[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]