    [House Hearing, 117 Congress]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

                           UNIVERSAL VOUCHERS: ENDING

                           HOMELESSNESS AND EXPANDING

                        ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY IN AMERICA

    =======================================================================

                                VIRTUAL HEARING

                                   BEFORE THE

                        COMMITTEE ON FINANCIAL SERVICES

                         U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                        ONE HUNDRED SEVENTEENTH CONGRESS

                                 FIRST SESSION

                                   __________

                                  JUNE 9, 2021

                                   __________

           Printed for the use of the Committee on Financial Services

                               Serial No. 117-29

     [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                                ______

                 U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
    45-253 PDF            WASHINGTON : 2021

                     HOUSE COMMITTEE ON FINANCIAL SERVICES

                     MAXINE WATERS, California, Chairwoman

    CAROLYN B. MALONEY, New York         PATRICK McHENRY, North Carolina,
    NYDIA M. VELAZQUEZ, New York             Ranking Member
    BRAD SHERMAN, California             FRANK D. LUCAS, Oklahoma
    GREGORY W. MEEKS, New York           PETE SESSIONS, Texas
    DAVID SCOTT, Georgia                 BILL POSEY, Florida
    AL GREEN, Texas                      BLAINE LUETKEMEYER, Missouri
    EMANUEL CLEAVER, Missouri            BILL HUIZENGA, Michigan
    ED PERLMUTTER, Colorado              ANN WAGNER, Missouri
    JIM A. HIMES, Connecticut            ANDY BARR, Kentucky
    BILL FOSTER, Illinois                ROGER WILLIAMS, Texas
    JOYCE BEATTY, Ohio                   FRENCH HILL, Arkansas
    JUAN VARGAS, California              TOM EMMER, Minnesota
    JOSH GOTTHEIMER, New Jersey          LEE M. ZELDIN, New York
    VICENTE GONZALEZ, Texas              BARRY LOUDERMILK, Georgia
    AL LAWSON, Florida                   ALEXANDER X. MOONEY, West Virginia
    MICHAEL SAN NICOLAS, Guam            WARREN DAVIDSON, Ohio
    CINDY AXNE, Iowa                     TED BUDD, North Carolina
    SEAN CASTEN, Illinois                DAVID KUSTOFF, Tennessee
    AYANNA PRESSLEY, Massachusetts       TREY HOLLINGSWORTH, Indiana
    RITCHIE TORRES, New York             ANTHONY GONZALEZ, Ohio
    STEPHEN F. LYNCH, Massachusetts      JOHN ROSE, Tennessee
    ALMA ADAMS, North Carolina           BRYAN STEIL, Wisconsin
    RASHIDA TLAIB, Michigan              LANCE GOODEN, Texas
    MADELEINE DEAN, Pennsylvania         WILLIAM TIMMONS, South Carolina
    ALEXANDRIA OCASIO-CORTEZ, New York   VAN TAYLOR, Texas
    JESUS ``CHUY'' GARCIA, Illinois
    SYLVIA GARCIA, Texas
    NIKEMA WILLIAMS, Georgia
    JAKE AUCHINCLOSS, Massachusetts

                       Charla Ouertatani, Staff Director

                                C O N T E N T S

                                  ----------
                                                                       Page
    Hearing held on:
        June 9, 2021.................................................     1
    Appendix:
        June 9, 2021.................................................    59

                                   WITNESSES
                            Wednesday, June 9, 2021

    Al-Mansour, Chancela, Executive Director, Housing Rights Center..     9
    Cunningham, Mary, Senior Fellow and Vice President, Metropolitan
      Housing and Communities, Urban Institute.......................     6
    Husock, Howard, Adjunct Scholar, Domestic Policy, American
      Enterprise Institute...........................................    11
    Metcalf, Ben, Managing Director, Terner Center for Housing
      Innovation, University of California, Berkeley.................     7
    Oliva, Ann, Senior Fellow, Center on Budget and Policy Priorities     4

                                    APPENDIX

    Prepared statements:
        Al-Mansour, Chancela.........................................    60
        Cunningham, Mary.............................................    65
        Husock, Howard...............................................    74
        Metcalf, Ben.................................................    78
        Oliva, Ann...................................................    94

                  Additional Material Submitted for the Record

    Garcia, Hon. Sylvia:
        Written responses to questions for the record from Ben
          Metcalf....................................................   108

                           UNIVERSAL VOUCHERS: ENDING

                           HOMELESSNESS AND EXPANDING

                        ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY IN AMERICA

                                  ----------

                            Wednesday, June 9, 2021

                 U.S. House of Representatives,
                       Committee on Financial Services,
                                                       Washington, D.C.
        The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 12:19 p.m., via
    Webex, Hon. Maxine Waters [chairwoman of the committee]
    presiding.
        Members present: Representatives Waters, Maloney, Sherman,
    Scott, Green, Cleaver, Perlmutter, Himes, Foster, Vargas,
    Gottheimer, Gonzalez of Texas, Lawson, Axne, Casten, Pressley,
    Torres, Adams, Tlaib, Dean, Garcia of Illinois, Garcia of
    Texas, Williams of Georgia, Auchincloss; McHenry, Lucas, Posey,
    Luetkemeyer, Huizenga, Wagner, Barr, Williams of Texas, Hill,
    Emmer, Zeldin, Davidson, Kustoff, Rose, Steil, and Gooden.
        Mr. Cleaver. [presiding]. The Financial Services Committee
    will come to order.
        Without objection, the Chair is authorized to declare a
    recess of the committee at any time.
        As a reminder, I ask all Members to keep themselves muted
    when they are not being recognized by the Chair. The staff has
    been instructed not to mute Members, except when a Member is
    not being recognized by the Chair and there is inadvertent
    background noise.
        Members are also reminded that they may only participate in
    one remote proceeding at a time. If you are participating
    today, please keep your camera on. If you choose to attend a
    different remote proceeding, please turn your camera off.
        Before we begin, I will recognize myself to call up the
    resolution offered by Ranking Member McHenry naming a new
    subcommittee ranking member and subcommittee membership. Copies
    of the resolution were made available in advance.
        Without objection, the resolution is adopted.
        Today's hearing is entitled, ``Universal Vouchers: Ending
    Homelessness and Expanding Economic Opportunity in America.''
        And we are very fortunate to have some excellent witnesses
    with us today.
        I now recognize myself for an opening statement, and then
    when Chairwoman Waters is available, she will perhaps add some
    opening comments.
        I would like to thank her, and also Ranking Member McHenry,
    for this important hearing. Today's discussion comes at a time
    when, on any given night in this enormously wealthy nation,
    hundreds of thousands of Americans are without a home, and
    millions more live in fear that their family may end up
    homeless in the near future. Through your leadership,
    Chairwoman Waters, even the most vulnerable among us, those who
    also depend on their Congress to find solutions to the great
    challenges in this nation, continue to have representation in
    these halls.
        And I am proud to join Chairwoman Waters and the
    distinguished gentleman from New York, Mr. Torres, in proposing
    the Ending Homelessness Act of 2021, which would make Housing
    Choice Vouchers an entitlement for those who qualify, and would
    ban landlords from discriminating against voucher holders,
    including banning discrimination based on source-of-income and
    veteran status. Rigorous research continues to demonstrate that
    vouchers sharply reduce homelessness, housing instability, and
    overcrowding, and would better prepare the nation to handle the
    next health or economic crisis.
        Finally, I would also like to congratulate my colleague,
    Congressman French Hill, whom I have enjoyed working with in
    the past, on receiving the confidence to assume the role of
    ranking member of our Housing Subcommittee.
        I look forward to what we can continue to accomplish under
    your leadership, Madam Chairwoman, and also Mr. McHenry's. We
    look forward to bringing a number of areas of agreement to this
    committee in the future. I will now introduce our witnesses.
        Mr. McHenry. Mr. Chairman, traditionally, the ranking
    member is recognized for an opening statement at this point.
        Mr. Cleaver. Yes, and as I told you, there would be
    stumbles, because I am just getting to that, and thank you for
    reminding me.
        The Chair recognizes the ranking member of the committee,
    Mr. McHenry from North Carolina.
        Mr. McHenry. Chairman Cleaver, thank you, and thank you for
    handling adeptly what you have been thrown into here late in
    the game. But thank you for starting the hearing.
        Frankly, today's hearing is about creating a brand-new,
    massive, open-ended Federal entitlement program for
    ``universal'' housing vouchers. We should be focused on the
    immediate needs of the economy, like the 9.3 million job
    openings that were unfilled this month and the record 4 million
    workers who quit their jobs in April.
        But, rather, we are going to focus on fulfilling a
    progressive priority that would result in the largest expansion
    of the Department of Housing and Urban Development in its
    entire history. Under this proposal, an additional 14 million-
    plus households could qualify for the Housing Choice Voucher
    Program based on their income status alone, which means the
    cost would jump from $25 billion to $185 billion per year. Now,
    it is important to note that $185 billion is nearly 2\1/2\
    times the entire annual cost of the Department of Homeland
    Security. To be clear, creating a universal housing voucher
    entitlement does nothing to increase the supply of rental
    housing. This means that skyrocketing demand, in already-
    expensive markets, would drive rental prices higher and make
    affordable units less available.
        It is ironic that we are here today to discuss another bad
    Democrat housing proposal when we really need to be focused on
    cleaning up the Biden Administration's latest mess. Last
    Congress, we came together to approve $25 billion to repay
    renters' back rent debts. That money was specifically
    designated to make sure no renter would be faced with a
    pandemic-related eviction through no fault of their own.
        Before that money was even out the door, Democrats pushed
    through another $21.6 billion in rental assistance as a part of
    the partisan American Rescue Plan. Now, nearly 6 months after
    the first tranche of funding was enacted, the Treasury
    Department cannot tell us if anyone has actually had their back
    rent debts paid off. The Treasury's exact response when I asked
    last month? ``We will provide this data as soon as
    practicable.'' Let me translate: They have no clue where that
    $46.6 billion in aid is, or how it is being used. This is an
    abject failure by the Biden Administration.
        I am sure I don't need to remind my colleagues across the
    aisle that we have a deadline. The Federal eviction moratorium
    will end this month. If this aid is not delivered to renters,
    they could become homeless, and instead of addressing this
    looming crisis today, we are talking about a long-held
    progressive priority that will do nothing to help renters, and
    this is mismanagement at the highest levels.
        But as we saw last week when Securities and Exchange
    Commission Chair Gensler decided to simply remove the head of
    the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (PCAOB),
    mismanagement seems to be a trend in Democrat-run Washington.
    When you have full partisan control of the House and the
    Senate, and the White House is in Democrat hands, this is the
    type of mismanagement we are seeing.
        Committee Republicans will be introducing a bill to at
    least end mismanagement of the Emergency Rental Assistance
    Program. This bill will get the money out the door as soon as
    possible and make sure that all $46 billion is used to settle
    back rent debts and protect renters facing eviction. This idea
    is simple, bipartisan, commonsense, and holds government
    accountable, and we are going to be serious about the rental
    assistance needs of the American people. And this bill is a
    strong start to doing that, not with another bad Democrat
    policy that we will be back here trying to fix in a year.
        I yield back.
        Mr. Cleaver. Thank you, Mr. McHenry.
        Chairwoman Waters. Thank you very much, Mr. Cleaver, for
    stepping in and proceeding with our hearing. Unfortunately, we
    got caught in a very difficult situation and could not get
    here, but let us proceed and let us go on. Now that the ranking
    member has spoken--
        Mr. Cleaver. Mr. Hill has 1 minute.
        Chairwoman Waters. Mr. Hill of Arkansas is recognized for 1
    minute. Thank you.
        Mr. Hill. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. Regarding the idea
    of universal entitlement vouchers, clearly this idea is not
    well-timed or even well-considered, as it wasn't even proposed
    by Secretary Fudge in her enormous 2022 HUD budget. But the
    main issue of the day, to the here and now, is that the
    Treasury has no idea where the total of $46 billion in rental
    assistance is, or how it is being spent. If that is not a
    perfect example of poor governance and oversight, I am not sure
    what is. I can tell you, in my home State of Arkansas, of the
    $200 million allocated by Congress in the December
    appropriations on a bipartisan basis, a mere $18,500 has
    actually been paid out to landlords. And to make it worse, the
    program wasn't even operational until just a few days ago, at
    the beginning of June.
        I look forward to working with my Republican colleagues to
    help get the rental assistance into the hands of the American
    people who need it most.
        I yield back, Madam Chairwoman.
        Chairwoman Waters. I want to welcome today's distinguished
    witnesses to the committee: Ms. Ann Oliva, senior fellow at the
    Center on Budget and Policy Priorities; Ms. Mary Cunningham,
    vice president of metropolitan housing and communities at the
    Urban Institute; Mr. Ben Metcalf, managing director of the
    Terner Center for Housing Innovation at the University of
    California, Berkeley; Ms. Chancela Al-Mansour, executive
    director of the Housing Rights Center; and Mr. Howard Husock,
    an adjunct scholar for domestic policy at the American
    Enterprise Institute.
        Each of you will have 5 minutes to summarize your
    testimony. You should be able to see a timer on your screen
    that will indicate how much time you have left, and a chime
    will go off at the end of your time. I would ask you to be
    mindful of the timer, and quickly wrap up your testimony if you
    hear the chime. Also, without objection, your written
    statements will be made a part of the record.
        Ms. Oliva, you are now recognized for 5 minutes to present
    your oral testimony.

      STATEMENT OF ANN OLIVA, SENIOR FELLOW, CENTER ON BUDGET AND
                           POLICY PRIORITIES

        Ms. Oliva. Chairwoman Waters, Ranking Member McHenry, my
    name is Ann Oliva, and I am a senior fellow at the Center on
    Budget and Policy Priorities. Thank you for the opportunity to
    testify. I commend the chairwoman for convening this important
    hearing and for her continued leadership on homelessness. The
    Ending Homelessness Act of 2021, introduced by the chairwoman,
    as well as Representatives Cleaver and Torres, would foster
    stronger communities and, inarguably, improve the lives of
    people who are struggling to secure affordable housing.
        The nation is experiencing a homelessness crisis that
    predates the pandemic. In 2020, 30 States saw a rise in
    homelessness, and for the first time since we started gathering
    this data, the number of individuals living on the streets
    exceeded the number of individuals living in shelters. Without
    a significant Federal investment in affordable housing, these
    conditions will only worsen and continue to cause harm to the
    people who feel this crisis most acutely. Expanding the Housing
    Choice Voucher Program to assist all eligible households is the
    most important and effective step Congress can take to address
    this crisis.
        While the chairwoman's bill is the most comprehensive
    option, Congress should also enact the President's proposed
    Fiscal Year 2022 voucher funding increase, and include a large-
    scale, multi-year voucher expansion in the upcoming recovery
    legislation. Both of these investments are urgently needed
    since vouchers are available for just 1 in 4 eligible
    households.
        And while the housing investments in the American Jobs Plan
    are significant, less than 1 percent of the funding dedicated
    to housing was allocated to expanding rental assistance. Unless
    a household also receives rental assistance, construction
    subsidies rarely produce housing with rents that are affordable
    for households with incomes around or below the poverty line.
    So in order to make a significant reduction in homelessness,
    Congress must address this imbalance and fund more vouchers in
    the Recovery Plan.
        HUD reports that more than 580,000 people experienced
    homelessness on a single night in January of 2020, and that
    nearly 1\1/2\ million people experienced sheltered homelessness
    at some time in 2018. And while that tells you how many people
    are experiencing homelessness, I want to take a moment to
    describe who is experiencing homelessness. People of color are
    disproportionately impacted. Families are typically headed by
    women and include a high percentage of young children.
    Seventeen percent of all family households are headed by a
    young parent aged 18 to 24, and more than 113,000 unaccompanied
    youth stayed in a shelter or transitional bed in a year. There
    are more than 37,000 homeless veterans, and more than 110,000
    people who are chronically homeless, and people experiencing
    homelessness often work and still cannot afford housing.
        The health and economic impact of the COVID-19 pandemic,
    which has also disproportionately impacted communities of
    color, has only made the situation more dire, and it is clear
    that homeless assistance systems cannot end homelessness alone.
    We must take a comprehensive approach to address housing
    affordability and do so at every opportunity we have, including
    in the upcoming recovery package.
        To prepare for this hearing, I met with people who have
    experienced homelessness. Several told me about waiting in
    shelters for months or more than a year for a voucher or never
    receiving one at all. They said providing more vouchers will
    have the greatest impact on people experiencing homelessness,
    and that they also want Congress to address challenges faced by
    voucher holders in the housing market. Every day, frontline
    staff in homeless systems are required to make devastating
    choices about who will get the help they need. Is a young
    person who is being trafficked in exchange for a place to sleep
    more in need than a person with a serious mental illness living
    on the streets, or a family with young children living in their
    car?
        With an expansion of Housing Choice vouchers, we can have a
    different system. Imagine a system that, instead of being
    forced to prioritize people based on how sick or in danger they
    are, can quickly offer a homeless family, youth, or individual
    a permanent housing option. Imagine a system where outreach to
    people living on the streets is more than an offer of a
    blanket, a bottle of water, or a granola bar, but has a real
    housing option attached. If long-term, guaranteed funding was
    provided for Housing Choice Vouchers, the effects would be
    enormous. Providing a voucher to all eligible households would
    lift 9.3 million people above the poverty line, and these
    benefits would be greatest among people of color.
        Congress can take a step towards this vision by ensuring
    that significant multi-year voucher funding is included in the
    Economic Recovery Plan and by passing the Ending Homelessness
    Act of 2021. Thank you, and I look forward to answering your
    questions.
        [The prepared statement of Ms. Oliva can be found on page
    94 of the appendix.]
        Chairwoman Waters. Thank you very much.
        Ms. Cunningham, you are now recognized for 5 minutes to
    present your oral testimony.

    STATEMENT OF MARY CUNNINGHAM, SENIOR FELLOW AND VICE PRESIDENT,
         METROPOLITAN HOUSING AND COMMUNITIES, URBAN INSTITUTE

        Ms. Cunningham. Chairwoman Waters, Ranking Member McHenry,
    and members of the committee, thank you for the opportunity to
    be here today. My name is Mary Cunningham. I am a senior fellow
    and vice president for the Metropolitan Housing Communities
    Center at the Urban Institute. The views expressed here are my
    own, not those of the Urban Institute, its trustees, or its
    funders.
        When the pandemic hit in March 2020, the United States had
    already been grappling with a severe and enduring affordable
    housing and homelessness crisis. Approximately 580,000 people
    were experiencing homelessness on any given night, and nearly
    11 million renters were severely cost-burdened. This crisis
    disproportionately impacts people of color, particularly Black
    and Latinx communities. The housing safety net was unprepared
    to respond to the urgent needs of the pandemic, a public health
    crisis, layered on top of a housing crisis. The lack of stable
    housing for many caused immense human suffering and lives lost,
    but also put the rest of the country at risk by reducing
    people's ability to socially distance in place and increasing
    transmission rates.
        Congress responded with billions of dollars in emergency
    housing assistance, but States and localities are rushing and
    working overtime to distribute these funds before the CDC
    eviction moratorium expires in 21 days. Last month, an
    estimated 7 million renters were still behind on their rent,
    and about 3 million people reported a likelihood of facing
    eviction. We are facing a mass eviction crisis and significant
    increases in homelessness, but we already have a system for
    helping low-income renters, the Federal Housing Choice Voucher
    Program. If housing assistance was available to everyone who
    qualified before the pandemic, families could have more easily
    navigated a sudden job loss, and landlords could have
    consistently covered their expenses. The program would provide
    social insurance against exactly the type of problem the
    country is facing right now. It is time that we reinforce a
    housing safety net by adopting universal housing vouchers to
    provide assistance to everyone who needs it.
        Using our analysis of transfer taxes and income security
    tool, we modeled expanding the Housing Choice Voucher Program
    to everyone who is currently eligible. We found that this
    expansion would cover an additional 19.7 million people and 8.2
    million households. The average household subsidy cost for new
    recipients would be $628 per month, or about $7,500 per year.
    The total cost annually for expansion would be $62 billion per
    year.
        Expanding housing assistance to all those who qualify would
    have sweeping and far-reaching benefits. Homelessness would be
    rare, and if it occurred, it would be brief. Universal vouchers
    could reduce poverty and close racial disparities in housing
    and homelessness. Implementation will need to be closely
    monitored, but the housing market would likely absorb a
    significant expansion of vouchers and would benefit landlords.
    Implementation of a major voucher expansion will matter, and we
    can optimize the program to ensure that all participants
    benefit by: first, targeting new vouchers to those who are most
    vulnerable; and second, including source-of-income protections
    and adopting small area fair market rents; and third, providing
    housing search assistance and navigation assistance.
        Finally, a significant investment in housing vouchers
    should be a component of a comprehensive housing strategy that
    includes incentives for land use and zoning reform at the local
    and State levels, and investments in the development of new
    affordable units. The pandemic is first a health crisis, but
    the remedy to curtail transmission relied heavily on social
    distancing and staying home, reminding us of the importance of
    housing.
        Unfortunately, the country's housing infrastructure and
    safety net have long been neglected and stressed beyond
    measure, leaving far too many people unprotected. We have long
    lived with the shame of homelessness and serial evictions, and
    I hope we see now the devastating impacts of continued
    disinvestment in housing. As vaccination rates rise and the
    country begins to return to normal, we have an opportunity to
    redefine that normal. Let's not make homelessness a part of our
    future.
        Research clearly shows that the adoption of universal
    housing vouchers could bring significant and far-reaching
    benefits, and it is for these reasons that I support universal
    adoption. I appreciate the opportunity to be here today, and I
    look forward to answering your questions.
        [The prepared statement of Ms. Cunningham can be found on
    page 65 of the appendix.]
        Chairwoman Waters. Thank you very much, Ms. Cunningham.
        Mr. Metcalf, you are now recognized for 5 minutes to
    present your oral testimony.

    STATEMENT OF BEN METCALF, MANAGING DIRECTOR, TERNER CENTER FOR
         HOUSING INNOVATION, UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, BERKELEY

        Mr. Metcalf. Chairwoman Waters, Ranking Member McHenry, and
    members of the committee, I am pleased to join you today. My
    name is Ben Metcalf, and I am the managing director of the
    Terner Center for Housing Innovation. I also speak today from
    the perspective of having run the State of California's Housing
    Department and from having overseen multi-family housing
    programs for HUD in the Obama Administration.
        First, let me affirm what we have already heard today.
    Wages for those below the income have not kept pace with rising
    housing costs. We see growing numbers of households with
    limited ability to afford food, healthcare, children's
    education, or saving for retirement. This is true nationally.
    It is particularly true for California, where I call home,
    which sits at the bleeding edge of the nation's housing
    challenges. Even during the pandemic, when housing costs were
    dropping nationally, California renters were still seeing a 12-
    percent increase in average rent prices.
        The housing crisis is also translating into a growing
    homelessness crisis: 2020 marked the 4th consecutive year
    homelessness rose, with the growth entirely in the unsheltered
    population. And in addition to the toll on individuals and
    families, rising housing costs in economically-productive areas
    of this country do negatively impact employment growth and
    productivity. By one estimate, it may be as much as to $1.6
    trillion a year that is lost in wages and productivity from
    this housing crisis.
        The answer to all of these challenges is clearly an
    expansion of Federal housing assistance through supply-side
    subsidies. These investments work. The research shows it.
    Individuals with rental assistance are less likely to
    experience homelessness, housing instability, or unsafe housing
    conditions, and they invest in their own economic mobility as
    well as that of their children. Housing vouchers, in
    particular, serve the most vulnerable in our society, and they
    give their recipients a unique ability to choose the kinds of
    housing and locations that best meet their needs.
        Furthermore, vouchers do already serve as an important
    complement to the resources that local and State Governments
    use to build more housing. As an example, in 2017, California
    enacted No Place Like Home, a $2 billion bond-funded program to
    help construct new permanent supportive housing for formerly-
    homeless individuals. But without available adequate Federal
    vouchers, the State was compelled to use those funds to build
    fewer units than would have otherwise been possible because of
    the requirement to capitalize large operating subsidy reserves.
    The upshot was that local funds that could have been used to
    build more housing sit idle in project bank accounts as
    operating reserves.
        Universal voucher expansion, therefore, does offer
    transformative benefits to these various housing and social
    challenges, but I would offer that to maximize that increased
    investment into the voucher program, some reforms are
    recommended.
        Let me identify five in particular. First, we need to
    accelerate the deployment of known fixes to the voucher
    program. This includes updating HUD's process for setting fair
    market rents, making the current physical inspection program
    easier to use for owners, making it harder to directly or
    indirectly discriminate against voucher holders who seek to
    rent housing, and investing heavily in renter counseling and
    landlord outreach.
        Second, it should go without saying that any incremental
    new voucher should be prioritized for those most-vulnerable
    households. We have seen the incredible benefits that accrue to
    formerly-homeless individuals or other extremely low incomes
    when they access these vouchers, and this can be done in
    alignment with State and local housing priorities.
        Third, I would suggest that this expansion should be
    accompanied with a targeted renter's tax credit for those who
    are approaching a phase-out in eligibility. A targeted tax
    credit would ensure that expanded assistance avoids either the
    challenges of a subsidy cliff or asset limits where renters
    lose their assistance if their income goes too high.
        Fourth, we do need to mandate capacity standards for the
    voucher-administering entities, and enable newer vouchers to be
    administered by the same entities that currently oversee State
    and local affordable housing programs whenever possible. The
    current system requires HUD to work through thousands of
    voucher-administering public housing authorities (PHAs) with
    various capacity. In addition, PHAs often sit outside of the
    mainstream of the affordable housing capital delivery
    structure. HUD should have the flexibility to allocate new
    vouchers to States, regional governments, or other non-
    traditional entities.
        And fifth, and most importantly, we do need to pair
    vouchers with a robust production-oriented strategy. This
    requires the Federal Government to work constructively with
    local governments to eliminate exclusionary zoning and harmful
    land use policies, as has been proposed under the President's
    jobs plan. It also requires a larger share of those new housing
    vouchers to be projected based into new rental housing
    communities. For traditional affordable housing, additional
    debt for project-based vouchers is used to close funding gaps,
    but an expanded voucher program should also be used to spur
    market rate construction, pairing new vouchers with expanded
    Federal investments into programs used by market rate
    developers.
        In summary, for these reasons I support expansion of the
    voucher program and I encourage the committee to consider some
    of the program reforms that I have mentioned. Thank you.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Metcalf can be found on page
    78 of the appendix.]
        Chairwoman Waters. Thank you, Mr. Metcalf.
        Ms. Al-Mansour, you are now recognized for 5 minutes to
    present your oral testimony.

     STATEMENT OF CHANCELA AL-MANSOUR, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, HOUSING
                             RIGHTS CENTER

        Ms. Al-Mansour. Hello, and thank you. I want to thank you
    for the opportunity to address the important issue of
    homelessness in America and, in particular, the universal
    voucher program and its capacity to end homelessness and to
    expand economic opportunity in America, and also to express the
    importance of the Ending Homelessness Act that was raised by
    the Honorable Chairwoman Maxine Waters. And if I have time, I
    would like to address one of the earlier issues that was raised
    about the Emergency Rental Assistance Program, which I know
    something about, so I will try to speak rather quickly.
        I am Chancela Al-Mansour. For the past 10 years, I have
    served as executive director of the Housing Rights Center.
    Before joining the Housing Rights Center, I was a legal aid
    attorney for 18 years. I was involved in the Homelessness
    Prevention and Rapid Recovery Housing Project of 2009 that was
    used to address the previous economic fallout. I also serve on
    the boards of the California Reinvestment Coalition and the
    National Fair Housing Alliance, and I am very much involved in
    homelessness prevention issues in California, Los Angeles in
    particular. I am very proud because I served on the Los Angeles
    Homeless Services Authority's Ad Hoc Committee on Black People
    Experiencing Homelessness, and on the Committee on Women
    Experiencing Homelessness. And I myself do have personal lived
    experience with housing instability as well.
        So, it is with this combined experience, and as a
    representative of the Housing Rights Center, that I provide
    this testimony, an opportunity to support a universal program
    and its importance in decreasing household expenses, in
    particular rent, because, as you have heard in other testimony,
    rent often consumes more than 50 percent of monthly household
    income.
        Universal vouchers would provide necessary housing security
    because, due to the COVID-19 pandemic and its harsh economic
    impact on low-income communities, in particular, women-headed
    households, over 12 million families with children are at risk
    of losing their housing due to an eviction. The vast problems
    caused by COVID-19 and the affordability of housing in many
    communities that existed prior to the pandemic, and the ongoing
    impact and intersection of race, wage, and wealth disparities
    require financial and ideological commitment to immediate,
    coordinated, and hopefully, permanent solutions.
        The first step towards eliminating housing insecurity is
    adequately investing in Federal housing assistance. In Los
    Angeles, the need for permanent rental assistance is severe.
    Approximately 60 percent of Los Angeles' over 800,000 renter
    households have incomes that are below 80 percent of area
    median income (AMI). The estimate from the City's housing
    department measured before the pandemic was at more than 21
    percent of renters were severely in arrears due to the loss of
    income.
        The Section 8 Program for the City of Los Angeles is not
    accepting applications, and the waitlist has been closed, and
    is oftentimes closed for several years before new applications
    are accepted. Applications oftentimes take several months to
    process, and not due to the fault sometimes of the process, but
    oftentimes because tenants have a hard time getting their
    histories, their credit status, and things like that from
    previous landlords, from previous employers, and things like
    that in order to prove eligibility.
        And, yes, sometimes some applications go unused. A few do,
    but not because they are not needed. They are very much needed,
    but they especially go unused in Black households where Section
    8 housing vouchers are turned away when they are not protected
    by anti-discrimination laws. Even in California, where Section
    8 discrimination is now prohibited, as it has been since last
    year, some landlords will try to circumvent the law, as we have
    found through investigations. So, it is also very important not
    only to make Section 8 vouchers mandatory, but also to make the
    participation in the Section 8 Program mandatory as well, and
    also to fund the investigations to ensure that discrimination
    against Section 8 vouchers and Section 8 participants does not
    continue. Even before the adverse impact of COVID-19, in
    vulnerable communities, we saw this as well.
        Discrimination also occurs against HOPE IV vouchers, the
    vouchers for persons living with AIDS, and there is
    discrimination against LGBT communities. Also, against VASH
    vouchers, which affects military and veterans, and against
    female-headed households as well. High rents in California and
    so forth have reduced the availability of affordable housing,
    and also, housing prices have gone up with the pandemic, but
    they have not gone down, which has severely reduced the
    availability of housing, further impacting the loss of
    affordable housing, because everybody is competing for this
    housing.
        In closing, a federally-declared eviction moratorium, in
    addition to the Emergency Rental Assistance Program, has helped
    curb the immediate disaster of increased homelessness and
    housing insecurity for many, but these items of relief don't
    extend to all who are eligible, and will end soon. So, low-
    income families with children, seniors on fixed incomes, and
    persons with disabilities need a universal voucher program to
    ensure housing stability and to end homelessness for all. Thank
    you. And unfortunately, I did run out of time about the
    Emergency Rental Assistance Program, but I can speak to that.
    Thank you.
        [The prepared statement of Ms. Al-Mansour can be found on
    page 60 of the appendix.]
        Chairwoman Waters. Mr. Husock, you are recognized for 5
    minutes to present your oral testimony.

     STATEMENT OF HOWARD HUSOCK, ADJUNCT SCHOLAR, DOMESTIC POLICY,
                     AMERICAN ENTERPRISE INSTITUTE

        Mr. Husock. Thank you, Chairwoman Waters, Ranking Member
    McHenry, and members of the committee. I am Howard Husock, an
    adjunct scholar at the American Enterprise Institute. Prior to
    that, I served as research vice president at the Manhattan
    Institute, and director of case studies in public policy at the
    Harvard Kennedy School.
        Too many low-income households find it difficult to afford
    housing. At the same time, an entitlement-based approach to
    housing assistance risks over-promising and under-delivering.
    And at the same time, there are commonsense adjustments to the
    current Housing Voucher Choice Program that can increase its
    reach without major new spending, while providing incentives
    and encouragement for low-income households to improve their
    economic status.
        First, a comparison. We can all remember just a few months
    ago when the coronavirus vaccine had miraculously become
    available, but millions found themselves qualified to receive
    the shot and unable to schedule an appointment. Demand was far
    higher than supply. This has long been a characteristic of our
    low-income housing markets, a function of overly-restrictive
    zoning laws and building codes, among other things.
        But providing, in effect, a check that can only be used for
    one purpose--rental housing--provides no assurance that
    additional supply will come online or that voucher holders will
    be able to find an available unit. Indeed, even at current
    appropriation levels, a 2019 report by the Center for Budget
    and Policy Priorities stated, ``Low success rates among
    families that receive housing vouchers remain a legitimate and
    serious concern.'' A universal housing voucher risks increasing
    the number of locations where this problem will exist. A new
    entitlement program may simply put more low-income households
    in competition with each other for a few available units
    without addressing the fundamental supply issue affecting our
    housing markets today.
        Fundamentally, low-income households face an income
    problem. Providing a coupon that can be used only for rental
    assistance limits how they can use this new income, while
    failing to address the root causes of why that income is so low
    in the first place. We must not forget the steps it takes to
    truly encourage economic upward mobility for poor households,
    improve skills training for the 21st Century, ensuring that
    every child has access to a high-quality public education, and
    reducing discriminatory racial barriers. But we can and should
    make some commonsense adjustments to the current Housing Choice
    Voucher Program. We shouldn't assume that poverty is a life
    sentence in America. We should build on the lessons we have
    learned from successful welfare reform efforts in the 1990s.
    This suggests that we employ vouchers, not on a permanent
    basis, but as a transitional program.
        This leads me to two proposals. First, allow voucher
    holders to sign the same type of rental leases as non-
    subsidized households enjoy: a flat rent for a fixed period. As
    it stands, a voucher for a public housing tenant, as they earn
    more money, they pay more rent, 34 cents on each dollar. This
    has all sorts of ill effects, including discouraging finding a
    higher-paying job, forming two-income families, and building
    savings. To better use housing vouchers, we should follow the
    example of the Delaware State Housing Authority, which, as part
    of its Moving to Work Program, combines capped rent and savings
    account escrows with a 5-year ceiling on assistance. A similar
    program has been adopted by the Housing Authority of San
    Bernardino, California, which specifically sets out as a key
    goal the encouragement of tenant economic independence,
    including what it calls, ``a shift from entitlement to
    empowerment.'' They have seen positive results regarding
    employment and income. I will be glad to discuss those in
    detail.
        Of course, as households move out and up, so, too, do
    voucher units become available for other needy families. This
    healthy turnover should be a core part of the voucher program.
    Poverty should not be viewed as inevitable, nor should
    entitlements be seen as universally needed without limit. As
    matters stand, HUD reports an 8-percent turnover rate annually
    among voucher units. That has been as high as 15 percent in
    some other years. Increasing turnover while improving the
    economic situation of voucher households should be key goals of
    the program.
        As President Biden has emphasized, we are in the midst of a
    wonderful economic recovery, and many have lamented the drag
    that our labor market shortages are putting on that. This is
    the time to use our Housing Choice Voucher Program in the
    context of encouraging improved job skills and household
    savings so Americans get through the Voucher Program what
    Lyndon Johnson called, ``a hand up.''
        Finally, a word about our homelessness epidemic. While it
    is tempting to conclude that the streets of Los Angeles are
    filled with homeless encampments because of a failure of the
    housing market, we know that far too many of these street
    sleepers suffer from untreated mental illness and substance
    abuse and may not be ready to maintain an independent
    household. We are failing to provide the services and
    compassionate programs they need and deserve. A universal
    voucher entitlement is not the answer to those in need on the
    streets of Los Angeles, Manhattan, Portland, and Seattle.
    Rather, we should be discussing improved treatment and
    adjustments to Medicaid policy. Conflating housing policy with
    the issues of those sleeping on the street will not put us on
    the right path forward.
        It is an honor to testify in front of the committee today,
    and I look forward to your questions.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Husock can be found on page
    74 of the appendix.]
        Chairwoman Waters. Thank you very, very much. I would like
    to address my questions to Mr. Husock. You just hit on
    something I have been talking with my staff about. You heard
    the description of homelessness in Los Angeles, particularly as
    it relates to Black people and people of color. I have been
    talking with the County, and I wanted to know from the County,
    in that portion of my district, who is responsible for dealing
    with the encampments under the bridges, on the sidewalks, and
    who is it that is addressing the mental health problems? No one
    seems to be dealing with that, and if you were, what would you
    do with all of those people who have mental health problems? It
    seems that no one is addressing that. Given that, I want
    universal vouchers, absolutely. But what good will they do for
    those who are in those encampments, who have mental health
    problems that are not being addressed by the County, or the
    City, or the Los Angeles Homeless Services Authority (LAHSA)?
        Mr. Husock. I strongly agree with the thrust of the
    chairwoman's remarks, and my heart goes out to those people and
    to the people of Los Angeles who face the Skid Row encampments.
    Medicaid, when it was passed, had a fatal flaw that we still
    live with: Medicaid cannot be received by anybody in a facility
    with 16 units or more. So if the State of California were to
    use State hospitals, not on an open-ended basis like the old
    asylums that we had, but as treatment centers so people can get
    back on their feet, and use a housing voucher if it is
    appropriate. If they can't manage their affairs, the housing
    voucher is not going to get them off the streets, I am afraid.
    So, we need to reform Medicaid.
        If you are an incarcerated person or a formerly-
    incarcerated person, you are also limited in terms of what
    Medicaid can provide for you. We need Medicaid to step up and
    be able to provide support for State facilities that are large
    enough to take in these thousands of people, again, not
    forever. I am not saying we should have the old asylums back
    forever, but we need something at least on an interim basis for
    those people. That is one idea.
        Chairwoman Waters. Thank you so very much, and I will now
    turn to Mr. Metcalf and Ms. Oliva. Many of the low-income
    families and individuals who would benefit from a universal
    housing voucher also have significant health needs, including
    mental health or substance addiction challenges, or other kinds
    of disabilities.
        Mr. Metcalf, Ms. Oliva, you have both administered health
    programs that serve these populations and are familiar with
    some of the challenges that exist in terms of States and
    localities aligning their housing and healthcare systems. So,
    how do we align the housing and healthcare systems? You just
    alluded to it, Mr. Husock. Do you have any additional thoughts
    about it? First, Mr. Metcalf?
        Mr. Metcalf. Thank you. The State of California, I think,
    is a great example of a State that has been able to get
    Medicaid waiver authority to be able to deploy those healthcare
    resources in tandem with its housing resources. That includes
    getting somebody into a permanent housing situation, but then
    wrapping around them with services that provide for the
    intensive case management assistance with getting a house in
    the first place, addressing things like onerous security
    deposits. I think it is all doable. I think we have great
    models for it. But we, again and again, run into the limiting
    factors on the one hand of housing assistance to deploy, and,
    on the other hand, having to navigate the contours of these
    waiver provisions on Medicaid. Both of those are solvable
    issues.
        Chairwoman Waters. Thank you very much. Let me get back to
    Ms. Oliva. I was going to ask you something about aligning
    healthcare systems with the vouchers, but since you have so
    much experience, I want to know who in Los Angeles County is
    going down Vermont Avenue and other major Streets where the
    encampments are in the medians, on the sidewalks, and under the
    bridges? Who is going and dealing with those people?
        Ms. Oliva. Thank you for that question, Chairwoman Waters.
    I do spend quite a bit of time in Los Angeles, or I was
    spending a lot of time in Los Angeles before the pandemic. And
    I think this really has to be a partnership between LAHSA, the
    City, and the County. In particular, outreach workers need to
    be armed with not just bottles of water, but they actually have
    to be able to access housing resources in order to help people
    living on the street access both the services that they need
    and the housing resources that will help them actually become
    healthy and end their homelessness.
        Chairwoman Waters. Thank you very much. I have exhausted my
    question time. I now recognize Mr. McHenry for 5 minutes.
        Mr. McHenry. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. Mr. Husock, I
    will start with you. Look, last year Congress provided $25
    billion in emergency rental assistance. We have had an
    additional $21 billion added to that $25 billion. So, we have
    $46 billion for rental assistance, and the Treasury has
    indicated they have no clue what has happened to these funds,
    and it seems to me that there has been a slow walking of the
    rules. We don't know if any renters actually had their past
    rent debts fully paid, according to congressional intent. What
    are the challenges that the average renter who has arrears is
    facing? Do they even know that this money is available?
        Mr. Husock. It is not just the renters. We have this image
    of the landlord as, ``Daddy Warbucks,'' but there are tens of
    thousands, hundreds of thousands of poor, minority, immigrant,
    and African-American property owners who rely on rental income
    to pay their own bills, to pay the repair people who maintain
    their units. Those funds ripple through low-income communities,
    so when the rent stops, whole parts of low-income economies
    stop. The landlords may not be aware that they are qualified.
    They want that money, but they may be outside of the reach of
    bureaucratic programs.
        I suspect that is definitely true, so we need some
    promotional activities. Just like we promote vaccine use, let's
    promote the idea that if you are a property owner and you are
    owed arrears, you can qualify and tell your tenants. We need to
    do that. And let's not kid ourselves that these landlords have
    lots of choices and they are keen to evict people, that we have
    a looming eviction crisis. Do we really think that they are
    going to kick people out because they have so many people
    waiting to pay the rent? Not necessarily. Everybody has been
    hit so hard.
        Mr. McHenry. Ms. Al-Mansour, how would you respond to this
    question? We obviously have a massive hold-up here. We have $46
    billion allocated. There are obviously some challenges within
    the system to get this money out. How can we deal with this and
    how do we fix the problem?
        Ms. Al-Mansour. First of all, I can only speak to what has
    happened in Los Angeles and, in part, in Los Angeles County. So
    it is significant, but I can't speak nationally. And in terms
    of the first round of the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic
    Security (CARES) Act funding, the money was spent. The City of
    Los Angeles was awarded about $97 million in emergency rental
    assistance, and every single dollar of that went to landlords
    to pay rental assistance. There are a lot of challenges to the
    program, but the challenges aren't the ones that you think. The
    challenges have to do with the fact that these programs went to
    low-income tenants. A lot of low-income tenants, for example,
    don't have bank accounts and things like that. They didn't have
    landlords who wanted to participate in the program. We have a
    lot of landlords, and I agree that there are a lot of landlords
    who are struggling right now to pay their mortgages, but some
    of them are using this assistance.
        Mr. McHenry. Ms. Al-Mansour, you said the first tranche of
    money from the CARES Act was deployed. What about the second
    batch, this $21.6 billion? What is the hold-up here?
        Ms. Al-Mansour. In Los Angeles also, renters are being
    paid. Applications are being processed. Again, I can't speak to
    what is happening everywhere, but some of it, if there is
    hesitation, a lot of it does have to do with, there is, again,
    some hesitation of landlords wanting to participate in the
    program, we think for a few different reasons, for example,
    because some landlords are holding out for 100 percent of the
    back rent to be paid, not just a part of it. So there is that.
    There is also the fact that there is discrimination that goes
    on. There are some landlords who value their rental unit more
    than their tenant, and some of them would prefer to have a
    tenant leave, especially if it is a rent-restricted unit, in
    order to be able to raise the rent--
        Mr. McHenry. Ms. Al-Mansour? You obviously keep detailed
    track of where this money is deployed. What we are seeing
    across the country is an unequal deployment. We have with the
    Federal response a lack of information of where the money is
    going. What I am hearing from you is that you are paying close
    attention to this money, but as a Federal office holder and as
    a policymaker, I don't have the same data, and we are not
    getting the same data in Congress as you are providing us
    today. So, thank you for your testimony.
        Finally, Madam Chairwoman, we have 9 million unfilled jobs
    this last month. We need to help get people back to work, and I
    think that will have a far more beneficial impact than some new
    government program. Thank you all for your testimony. I yield
    back.
        Chairwoman Waters. Thank you very much. The gentleman from
    California, Mr. Sherman, who is also the Chair of our
    Subcommittee on Investor Protection, Entrepreneurship, and
    Capital Markets, is recognized for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Sherman. Thank you. Ms. Cunningham, according to a
    report issued by HUD in 2018, low levels of landlord
    participation and low acceptance of vouchers has resulted in
    diminished lease-up rate and a decreased likelihood that
    households are able to use their vouchers within the allotted
    time. Last month, Senators Coons and Cramer introduced
    bipartisan legislation, the Choice in Affordable Housing Act,
    which seeks to increase landlord acceptance of vouchers by
    putting in place stronger incentives.
        As we seek to expand the availability of Housing Choice
    vouchers, it would seem that we need to make sure that we have
    the tools in place to ensure that voucher holders are actually
    able to use them to acquire rental housing. In general, do you
    agree that there is more that we can be doing to expand
    private-sector participation, and make sure that these vouchers
    actually turn into an affordable housing unit?
        Ms. Cunningham. Thank you for the question, Congressman. I
    do agree that there is more that we can be doing. I think that
    the Housing Choice Voucher Program is a public-private
    partnership, and that private partnership really relies on
    landlords participating in the program.
        At the Urban Institute, I led a study that looked at
    landlord discrimination against voucher holders, and we found
    that in many places--Los Angeles, for example--landlords
    rejected voucher holders at a rate of 76 percent; in Fort
    Worth, 78 percent. In places like Washington, D.C., where there
    are sources of income protections that actually prohibit
    discrimination against voucher holders, those rates of
    rejection are much lower, hovering around 15 percent, so still
    some rejection, but much, much lower. So, I think the first
    thing that we need to do to encourage landlord participation is
    to adopt source-of-income protections and prohibit
    discrimination against voucher holders. I think that is sort of
    the stick.
        I think we should also offer carrots, so incentives to
    landlords to participate in the program, making sure that the
    program is easy to use, making inspections less difficult,
    setting rents at competitive rates using small-area Fair Market
    Rents (FMRs), and, basically, just improving the overall
    management. There are some housing authorities that are very
    high-performing, that have very high rates of success as well
    as high rates of landlord participation. Landlords in the study
    actually asked, which housing authority are you presenting your
    voucher from, and they care because the management of the
    program really matters. They would take vouchers from some
    housing authorities and not others. So I agree, this is a
    public-private partnership, and it is important.
        Mr. Sherman. Let me get in one more question. Ms. Oliva, in
    your written testimony, you note that expanding the
    availability of Housing Choice Vouchers should, in your words,
    create an environment where partners, like continuum of care
    entities and public housing authorities, work together to
    prevent and end homelessness. I would like to draw your
    attention to the Homelessness Assistance Act, which I want to
    thank Chairwoman Waters for putting in the list of bills we are
    considering today. I introduced this bill, I believe, last
    year. It passed overwhelmingly on the Floor of the House, but
    we need to pass it again.
        The bill would empower local public housing authorities to
    share information, where appropriate, with other local
    government agencies and with nonprofits engaged in a continuum
    of care program. Currently, often, that information cannot be
    shared, and, as a result, the homeless person or previously-
    homeless person is not getting the continuum of care that they
    need. This bill is a tailored exemption to the Federal Privacy
    Act, to allow public housing authorities to share some of their
    data with continuum of care organizations. Would you agree that
    increasing data sharing among those trying to provide help to
    the previously-homeless and the homeless insecure is an
    important step to take?
        Ms. Oliva. Thank you so much for that question,
    Congressman. I would say a couple of things are important to
    point to as I respond to that question. The first is that data
    sharing is an important process between different kinds of
    organizations who are all serving the same person, in many
    cases.
        Mr. Sherman. Thank you.
        Ms. Oliva. Thank you.
        Mrs. Wagner. I believe I may be up next for questioning. Is
    the chairwoman available? Would the Vice Chair like to
    recognize me?
        Mr. Cleaver. [presiding]. Mrs. Wagner, you are recognized
    for 5 minutes.
        Mrs. Wagner. I thank the gentleman, my friend from
    Missouri. Mr. Husock, one of the largest drivers of
    unaffordability in the housing market is the shortage of
    housing in our country. Major metropolitan areas have become
    extremely expensive because many cities and States actively
    disincentivize development of new units of housing. Would
    creating a new housing voucher entitlement address this issue?
        Mr. Husock. No, that is exactly the point, that it would
    not, and we need to persuade localities. First of all, we are
    in the midst of a huge sea change in housing markets because of
    the remote work possibility. So, as the gentleman from the
    Terner Center pointed out, there has been this tremendous
    pressure on the California housing markets that led to income
    inequality because of the inability of people to partake in the
    growth areas. Now, that is changing. Rents in San Francisco are
    going down, and so the whole thing is kind of up in the air
    right now, but, still, we need to persuade localities. That is
    where it is. States can--
        Mrs. Wagner. Let me just be clear, flooding our private
    housing markets with Federal dollars for rental assistance
    would only further drive up the cost of housing and do nothing
    to increase, what I would say, the supply of housing. Am I
    correct?
        Mr. Husock. Yes, and look at California's environmental
    policy laws, which do have incredible delays. So, yes, because
    of those kinds of barriers, you are exactly right.
        Mrs. Wagner. Okay. So, what policy changes do you believe
    would create more affordable and available housing in America?
    We have talked about some of the environmental factors
    certainly in California, but what else? How do we solve this?
    We have a huge supply issue right now. Throwing more Federal
    entitlement money at it is only going to drive up the cost and
    not solve the shortage problem. How do we do handle this, do
    you think?
        Mr. Husock. In the short term, we have to get rid of
    tariffs on Canadian lumber because there is a lumber storage--
        Mrs. Wagner. Hear, hear.
        Mr. Husock. --which is a small thing, but it's a big thing
    right now for home builders. But number two, this is up to all
    of our communities. All of us need to talk to our local
    planning boards and say, do you want your kids to be able to
    live in the towns where they grew up? Do you want your
    teachers, and your police, and your firefighters to be able to
    live in the towns where they work? You have to allow for
    naturally-occurring affordable housing. How does that happen?
    Smaller homes on smaller lots. The Levittown homes of the
    1950s, 750 square feet. We don't build any homes like that
    anymore, but people lap them up. We need our planning boards to
    take action.
        Mrs. Wagner. Mr. Husock, participation in the Housing
    Choice Vouchers Program is mostly voluntary for private
    landlords. We have talked about that. But if this program were
    to become an entitlement, it would likely become mandatory for
    landlord participation. For what business reasons would a
    landlord choose not to participate in this program?
        Mr. Husock. If you are only going to get so much rent, you
    want to make sure you get that rent. And remember, the tenants
    are on the hook for 30 percent of the rent, and so, anybody who
    is in business is going to look at the credit scores of those
    individuals. They may look at the family structure and say, I
    am worried about renting to children because they may damage
    the property. I have been a landlord and I have rented to
    children. I don't sympathize with that point of view, but it is
    a point of view. So I think credit scores and the ability to
    pay would be the biggest deterrence to renting that would still
    be legal.
        Mrs. Wagner. If they do not want to participate, would they
    likely raise the cost of their units above HUD's fair market
    rents?
        Mr. Husock. I am not sure they would have that flexibility.
    Those who participate in the Housing Choice Voucher Program are
    lower middle-class neighborhoods typically. They are not going
    to Beverly Hills, they are going to San Bernardino, in the
    California context. It is possible they would raise rent if
    they could, but they may not be able to.
        Typically, the--
        Mrs. Wagner. I was wondering how this would impact the cost
    of housing for everyone else potentially?
        Mr. Husock. Any time you increase demand and you don't
    increase supply, you don't have to be Ben Bernanke to know what
    happens.
        Mrs. Wagner. Yes. Well, we are seeing that all over the
    country. The housing shortage is a real problem that we have
    across-the-board.
        I thank you for your testimony. I appreciate the chairwoman
    putting this hearing together, and I will yield back the
    remainder of my time. It looks like Chairwoman Waters is up and
    running.
        Thank you.
        Chairwoman Waters. Yes, we are back. We had some technical
    difficulties, but I think they have been cleared up now.
        The gentleman from Georgia, Mr. Scott, who is also the
    Chair of the House Agriculture Committee, is now recognized for
    5 minutes.
        Mr. Scott. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman, for this very, very
    important and critical hearing.
        Make no mistake about it, ladies and gentlemen, let us cut
    right to the chase. We need these vouchers. Expert research
    shows that housing vouchers prevent homelessness.
        Our homeless population is spreading all across our nation,
    and the last thing we need is discrimination against the very
    people who need them. Discrimination against the people who use
    these vouchers has curtailed what little progress we have made
    with homelessness, but this is the tool we need to use.
        So, Mr. Metcalf, let me go to you, because we need to find
    out from this hearing what we, in the Financial Services
    Committee, can do. Our job is to legislate effective means of
    helping cure this nation of this homeless crisis. So, Mr.
    Metcalf, can you explain how a Federal or national universal
    solution banning housing voucher discrimination would benefit
    our struggling families?
        Mr. Metcalf. Yes, thank you, Congressman.
        Ms. Cunningham spoke to this briefly, but there is good
    evidence to show that once you have in place a source-of-income
    discrimination law that prevents people from choosing not to
    rent to voucher holders, the ability of those voucher holders
    to access housing gets much more effective, and they are able
    to access homes in locations that otherwise might have been
    closed off to them.
        I think to your earlier point, obviously, this universal
    voucher program would, in one fell swoop, make vast inroads
    against our homeless situation, and I also think and have
    suggested in my testimony that a universal housing voucher
    would be very effective in terms of stimulating new housing
    construction. It will allow builders to rely on income streams
    that before they hadn't to be able to leverage additional debt
    to pay for investments into new housing supply.
        Mr. Scott. Let me go to you, Ms. Cunningham. The Urban
    Institute has recommended greater investment in recruiting
    landlords in middle-income and wealthier neighborhoods to
    participate in the voucher program. Tell us what the response
    has been from these middle-income and wealthier neighborhoods
    with landlords who are considering participating in these
    voucher programs?
        Ms. Cunningham. Thank you for the question, Congressman.
        Our studies have found that landlords who have apartments
    or units in lower poverty neighborhoods or neighborhoods that
    we might label opportunity neighborhoods actually have lower
    participation. They are more likely to say no to voucher
    holders.
        The challenge with that is that we know from really strong
    evidence that if we can help voucher holders access opportunity
    neighborhoods, they actually can improve their life chances and
    outcomes, and increase their economic mobility. Kids have
    higher rates of educational attainment and higher lifetime
    earnings if they can move to those better neighborhoods, and
    vouchers can help get them there. We just need more
    participation from landlords and better assistance in helping
    families move to those neighborhoods.
        Mr. Scott. What do you suggest? We have a variety of pieces
    of legislation dealing with this coming to bear, the
    discrimination, making sure we have the level of money now to
    address this issue. I want you to know that 20 States, and
    Cities like Atlanta, have passed laws requiring landlords to
    treat voucher holders the same as they would any applicant.
        Now, are we making progress on that? And should this be
    incorporated in a national law?
        Ms. Cunningham. Yes, as you noted, there are State and
    local protections. Only one out of three voucher holders is
    protected, and we need national protections to make sure that
    every voucher holder doesn't have to face discrimination from
    landlords.
        Mr. Scott. Thank you. I appreciate it.
        Chairwoman Waters. Thank you very much. The gentleman from
    Florida, Mr. Posey, is now recognized for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Posey. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman, for holding this
    hearing today.
        Mr. Husock, do you agree that we ought to address
    alternatives or incentives for bringing down the cost of
    construction of housing, including multifamily housing, so that
    we can meet the needs of affordable housing?
        Mr. Husock. Yes, of course, we have to do that. And one of
    the ways that we can do that is through local zoning, local
    building codes. Builders talk about equivalencies. In San
    Diego, there was an effort to build single room occupancy
    hotels, so-called single room occupancy buildings. They had to
    get equivalency waivers from the fire chief to have microwave
    ovens in the rooms so that the people could use them.
        These are commonsense changes that can be very impactful.
    So, localities need to look at their building codes, look at
    their zoning codes, and ask the question, ``How can I
    facilitate rather than block new multifamily construction?''
        Mr. Posey. Thank you. I appreciate that.
        Can you recommend any housing or apartment construction
    technologies that Congress might be able to encourage to bring
    down the housing costs and to benefit the homeless?
        Mr. Husock. I have to say I am not an expert on
    construction, so I will have to dodge that question.
        Mr. Posey. Okay. Do you think it would be advisable for the
    State and local programs to have any matching requirements so
    that they might have some skin in the game to help encourage
    incentives to expand supply?
        Mr. Husock. In terms of their receipt of housing vouchers?
        Mr. Posey. Any of the above. Do you see a role where--
    oftentimes, we talk about how the Not in My Backyards (NIMBYs)
    don't want to have construction near them that doesn't meet
    whatever standard they think is in their best interest.
        Mr. Husock. Yes. And a Democratic Senator from California,
    Scott Wiener, is part of a Yes in My Backyard (YIMBY) movement,
    and while I don't agree with him on everything, that is the
    right attitude, which is, can we have model zoning the States
    can present to their localities and say, ``You do it this way,
    and there is going to be a less tight housing market.''
        So, I think States, and HUD, for that matter, have a role
    in modeling the right kind of zoning that will permit new
    construction.
        Mr. Posey. The chairwoman has had a number of hearings on
    this issue. We find there are cases where you have to have two
    parking places for--
        Mr. Husock. That is right. Absolutely.
        Mr. Posey. --a homeless occupant. That really doesn't make
    good sense. How do we encourage local and State Governments to
    get more engaged?
        Mr. Husock. Yes, the parking requirement is a particularly
    onerous one in California specifically, and communities are
    beginning to look at that. I just would turn quickly to
    Chairwoman Waters, who had such a great question about the
    street homelessness. California had 50,000 units of hospital
    space for the mentally troubled in 1955. Today, it has 5,000.
        So, it is no wonder we have all of these people on the
    street. I am not saying we need 50,000, but we need more than
    we have.
        Mr. Posey. Well, listen, I appreciate your answers, and I
    yield back the balance of my time.
        Chairwoman Waters. The gentleman from Texas, Mr. Green, who
    is also the Chair of our Subcommittee on Oversight and
    Investigations, is now recognized for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Green. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman.
        I support the Ending Homelessness Act of 2021. The
    discussion draft is something that I have had an opportunity to
    peruse. A discussion draft is just that, that it can be
    improved upon. There may be some amendments to it, but the
    concept is something that I clearly support.
        And I would like to harken back, if I may, to Social
    Security. In January of 1935, it passed the House, but didn't
    have unanimous consent. And it passed the Senate, but didn't
    have unanimous consent.
        Some of the debate included in this was that it would be
    discriminatory; there would be some people who would receive it
    and some people who wouldn't. Another debate was that it would
    cause a great injustice in a number of States that are also
    bankrupt or nearly so.
        And here is one that I am ashamed of: There were those who
    said it was a foolish gesture to pass Social Security. I would
    dare say no one would want to end Social Security--well, let me
    say this, a good many don't want to. There may be some who
    would. But Social Security has been a great benefit to us.
        Medicare passed in 1965. It didn't pass unanimously. In the
    House--313 yeas, 115 nays, and 5 not voting. In the Senate--68
    yeas, 21 nays, and 11 not voting.
        I don't believe that we will get unanimity, but I do
    believe that on the things that are important, the big things
    that can make a difference in the lives of people, we should
    move forward with them.
        I was a judge of a small claims justice court for a quarter
    of a century. I conducted hearings for people who had mental
    health problems, and we would help them to get stabilized. But
    if they were living on the street, they would go back to the
    street. They didn't have a place to call home. They didn't have
    an anchor. They didn't have something that they would be
    looking forward to, and we could find them if we needed to.
    They would go to another location.
        People who are on the street and suffer with diabetes, go
    to the emergency room. They get stability. They go back to the
    streets, and we have to then find them again. The cost of
    homelessness is far greater than the cost of providing shelter
    for people in a place that I would call home.
        I have been to Skid Row. I was there with the chairwoman. I
    have seen what it is like to be on Skid Row. And Skid Row is
    coming to my community in Houston, Texas. And it is probably
    coming to a good many other communities around this country.
        So, Skid Row is not just a place for us to assume is going
    to remain in somebody else's area. It is going to be around the
    country. I see no plan better than this plan to end
    homelessness, and I am going to support it.
        And I do have a question. What alternative is going to be
    superior to putting a person in a home, where that person can
    then have all of their other needs addressed? We have had
    intellectuals appear before this committee and indicate to us
    that the genesis of solving a good many of these problems is a
    place to call home.
        Let me just start with Mr. Husock, and I am not going to be
    able to give you all of my time, but you have spoken quite well
    this morning, and I greatly appreciate it. So, Mr. Husock, what
    do we do that is better than having a place in a house?
        Now, look, I understand that there are all kinds of
    problems with dealing with it. You have building codes. I
    understand these things. But do you see people in homes having
    the benefit of being able to move into other things that can
    benefit them with their mental health, with their stability in
    life so that they can get a job, apply for a job, and you have
    a place that you can identify with as your home?
        Mr. Husock. Thank you so much for that excellent question,
    Congressman.
        We have a program called Housing First in HUD, which thinks
    that is the most important thing first, is a home. I think we
    need treatment first. We need treatment in treatment
    facilities. And then, when people graduate and they are ready
    to go into--
        Mr. Green. Let me just respond to you. Let us assume that
    we have the treatment. We will still need to have the house and
    the home at some point is what you are saying.
        So, let me go to another person. Thank you very much. Let
    me go to Ms. Cunningham. Ms. Cunningham, a place to call home,
    how does that address these other problems?
        Ms. Cunningham. It helps provide people with stability so
    that they can work on those other problems. You can't work on
    your drug or substance use issue or mental health issues while
    you are sleeping in a tent. If you have a house, then you have
    a platform that is stable that you can work from, and data
    shows that you can improve and improve your outcomes.
        Mr. Green. I will have to yield back. Thank you, Madam
    Chairwoman, for the time.
        Chairwoman Waters. Thank you very much. The gentleman from
    Missouri, Mr. Luetkemeyer, is now recognized for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Luetkemeyer. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman.
        And I just wanted to comment, I see the gentleman from
    Missouri, the distinguished chairman of our Housing and
    Insurance Subcommittee, and he and I, a few years ago, when I
    was chairman of that subcommittee, put together a bill that
    made over 60 changes to HUD, which I think today we are reaping
    all the benefits of, and that was a bipartisan effort that we
    were able to get a lot of work done, and I want to commend him
    for and, again, help folks remember that this can be done.
        But this morning, we are talking about a little bit
    different subject here in a way. One of the things we have
    already talked about here is the overall lack of housing. One
    of the comments that I think we have had in previous hearings
    is that 25 percent of the cost of building a home or apartments
    in these cities sometimes is due to local regulations.
        Mr. Husock, is that a reasonable figure? Is that about
    right, that you have heard of before?
        Mr. Husock. It varies tremendously. It is higher than that
    in New York. I have read 40 percent in New York. It is higher
    than that in California. It is lower than that in Houston,
    Texas. And that is why you have so much housing construction in
    the State of Texas. But to the fundamental thrust of your
    question, absolutely, that does add on.
        Mr. Luetkemeyer. Just the cost of housing--I think one of
    the comments made earlier was that because of the increasing
    cost of housing and the building of apartment houses, multi-
    unit buildings as well, it raises the cost beyond the ability
    of people to pay for it. And that is why a lot of them are
    going to need some additional help in rental assistance
    vouchers or whatever here.
        So, I feel that we have come to some discussion points here
    that are really, in my own mind, I am kind of wondering a
    little bit about. I think Ms. Al-Mansour made a comment to the
    effect that the landlords don't participate in a voucher
    program. And I think Ms. Cunningham made the comment a few
    minutes ago as well that you would find a lot of landlords not
    participating in low- and moderate-income areas.
        So, Ms. Cunningham, I guess my question to you is, why are
    some folks who actually are setting up shop, they have their
    apartment buildings in low- and moderate-income areas, not
    participating in a voucher program? Do we need to change the
    program around to provide some incentives?
        Ms. Cunningham. I think we do need to provide some
    incentives. I think there are a lot of reasons why landlords
    don't participate. I will say that many of the landlords who
    have participated in the Housing Choice Voucher Program during
    the pandemic have found positive experiences, and I think that
    landlords actually need to have incentives, like you said.
        And so, thinking about either offering some financial
    assistance, making it easier by waiving or expediting
    inspections, would all be helpful. But I also think some
    landlords discriminate against voucher holders, and I think we
    heard a little bit of that earlier. Many voucher holders have
    children. There is a lot of stigma around voucher holders that
    isn't true.
        And so, I think landlords also discriminate, and we need to
    have protections against that discrimination.
        Ms. Al-Mansour. Thank you. This is Chancela Al-Mansour. I
    would like to address that issue also, and I want to thank
    Representative Wagner for raising that.
        The main reason we get that landlords don't participate in
    the Section 8 program is because they say they don't want the
    involvement of the government. They don't want the government
    in their property, doing inspections, looking over their
    reports, watching, making sure they don't discriminate against
    their tenants, and making sure they do repairs on time. They
    don't want that oversight.
        And what do we say to those landlords? You are already in
    the business of providing housing. Anytime you are in a
    business, there is going to be some government oversight,
    whether it is a restaurant or anything else.
        And that is one of the main reasons we get in terms of why
    landlords don't want to participate. They don't want the
    government intrusion into their business of providing rental
    housing.
        And the other thing, yes, is discrimination. At the Housing
    Rights Center, we are investigating discrimination against
    Black tenants who have Section 8 vouchers, and they are being
    discriminated against. In the San Fernando Valley, we had an
    apartment building where there were six tenants who lived
    there. They had all been there for years.
        California changed the State law, the City of Los Angeles
    did, mandating that the owners accept Section 8. The owner
    accepted it from the one White tenant, but not from the Black
    tenants until we got involved. And they were already in place.
    We believe the owner wanted them not to be able to afford the
    apartment ultimately, so that they would have to move out.
        Discrimination against Black tenants is definitely one of
    the main reasons why landlords don't want to participate in the
    Section 8 Program.
        Mr. Luetkemeyer. As you know, my time is about up. I thank
    you for your responses. And I thank the witnesses for being
    here today.
        And with that, Madam Chairwoman, I will yield back.
        Chairwoman Waters. Thank you very much. The gentleman from
    Missouri, Mr. Cleaver, who is also the Chair of our
    Subcommittee on Housing, Community Development, and Insurance,
    is now recognized for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Cleaver. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman, and you were not
    here earlier when I expressed appreciation for this committee
    hearing, and I appreciate it very much because I think this is
    critically important.
        One of my long-time concerns goes back years and years and
    years, actually goes back to my great-grandmother who refused
    to tell people from the Census how many children were in the
    house. She had 18 children with my grandpa. And so, I am always
    concerned about the undercount, because it damages a lot of
    things for the least of the people in this country.
        Last Congress, then-Subcommittee Chair William Lacy Clay
    and I requested that the GAO investigate best practices for
    counting the United States homeless population. And communities
    throughout the country participate in the Point-in-Time count
    in conjunction with the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban
    Development (HUD). And although it is a helpful tool in
    determining the population of those experiencing homelessness,
    it is not perfect. It does have its limitations. The GAO is
    currently undergoing work on those recommendations.
        So I would like to hear from the panelists, while we are
    talking about the importance of universal vouchers, are you,
    first of all, concerned about the count or our ability or
    inability to count homes, how accurate is it, and whether or
    not you are concerned that the methods we are using may create
    some additional undercounting, so we will never fully find the
    extent of homelessness. And then, we don't know how to solve
    the problem, and it is going to be difficult to get resources.
        I would like to have all of the panelists respond to that,
    please.
        Ms. Oliva. I would be happy to start. Thank you so much for
    that question, Congressman.
        I used to run the office at HUD that runs the Point-in-Time
    count, so I want to just note a couple of things. It is
    important to know that the Point-in-Time count is just that. It
    is a snapshot every year of what is happening on a single night
    in January. And therefore, it does have some limitations, which
    is why most of us in the field actually use multiple types of
    datasets in order to really understand what is happening with
    regard to homelessness.
        We look at the number of households that are at risk or who
    are paying more than 50 percent of their income in rent. We
    look at the number of households that are experiencing
    homelessness at a point in time. But we also look at data for
    who is using homeless services over the course of a year, to
    really try and understand what the flow is through the system.
        And then, we look at the Department of Education data,
    which also has its own limitations, because it really only
    captures school-aged children. So, I think it is important for
    us to make sure that when we are talking about universal
    vouchers, that we are aware of all of these different types of
    datasets and are using them in order to create a comprehensive
    approach.
        Mr. Cleaver. And then, Ms. Chancela--if you don't mind, I
    will call you Ms. Chancela, so that I won't continue to
    assassinate the pronunciation of your name--I would like to
    hear from you, please.
        Ms. Al-Mansour. Yes, this is Chancela Al-Mansour. Thank you
    very much for your attempt. I appreciate it.
        So, yes, I agree. Ms. Oliva pointed to one of the main
    problems. The Point-in-Time count, even in Los Angeles, is
    conducted in January. And it is for good reasons that it is
    conducted in January. But even in Los Angeles on a January
    night, it can get down to the 30s and the 40s, and there are
    mountains where it can go to freezing. So, that is a time where
    more people may have family members or may have friends or
    maybe church members who feel sorry for them and may take them
    in.
        The point is that the Point-in-Time count probably is the
    lowest time and probably has the fewest number of people
    experiencing homelessness on the streets. We who do the Point-
    in-Time count realize that happens, and we know that the count
    is undercounted, that there are many more people who are
    experiencing homelessness and who are unhoused who are on the
    streets.
        And yes, even going to the schools doesn't give us a really
    good number, and we know that to undercount in terms of the
    number of students who are experiencing homelessness who are
    enrolled in the school system, younger kids who are
    experiencing homelessness tend to be more enrolled in the
    school system, but the dropout rates happen very quickly by the
    time they reach the sixth, seventh, and eighth grades, for a
    number of reasons.
        Just practical reasons, they have clothes that smell, and
    they are embarrassed and so forth--they don't have clean
    clothes to wear to school and things like that. So, there are
    many reasons why we know that the Point-in-Time count is
    undercounted, but it is probably the best that we can do at
    this point.
        Mr. Cleaver. Thank you.
        Chairwoman Waters. Thank you very much. Mr. Barr, you are
    now recognized for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Barr. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman.
        Mr. Husock, I infer from your testimony that you would
    support the ability of families to use Housing Choice Vouchers
    in non-Housing First facilities. I continue to implore my
    colleagues to allow vouchers--if we are going to be talking
    about Section 8 reform, I implore my colleagues to allow our
    low-income, poor, and homeless families around the country to
    use vouchers in non-Housing First facilities.
        Last year, the U.S. Interagency Council on Homelessness
    released a report that I commend to all of my colleagues, which
    found that this one-size-fits-all approach to homelessness is
    not effective, and it has actually led to an increase in the
    number of unsheltered homeless since the U.S. adopted Housing
    First as its official policy.
        In the 5 years after 2014, when the U.S. adopted Housing
    First as its exclusive solution to combating homelessness, the
    number of unsheltered homeless increased more than 20 percent.
    This is despite significant increases in Federal funding to
    fight homelessness, and this sharp increase came after a
    welcome decline in homelessness of roughly 31 percent between
    2007 and 2014.
        The study shows that more money without appropriate policy
    changes is not the answer. Many transitional housing facilities
    in my district and around the country do not qualify for
    Federal funds because they require participation in wraparound
    services such as counseling, financial education, and career
    development as a condition of continued residency.
        These requirements are necessary and effective in many
    cases, such as for individuals recovering from addiction. The
    facilities have a demonstrated track record of successfully
    transitioning individuals out of homelessness and into
    permanent housing, yet they cannot access Federal funds or
    receive Housing Choice Vouchers.
        Mr. Husock, can you describe the importance of the U.S.
    embracing an all-of-the-above strategy for fighting
    homelessness, and the potential drawbacks of an exclusive
    reliance on Housing First, which sidelines safe, effective, and
    successful homelessness assistance providers?
        Mr. Husock. Thank you very much, Congressman Barr.
        I strongly agree with the thrust of your remarks and your
    inference. The fact that treatment facilities cannot receive
    these kinds of Federal support is antithetical to allowing
    people to graduate from their problems. And in terms of the
    count--and I am going to relate this to your question--there
    are two types of homelessness, and we should not conflate them.
        There are what the British call, ``rough sleepers,'' or,
    ``street sleepers.'' That is one group of people. They have
    their own problems. They need their own approaches.
        Then, there is, ``family homelessness,'' people who are
    having a hard time affording their own unit, and are maybe
    doubled-up with their family.
        We need to focus on the rough sleepers. That is what people
    think of as the truly homeless, the truly needy, and we need to
    give them treatment and target any Federal funds toward
    treatment.
        Mr. Barr. We have a terrible addiction crisis in this
    country, and in my home State of Kentucky that is the root
    cause of much of this homelessness, and I just implore my
    colleagues, look, if you are an advocate of Housing First,
    fine, but low-income families should be able to use Housing
    Choice Vouchers in facilities that reject the failed Housing
    First model--and I would argue the morally-bankrupt Housing
    First model--and embrace successful models that require
    services that actually address the underlying cause of
    homelessness.
        It is not the lack of a roof over their head. It is that
    there is a reason why they are homeless. Let us address the
    reason, the cause, and actually help these people get back on
    their feet.
        One other question to you, Mr. Husock. The Majority have
    mentioned the fact that not everyone who qualifies for a
    voucher receives one. Their solution is to create a new, open-
    ended, mandatory autopilot spending program costing taxpayers a
    minimum of $160 billion per year, in perpetuity, that would
    actually make rent less affordable through inflation pressure.
        But isn't there a better solution? One that costs
    absolutely nothing and would actually decrease permanent
    government dependency while making Housing Choice Vouchers more
    available to more eligible families, and that has reasonable
    time limits.
        You mentioned, Mr. Husock, the Delaware model. How would
    the imposition of a time limit on Housing Choice Vouchers for
    able-bodied, work-capable adults without dependents, given a
    generous time limit like 5 years, increase the availability of
    Housing Choice Vouchers for families on the wait list?
        Mr. Husock. The most advanced model in this type is in San
    Bernardino, California. Here is what they found. They report in
    their new annual report, for those who have been in the 5-year
    limit program, earned income increased 31 percent. Full-time
    employment increased 20 percent, and unemployment decreased 26
    percent.
        Time limits are not mean.
        Mr. Barr. Thank you. I yield back.
        Chairwoman Waters. The gentleman from California, Mr.
    Vargas, is now recognized for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Vargas. Thank you very much, Madam Chairwoman.
        First, I would like to say thank you for your compassion
    that you have toward the homeless and trying to find a
    solution. I really do appreciate it.
        Madam Chairwoman, I ask for unanimous consent to enter into
    the record, a letter which a coalition of bipartisan mayors,
    led by San Diego Mayor Todd Gloria, sent to the House and
    Senate leadership yesterday.
        Chairwoman Waters. Without objection, it is so ordered.
        Mr. Vargas. Thank you. This letter calls for an increase in
    formal housing investments, including expansion of the Housing
    Choice Voucher Program to all eligible households, to be
    included in the anticipated infrastructure package. Given that
    32 mayors signed this letter, a universal Housing Choice
    Voucher Program is clearly a priority for my district as well
    as many cities throughout our country, regardless of the party
    leading the city.
        I do believe that we need these vouchers, and I very much
    support them. I would also say this: I am also on the House
    Foreign Affairs Committee, and I have also traveled a lot on my
    own and with my family. When you go to Europe, you don't see
    the homeless in the same way that you see them here in the
    United States. You just don't see the number of homeless. It is
    not the case. They have the ability to house their people. We
    should, too.
        I have been following the conversation. I do think that we
    need more facilities to treat people. I absolutely do. I think
    it is terrible what California did back, releasing the people
    into the cities without giving them proper treatment. But I
    think after you get treatment, you need a house. You need
    someplace to stay. That is reality.
        So, I did a little something here that is personal. I
    thought, housing costs. And so, I took our own situation, my
    wife and I. We bought our home in 1993, and we paid $176,000
    for our home. It is not a large home. It is a little less than
    2,000 square feet, but it is in San Diego.
        So, I put it into two separate inflation calculators, first
    into SmartAsset.com, to see how much that house would be worth
    today if it just simply followed inflation. In 1993, again, we
    spent $176,000. That is what our house cost us. Today, it would
    be worth $327,000 under SmartAsset.
        I also put it under another inflation calculator, and the
    same house, $176,000 in 1993, would be worth $325,269, a
    difference of about $2,000. So, basically, $325,000 or
    $327,000.
        We just got an unsolicited offer for our house that is over
    $1 million more than that. How do you, if you are a young
    person, if you are a person starting out, how do you afford a
    house now? The truth of the matter is we do have to build more,
    especially in California and places where people want to live.
    We do have to build more houses. We do have to loosen the up
    zoning up. I agree with all of that.
        But at the same time, we have to help people who are trying
    to make it. We need these vouchers. And I do agree with the
    comment about Social Security and all of these other things
    that one side complains about how horrible it is. Now, they all
    defend the Dodd-Frank Act. That is all I heard, and I don't
    hear it now since the banks came up and said, ``Thank God for
    Dodd-Frank.'' But at the beginning, that is all I heard for 6
    years here.
        So, what about these vouchers? What is wrong with having a
    voucher for a person who needs a house? How is that wrong?
    Could someone just explain to me how people are against giving
    a person a place to stay, especially with the cost of housing
    being so high? Does anyone want to take a shot at that policy
    overall?
        Mr. Husock, I respect what you have said, and I have agreed
    with some of what you have said. But I think you might have a
    disagreement. Why?
        Mr. Husock. I will address it. I think they have their
    place, but I don't think it should be an open-ended
    entitlement. I really fear that we are going to discourage
    economic upward mobility. You are going to hit that income
    limit, and people are going to say, I don't want to earn that
    much more because then I will lose my voucher.
        That already happens. So, the theory of the program may
    look like one thing, but as it is implemented, it is another.
    If we want to have an income supplement program and let people
    decide where they want to spend their money, they may rather
    double up and save their money because they want to buy a
    house. They really might. People do it.
        And so, it might be better to increase the earned income
    tax credit. It might be better to get rid of the marriage
    penalty in the earned income tax credit. This is an income
    problem, not only a housing problem.
        Mr. Vargas. I do agree with you on flexibility. I do think
    that some people would want to double up and save their money
    to buy a house. And I do agree there should be flexibility, but
    at the same time, I have to insist that a person has to be able
    to live in a home and not on the street.
        Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. I appreciate it.
        Chairwoman Waters. Thank you very much. The gentleman from
    Texas, Mr. Williams, is now recognized for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Williams of Texas. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman.
        Increasing the government's involvement in the private
    sector can have and always does have negative consequences. We
    cannot figure that now that there are landlords who are putting
    their capital resources on the line in order to build and
    provide housing for people, they are doing that. In my
    district, the Austin Apartment Association filed a lawsuit
    against the City when they tried to force private landlords to
    accept individuals who utilized Federal housing assistance.
        Their lawsuit says that the City will be forcing property
    owners to agree to a one-sided contract with HUD, which
    included approximately 400 pages of rules and regulations. The
    lease with HUD goes far beyond a lease that a vast majority of
    renters sign in Austin. This is big government.
        Now we should not force--I repeat, we should not force
    private landlords to accept public housing vouchers if it is
    not in their best interest. You don't have to do business with
    everybody you come in contact with. Navigating the web of
    Federal bureaucracy is not an easy task, and this action would
    add significant additional cost that would be detrimental to
    many smaller landlords, and any Federal expansion of housing
    programs should remain voluntary for landlords to participate.
        So, Mr. Husock, can you talk about some of the business
    reasons as to why we should not force landlords into a
    partnership with the Federal Government, and the potential
    detrimental effects it would have on new housing developments
    being built?
        Mr. Husock. Thank you very much for that question.
        I am familiar with a property owner in the South Bronx, on
    the Grand Concourse in the South Bronx, who owns 1,800 units of
    housing voucher units, 1,800. They have a whole department of
    their property management business that is solely dedicated to
    hiring attorneys and others to process all of those vouchers,
    and they have a direct deposit from HUD set up.
        Down the street, Mr. Mom-and-Pop landlord can't afford
    those attorneys. It is going to impose additional costs on
    them. In addition, if you don't get paid, if you don't get that
    30 percent, then that is a big problem for you. And so, you
    have other reasons beyond whether it is discrimination based on
    source of income that you may not want to rent.
        Mr. Williams of Texas. Again, when the government gets
    involved, prices go up.
        If we want to expand economic opportunity in America, we
    need to support the job creators in our country. We need to,
    frankly, cut taxes, and that flows to the workers. A part of
    this includes creating a safe environment for people to live
    and for businesses to thrive.
        Mr. Husock, you wrote an article about a candidate who is
    running to be New York City's next mayor. He is a Democrat who
    is opposed to the defund-the-police movement, a new concept.
    While this seems like common sense for many of us, this radical
    policy has been embraced by many on the left.
        So, Mr. Husock, can you talk about the economic prospects
    of areas that choose to cut their police budgets and move
    forward with these radical policies?
        Mr. Husock. Well, I am not a criminal justice expert, and I
    don't represent being one. However, I will say this, that
    safety--I will just tell you a story.
        My middle son moved after high school from Boston to
    Clarksdale, Mississippi, in the Delta, and he lived in a
    majority-minority neighborhood, and he was a musician there.
    And when he got there, the police took him aside, and they
    said, ``Listen, if you buy a TV, don't put it out on the
    sidewalk. Don't put your packages out on the sidewalk. Somebody
    might know that you have this TV.''
        And his neighbors told him, ``We have to be so careful
    because it is hard for us to save money to buy things for our
    homes to increase in value because public safety is not
    assured.'' Public safety is the basis for home values, for
    wealth accumulation among all classes of people. We must have
    public safety. That is the foundation of our prosperity. That
    is why I wrote about Mr. Adams in New York.
        Mr. Williams of Texas. Okay. Thank you.
        The Federal eviction moratorium is supposed to come to an
    end at the end of this month, as we have been talking about,
    and I have been expressing some concerns about this policy
    because we simply are shifting the burden from renters to
    landlords who will still have to pay their bank notes. They
    have to still pay their costs.
        I have heard rumors that the Biden Administration is
    considering extending the eviction moratorium. So, finally, Mr.
    Husock, could you describe the effects of the eviction
    moratorium on the housing ecosystem as a whole, and then let us
    know if you think that President Biden should extend this
    policy?
        Mr. Husock. I think we need to pay the back rent, the
    arrearages of hard-hit people. I think that is appropriate,
    just as the Paycheck Protection Program (PPP) was appropriate
    and effective. The stimulus was effective and creative.
        However, in Massachusetts, when there was a pause in the
    eviction moratorium and evictions were allowed to be filed,
    motions for eviction, the majority of those evictions were not
    for nonpayment of rent. They were for lease violations.
        One of the ways in which landlords are made safe with
    disruptive tenants is to face the threat of eviction. That is
    part of landlording, too.
        Mr. Williams of Texas. I yield back. Thank you.
        Chairwoman Waters. Thank you very much.
        This hearing has nothing to do with defund the police. This
    is about housing.
        The gentleman from Florida, Mr. Lawson, is now recognized
    for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Lawson. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman, and I would like
    to welcome everyone to the committee.
        Some of the questions I have might have been responded to
    already, but I just want to make sure. This is for the whole
    panel. You are probably familiar with the study by Columbia
    University showing that the universal voucher program will lift
    9 million people out of poverty and reduce child poverty by 36
    percent, and decrease racial disparities and poverty rates
    among White and Black households.
        Clearly, the research shows that a universal voucher
    program could help improve millions of people's home lives.
    However, the current Housing Choice Voucher Program (HCVP)
    standard requires landlords to go through a lengthy leasing
    process, especially compared to the standard leasing process.
    After the rental application is completed, the unit must be
    inspected and approved. Scheduling units can take a long time,
    and a landlord loses income while the unit is off the market.
        Landlords can incur additional costs if improvements are
    required by the HCVP. The program does not cover these costs,
    the need for improvements made for inspection approval and the
    overall leasing process. Can any of you support the voucher
    program in this regard, and what can be done to cover some of
    these costs and at the same time give the landlords a little
    break in what they have to do?
        That is for the whole panel.
        Mr. Metcalf. Congressman, I can start off by responding. I
    think you have raised a really good point. I don't think these
    are impossible challenges. I think these are actually
    challenges for which we largely have the answers, but we need
    to scale up.
        As it relates to the inspection process, it is possible to
    differentiate those components of the physical quality of the
    structure that really represent true health and safety
    components versus ones which are more minor in nature, and to
    focus our oversight on those elements. We also see an
    increasing use of technology that can be scaled up, where folks
    are using video technology or photo records, doing spot
    inspections that make this a little bit less onerous for owners
    and a little bit more cost-effective for voucher-administering
    entities.
        And lastly, I think there are good programs that are out
    there that do provide financial incentives to owners to offset
    some of these costs. I think that is an important part. The
    bipartisan Coons and Cramer bill in the Senate is a good
    example of trying to take that one level further, which I think
    makes a lot of sense in terms of helping owners to deal with
    the kinds of challenges that they face in bringing their
    housing units up to a reasonable level of quality.
        Mr. Lawson. Does anyone else want to respond?
        Mr. Husock. Those are certainly commonsense suggestions. I
    would also point out the importance of expanding the Moving to
    Work Program, which allows housing authorities which administer
    Housing Choice Vouchers to choose how they want to spend the
    funds that they do have and not have them all be categorically
    directed.
        And that gives them the flexibility to direct resources
    where they are needed most. That program has been stalled at a
    very low level for many, many years. Its experimental results
    have been good. The time has come to expand Moving to Work.
        Ms. Oliva. I would like to jump in here and just note that
    there are also--I agree with Ben in what he laid out in terms
    of improvements that we can make to the program. I think all of
    us have suggested different kinds of improvements, including to
    the inspection process, and providing some flexibility maybe
    through admin dollars or through other sources of funding to do
    incentives for landlords.
        I know that in a number of communities, local banks have
    helped set up risk mitigation funds that provide some security
    for landlords so that if there is damage to a unit, it will be
    paid for through that risk mitigation fund. I know that the
    emergency solutions grants funding that was provided through
    the CARES Act allows specifically for landlord incentives like
    double the security deposit and other types of incentives for
    landlords, and I would like to take a look at that data and how
    that played out once that program is completed.
        So, there are a number of good public-private ways to
    ensure that landlords are also protected in the use of Housing
    Choice Vouchers because this is about both the tenants and the
    landlords who are providing the units.
        Mr. Lawson. Okay, thank you. And I had another question,
    Madam Chairwoman, but I will yield back. My time was running
    out on me.
        Chairwoman Waters. Thank you very much. The gentleman from
    Arkansas, Mr. Hill, is now recognized for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Hill. Thank you, Chairwoman Waters. This has been a
    very interesting hearing. I am delighted to be able to work on
    the Housing and Insurance Subcommittee as ranking member, and I
    look forward to working with my friend, Mr. Cleaver.
        Mr. Husock, it is good to see you again. In Arkansas, the
    average rent in the metro Little Rock area for 3 bedrooms is
    about $1,100, and that compares to $2,700 out in Los Angeles.
    So, we have a very affordable housing market in Little Rock.
        If we were to have an entitlement program in vouchers, what
    would happen to that affordability in a place like Little Rock,
    in your view?
        Mr. Husock. Well, as I said previously, any time you
    increase demand, you are at risk of pushing up the prices,
    because you have the classic preconditions for inflation. So, I
    think that is a risk.
        But I love that you are pointing out that there is
    affordability now, and we are seeing an exodus from the State
    of California. It has lost population for the first time in its
    history. People are discovering Little Rock. They are
    discovering Fayetteville. They are discovering Buffalo. They
    are discovering my hometown of Cleveland.
        You can work from home. We are having a sorting out of the
    housing affordability problem. This is not the time for a vast
    intervention in the market while the market itself is
    adjusting.
        Mr. Hill. Yes. I think that is a good point. And of course,
    the dream of a voucher program would be that a family would
    have that and be able to move to a better neighborhood or a
    better school or closer to a better job. And we have been
    talking a lot about landlords, but what about the portability
    of a voucher?
        If I have a voucher from the public housing authority in
    Little Rock, may I use that public housing voucher and move to
    a community 30 minutes away, if that is better for me?
        Mr. Husock. It depends on the housing authority, but that
    is happening more. But I would like to return to this idea of
    the opportunity neighborhood. To me, the idea that you have to
    move to a, ``better neighborhood,'' in order to have a better
    life, when did we give up on the idea that poor neighborhoods
    can be good neighborhoods?
        Mr. Hill. Yes.
        Mr. Husock. The Community Development Block Grant Program
    (CDBG) was about doing something about that. We are not going
    to have enough vouchers for all poor people to move to rich
    neighborhoods. That is just not going to happen. We have to
    address ourselves to the core public services of low-income
    neighborhoods: safety; education; and parks. That is what we
    have to do rather than saying we are going to pay everybody to
    move out.
        Mr. Hill. Amen. We need to get you a pulpit. That is
    excellent preaching. I agree with what you are saying.
        I was looking at the San Bernardino County website this
    morning, and they say that their goal in San Bernardino County
    is for all families to prosper and achieve well-being. And I
    also spoke to the mayor of San Bernardino, the County seat of
    that County.
        Mr. Husock, I was very intrigued by your testimony. You
    talked to Mr. Barr about it briefly. Can you go into a little
    bit more detail about the priorities there in San Bernardino
    County, California, about how they are successfully moving from
    entitlement to empowerment for their families?
        Mr. Husock. Yes. First of all, it is a voluntary program.
    If you move into the San Bernardino Housing Authority, you can
    agree--it is voluntary--to a 5-year ceiling on your assistance.
    But if you do agree, you get a flat rent for those 5 years.
    That is just a big deal.
        Would you want to live in a place where the more money you
    earn, the higher your rent goes? And yet, we do that to all 6
    million poor households in public housing and Housing Choice
    Vouchers. San Bernardino says if you want to save money, we
    will have an escrow account for you, if you want to graduate
    from this Housing Choice Voucher Program and buy a house rather
    than be consigned to rent. You don't accumulate wealth in
    rental housing unless you put it to some other use. The failure
    of public housing was always that.
        So, the results were very positive. Earned income for
    families in the program increased by an average of 31.4 percent
    over 4 years. Full-time employment increased 20 percent, and
    unemployment decreased 26 percent. It is a small place. It is a
    small program. But it is really worth looking at those results
    that can be had by changing the terms of receipt.
        Mr. Hill. And again, that speaks to the local market
    conditions, the local supply and demand, the local innovation
    of our communities to try to solve these problems that are
    closest to the people, and why one big, one-size-fits-all
    national entitlement program, I think will just create more
    dislocation instead of more help.
        I thank you for the discussion. And thank you, Madam
    Chairwoman. I yield back.
        Chairwoman Waters. Thank you. The gentleman from Illinois,
    Mr. Foster, is now recognized for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Foster. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman.
        I would also like to apologize for having missed part of
    this hearing. And I hope I am not duplicating other questions
    that have been asked.
        Ms. Cunningham, in your testimony, you spoke of providing
    carrots and sticks for land use and zoning reform, citing the
    issues that arise with exclusionary zoning requirements. And
    one idea that I am interested in exploring is to have some of
    those carrots and sticks be based on big-data analytics, where
    you say, okay, if this person exercises this voucher in this
    particular neighborhood, that there would be a benefit given to
    the landlord, given to the community that accepts it, and as
    well as given to the person.
        And is this something where, instead of having absolute
    hard definitions of, this is an Opportunity Zone, and this is
    not, you just have sort of a big-data analytic benefit, if you
    understand what I am saying. Have things like this been looked
    at?
        Ms. Cunningham. Thanks for the question, first of all. I
    agree that there needs to be carrots and sticks. I haven't
    thought--it is an interesting proposal to think about big data
    and how to use that in the carrots. And I think one of the ways
    we are thinking about and recommending land use and zoning is
    really having the Federal Government provide some carrots in
    terms of competitive grant programs, and then sticks,
    localities get a lot of transportation funding. And so,
    withholding funding from communities that are not providing and
    producing affordable housing, I think is really critical.
        I want to add one more thing around the supply and demand
    issue. I do agree that land use and zoning is really important,
    but there has been a lot of talk about housing vouchers
    expanding and driving up costs when the fact is that most of
    the people who qualify for this expansion, if we were to
    actually expand to universal housing vouchers, are actually in
    housing right now.
        And so, that wouldn't actually increase the demand for
    units; it would just make it possible for the tenant to be able
    to afford their housing. And it would also allow the landlord
    to be paid instead of the tenant struggling each month. So, I
    just want to really highlight that as an important point.
        Mr. Foster. Thank you, and I agree with that. Any run-up in
    the rental prices would presumably be temporary, and the free
    market would take over and say, hey, there is a possible
    opportunity to make more rental units that fit the voucher
    characteristics.
        Does anyone else have any comments on that, whether
    carefully designed, positive financial incentives for the
    community as well as the voucher holder and the landlord might
    provide the proper mix to encourage communities to build more
    voucher-eligible and voucher-welcoming housing?
        Mr. Husock. I would just say this: New housing is very
    expensive. I think the idea that we should build new housing
    for the poorest people with subsidies is the most ambitious
    kind of affordable housing.
        For instance, with the Low-Income Housing Tax Credit
    Program, in the State of California, those units are costing
    close to $400,000 per unit. So, we are not going to get that
    much housing bang for our buck, as they always say in Federal
    budget terminology. It is better for the private market to
    supply low-cost--in answer to a question I dodged before about
    construction methods--manufactured housing. And I don't mean
    only mobile homes. That is bringing down costs. We ought to
    look at that rather than deep subsidies.
        Mr. Metcalf. Congressman, if I may jump in on that, I think
    we live today in a world in which the new multifamily housing
    that is getting built is either deeply subsidized, traditional
    affordable housing, or often higher-end market-rate housing. I
    think one of the promises of moving towards a huge expansion of
    the voucher program, universal voucher, could be an ability for
    market-rate multifamily developers to be able to perform over
    both the vouchers and hopefully in tandem with much shallower
    subsidy sources that are less onerous--tax-exempt bonds,
    Federal Housing Administration-insured debt programs--that
    would allow for a stimulus, if you will, to get more housing to
    get built and really leverage the market rate side of things to
    be doing that.
        I think that is something that we have missed a little bit
    in the dialogue, but I think should be applied.
        Mr. Foster. Thank you. And my time has nearly expired, so I
    will yield back.
        Chairwoman Waters. Thank you very much. The gentleman from
    Ohio, Mr. Davidson, is now recognized for 5 minutes. Is Mr.
    Davidson on the platform?
        Mr. Davidson. Yes, Madam Chairwoman, thank you.
        I want to thank our witnesses for their testimony here
    today, and I appreciate the chance to discuss the important
    issue of homelessness here in the United States. The issue has
    only been exacerbated by the pandemic this past year, and it is
    especially heartbreaking for me to see homeless veterans, in
    particular.
        According to an article in the Military Times from this
    past March, veterans make up about 8 percent of the homeless
    population. And for people who previously served our country to
    defend the American Dream, they especially deserve a solution
    that will provide them with every opportunity to achieve it.
        I will admit that I am a bit intrigued by the idea of
    vouchers. I believe vouchers following every student would
    improve our schools. Perhaps, as some have argued today,
    vouchers to all of those in our Federal housing safety net
    would improve the quality of their housing options.
        I am also encouraged that some of my colleagues who want to
    cancel those with income from sources they personally disfavor,
    like fossil fuels, want to now embrace civil liberties and
    enact nondiscrimination clauses on sources of funds. I think it
    would be great to see it embraced universally for a wide range
    of things, and frankly, these kinds of authoritarian uses of
    payment systems for power have rightly been the focus of our
    committee in the past, things like redlining and practices that
    block people from access to the financial system by using money
    as a means of control rather than a means of payment systems.
        These are principles that we are talking about today that I
    find interesting, and certainly we have a problem with
    homelessness in the country, as we can see with tent cities in
    our nation's capital and in so many other places around the
    country.
        Mr. Husock, I would like to follow up on a conversation
    that you had with Senator Toomey, when you were at the Senate
    hearing in April. Purchasing a home is the cornerstone of the
    American Dream for many, and in the past, Congress has pushed
    policies that attempt to help people purchase a home.
    Ultimately, these policies will sometimes put people on a path
    towards foreclosure. Can you talk about the dangers when
    Congress tries to impose a quick fix when it comes to promoting
    affordable housing?
        Mr. Husock. The question implies questions about affordable
    housing mandates and Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, which are
    beyond the scope of this hearing, so I hope I do not stray too
    far. But I have been concerned, and have written and published
    for many years, about the impact on working-class, low-income
    homeowners who find themselves in high-delinquency areas
    because of low-doc, no-doc loans that were--they were not all
    initiated in the housing crisis because of affordable housing
    mandates, but to some extent they were, and that was modeled by
    the Federal Government.
        My concern is always for the people, as Bill Clinton said,
    who work hard and play by the rules. And if they are making
    their payments and the fellow next door is not making his
    payments because he never should have owned that house in the
    first place, you are hurting the hard-working working class.
    And the fact that communities of color were disproportionately
    harmed in the 2008 financial crisis was a tragedy, and it was
    caught up in all of that.
        Mr. Davidson. Well, I appreciate you recognizing that, and
    frankly, when people are foreclosed on, they often become
    homeless, maybe not structurally forever but for a period of
    time. And then, when we talk some of the other issues, earlier
    this year, the Majority pushed for $80 billion in public
    housing capital funding to be included in the Administration's
    infrastructure plan. If the current proposal before us today
    were to become law, and everyone was guaranteed a voucher if
    they fell below certain income levels, and landlords were
    forced into participating, why would we need public housing?
    Wouldn't the voucher system cover the need?
        Mr. Husock. We have public housing and we need to reform
    public housing. We need to reform the terms of the voucher
    program. There are as many people in public housing today as
    there are in vouchers. However, there is a lot that we can do
    to extricate people from public housing.
        Mr. Davidson. I appreciate that, and the need for reform is
    why I have proposed the People CARE Act, and just like a lot of
    the programs that are in there that do need reform, the
    solution generally, and just like today, is to launch a new
    program rather than to look at all of them. So, I hope we will
    come at it with a holistic approach, and that we can enact the
    People CARE Act, and people who are interested on both sides of
    the aisle, I would love to talk with you. Thanks for your
    expertise today. My time has expired, and I yield back.
        Chairwoman Waters. Thank you. The gentleman from Illinois,
    Mr. Casten, is now recognized for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Casten. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman, and thank you to
    all of our witnesses. This has been a fascinating hearing. I
    hope you will allow me to deviate a little bit from the Section
    8 discussions. There is just a wonderful homeless support
    services company--I live in DuPage County in Illinois--
    DuPagePads, which really exists upstream of the Section 8
    issue. They provide temporary housing, transition services, and
    job training, often in congregate facilities and church
    basements. And if they fail, Section 8 does not matter, because
    we do not get the people off the street and into the system, so
    they come in and look at longer-term services.
        In talking with them in preparation for this hearing, there
    are two things. I want to start with Ms. Cunningham and just
    get your thoughts on these, and then, time permitting, get some
    others. The first was that they said that the single hardest
    families they have to place are large families, that with our
    affordable housing, Section 8 and otherwise, it is much easier
    to place a single individual than, in one case, they have a
    family of nine. They cannot get them out of a church basement
    or a hotel in this current COVID moment.
        Can you speak at all to, understanding that we have a
    problem with affordable housing in this country, what about the
    types of housing? Is there anything we can do to make sure that
    we have types of housing that better match to the need? Ms.
    Cunningham?
        Ms. Cunningham. Thanks for the question, Congressman. I do
    think that it could be challenging to help a family who has a
    lot of children or is also including Grandma or Grandpa into
    the private market. There are not enough big-bedroom units for
    those families. Part of the Housing Choice Voucher Program is
    to ensure that those families are getting extra assistance in
    navigating the private market and finding those landlords that
    do actually have those units.
        But then also, and I noted this in my testimony, we not
    only need voucher assistance but we need to develop housing
    units. So, the expansion of the Housing Choice Voucher Program
    should be within the broader strategy of both investing in
    vouchers but also investing in development of units.
        Mr. Casten. Okay. I want to shift, if I can, to COVID, sort
    of orthogonally. When COVID hit--most of their housing is in
    churches and other congregate facilities that simply did not
    work anymore. And we had a lot of really painful conversations
    about what they were going to do with that, and they moved
    pretty nimbly and got hotels to volunteer spaces. They didn't
    have the budget for it, but thankfully, through some of our
    care support, they were able to provide a budget and get people
    into hotels. And it was pretty painful.
        And in debriefing with them now, as we sort of start to
    emerge from COVID, they said in hindsight that was actually
    hugely beneficial. They have seen increases in the health
    quality because, as they put it, if you have a door that locks,
    and a shower, a whole bunch of other problems go away. They
    have seen a huge surge in children in their care, not because
    the children were housed before but because parents might,
    rightfully, have had some concerns about bringing a child into
    a group sleeping facility, but are okay in a hotel. And they
    were pleading with me, and saying, ``Can you please make sure
    that the financial support continues?''
        So if you had a wish list, which of the temporary changes
    we made during CARES would you like to see continued, to make
    sure that we don't backtrack, and all of a sudden, take one
    step forward and two steps back as these programs expire?
        Ms. Cunningham. I was going to say that I wanted to start
    with that, but also that Ms. Oliva or Mr. Metcalf might have a
    great response. But let me start by saying that it is really
    important that we re-envision our shelter system, our
    congregate shelter system, because we found out during the
    pandemic that it didn't work and that we do need to have more
    individualized units, like single-room occupancy units for
    people who have temporary housing needs.
        So, let me turn it over to Mr. Metcalf or Ms. Oliva.
        Mr. Metcalf. Just to quickly observe, if I can, one of the
    great triumphs, I think, of the last year has been our ability
    to repurpose so many hotels to serve folks coming off the
    streets. In California, some 94 hotels have been converted.
    Some 6,000 new units have been created. But much of that has
    been stopgap. There has not been the sort of capital put in
    place to be able to continue to house those individuals, to
    keep them sort of stably located and assisted. And so we really
    are at risk of seeing that all fall apart as we run out of the
    operating money to keep those folks stably housed.
        In California, the governor has proposed some $3.5 billion
    to do stage funding to capitalize reserves, but it is a really
    awkward way to solve the problem. We definitely need that
    additional voucher assistance to complement these interventions
    for the long term.
        Ms. Oliva. And I would agree with both Ben and Mary, but
    also add that in the American Rescue Plan, funding for
    homelessness assistance does include, the HOME program does
    include some funding in order to sustain noncongregate shelter
    in the long run.
        Chairwoman Waters. Thank you very much.
        Mr. Casten. Thank you. I yield back.
        Chairwoman Waters. Mr. Kustoff is now recognized for 5
    minutes.
        Mr. Kustoff. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman, and thank you for
    conducting today's hearing. And thank you to the witnesses as
    well.
        Mr. Husock, with the Housing Choice Voucher Program, I
    think we can all agree that there are significant changes that
    need to be made to the program. One issue that has come to my
    attention is the funding formula for the program and that the
    Administration expenses the issuing agency or the authority.
    And if I could, the formula fails to account for the logistical
    differences of agencies running the voucher program on a
    Statewide basis as opposed to authorities that handle vouchers
    for a city or county or municipality, et cetera. Many of the
    State agencies lose money due to--and I am going to
    characterize it as a one-size-fits-all formula. In my opinion,
    ultimately that harms the consumers in the form of reduced
    services and assistance.
        My question is about your familiarity with the formula, and
    what would your thoughts be about updating the one-size-fits-
    all approach to it?
        Mr. Husock. Thank you very much, Congressman. Of course,
    Federal funds are allocated on those kinds of formulas in all
    sorts of programs. We have 3,000 public housing authorities in
    this country. That is a whole heck of a lot of overhead. And
    so, it may be that we can consolidate housing authorities,
    whether it is on a statewide or a regional basis, that might
    make it more efficient to distribute those vouchers with lower
    overhead. I still think the most important thing is to change
    the terms of the vouchers, but I would welcome a more efficient
    allocation, for sure.
        Mr. Kustoff. So when you talk about changing the terms,
    what are some things that you would look at, if you could wave
    a magic wand?
        Mr. Husock. Well, the first thing I would do is to allow
    people to not have to pay more rent when they earn more income.
    I know I have said it before, but it just pains me to think of
    people who are struggling to get ahead, to get a higher-paying
    job, and knowing they are paying a higher marginal tax rate
    than Warren Buffett. We know that, right?
        Mr. Kustoff. Right.
        Mr. Husock. We know it now, anyhow. So, why should they pay
    30 cents on the dollar more in rent, and why should they be
    encouraged not to report their income, to have a second income
    in the house that they don't report, or they don't want to have
    it be known? So that, to me, if I could change one thing
    tomorrow, I would have flat rents for all new tenants in
    exchange for a ceiling of 5 years for housing vouchers.
        Mr. Kustoff. Thank you. If I could shift gears for just a
    moment, you have been critical about how the exclusionary
    zoning laws have been used in municipalities across the
    country. Could you elaborate for a moment about how the zoning
    laws limit the supply of affordable housing and ultimately harm
    lower-income Americans?
        Mr. Husock. Yes. They harm middle-income Americans, all
    sorts of income levels. When you have two-acre zoning with one
    house on it, and if it was quarter-acre zoning, do the math;
    you would have 8 houses. That is a lot more houses. And so,
    that just rebounds through our system. I don't agree with one
    of my colleagues who said that we need to use the stick of
    Federal transportation funds and threaten to withdraw funds. I
    will tell you what: A lot of wealthier communities in this
    country don't receive any CDBG funds. They don't receive any
    DOT funds. They would be exempt, and they may be the worst
    offenders.
        So, I think we have to have HUD persuade our
    municipalities, through model zoning, that, look, it is in your
    interest to do this. It is in the interest of your children and
    your grandchildren, so they can stay where they grew up. It
    doesn't mean high-rise public housing. That is what they are
    afraid of. That may be politically incorrect to say, but that
    is what they are afraid of. We have to say no, we are talking
    about two-family houses on small lots, the way we built before
    zoning came into this country everywhere. We knew how to build
    affordable housing all over this country, but we forgot how.
        Mr. Kustoff. Thank you, Mr. Husock, and with that, I will
    yield back my remaining time. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman.
        Chairwoman Waters. Thank you very much. The gentlewoman
    from Massachusetts, Ms. Pressley, is now recognized for 5
    minutes.
        Ms. Pressley. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. Thank you for
    being just so steadfast on this issue. I was very proud, in my
    very first Financial Services Committee hearing, that what was
    before us was your bill to end homelessness. So, I thank you
    for your steadfast leadership in this space.
        While the Housing Choice Voucher Program has a proven track
    record of reducing homelessness and improving lives, especially
    for domestic violence survivors, veterans, Black and Brown
    households, and persons with disabilities, it has yet to reach
    its full potential. Only one in five people who qualify for one
    currently receives one, and the average wait time, in some
    towns in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts is 10 years, a
    decade.
        Transforming the Housing Choice Voucher Program into an
    entitlement program, similar to Medicare or Medicaid, is the
    bold, transformative, and necessary change that my constituents
    need right now. Constituents like a single mom in Hyde Park who
    is currently battling cancer and has been on the Housing Choice
    Voucher Program waitlist for 5 years. Or an elderly couple in
    Roslindale, surviving on fixed Social Security disability
    insurance, and struggling to keep up with the rising cost of
    rent. They have been slipping further and further into poverty
    on the waitlist for 8 years. And a single mother in Boston who
    left her marriage due to domestic violence has been living in a
    two-bedroom unit with her five children while waiting on a
    voucher for more than 4 years. And a frontline hospital worker
    and single mom in Dorchester who has been just barely getting
    by while serving on the front lines of the pandemic; she has
    been on the waitlist for 17 years.
        Providing a universal voucher program would lift 9 million
    people out of poverty, reduce child poverty by 36 percent
    overall, and by over 80 percent for families of color, and
    decrease racial disparities and poverty rates among White and
    Black households.
        Ms. Oliva, countless families across my district who
    qualify for, but are still awaiting, a voucher are extremely
    vulnerable to homelessness once the eviction moratorium
    expires. These families are already stretched thin due to the
    pandemic, illness, trauma, and low wages, and are left making
    unconscionable choices so they can pay their rising rent costs.
    Can you please explain the potential--why it is transformative
    for a universal Housing Choice Voucher Program and its
    alignment with the fight for racial justice?
        Ms. Oliva. Thank you so much for that question. I think
    that might be one of the most important things for us to
    examine as we think about Housing Choice Voucher expansion. We
    know that because we have insufficient funding for this
    program, it actually prevents assistance from reaching 15
    million low-income people of color who live in rental housing
    and face unaffordable housing costs, and that, as you noted,
    expanding vouchers for all eligible people would have a
    significant impact on poverty, which would benefit people of
    color the most, and they would experience the steepest declines
    in poverty.
        We also know that people of color, especially Black
    families and individuals, are overrepresented in homelessness.
    So we can understand, really, looking at it from a racial
    justice perspective, how housing justice and racial justice
    actually overlap. They are the same thing, because without
    housing justice it is really hard to achieve racial justice.
        Ms. Pressley. Thank you. And before my time runs out, I
    also wanted to ask you to comment on the criminalization for
    those who are unhoused, that has increased over the last 15
    years. What impacts would universal vouchers have for helping
    marginalized populations avoid homelessness and
    criminalization?
        Ms. Oliva. As I noted in my testimony, in 2020, we saw, for
    the first time since we have been collecting this data, that
    the number of individuals who are living on the streets
    exceeded the number of individuals who are living in shelters.
    This creates tension and criminalization in communities across
    the country that is retraumatizing for people who are
    experiencing homelessness and who are quite vulnerable. The
    expansion of Housing Choice Vouchers would really allow for a
    massive decrease in the number of people in unsheltered
    locations and an increase in the amount of permanent supported
    housing, like HUD-VASH, that would be available for folks who
    are living in unsheltered locations.
        Thank you for that question.
        Ms. Pressley. Thank you.
        Chairwoman Waters. The gentleman from Tennessee, Mr. Rose,
    is now recognized for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Rose. Thank you, Chairwoman Waters and Ranking Member
    McHenry. I also want to thank our witnesses for being here
    today. Something that I don't think has gotten enough attention
    during this hearing is just the sheer cost of implementing a
    program such as universal housing vouchers. As our national
    debt climbs above $28 trillion, we should not be adding even
    more mandatory spending programs, especially to the tune of
    roughly $160 billion per year.
        Mr. Husock, I do not believe that a new housing voucher
    entitlement would do anything to address the main cause of high
    housing cost, which is the inability of localities to produce
    more units of housing. Now, I am thrilled you mentioned
    manufactured housing during Representative Foster's time,
    because in the 6th District of Tennessee, which I represent,
    12.9 percent of total occupied housing units are manufactured
    homes. Manufactured housing is the most affordable home
    ownership option available nationwide for minorities, and
    underserved and low-income borrowers. According to the U.S.
    Census data, 90 percent of new homes under $75,000 are
    manufactured housing.
        Mr. Husock, could you expand on how manufactured housing
    could be key as communities develop strategies to address their
    affordable housing shortages?
        Mr. Husock. Thank you, Congressman Rose. The first thing
    they have to do is to permit it to be used in their localities.
    That is a zoning issue, a building code issue. But manufactured
    housing is not just mobile homes anymore. We are talking about
    a full-on substitute for so-called stick-built housing, which
    can be done on a mass scale.
        And this goes back in history. I mentioned Levittown, which
    was the archetype American post-war suburb. That is how Mr.
    Levitt made those houses so cheap, is he had set up an assembly
    line. It is time-proven. We need to use those methods again. So
    yes, it is a big part of it.
        Mr. Rose. Mr. Husock, you discussed earlier in the hearing
    about the importance of working at the city and town level for
    better city planning to increase the housing supply, and you
    have just been referring to that again. What would be your
    suggestions for us, as legislators at the Federal level, as we
    go and talk with our local leaders?
        Mr. Husock. I think, again, this is something that you, as
    people who are in the political life, are best at, and that is
    persuasion. And persuasion has to be built on the idea that,
    why don't we have two-family houses in this town anymore? Why
    don't we have three-family houses? Why don't we have small
    apartment buildings? People could move from those. Communities
    want replacement populations. In order to have new, young
    families move in, they have to have points of entry. If they
    don't, then older people are going to sit in their homes and
    age out, and communities are going to be in trouble without
    replacement populations.
        So, I think you can do a lot to persuade that, by the way,
    if you don't do this, HUD is going to come at you with a big
    stick, too.
        Mr. Rose. Thank you. Ms. Oliva, I know that during your
    time at HUD, you worked to find ways to help cities stretch
    their dollars, so this question is for you. I read an article
    earlier this week about a report from LA's chief administrative
    officer about a homeless campground the City is setting up in a
    parking lot. It appears that the City is allowing homeless
    individuals to move their tents into this parking lot, in a
    centralized location, so that they can provide them with
    running water, hygiene stations, and other services.
        What is alarming is that it is costing Los Angeles $2,663
    per participant, per month, to provide a tent in an empty
    parking lot. You could provide every participant with two one-
    bedroom apartments for that price. According to the report,
    L.A. is using CARES Act funding to do this. How is it possible
    that providing someone a tent in a parking lot costs $2,663 per
    participant, per month?
        Ms. Oliva. Thank you for that question. While I am not
    familiar with those particular numbers that you are citing,
    shelter is expensive. That is actually why we are having this
    conversation today, because if we had universal housing
    vouchers available for those folks who are in unsheltered
    locations, we could actually be accessing housing resources for
    people who are experiencing homelessness, who are elderly, who
    are young people, who are mentally ill, and the services they
    need to maintain those houses. So, I actually think that it is
    important to look at the housing side of the question.
        Mr. Rose. Thank you. And Chairwoman Waters, I yield back.
        Chairwoman Waters. Thank you very much. The gentleman from
    New York, Mr. Torres, is now recognized for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Torres. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. I represent New
    York 15, the South Bronx, which, during COVID-19, has been
    shown to be what I call the essential congressional district of
    New York City. It is home to hundreds of thousands of essential
    workers who put their lives at risk during the peak of the
    pandemic so that the rest of the City could safely shelter in
    place. It is nothing short of a moral outrage that our
    essential workers, upon whom all of us depend, increasingly
    cannot afford to live in a city or a country that could not
    survive and succeed without them.
        As far as I am concerned, housing is as much a human right
    as education, and housing ought to be as much of an entitlement
    as education. The best path to housing as a human right, to
    housing as an entitlement, is housing vouchers for all, which
    has been proposed by Chairwoman Waters. According to the
    Harvard Joint Center for Housing Studies, in 2019, pre-COVID,
    there were 37 million Americans who spent more than one-third
    of their income on rent, and nearly half of those Americans
    spent more than one-half of their income on rent. Housing
    vouchers for all would bring affordability to tens of millions
    of Americans.
        The American Jobs Plan proposes an historic investment of
    over $300 billion in housing, but more important than the
    dollar amount is how those dollars are spent. If we expand
    housing supply without expanding housing subsidy, we run the
    risk of creating housing without actual affordability for the
    poorest of Americans. We run the risk of creating the illusion
    rather than the reality of affordable housing. Less than 1
    percent of the housing funds in the American Jobs Plan has been
    set aside for rental assistance.
        My first question is for Ms. Oliva. What is the danger of
    prioritizing housing supply to the exclusion of housing
    subsidy?
        Ms. Oliva. Thank you so much for that question,
    Congressman. I think you are exactly right. We know that
    housing vouchers are only available for one in every four
    eligible households, and we know that we need a balanced
    approach. We have talked about that quite a bit in this hearing
    today. We need both supply side investments in areas that have
    a supply shortage and we need affordability investments in many
    areas across the country.
        As I noted in my testimony, in most cases, unless a
    household also receives a voucher or other type of rental
    assistance, construction subsidies that we are talking about on
    the supply side generally don't produce housing with rents that
    are affordable for those households with income at or below the
    poverty line, and that is who we are talking about. When we are
    talking about people who are experiencing homelessness, we are
    talking about people with incomes at or below the poverty line.
        So, in order to make that reduction in homelessness and to
    really create both a prevention aspect of this program as well
    as an exiting homelessness aspect of this program, we need the
    affordability investments for areas that both have the supply
    shortage and where affordability is the main problem.
        Mr. Torres. And I know much has been said about cost, but I
    guess my question for you and for others is, what is the cost
    of homelessness and housing insecurity? If you lack basic
    housing stability in your life it has a destabilizing effect on
    every aspect of your life. It makes you more vulnerable to
    substance abuse, mental illness, depths of despair, contact
    with the criminal justice system, a whole host of social
    challenges (inaudible) society of fortune. Do you agree that
    the cost of doing nothing or doing too little far exceeds the
    cost of housing vouchers for all?
        Ms. Oliva. Yes, I think the way that you framed that is
    exactly right. There is a cost to our public systems--jails,
    hospitals, child welfare system, all of the public systems, and
    police--that interact with people who are experiencing
    homelessness in ways that they wouldn't have to interact with
    them if folks actually had safe, stable, and affordable
    housing. But more importantly, there is a human cost to the
    decisions that we are making here, and that human cost is about
    the people who are experiencing homelessness and the damage and
    trauma that is created by experiencing homelessness, especially
    unsheltered homelessness, and especially kids and young adults.
        Ms. Al-Mansour. If I can add, and especially women, and
    especially women with children and members of the LGBTQ
    communities find themselves very vulnerable. I have had clients
    who had no mental health issues, lost their Section 8 voucher,
    and became more addicted. Nobody would take their Section 8
    voucher. They then were made homeless, slept in their car, the
    car was impounded, and they lost everything. I have had clients
    who were raped on the streets because then they lost
    everything. And then, developmental health issues that they
    never had before, because of homelessness. And that is
    something I wanted to say earlier in terms of what is the
    number one cause of homelessness, which is loss of housing. And
    that is what creates a lot of mental health and physical
    issues.
        Ms. Oliva. (Inaudible) forms of affordable housing like
    supportive housing are more cost effective than psychiatric
    hospitalization and incarceration.
        Chairwoman Waters. Thank you very much. The gentleman from
    Texas, Mr. Gonzalez, is now recognized for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Gonzalez of Texas. Thank you so much, Madam Chairwoman.
    And my question, well, my comments and questions are something
    that Mr. Husock touched on earlier, but to Ms. Oliva and Ms.
    Cunningham, throughout the pandemic, millions of unassisted
    renters have struggled to pay their rent, meaning some
    landlords have lost needed income in supporting their rental
    properties, especially the mom-and-pops that haven't been able
    to make their mortgages--
        Chairwoman Waters. Is Mr. Gonzalez still on the platform? I
    do not hear Mr. Gonzalez. He started out and he has stopped. I
    don't know what has happened. If Mr. Gonzalez is not prepared
    to continue, I will move on to the next person, and I will come
    back to Mr. Gonzalez.
        Next on the platform, we will have Mr. Lynch from
    Massachusetts. Is he available?
        If Mr. Lynch is not available, Ms. Adams, you are
    recognized for 5 minutes.
        Ms. Adams. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. And thank you to
    the ranking member for hosting this hearing today, and to our
    witnesses, and thank you very much as well. This is an
    incredibly urgent conversation.
        I want to first ask a follow-up in terms of the source of
    income. Unfortunately, there are too many documented cases of
    housing providers not accepting payment because they choose to
    discriminate against the source, such as the Housing Choice
    Vouchers. At the local level, I am particularly proud of the
    work that both my City of Charlotte, and the advocates
    throughout the 12th District, have done to address this source
    of discrimination income. But we still have a long way to go to
    make access to housing equitable. You have already heard how
    long the wait is, but in my district it takes approximately 11
    years to receive a voucher, based off of the current rate of
    admission to the Housing Choice Voucher Program. Twenty-one
    percent of families who receive a voucher were unable to find
    housing by the time that the voucher expired, after 100 days.
        So, Ms. Cunningham, can you describe why it is so important
    that we move swiftly to end source-of-income discrimination
    nationwide?
        Ms. Cunningham. Thanks for the question. I do think it is
    important. When we studied this issue in 2018, we did find that
    discrimination is a significant problem. And as I mentioned
    earlier, only one out of three voucher holders right now are
    protected by those local source-of-income protections. And so,
    having a national source of income protection is really
    critical, not only to protect the voucher holders that this
    expansion would cover, if passed, but also existing voucher
    holders who are on the program right now.
        Ms. Adams. Thank you. According to the Urban Institute, we
    know that the population of unsheltered individuals
    experiencing homelessness has risen dramatically over the past
    several years, and in my community and those across the
    country, we have seen tent cities rise to accommodate these
    individuals. In Charlotte, using CARES funds, our local
    government was able to help over 200 unsheltered individuals
    living in a tent city find temporary housing in a hotel where
    they received access to other services.
        Ms. Oliva, how would expanding access to vouchers help our
    unsheltered populations who are experiencing homelessness?
        Ms. Oliva. Thank you for that question, and I want to start
    by pointing to the U.S. Department of Housing-VA Supportive
    Housing (HUD-VASH) Program. For those of you who are not
    familiar, the HUD-VASH Program is a program that uses a Housing
    Choice Voucher as the housing subsidy, and pairs it with
    services that are provided by the U.S. Department of Veterans
    Affairs (VA). I know earlier in the hearing, we had a question,
    or we talked a little bit about the impact of homelessness on
    veterans.
        HUD-VASH is a proof point on how vouchers can be used to
    end homelessness among people who are living in unsheltered
    locations. The HUD-VASH Program is really the keystone in our
    approach, certainly when I was at HUD. I am one of the
    architects of that program. It is one of the keystones to
    really being able to cut homelessness among veterans,
    especially unsheltered veterans and chronically homeless
    veterans who are quite ill. But that was really the centerpiece
    of our approach to being able to cut veteran homelessness by
    half over the last several years.
        So, I think that we can take lessons from HUD-VASH and
    apply them in other types of situations to ensure that people
    who are experiencing unsheltered homelessness have the housing
    and service resources that they need in order to maintain
    stability, and to pursue their own personal goals.
        Ms. Adams. Thank you. Madam Chairwoman, I just want to say
    how grateful I am to you for all of your work and diligence
    around housing, and I just want to reinstate my strong belief
    that everybody in this country deserves decent, affordable
    housing. These are questions of fairness and compassion, so I
    look forward to advancing these priorities with my colleagues
    and under your leadership.
        Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. I yield back.
        Chairwoman Waters. And thank you so very much. I understand
    that Mr. Gonzalez is back on the platform. If so, you are
    recognized for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Gonzalez?
        I am going to move on. Ms. Tlaib, you are now recognized
    for 5 minutes.
        Ms. Tlaib. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman, and thank you so
    much to our panel. I know it has been a long hearing, but it is
    an important one. I really appreciate it.
        For years, while working in the nonprofit sector, I always
    said, ``low-income or poor communities.'' But I am going to
    start calling my neighbors who are struggling with housing--
    these are our, ``low-wage neighbors.'' These are low-wage
    earners. If people start relating how we are taking care of our
    low-wage earners and not just labeling them as low income, it
    is income coming from sources that refuse to increase pay,
    refuse to recognize the importance of increasing minimum wage
    and how that is really connected very much to access to
    housing.
        In the State of Michigan, especially here in Detroit, it is
    an over 80-percent Black City. It is very strong and resilient.
    But one of the things that is increasingly frustrating for a
    lot of my neighbors in my district is this idea of unfairness.
    And they continue to hear, obviously, excuse after excuse for
    not having equal access to vouchers, and how broken that system
    is.
        But the one thing, and I hope you might be prepared to talk
    about this, because this is where my frustration comes from, is
    this idea around the Low-Income Housing Tax Credit. Of course,
    I am very supportive of that. I am supportive of having what we
    call in Detroit like HUD housing and so forth. But what has
    happened is that it is almost like legalized speculation. It is
    like we are legalizing speculation of these developers coming
    in, and Madam Chairwoman, you know this, they come in, they
    make this HUD housing, taking vouchers in, and after 20 years
    they have the option of continuing on or not. But they wait.
    They wait until a city like mine, all of a sudden, ``comes
    back.'' I don't know where we are coming back from.
        And then, you see huge developers like Dan Gilbert, and
    other developers coming in, and mass-evicting everyone out of
    the building. Many of them are seniors who have been in the
    home for over a decade. I have known a woman for 21 years, a
    retired teacher, completely (inaudible) asked to leave, because
    then all of a sudde,n they turned them into bougie condos,
    unaffordable units.
        I don't know if it is you, Ms. Cunningham, who can talk a
    little bit about this, or Ms. Oliva, you have been talking a
    little bit about it. But I really am wondering how we, as the
    Federal Government, can stop that push, because I personally
    feel like when we see the loss of affordable housing in a city
    like mine, it is because we legalized this kind of speculation
    and then allowed them to push out our low-wage neighbors into
    other areas with just no option. And I am really tired of it. I
    am tired of us blaming our neighbors and talking about those
    subsidies, but we don't talk about the subsidies that kept many
    of these developers with a lot of profit, again all on the
    backs of American taxpayers.
        So I don't know if, Ms. Oliva, you can speak about that, or
    anybody else?
        Ms. Cunningham. Thanks for the question. I can start. I do
    think that building long-term affordability into those
    contracts for developers is really important, so we want to
    make sure that we have not only the development of those units
    but also long-term affordability. And we want to make sure that
    there is a preservation strategy for making sure that those
    units can stay affordable.
        But I will say that one of the plusses or benefits of the
    voucher program is that the subsidy stays with the tenant. So,
    tenants can take that voucher and move across the private
    market and rent where they can find a unit that is affordable.
    And that is a really important benefit of the voucher program.
        Ms. Tlaib. This is why we need to support more of that
    mobility versus what we had in the past. And I say that because
    I see a lot of these lobbyists coming to us saying, ``Support
    this tax credit,'' and it has been refused. This is what we
    need to support. We need to give it directly to the people. Let
    them have that independence that we hope will help them get
    them out of the cycle of poverty.
        Chairwoman Waters knows that 40 percent of the Housing
    Choice Voucher recipients are households with babies, with
    children. And so, it is really critically important that we
    support that. I only have 5 minutes and I ran on and on, but I
    am really tired of funding a broken system, and why aren't we
    doing something bold like a universal voucher system? I don't
    know. But that is why we are having this hearing.
        Thank you, Madam Chairwoman.
        Chairwoman Waters. Thank you very much. The gentlewoman
    from Pennsylvania, Ms. Dean, is now recognized for 5 minutes.
        Ms. Dean. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. Can you hear me?
        Chairwoman Waters. Yes, I can hear you.
        Ms. Dean. Thank you very much, and of course, once again
    thank you for your focus on homelessness. Homelessness in
    America says a lot about us, and sadly, what it says is not
    good. So, I really prize and honor all of the folks who are
    here today and all of the work that you are doing to end
    homelessness, to stop the scourge of it in our cities. We know
    that it costs a lot of money. People are worried about the
    vouchers costing money. Homelessness already costs a fortune in
    our society, and it touches every district, including my own. I
    am from suburban Philadelphia, and while Philadelphia has a
    very serious homeless population, so does my own district of
    Montgomery and Berks Counties. We participated in the Point-in-
    Time count, and I echo some of the sentiments: It doesn't seem
    to actually capture the homelessness picture. But our numbers
    show that every night, as many as 1,000 people are homeless in
    this suburban district.
        Ms. Cunningham, and Mr. Metcalf, each of you, in your
    testimony, described that an expansion of Housing Choice
    Vouchers should be targeted first to the most-vulnerable
    populations, and I am curious, what does, ``vulnerable,'' mean
    in your world? Does the current definition or focus on
    vulnerable populations include the elderly, those with mental
    health disorders, and those suffering from substance use
    disorder or addiction? Could you answer that for me, and how
    can we make sure we have a focus on those populations? Ms.
    Cunningham first, perhaps?
        Ms. Cunningham. Thank you, Congresswoman, for that
    question. As I noted in my testimony, we should target an
    expansion of vouchers to the most vulnerable, and that includes
    people who are currently homeless, people who have a
    disability, and that may include a behavioral health problem or
    a mental health problem, people who have physical disabilities,
    the elderly, survivors of domestic violence, people who have
    really, really, really low incomes, below 15 percent of AMI,
    and those who are severely cost-burdened. That is how I would
    define some of it.
        Ms. Dean. Thank you. Mr. Metcalf, your thoughts, and are we
    focused properly on these categories of people?
        Mr. Metcalf. Thank you for asking the question. I think it
    is really important in any scenario that we don't just flip a
    switch and have a universal voucher, but we need to move
    incrementally.
        Number one, I would say we need to prioritize those special
    needs populations, aligned with other interventions we already
    have. The VASH voucher is a perfect example of that. We have
    support from the VA; they just need more housing vouchers to
    accompany those folks who are coming out of homelessness. Our
    disability voucher is another great example of that. So, that
    is the first bucket, where we line up with other wraparound
    services.
        The second bucket, I think is a broader category of folks
    with vulnerabilities who are right on the edge of homelessness.
    I think there are opportunities to target these, so that we can
    keep those folks from falling into the very expensive situation
    of living on the streets.
        And then third, as Ms. Cunningham, just said, is anybody
    who is extremely low-income or very low-income or extremely
    cost-burdened. I think that would be the sort of three-tiered
    prioritization that I would recommend.
        Ms. Dean. If I could ask Ms. Oliva, in your testimony you
    mentioned the difficulties of measuring vulnerability as well,
    and that it differs per population. As you point out, it is
    quite fluid, based on life circumstances. Are these groups of
    vulnerable people described above often left out of
    determinations of vulnerability? I want to add an emphasis
    especially on those struggling with addiction. Here in
    Philadelphia, in suburban Philadelphia, you can see the direct
    connection between, or interconnectedness of mental health and
    addiction to homelessness.
        Ms. Oliva. Thank you for asking me that question. I would
    agree with both Mary and Ben about sort of how we think about--
    even if we were to get to universal vouchers, I don't think
    anybody is suggesting that a switch would be flipped and that
    everybody would have one on day one, because we would actually
    have to implement it over time, and think about how to do that
    implementation.
        So yes, I would agree that we are talking about folks who
    are experiencing homelessness for a variety of reasons,
    including folks who want to be in recovery or have substance
    use disorders. That is definitely a vulnerable population. But
    it is always hard. As I mentioned in my testimony, frontline
    workers in the homeless system--I am also from suburban
    Philadelphia, so I know your area very well. Frontline workers
    in those areas have to make--I have watched them. They have
    devastating choices about who would get a housing voucher or
    who would get supportive housing placement. And we can do
    better than that. Thank you.
        Ms. Dean. Thank you, Ms. Oliva, and I look forward to
    working with you here in suburban Philadelphia.
        Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. My time has expired. I yield
    back.
        Chairwoman Waters. Thank you. The gentlewoman from New
    York, Mrs. Maloney, who is also the Chair of the House
    Committee on Oversight and Reform, is now recognized for 5
    minutes.
        Ms. Maloney? If you are not on at this moment, I am going
    to move on to Mr. Garcia. Mr. Garcia, are you on the platform?
        If not, the gentlewoman from Georgia, Ms. Williams, is now
    recognized for 5 minutes.
        Ms. Williams of Georgia. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. I am
    on the platform.
        One of my priorities in Congress is closing the racial
    wealth gap, in my district and across the country. To achieve
    that goal, we must close disparities in meeting people's
    fundamental needs. Right now, 39 percent of all individuals
    experiencing homelessness in our country are Black, even though
    Black individuals only make up 12 percent of the total U.S.
    population.
        Ms. Cunningham, do you believe reducing racial disparities
    in homelessness could ultimately be a tool to help us address
    the racial wealth gap and give people of all backgrounds a fair
    shot at success?
        Ms. Cunningham. Thank you for that question, Congresswoman.
    It is really important. I think that housing vouchers are one
    of the most powerful tools that we have in our toolbox to
    address some of the racial disparities that we see in
    homelessness and also among renters. So if we expanded, and
    some of the analysis that we have done at the Urban Institute
    shows that if we expanded the Housing Choice Voucher Program to
    everyone who qualifies then we would actually eliminate or
    narrow almost all of those gaps. And, of course, if the long-
    term trajectory is to increase wealth among people, you need to
    have stability in housing first. And so I think it is a really,
    really critical first step to decreasing the racial wealth and
    making sure that people have the stability of housing.
        Ms. Williams of Georgia. Thank you. To reduce racial
    disparities and get more individuals housed, it is important to
    have a full picture of the problem.
        Ms. Oliva, your testimony specifically referenced how
    unsheltered homelessness has increased every year since 2015.
    Overall, homelessness has increased in recent years, even
    though it was on the decline between 2007 and 2015. What are
    some top factors that could have contributed to these
    concerning trends over the last few years, specifically?
        Ms. Oliva. Thank you for that question. I noted in my
    written testimony that I get to work in communities all over
    the country as they are addressing homelessness, and I get to
    see the different situations that they are dealing with
    locally. And what I would note is that there are a lot of
    homeless service systems across this country that are actually
    housing more people now than they ever have before, including
    Los Angeles.
        And what they can't keep up with is inflow, and that feels
    different now than it did certainly during my tenure at HUD
    that ended a few years ago, where we can't keep up with the
    number of people who are falling into homelessness for the
    first time ever. And there are a number of factors that I am
    sure my fellow panelists could speak to better than I could,
    but that is something that is happening across the country.
        Ms. Williams of Georgia. Thank you so much. We are noticing
    that here in Atlanta. I just had a meeting last week with the
    Atlanta Housing Authority, and we were discussing these same
    concerns, so thank you for that. And as we continue to work to
    end homelessness in this country, we need to make sure that we
    address both housing affordability and access.
        Mr. Metcalf, in your testimony you mentioned how important
    it is to expand both vouchers and affordable housing supply.
    What are some principles that we should keep in mind to ensure
    that Federal investments are coordinated to tackle both housing
    access and affordability simultaneously?
        Mr. Metcalf. Thank you for that great question. I have just
    a couple of immediate responses. Number one, I think we need to
    be very sensitive to the areas in the country where we do have
    the supply-constrained markets, where really one of the drivers
    on affordability is extremely high rents, extremely high home
    prices that are due to not having enough supply. Those are the
    areas where we need to focus and have a greater share of our
    new production.
        There are many other markets in this country where the
    challenges are different. They look more like the quality of
    the underlying housing stock or the need to repurpose older
    housing stock, and so an adaptive reuse approach may make more
    sense than new construction, as a whole.
        The second point is we do have a very fractured housing
    subsidy delivery system, so the folks who may be on the ground
    administering the vouchers may look different than those who
    are deploying the new production subsidy system.
        I think one of the things we have seen some comments around
    is efforts to try and work more at the collaborative scale, to
    deploy resources at the county level instead of the city level,
    to create regional authorities that could do some of this work,
    and to centralize some of those functions at the State level as
    well. Those are things that help us do better planning and then
    also do much better execution around solving these challenges.
        Ms. Williams of Georgia. Thank you so much for your
    commitment to helping us solve this problem nationally. And
    with that, Madam Chairwoman, I will yield back.
        Chairwoman Waters. Thank you very much. The gentleman from
    Illinois, Mr. Garcia, is now recognized for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Garcia of Illinois. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman, and
    thanks to all of the witnesses who have come to share their
    expertise.
        This topic is close to home for me. I represent a working-
    class, immigrant district that was hit especially hard by
    COVID-19 and the economic crisis, of course, that came with it.
    Most of my constituents are renters, and for us the housing
    crisis began a long time before the pandemic. My community
    never recovered from the Great Recession. Tens of thousands of
    Latinos have left the Logan Square neighborhood in Chicago in
    the last decade alone. We must break the brutal cycle of
    disinvestment, displacement, and homelessness. We need to build
    back better, and that means policies that recognize that
    housing is a human right.
        I would like to ask Professor Metcalf a question. There is
    a lot that we don't know about what housing and homelessness
    will look like post-COVID-19. Millions lost their jobs, but
    home prices are skyrocketing across the country. What impact do
    you think the virus will have on housing insecurity and
    homelessness?
        Mr. Metcalf. That is an excellent question, and I think
    there is a lot that we can learn from the experience of the
    last year. I think one of the key lessons learned is that we
    need to bake more resiliency into our housing system. I think
    we saw the limits. We saw how vulnerable our current housing
    system is for those low-wage workers who were most at risk
    during the COVID pandemic.
        One of the populations that did much better, comparatively,
    over this past year were voucher holders and other folks who
    were stably housed within federally-assisted affordable
    housing. When their incomes collapsed, because they were forced
    to work from home, the Federal Government was able to quickly
    step in and pick up a larger share of the total rent.
        I think the good news is that as we have seen countless
    State and local governments deploying one-time assistance to
    help deal with arrearages and help address the emergency rental
    assistance, we have learned a lot, and we all will learn a lot
    from these deployments of local funds. And I think we can then
    bring back to look for opportunities to improve our mainstream,
    long-term housing systems.
        And I think as one of my fellow panelists noted earlier in
    the hearing, it is actually giving all kinds of landlords--mom-
    and-pops, mid-sized, and large--experience working with subsidy
    programs that I think will help them understand that maybe
    working in a public-private partnership is much more doable and
    much less scary than it might otherwise have been. I think it
    is, in some ways, a great opening into an expansion of the
    voucher program.
        Mr. Garcia of Illinois. Thank you for that. Ms. Cunningham,
    in the richest country on earth, every human being should have
    a roof over their head. Our current housing policies simply
    don't meet the need. Why is it important to make housing an
    entitlement by expanding our voucher program, and what role
    could expanding and investing in public housing play in
    securing housing for all?
        Ms. Cunningham. Thank you for that question, Congressman. I
    think, as you point out, we are the richest country in the
    world and we have a shameful homelessness problem that is
    highly visible everywhere you walk--I know it is where I live,
    in Washington, D.C. So, I think that we need to think about
    housing as a basic need, and understand that the housing market
    really fails to respond to the demand for housing. We have a
    private housing market that doesn't produce enough affordable
    housing for the people who need it, and that is because it
    doesn't pencil out for developers to really produce that
    housing.
        So in order for us to make sure that everyone is housed in
    the United States, we need government intervention, and that
    intervention really is in the form of, first, I think a
    universal housing voucher program which would provide rental
    assistance for everyone who needs it, but also then, or
    simultaneously, a strategy for really developing affordable
    housing and making sure that we can stretch those subsidy
    dollars. If we actually had the development of more affordable
    housing, those subsidy dollars would go further because the
    rents would come down a little.
        So I think it is important for us to both expand housing
    vouchers so that we can make sure that we are meeting
    everyone's basic needs, and to really address that market
    failure that we have right now.
        Mr. Garcia of Illinois. Thank you. Madam Chairwoman, I
    yield back.
        Chairwoman Waters. Thank you very much. I now recognize Mr.
    Auchincloss for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Auchincloss. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. I represent a
    socioeconomically diverse district in Massachusetts, but
    whether I am speaking to high-income towns or lower-income
    towns, the burden of housing costs will come up. Double-digit
    increases in rent and mortgage payments are really putting
    people on the ropes. And it is especially acute for extremely
    low-income households. In 2016, the Federal Reserve Bank of
    Boston found that more than 80 percent of these extremely low-
    income households in Massachusetts were rent-burdened. That is
    partly, of course, a challenge with the voucher program and we
    do need to better capitalize and expand the voucher program.
        It is also a problem of housing supply. For those
    households in 2016, there were only 46 affordable units
    available and only 14 of them were supplied by the market
    itself.
        Mr. Metcalf, this first question is for you. I know that at
    the Terner Center, you have been doing work in conjunction with
    private companies on innovative approaches to home building on
    fair housing that will make the cost per key more affordable,
    because if we can't make housing more affordable to build, I
    know that we cannot make it more affordable to live in.
        Can you describe some of the barriers to public-private
    partnerships to scale factory-built housing in the urban and
    suburban growth areas that you described a couple of questions
    earlier?
        Mr. Metcalf. Yes. It is a great question. I think one of
    the opportunities for affordable housing is lowering the cost
    of housing, whether it is subsidized or not. Either it
    stretches our subsidy dollars further or it helps the private
    sector to do what it should have been doing all along.
        As always a factor to build housing, we have seen
    challenges just in terms of the permitting structure for that.
    So, it can be hard for local governments to get comfortable
    with what it means to have factory housing delivered onsite.
        For multifamily housing, we are seeing an increasing share
    of housing that is using modular technology, either as units or
    flat packed, that are shipped from an off-site location. These
    offer the advantage of being able to be built often somewhat
    cheaper as well as quicker than traditional stick-built
    housing.
        But they are not a panacea. There are many reasons why
    factory-built housing still is not scalable. One of those is
    that we have had a lot of challenges within the modular
    industry in terms of actually getting factories up and stable
    and running to deliver with the needs that we have.
        We have seen factory after factory open up and then go out
    of business. We do need to continue to innovate in this space
    and support, I think, those factories trying to solve this
    problem. It is a promising technology.
        Mr. Auchincloss. A follow-up question, Mr. Metcalf. Do you
    have a sense for what Congress could do to better catalyze that
    local private-sector partnership that you think can provide the
    scale that factory-built housing needs to really get the cost
    per key down while ensuring environmental and quality and
    standards of living quality?
        Have you seen good examples of that? Is there a
    demonstration program that could be put together by HUD? Do you
    have a sense for a productive role--
        [Technical issue.]
        Mr. Metcalf. I may have lost the connection there. I think
    I missed the end of your question, Congressman.
        Chairwoman Waters. Will the gentleman continue with his
    question before I call on Mr. Steil? The question had not been
    answered. There is still time left on the clock. Whom did you
    address the question to, Mr. Auchincloss?
        Mr. Auchincloss. To Mr. Metcalf, Madam Chairwoman. I don't
    think he heard it fully. Maybe a connection issue on my end.
        But, Mr. Metcalf, I was asking whether you have seen
    examples or can help me think of examples of how Congress can
    help catalyze local government partnership with factory scale
    housing to get a cost per key data in a way that ensures high
    quality.
        Mr. Metcalf. Yes, that is great.
        First of all, I would say that HUD today has a very large
    and important oversight role in terms of regulating
    manufactured housing, and I think there are opportunities to
    continue to increase the role, the presence, the technical
    assistance that HUD provides to local governments.
        To give you a quick example, here in San Francisco we
    recently saw a project move forward that provides permanent
    supportive housing for the formerly homeless. It uses modular
    technology. It uses expedited streamlining that the local
    government has made available to move fast through the
    entitlement period, and it relies on very flexible up-front
    capital with very strong time and cost outcomes.
        We believe that kind of a project can reduce affordable
    housing costs for permanent supportive housing by as much as 20
    percent and increase the timing which you can develop by
    perhaps 25 percent as well. So, there are great models in how
    this can be done in partnership with--
        Mr. Auchincloss. Thank you, Mr. Metcalf.
        I yield back, Madam Chairwoman.
        Chairwoman Waters. Thank you very much.
        The gentleman from Wisconsin, Mr. Steil, is now recognized
    for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Steil. Thank you very much, Madam Chairwoman. I
    appreciate you holding today's hearing.
        I think all of us are a little tired of looking at Zoom. I
    think we are all looking forward to being back in person in the
    not-too-distant future. You can see some of the technical
    hiccups.
        I know we are on less than 7 days' notice of today's
    hearing. And so I, like others, hope that we will be getting
    back to normal soon. But today, we will navigate through. You
    are in my Chevy Traverse with me on the road.
        But Mr. Husock, if I can, several of the bills that my
    colleagues have attached to today's hearings are offering
    generous subsidies for households seeking a place to live.
        And while I do think we all agree that we want to ensure
    that American families can live in decent homes in safe
    communities, I am concerned that maybe some of these good
    intentions aren't really going to knock it out of the park
    here, and maybe we should be looking at policy solutions that
    address some of the underlying problems.
        In particular, I am examining some of the rising demand
    that has increased home prices, as well as other policies from
    Washington, D.C., that are driving home prices up by 13.2
    percent, according to a recent Case-Shiller index report, since
    the onset of the pandemic, and as one UCLA researcher, Nolan
    Gray, recently argued in the City Journal--he said that all
    this demand wouldn't be such a problem if housing supply could
    grow to accommodate it.
        Boosting demand subsidies in the context of static supply
    will only mean higher home prices as more dollars chase the
    same number of homes, meaning that we might have a supply
    problem that we should be examining here in today's committee
    hearing, not just a demand assistance issue.
        And as it stands to reason, I think we should look at ways
    to encourage the construction of our housing.
        Mr. Husock, would you agree that demand-side subsidies
    might not be the right fit for what is primarily a supply-side
    problem, and are you concerned that these proposals could
    actually increase the price of housing, making it more
    difficult for families to find safe and affordable housing?
        Mr. Husock. Right, and I will reiterate the points that
    some of your colleagues have made in this regard, which is that
    more demand chasing a relatively fixed supply is a recipe for
    inflation.
        I would point out in terms of the drawbacks of the current
    program--I know Congresswoman Pressley talked about long
    waiting times. I am looking at the HUD data, and the average
    time on the waiting list for a Section 8 voucher is not 10
    years; it is 28 months. And if we had a ceiling on the time
    that it could be used, we can bring that down more. So, it
    makes sense to bring that down rather than to flood the market
    with new subsidies.
        Mr. Steil. But if I could dive in, because I think some of
    this is--I want to focus in on the supply concern here.
        Mr. Husock. Yes.
        Mr. Steil. What are the policies that are preventing us
    from, and preventing developers from building more housing
    units?
        As supply increases, natural forces would allow us to have
    more affordable housing, and I am concerned that this policy in
    a static model without building new homes and just focusing on
    additional subsidies could actually increase prices.
        Could you touch on that? I know some people discussed it
    earlier in this long online forum, but just to touch on some of
    the Federal policies that you think that we could be looking at
    to really drive up the supply of housing to improve
    affordability.
        Mr. Husock. Right. A lot of that is at the State level, and
    the Federal Government can influence State action, of course.
        But if you require solar panels, if you require green
    technology, all of those things may be attractive, but they do
    come with cost, and there are myriad examples like that in
    terms of the kind of pipes that are required, but especially
    environmental add-ons. Again, there are trade-offs. We can't
    pretend there are not trade-offs.
        Additionally, if we flood the market with new subsidies,
    will young, unemployed, or new college graduates qualify for
    those because their incomes are, at the moment, low? Will they
    be discouraged from increasing their incomes because they might
    be disqualified for the voucher? Suddenly, we may have a world
    of people who don't fit the profile of the low-income
    household, the low-wage household, that we are looking at in
    this hearing but who might flood the market and qualify for
    these subsidies.
        Mr. Steil. I share a lot of your concerns about the
    unintended consequences of such a program, of flooding the
    market, that it might actually, as you note, incorrectly drive
    up the price of housing, making housing less affordable for
    individuals as well as encourage people who may otherwise be
    able, through general market forces, to find the income needed
    for that affordable housing.
        If I can, while I have a little bit of time left, if I can
    switch gears slightly and look at the Emergency Rental
    Assistance Program that has been focused on in the past, we
    have $46 billion that is supposed to address an urgent need.
        Chairwoman Waters. Forty-seven.
        [laughter]
        Chairwoman Waters. I'm sorry.
        Mr. Steil. Excuse me, Madam Chairwoman?
        Chairwoman Waters. Go right ahead.
        [laughter]
        Chairwoman Waters. Go right ahead.
        Mr. Steil. We are running out of time. Tell you what, I
    will hold that. I will put it in writing for you.
        And, Madam Chairwoman, I yield back.
        Chairwoman Waters. Thank you very much. I now recognize the
    gentleman from Arkansas, Mr. Hill, for 2 minutes to give a
    closing statement.
        Mr. Hill. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman, and let me thank our
    knowledgeable witnesses for their contributions to the record
    today, and for their ideas.
        I think we heard five key things today. First, we want to
    help move families from an entitlement world to an empowerment
    world. We want to find ways to have more affordable housing
    options.
        We want to find ways to best help our homeless brothers and
    sisters. We heard disappointment expressed today in the Biden
    Administration's failure to help tenants with the bipartisan
    rental assistance that was passed by Congress 6 months ago, in
    December, and we heard from Little Rock to LA to New York, many
    housing-insecure citizens need wraparound services to help
    them, sometimes principally and primarily along with shelter.
        And I appreciate the opportunity to work with my friends at
    Jericho Way, and at Our House in Little Rock, the Dole Fund in
    New York, and the Salvation Army in Cleveland.
        But while we heard those things, and we agree about many of
    them, there is just a disagreement on how to get there, and one
    of our witnesses remarked that all we need to accomplish this
    is a new $180 billion-per-year universal voucher entitlement
    and mandatory participation requirement for all landlords, and
    more funding to build more housing units in places where
    housing already costs too much.
        On the other hand, perhaps there is a more achievable way
    to accomplish that goal, by pursuing approaches that help lower
    income Americans earn more through better education, better
    access to better paying jobs, and keeping more of what they
    earn through reforms, like the idea of flat rents or matching
    and encouraging mobility towards geographies that are more
    affordable.
        So, I thank my friend, the chairwoman, for this hearing. It
    was a very interesting one, and I yield back the balance of my
    time.
        Chairwoman Waters. Thank you very much. I now recognize
    myself for 2 minutes to give a closing statement.
        Today's hearing has highlighted the need to move forward
    urgently on legislation to make Housing Choice Vouchers
    universally available.
        First, if we had had this in place prior to the pandemic so
    that a housing safety net kicked in automatically, like it does
    with food stamps, we wouldn't have had to scramble to put
    together the emergency relief packages that we did. We don't
    reinvent FEMA and disaster assistance every time there is a
    natural disaster.
        My Republican colleagues know that being fully-employed
    doesn't guarantee being able to afford housing. It takes nearly
    3 times the Federal minimum wage to be able to afford a modest
    apartment nationally. Many people who are experiencing
    homelessness are, in fact, working.
        Finally, my Republican colleagues are simply wrong about
    the effectiveness of Housing First. The dramatic reductions in
    veterans' and chronic homelessness under the Obama
    Administration from 2010 to 2015 resulted from Housing First,
    coupled with resources to implement efforts that Congressional
    Republicans and the Trump Administration tried to reduce or
    eliminate funding for every year.
        But to be clear, Housing First doesn't mean housing only.
    As Ms. Oliva said, if the only thing a dedicated straight-out
    worker can afford, a person experiencing homelessness, is a
    bottle of water rather than a place to live, we aren't going to
    undo the damage done by the Trump Administration. They need to
    be armed with a Housing Choice Voucher and the supportive
    services to move them from the street to stability.
        And we might have agreement across the aisle that Medicaid
    has an important role to play, but I am committed to, and the
    Supreme Court requires, ensuring that people confronting mental
    illness, substance addiction, or other health challenges can
    live in the community and not in institutions, and I hope we
    can work together on needed zoning reform to increase supply.
        I want to especially thank Mr. Green for recognizing and
    articulating that even with the mental illness assistance to
    people who are disabled, we need to have housing; once they are
    stabilized, they need a place to go.
        With that, I ask that a letter signed by almost 1,000
    organizations supporting universal vouchers be submitted for
    the record. And without objection, it is so ordered.
        And I would like to thank all of our distinguished
    witnesses for their testimony today. We learned a lot.
        And I want to say to the Members who have participated
    today, that I appreciate your participation. I think that all
    of the expertise that we have heard today will help us to move
    forward.
        And I also want to say to the Republicans today, that we
    heard from Mr. Husock some interesting points that I am going
    to explore a little bit further. I am going to look at flat
    rate. I don't know the details of that, but I am going to find
    out more about it.
        The Chair notes that some Members may have additional
    questions for these witnesses, 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.
        And with that, this hearing is adjourned. Thank you very
    much.
        [Whereupon, at 3:35 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.]

                                A P P E N D I X

                                  June 9, 2021

     [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]