if any of you all have heard of that, but the IMPACT! Group provides housing for homeless veterans, amongst others, but they have a tremendous program that incentivizes the private sector to invest, and then they will assist not only in temporary housing but finding employment, taking part of their wages to invest in a deposit that eventually they move on to work. The company is in Gwinnett County, Georgia, and they are searching for more ways for private sector participation rather than depending on the Federal Government. And I will tell you, I think what has happened over the last few years in housing, being able to leverage private investment to create greater housing with certain guarantees of Section 8 housings and other vouchers has been a great program in order to manage and maximize the amount of housing we have out there. Since it was established in 1992, the IMPACT! Group has grown over--such that over 90 percent of the families who graduate their program remain independent of assistance a year later. My question, Mr. Merritt, to you and to anyone else is that given our type, that Federal budget environment, let's face it, we have competing interest for Federal dollars, how can local and State housing agencies leverage their assets better and find other financial tools to incentivize the private sector to invest in these types of programs? Mr. Merritt. Being an administrator of a public housing agency, we look at that sort of through the eyes of the HUD regulations and other rental assistance demonstration or something that is under way and is a way to bring in private money into the public housing system, but it also needs the public investment as well because it has been invested in for a long time and there is investment there that needs to be protected, so the capital fund program to keep things in repair is important to local public housing agencies. Mr. Ross. And furthering tax incentives for the private sector to invest should be good as well, shouldn't it? Mr. Merritt. It should. Through the low income housing tax credit system is also very important. Mr. Ross. Thank you. And I yield back. Chairman Luetkemeyer. The gentleman yields back. With that, we go to the gentleman from Delaware, Mr. Carney. He is not a member of the committee, but he has a lot of great questions today and we look forward to his insights and the information he is going to glean for us. Mr. Carney, you are recognized for 5 minutes. Mr. Carney. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and Ranking Member Cleaver. And Mr. Chairman, thank you for your kind remarks. Actually, I am here mainly to welcome to the Capitol one of my constituents, Kevin Kelly. Kevin and I have worked together over the years. He is a Delawarean, and he is the chairman of the NAHB and a real leader nationally. But he has been developing and working on housing projects for a long, long time. And a Delaware protege of one of the giants of affordable housing in our country, Leon Weiner. Welcome, Kevin. It is great to have you and your expertise here. But since I have a couple of minutes, I might ask a few questions. I had to pinch myself for a minute because there was so much agreement across the aisle here. I guess it is not surprising, frankly, given who the chairman and the ranking member of this subcommittee are, two people who are always looking to work together; and the comity that you bring to this committee is extraordinary. There has been a lot of discussion. What is interesting is we have common problems among our districts; and they all, many center around the lack of adequate resources and the scarce resources, and I wonder if, to start with you, Mr. Kelly, if you could tell us how we could more efficiently use Federal resources that are available? And I will ask Mr. Fischer and Mr. Merritt that question as well. Mr. Kelly. Thank you, Mr. Carney, for the kind words, and it has been a pleasure working with you over the years. I certainly applaud the initiative of the committee in this particular bill. We are competing in a world of very scarce resources. I think what H.R. 3700 does, is look at substance and results over process. Too many of our programs are burdened by process and not results. And I think this bill attempts to address many of those issues. Mr. Carney. I know there is some controversy over the Moving to Work Program, but it is and folks have indicated it works differently in different places. It has worked well in Delaware. It is not the be-all and end-all, but it seems to me it ought to be a piece to the point, Mr. Kelly, you are mentioning in terms of effectiveness. Mr. Kelly. I would agree. In looking at my privately owned Section 8 family portfolio, we run somewhere between 70 and 75 percent of the families in our developments are working at any one time. These families are often underemployed, and face challenges in employment. But on average, our developments run, again, they are Section 8. These are people at or below 50 percent of median income, but the vast majority of them are working. And that is a benefit, certainly. Mr. Carney. But I have the same problem frankly that I have heard from my colleagues on both sides of the aisle with respect to Section 8 waiting lists. They are just way too long. I go to a training session for mostly young women who are on TANF and one of their big complaints is that they can't get any housing assistance because they can't get a Section 8 voucher because folks aren't moving off of it. I guess part of it is we don't have enough of them. But it makes it extremely difficult for people who are moving up, we are trying to help. And give a hand up, to get that kind of assistance that they need. Mr. Kelly. Excuse me, sir. I didn't mean to interrupt. But I will tell you with our project-based elderly developments, the waiting list is approximately 5 years. From Chelton Apartments down at Wilton Route 40, to Main Towers in Newark, those waiting lists run about 5 years. They are closed at the moment. Our family developments are probably 2 to 3 years at a minimum. Obviously for families in dire need, that is an impossible-- Mr. Carney. Mr. Fischer, any solutions? Mr. Fischer. Yes, in terms of the points you just raised about helping people to move off of housing assistance and helping them move towards self-sufficiency, I think one way to do that, and it could be readily added to this bill that we are discussing today, would be improvements to the Family Self- Sufficiency Program. Senators Reid and Blunt, in the Senate, have a good bill to do that, and it has bipartisan support in House bills as well in the past. You mentioned the Moving to Work demonstration. I think you are right that it is a highly controversial issue and one that has played out differently in different places. It has resulted in some useful innovation, but it has also had harmful effects like transfers of voucher funds that resulted in fewer families getting assistance and big increases in rents for the lowest-income families. So I think if there is an expansion of that it would be really important to make really fundamental reforms that would address some of those concerns. I know Ms. Waters has a proposal that would take steps in that direction. Mr. Carney. Thank you very much. Just with the 5 seconds, we are also experiencing an issue with continuum of care where the priority is being put into rapid rehousing, and it has very negatively affected transitional programs which are really, really important. Mr. Chairman, thanks so much for allowing me some time today. Chairman Luetkemeyer. Always a pleasure. I thank the gentleman for his questions. Mr. Sherman, you were the last individual to go through round number one here. Are you ready to ask questions? If so, you will be recognized, or we can wait if you are not quite ready. You are used to popping stuff right off the top of your head, so I don't think it will be a problem for you, but I wanted to give you time in case you do need that. Mr. Sherman. Thank you. Let me first ask the representative from the Home Builders, I believe that is Mr. Kelly. Chairman Luetkemeyer. Mr. Sherman is recognized for 5 minutes. Mr. Sherman. Thank you. Mr. Kelly, I noticed in your testimony that you have discussed the flood plain management Executive Order and your concerns about how this would affect the cost and also the timeline of building new multi-family units. I particularly want to see multi-family units because the environmental footprint is so much less. The ability to then support rapid transit systems is there. I happen to live in a single-family detached house in my district, but I am an advocate for multi-family housing. Can you explain how this Executive Order will affect the timeline and the cost? Mr. Kelly. To be honest with you, we don't know. What we know is it creates enormous uncertainty. It has gone essentially from what has been the rule for decades of the 100- year flood plain to essentially what is a 500-year flood plain. In addition, various agencies are given various discretions in evaluating a project to meet the provisions of this Executive Order. So I, as a developer, now have no idea whether or not a piece of land that I may be examining to use, whether it is urban and suburban or rural areas, would come under the restrictions of this Executive Order given its proximity to a body of water. Because at the moment, nobody does 500-year flood plains. Could I get an engineer to do it at some point in time? Yes. Then I would take that information to HUD. There are no standards by which the HUD field office can evaluate my request to build in that area. And so as a developer, the question is, first, why would I want to pursue it in the first place? And second, if I was crazy enough to do so, the question then becomes when, if ever, I will get an approval out of a HUD field office to make that determination. Uncertainty, uncertainty, uncertainty. Mr. Sherman. That certainly has to discourage the construction. I would point out that while I usually fight for my district, that was a nonparochial question because I represent a city built in a desert during a drought. So that one was for the rest of the country. But, Mr. Polychron, continuing my focus on multi-family housing, we have condos. It is a good way for people to get their first home. First-time home buyers, H.R. 3700 has some provisions designed to facilitate condo sales, and those include allowing mixed-use space, streamlining the recertification of condo projects, and changing the owner occupancy requirements. How is that going to let people buy multi-family housing, and how is it going to affect people who have never owned a home and want to own one? Mr. Polychron. Congressman Sherman, thank you for the question. I kind of answered the first two right before you got here, so if you would let me, I would like to go into the 25 percent commercial rule which certainly is in H.R. 3700. And thank you for that, sir. Because if you think about, especially in urban areas where you have a beautiful, let's just call it a 200-unit building, and all of a sudden you want to have commercial space on the ground floor and maybe office space on the next two or three floors, if you have the 25 percent cap, you cannot do that building. So we certainly think this is a tremendous opportunity to expand housing for condominiums in that manner. The private transfer fees are something else that have prohibited additional opportunities in condominium financing. First, you should know that NAR is opposed to any equity stripping type private transfer that might exist. We have always opposed that. Mr. Sherman. And I have joined you in that often. Mr. Polychron. Certainly. Mr. Sherman. As have several here. Mr. Polychron. But if that transfer fee benefits or improves that development or that project, we certainly think it ought to be, as if FHFA, be allowed to be part of the process. So thank you for that opportunity. Mr. Sherman. We have seen a number of these ``live, work, shop'' developments, mixed-use. They make a lot of sense. It is the only chance somebody will have to cut their commuting time and their commuting environmental footprint. You could sometimes, if you are lucky, commute to work on the elevator. So I think it makes sense for us to modernize these rules and allow the mixed-use buildings. Do you have one last comment? Mr. Polychron. If you will allow me sir, the towncenter concept is what HUD has been promoting, and yet we restrict it by making the 25 percent rule, so hopefully we will get this passed, and certainly you will have our help. Mr. Sherman. I want to commend the author of H.R. 3700. I know there are some provisions on Section 8 that will still have to be worked out, and I look forward to working to get this bill on the Floor of the House. I yield back. Chairman Luetkemeyer. I thank the gentleman for his comments, and his time has expired. I am going to do a quick second round of questions here, and I will begin with myself. I will follow up with you, Mr. Polychron, with regards to condos and home ownership. I just had a conversation last week with a housing authority owner in England, and he had a little bit of a different problem there. They have almost--he used the figure of 15 to 17 percent, public housing. And they are trying to over the last number of years shift a lot of that public housing to the private sector, in other words, allow people who are in their homes to find a way to own the home. I think in your testimony, Mr. Polychron, you indicate that the average condo cost, national average is 27 percent less than what a home is. So it seems to me it would follow that it would be a logical way for people to get into that first home and be able to get them to perhaps be able to rent it and then be able to get into some sort of a lease/purchase arrangement to be able to own property to allow some inflation in it to then be able to move on to another one. It seemed like a natural progression. I know that the English have figured out a way to get this done. I am wondering if you have any comments on something like that. I would like to work with you to come up with some ideas. This isn't in this bill, but I think it is something we need to take a look at it somewhere down the road. I know we have tried to enhance FHA's ability to expand and to begin to loan more money and look more favorably on condos, and I would like your thoughts on it. Mr. Polychron. They moved it from 234 to 203B years ago in order to expand financing in condominiums. Yet we haven't had any relaxation of the rule since just a little bit in 2012. If you look at it from another perspective, it is 27 percent cheaper in condominium pricing as far as single-family homes. But also, that a downpayment, which people sometimes have to save for 3 or 4 years to make, becomes less of a burden when you do condominium financing versus single-family home. So that, too, would add to it. We know that not only first-time home buyers, but seniors who are downsizing and going into condo financing, their permanent home so they can use FHA, but only 4.2 percent of the portfolio is being used for condominiums at this time. It is certainly a market that we would love to work with to expand that number. Chairman Luetkemeyer. I appreciate your comments. I know you also had a comment in your testimony with regards to electronic filing system being improved for the certification process? Mr. Polychron. Yes. It just doesn't make sense, especially in a smaller community where you don't have a manager running that development, to where you have to submit totally from scratch again every 2 years. And it is really an 18-month process because it takes 6 months to get it approved. So basically, we would like to see the 2-year extended to perhaps 3 or 4 years--that doesn't sound right--whatever we could get. Chairman Luetkemeyer. You have a wish list. That is fine. Mr. Polychron. But seriously, it is such a burden and cost as well to get that done. And what happens is that it is so time-consuming that the small HOA or POA just says, oh, to heck with it, there is a 60 percent decline rate anyway. I won't take the time to do it. Chairman Luetkemeyer. One of the problems is it is mainly done, and HUD for their FHA program is looking for some more money for the electronic across-the-board, electronic opportunities, and that hasn't been forthcoming, so it is a problem. I recognize it. But I appreciated the comment that you made. I am going to stop right there. The gentleman from Delaware, do you have any follow-up? I will recognize you for 5 minutes. Mr. Carney. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I actually do have a quick follow-up question. I mentioned at the very end the Continuum of Care grant and the priority or bias if you will towards what they call rapid permanent rehousing. Is there anybody on the panel who could--apparently there is a priority given in States for permanent housing, and the effect on my little State of Delaware has been to end up defunding very important transitional housing programs, where somebody who is homeless, has some of the issues that homeless folks do with drug addiction and substance abuse and family issues, comes into transitional housing, kind of gets things sorted out, and then kind of moves to the next step. The bias now is to the development of get somebody in a home permanently and then work on those--or allow them to work on those problems. The effect is a funding one, right, ultimately; but I would just be interested in anybody who has a perspective on that? Ms. Craig. I am a past Chair of the Continuum of Care in Jackson County and have reallocated transitional programs to rapid rehousing and also operate transitional housing programs. I am not familiar with Delaware's operation, so when you said ``defunded,'' I am not sure if that meant the continuum did not put that program in either Tier 1, where they would be funded, or if there was a reallocation process whereby voluntarily the program, as I had in one of my transitional programs, opted to reallocate from a transitional program into a rapid rehousing program. Mr. Carney. The effect of the scoring process meant that the transitional program lost $300,000 of support that they were getting, Ministry of Caring--Kevin knows our folks very well--to a program. It was doing great work. Again, we are talking about a world of scarce resources, and they have to go somewhere, and they went to a place where there was more permanent housing. It didn't have any of the transitional substance abuse programs that go along with it. So some of that happens at the local level where they have the committee, but they argue that priority is coming down from the Fed on that. And I see somebody--I can't read your name. Ms. Bradley-Geary. It is Heather Bradley-Geary. Sorry. I feel very passionate about this subject. Mr. Carney. So do I. Ms. Bradley-Geary. Yes. And we have different feelings on the passion of it. Transitional housing, although I am not saying the program isn't great because it probably is, but the data does not support transitional housing. So a long time ago, HUD had transitional housing as one of their funding priorities, that somebody could be in housing for 24 months, but then they move on, as you are saying. The data does not support it. It does not work. Mr. Carney. This goes back to the question that we had before about Moving to Work. Maybe it doesn't work everywhere, but there are places where things work differently. We like to think we are different in Delaware. We are. We are a small State. We are a manageable State, and in that sense we can count the people, okay, and where they have gone and whatever. We are that small. We are one district. I am it. I am the one guy we get down here or the one person that we get down here. And so, the effect has been some significant problems for some of the most effective programs that we have in dealing with homeless populations. Ms. Gawrilow. Sir, if I may? Mr. Carney. Sure. Jump in, particularly if you are on my side of the question. Ms. Gawrilow. I might have a different view as well. But HUD has been pushing COCs, Continuum of Cares, to do increased rapid rehousing, for multiple populations, because there simply aren't enough resources, there are not enough beds in emergency shelters, there is not enough supported housing for higher-need populations. And what has happened is then a conversion to rapid rehousing programs, and as Heather said, HUD right now has done a study on the differences of comparing transitional housing outcomes, rapid rehousing outcomes, and permanent subsidies for homeless families, and the outcomes between transitional housing and permanent subsidies for families, it is incredible. The difference in the outcomes, the well-being outcomes for the families, is so much better in permanent housing than in the transitional housing and it is cheaper. And that kind of--HUD has been rethinking this, but that is not to say that there aren't--different markets are going to need different, have different housing needs. And permanent supportive housing doesn't mean a person has to stay there permanently. Ideally, they would not. They would address their underlying issues and then eventually be able to move on to an independent living situation. But the housing-- Mr. Carney. My time is way up. Ms. Gawrilow. Sorry. Chairman Luetkemeyer. Go ahead and finish. Ms. Gawrilow. Oh, I was just going to say, the housing is supposed to be made permanent so people who are in crisis come in and get the supportive services they need, and that system is going to be so much cheaper, to the emergency health systems, to the criminal justice, the jail system, and to detox centers. Ms. Craig. May I just say one more thing? I am so sorry. Continuum of Care has been brought up a lot lately, and this is a time of major changes, and you have probably read that Continuum of Care was unheard of before in many times in many places that programs were being defunded. So I think everybody over the past 3 years is really trying to figure out how this is going to work nationwide as well as within our communities. So we all are trying to do a much better job of prioritizing, communicating within our communities, doing it well in advance of the NOFA, which you should not when the funding comes down. So I will say there certainly have been probably any number of cases where that hasn't been handled appropriately. It is correct that per capita there almost is nothing more expensive short of group homes than transitional housing. It is very appropriate for certain populations, very appropriate in many ways. We would have sat here 10 years ago and what you would have heard is that HUD's preference was for transitional housing over permanent housing. I happened to raise $4 million to renovate 24 units of family transitional housing 8 years ago because I thought that was a good idea. Luckily, now I am able to use them for vets. So my point is, it goes back to that larger question about prioritization. And so let me just share with you very quickly, in one year in the two traditional HUD transitional family programs I operated, I had 88 families enter. Of those 88 families, 56 were not street or shelter homeless. They came from living with their families. Well, doubled up is not comfortable--I understand that--but it isn't the same. And I also would say when I have folks who are trying to get vouchers from the Housing Authority come to my program and want homeless letters, they are living with their family. And I understand that is uncomfortable, but I can't give you a homeless letter. But I asked my staff, of those 56 families who came from living with family or friends, did we ask them if they had other resources that we could exercise with them so they didn't have to come into shelter, and we could make sure that we were prioritizing those spaces for families who were in fact street and shelter homeless because there aren't enough resources. We all are-- Mr. Carney. Mr. Chairman, thank you so much. I am way over, and I am not even on the committee. God bless you. Ms. Craig. Sorry. Chairman Luetkemeyer. That is okay. That was a great question and was a great answer, and I appreciate your passion. With that, Mr. Cleaver has waived a second round of questioning, so with that we would like to thank our witnesses for their testimony today. We certainly appreciate your expertise, your advice, your counsel, and your passion for all of these issues and for all the help that you have given us in developing the bill, for your ideas of improving the bill today. And we want to continue to work with each of you and your groups that you represent to try and continue to make this the best bill and the best opportunity we have to pass something. It is going to make a difference in the lives of a lot of people. The Chair notes that some Members may have additional questions for this panel, which they may wish to submit in writing. Without objection, the hearing record will remain open for 5 legislative days for Members to submit written questions to these witnesses and to place their responses in the record. Also, without objection, Members will have 5 legislative days to submit extraneous materials to the Chair for inclusion in the record. [Whereupon, at 4:18 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.] A P P E N D I X October 21, 2015 [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT] [all]