[Congressional Record Volume 164, Number 99 (Thursday, June 14, 2018)]
[House]
[Pages H5172-H5183]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




TRANSITIONAL HOUSING FOR RECOVERY IN VIABLE ENVIRONMENTS DEMONSTRATION 
                              PROGRAM ACT


                             General Leave

  Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members 
may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks 
and submit extraneous materials on the bill, H.R. 5735.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Faso). Is there objection to the request 
of the gentleman from Texas?
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 934 and rule 
XVIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House 
on the state of the Union for the consideration of the bill, H.R. 5735.
  The Chair appoints the gentleman from Idaho (Mr. Simpson) to preside 
over the Committee of the Whole.

                              {time}  1309


                     In the Committee of the Whole

  Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the 
Whole House on the state of the Union for the consideration of the bill 
(H.R. 5735) to amend the United States Housing Act of 1937 to establish 
a demonstration program to set aside section 8 housing vouchers for 
supportive and transitional housing for individuals recovering from 
opioid use disorders or other substance use disorders, and for other 
purposes, with Mr. Simpson in the chair.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The CHAIR. Pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered read the 
first time.
  The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hensarling) and the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Maxine Waters) each will control 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas.
  Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I received a letter not long ago from a constituent, 
Jim, from Dallas County. The first three words were: I need help.
  In the letter, he talks about his grandson, Joshua, who is a good 
kid. Jim became his guardian at age 6, but Joshua took a bad turn at 
age 16. It was at age 16 he started using opioids. His life has never 
been the same.
  Jim writes that at first his grandson started out with pills and 
then, later, street drugs and ended up on heroin. No surprise here, Mr. 
Chairman: His usage escalated, and he ended up dropping out of school 
in the last semester of high school.
  Along the way, he found a menial job here, a menial job there, but he

[[Page H5173]]

couldn't hold one down because of the drug usage. Jim tried to help him 
every way he could. He said that in the summer of 2014 his opioid usage 
brought him almost to death.
  I won't say the story has a happy ending, but at least he is now 
trying to turn his life around. He is off of opioids, and he is on 
other medications: methadone, Xanax. He has actually gone back and 
gotten his high school diploma.
  He has learned how to operate a forklift, but because of the damage 
that has been done, he can't hold down a job. His drug costs are 
expensive. He still needs help.
  Mr. Chair, you know what is unusual about this story? Regrettably, 
nothing. Nothing is unusual about this story. Again, although it 
doesn't have a happy ending--and we don't know how this story is going 
to end--at least it doesn't have a tragic end, because far too many 
stories like it end in the tragedy of death.
  And my guess is, Mr. Chair, that every single Member of this body 
could read a similar letter as I read from Jim from Dallas.
  I have been in this House now for eight terms. Rarely--rarely--does a 
week go by that somebody doesn't use the term ``crisis.'' And most of 
the time I don't give it much thought. But Mr. Chair, when somebody 
says there is a crisis of opioid use in America, I could not agree 
more. How negligent this body would be if we didn't declare war on this 
crisis and do what is right and what is smart to address this crisis.
  So today, out of the House Financial Services Committee, I am 
bringing up a bill by the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Barr), a member 
of our leadership team. I want to thank him for his leadership, because 
I know how heartfelt the pain he knows from his district is.
  What the gentleman from Kentucky is bringing before us is that we 
have seen evidence that transitional housing can be a proven method to 
really help thousands and thousands of Americans like Joshua that I 
describe, to help them maintain their sobriety after completing rehab 
and as they are gaining skills and training and trying to get back into 
being independent, productive members of society.
  So the gentleman from Kentucky says: It is time for a demonstration 
project, because we have some evidence. We have evidence already. And 
out of the 2.2 million Section 8 housing vouchers, the government's 
largest means-tested housing assistance program, let's take less than 1 
percent of them--in fact, 0.5 percent of them--and on a temporary basis 
let's allocate some of these Section 8 housing vouchers to people who 
are literally dying of opioid addiction every day and need transitional 
housing options in a recovery evidence-based program.

                              {time}  1315

  I really think, Mr. Chairman, it is the least we can do today. I am 
sorry that this is not on the House's suspension calendar. 
Demonstration programs are done every single day in the government.
  Again, I would hope that this is something that we could join 
overwhelmingly on both sides of the aisle to do. Apparently, that is 
not the case, but I don't think this House will be deterred. I do not 
think this House will be deterred. I think, very soon, people like 
Joshua who are getting their life turned around can at least have 
transitional housing options to support their recovery. When they do, 
we will thank the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Barr).
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such 
time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, as I sat here and I listened to Congressman Hensarling, 
the chair of the Financial Services Committee, where I serve as ranking 
member, I thought to myself he was absolutely correct on many of the 
issues that he surfaced when he held the letter up in the air and he 
said that there are many Members of Congress who could tell similar 
stories or maybe have gotten similar letters. He is absolutely correct.
  Even more than that, there are many of us who have watched the 
devastation of communities that we represent because of drug addiction 
over the years for a long time. Unfortunately, many of these stories 
ended in tragedy, and I am pleased that we are focusing time and 
attention on opioid addiction and abuse.
  I am so absolutely thrilled that we are paying attention, and we are 
recognizing that this is literally a disease and that we can help 
people, that we can do rehabilitation, that we can provide resources to 
keep people from dying and being imprisoned and treated in ways that 
will not help deal with the problem in any real ways. I am pleased 
about all of that, and I think the intentions of many of our Members 
are very good, that they really want to do something because many of 
them are seeing this for the first time.
  But let me tell you how many years I have been seeing this. Let me 
tell you about how many deaths I know about. Let me tell you about the 
imprisonment of those who were both addicted and dealing drugs. Let me 
tell you about those who have died not only from heroin, that you are 
seeing now, but crack cocaine and other kinds of drugs and the mixtures 
that we don't even know about that have caused so many deaths, so much 
devastation.
  So I want to do everything that I can to share my knowledge with you, 
to share my experiences with you, to help in every way that I possibly 
can move to credible, reasonable, sensible, rehabilitation and support 
and assistance for those who are addicted.
  We are trying, as I can see in many of the bills that are being 
produced, to do what we think is best, but much of it needs more 
consideration. It needs better understanding.
  Today, we hear talking about a piece of legislation that I think the 
author of the legislation is absolutely sincere in what he would like 
to do. He is seeing drug addicted persons who have abused not only 
prescription drugs but all the way to heroin on the streets without 
jobs, laying in the alleys without support, without housing, no place 
to go, and that is what he is attempting to do. He is attempting to do 
everything that he possibly can to get them safe and secure places to 
live with the other resources that must go along with it, supportive 
resources in order to help them become the persons that they can be.
  But you cannot do this on the cheap. You cannot do this without 
understanding that rehabilitation costs money.
  So, while I absolutely applaud the attempt, I want to share with you 
that taking 10,000 vouchers from those who have been waiting in line 
for years--I am talking about single-family parents with their children 
who simply are praying and hoping that they can get a voucher so that 
they can get a decent place to live.
  I am not talking about drug addicted people, necessarily. I am 
talking about people, some of whom work every day on minimum wages who 
cannot afford the first and last month's rent to get into a place. I am 
talking about those who, even if they could find a place, they would be 
paying more than 30 percent of their income to have a safe and decent 
place. I am talking about those who have been living in rental units 
that really need more than just rehabilitation. They are dangerous 
places that people are living.
  They are places that still are not protected from wind and rain and 
all of those things that people should not have to experience trying to 
live in a decent place to live. I am talking about people who are 
living in apartments that the ceilings are falling in who are looking 
for a decent place. I am talking about people who call every day to 
check to see if in fact they are going to be the next person who is 
going to be allowed a voucher. I am talking about people who have been 
waiting 2 and 3 years and on and on and on.
  So I support the idea that the new population of opioid abusers can 
have a decent place to live and resources, but let's not deny the 
people who have been standing in line, who have been praying, who have 
been hoping for a decent place. Let's not take 10,000 vouchers in a so-
called demonstration project.
  Really, we don't need a demonstration project. I can tell you, many 
folks in this House can tell you what they know and what they have 
experienced so that we can put together good, credible, sensible 
legislation. But it will cost some money.
  It is not about taking from one and giving to the other. The old 
people call

[[Page H5174]]

that robbing Peter to pay Paul. We don't want to do that. We don't want 
to say to Ms. Jones with 3 kids out there waiting in line for 4 years, 
3 years, 2 years, what have you: Sorry, we have a new population that 
we are going to serve. No, we are not going to vote for more money, for 
more resources. We are going to take from your opportunity. Sorry you 
have been standing in line all this long.

  So, Mr. Chairman, I want to be helpful to all of the folks who need 
our help. I understand the shock that many are going through who are 
experiencing this for the first time, but I want you to know about the 
many nights that I have gone to bed when I have heard about another 
death of someone who is addicted, who has not had a place to live, who 
has been on somebody's doorstep, who has been in an alley. I want you 
to know what I know and what I understand about that mother who has 
begged me to help find a bed in a unit, a rehabilitative unit that 
could be used.
  So this is not the way to do it, and this is not about creating new 
nonprofits with no experience, no background, to be able to implement 
this program. This is about understanding all the people who have 
struggled with these nonprofits, who begged for money, who begged for 
resources to deal with the populations who are basically dying from 
this addiction.
  So whether it is about the fact that there is not enough money here, 
or we should not be developing new nonprofits to do this because we 
have experience with our public housing entities that know how to do 
this, this is about us saying: Yes, we have a problem, and we are going 
to spend the money. We are going to put the time in on it to develop 
the good, credible legislation. We are going to be serious about it. We 
don't want to just look like we are trying to do something. We are 
going to be positive. We are going to be committed. We are going to do 
what it takes in order to help these people who are waiting and looking 
for just another chance in life.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Kentucky (Mr. Barr), the chairman of the Monetary Policy and Trade 
Subcommittee of the Financial Services Committee and author of the 
Transitional Housing for Recovery in Viable Environments Demonstration 
Program Act, or THRIVE Act.
  Mr. BARR. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of my legislation, 
H.R. 5735, the Transitional Housing for Recovery in Viable Environments 
Act, or the THRIVE Act.
  I thank Chairman Hensarling, Chairman Duffy, and my colleagues on the 
House Financial Services Committee for their support and feedback on 
this legislation. I want to thank Chairman Hensarling for sharing that 
very compelling story about his constituent, Joshua. Unfortunately, so 
many of us have constituents with similar stories, and that is what we 
are trying to address here today.
  We all know the opioid epidemic is a major health crisis that has 
impacted every community in every congressional district; 116 Americans 
die every day from opioid overdoses. My home State of Kentucky has the 
third highest overdose mortality rate in the country.
  This week, the House is considering several pieces of legislation to 
address this epidemic, and in order to achieve meaningful progress in 
the fight against opioids in our Nation, Congress can no longer simply 
focus on prevention, enforcement, and treatment. We must also begin to 
implement policies that focus on long-term recovery. Our Federal 
housing programs are an underutilized resource in these efforts.
  The THRIVE Act would make supportive housing more accessible to those 
most in need by allocating a limited number of Section 8 housing choice 
vouchers to nonprofits--nonprofits that have experience in housing. Not 
new nonprofits--nonprofits with a record of providing housing services, 
workforce development, job placement, financial literacy, and continued 
addiction recovery support for individuals who are transitioning out of 
rehab or a period of medication-assisted treatment and back into the 
workforce.
  This legislation would only allocate either 10,000 or 0.5 percent of 
total housing choice vouchers, whichever is less, to evidence-based 
nonprofits serving people who are literally dying each and every day of 
opioid addiction and other substance abuse disorders. And the 
demonstration is limited to 5 years.
  No one would have a voucher taken away from them, despite what my 
friend, the gentlewoman from California, is saying. No one would have a 
voucher taken away from them to create this demonstration program.
  An estimated 198,000 Section 8 vouchers are turned over every year 
and returned to HUD, and it is from this amount that the demonstration 
would set aside only 10,000 to address a deadly national public health 
crisis.
  Additionally, we made a commitment to working with our Democratic 
colleagues, including Congresswoman Sinema, who has signed a joint 
letter with me to request additional funding from the Appropriations 
Committee to support this demonstration, because we understand the 
urgent need for greater Federal investment to save lives. So the 
ranking member's argument really doesn't apply.
  The THRIVE Act has received endorsements from over 140 housing and 
recovery organizations across the country, including Addiction Policy 
Forum, the American Academy of Addiction Psychiatry, National 
Association of Social Workers, Faces & Voices of Recovery, the 
Association for Addiction Professionals, and more than 100 others that 
are on the front lines of addiction recovery.
  The Acting CHAIR (Mr. Yoder). The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Chairman, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the 
gentleman from Kentucky.
  Mr. BARR. Mr. Chairman, HUD Secretary Ben Carson visited several of 
these transitional nonprofits in my district in Kentucky earlier this 
year, and he witnessed firsthand the success of these evidence-based 
models of recovery.
  I would like to especially recognize St. James Place, Revive 
LifeHouse, the Hope Center, Shepherd's House, and Chrysalis House, 
among others, for their critical work in the Sixth District of Kentucky 
that inspired this legislation.
  Mr. Chairman, the THRIVE Act would save American lives, as well as 
taxpayer funds in the long run, by helping more individuals rise above 
addiction and poverty.
  Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself as much 
time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I think we should have a little clarity in what is 
being presented by my colleague about whether or not vouchers will be 
taken away from anybody. The fact of the matter is nobody thinks that 
vouchers will be taken away from anybody. They will never get the 
voucher.

                              {time}  1330

  They are standing in line waiting for years to get Section 8 vouchers 
to be able to have a decent place to live. That means that you take 
10,000 vouchers away from the people, and the families, and the 
children, who have been waiting in line all of this time and you give 
it to a new population of people. That is what this is all about. That 
cannot be denied, and that is a fact.
  I am sure that my colleague who is proposing this legislation will 
agree with me, the fact of the matter is, that person who has been 
waiting for so long will have to continue to wait, because the voucher 
that he or she could have gotten is going to go to someone else.
  Let me just talk a little bit about Mr. Barr's letter that he sent to 
the appropriators. First of all, I want to thank him for offering to 
send the letter. And I want to thank him for coming to me and asking me 
if I would sign on to the letter. What Mr. Barr is doing is--if I may 
correctly describe this--is having second thoughts about the fact that 
you need some money, you need some resources in this program. So the 
gentleman from Kentucky's letter to the appropriators is basically 
meaningless, because his own bill directly contradicts it.
  And I pointed this out to him as we had this discussion. The plain 
text of H.R. 5735 states, ``No additional funds are authorized to be 
appropriated to carry out the requirements of this act

[[Page H5175]]

and the amendments made by this act. Such requirements shall be carried 
out using amounts otherwise authorized to be appropriated.''
  Mr. Chairman, you can't have it both ways. You can't support language 
that specifically prohibits appropriators from funding your 
demonstration and then turn around and ask the appropriators to provide 
funding. This just doesn't make good sense. That is why I had to say 
that I could not sign on with him on that letter, knowing what the 
language was in the legislation.
  So, if the gentleman from Kentucky wants funding for this 
demonstration, he needs to be consistent in his advocacy for that 
funding, and that includes petitioning his own leadership for a waiver 
of their rules preventing bills that cost money from being considered.
  I would be happy to join the gentleman from Kentucky in requesting 
funding for additional vouchers to support people with substance use 
disorders. But I cannot support this unworkable demonstration. And I 
cannot lend credibility to his efforts to distract us from the fact 
that his bill would take vouchers away from families in need, who have 
been standing in line begging, waiting, and praying for a decent, safe 
and secure place for them and their families to live.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Chairman, I am very pleased to yield 2 minutes to 
the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Duffy), the chairman of the Housing 
and Insurance Subcommittee.
  Mr. DUFFY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman of the full committee 
for his support of this fantastic bill that has been offered by Mr. 
Barr.
  This is pretty simple stuff. There are 2.2 million vouchers. 2.2 
million vouchers. And we are talking about a demonstration project of 
10,000: 2.2 million total; 10,000 in a demonstration project. We are 
talking about a small sliver of vouchers that can go to help people who 
are addicted to opioids, or even other drugs to, say, use the vouchers 
to move people into transitional housing that are nonprofit. People are 
making money off this. It is community transitional housing.
  Help them maintain sobriety. Teach them valuable job-training skills. 
Help them get employment. This is just simple common sense. And for 
people to say, I can't support it because I am taking vouchers away 
from others, that is bogus. There is 7 to 9 percent turnover in the 
voucher program of the 2.2 million, and we are talking about a small 
sliver to help people. This shouldn't be partisan. This is common 
sense.
  So I would ask--and I know that Mr. Barr has worked with the ranking 
member, and she has been wonderful to work with on a lot of issues and 
I appreciate her bipartisanship. This is one that I would ask her to 
take a second look at, Mr. Chairman. If she did, I think she would say 
it is a small number.
  If it works, we can expand it, we can grow it, and we can help more 
people get off of devastating drugs.
  I just want to make one side comment on these drugs. In my 
communities, it is not just individuals, it is crushing families. We 
have little kids who are being taken out of homes in out-of-home 
placement, crushing the budgets of our counties.
  The Acting CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Chairman, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the 
gentleman from Wisconsin.
  Mr. DUFFY. Let's get this done. If we are going to address this 
crisis, it is the kind of thought process that Mr. Barr has put into 
this bill of creative thinking, using resources that we have available 
to us, to help people who are getting crushed by these devastating 
drugs.
  I know the ranking member cares about those people deeply. And I know 
she has fought for those folks who have been inflicted with drug abuse. 
I just would ask her, in this one, to join us and say: Let's do a small 
demonstration project, just 10,000. Let's work together.
  Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such 
time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, yes, Mr. Duffy is absolutely correct, I care about this 
issue very deeply, and I want to do the right thing. I want him to know 
that while he was talking about the 2.8 million vouchers, does he know 
that there are 5 million people who are in need of these vouchers?
  You cannot make the argument that there is more than enough to go 
around with all of these people standing in line. When they opened up 
the waiting list recently, just in Los Angeles alone, 600,000 people 
attempted to get access to these vouchers.
  This is about whether or not you are willing to put your money where 
your mouth is. Either you are willing to pay for your demonstration 
project, or you want to take away the opportunities of those who have 
been standing in line, and we are talking about families with children. 
You don't tell me what is going to happen to them because you won't 
increase the number of vouchers, and you don't want to put any money 
into it, so you have to show how you care.

  It is one thing for us to get up on this floor and talk and debate 
and explain what we would like to see happen, but it is another thing 
when we say that we are willing to put the resources that are needed to 
deal with the problem.
  I will just say that of the 2.8 million people waiting, 5 million 
people are in need, and the average waiting time is almost 2 years. So 
what are you going to do? You don't need a demonstration. We have 
enough information, we have enough research, and we have enough stories 
about what has happened for so many years and how so many people have 
died because they have not had resources available to them to deal with 
the problem.
  And, again, I am willing to spend as many hours as it takes to help 
you know and understand the history of this problem. It didn't just 
start with opioid abuse. It didn't just start with communities who 
never experienced this before. This has been going on for years and 
years and years.
  I join with Members in wanting to do something about it. But I say to 
Mr. Barr, it is going to cost some money, and we should not rob Peter 
to pay Paul. We should not take from those in need. We should not tell 
the people standing in line, Too bad, stand in line a little bit longer 
because we have a new episode that we have to deal with.
  Let's take care of everybody who wants to change their lives, 
everybody who wants to put behind them this addiction, everybody who is 
begging for just a second chance.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Michigan (Mr. Huizenga), chairman of the Capital Markets, Securities, 
and Investment Subcommittee.
  Mr. HUIZENGA. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman for yielding. I 
congratulate my friend and colleague from Kentucky (Mr. Barr) for 
tackling this difficult and very important issue.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this much-needed legislation that 
would expand housing options for individuals who are transitioning out 
of addiction treatment and require continued support. These are 
typically people who have exhausted all of their resources already.
  Why? Because they are addicted. That is why they are in this, that is 
why they qualify for these housing assistance vouchers, and this is 
right on target for helping them.
  The THRIVE Act is an important piece of legislation with strong, 
bipartisan support that came out of our committee that would create a 
pilot program to allocate Section 8 housing choice vouchers to 
transitional housing nonprofits with evidence-based models of recovery 
and life skills training. It is important to note that this is 10,000 
total vouchers out of the 2.2 million that are available, or one-half 
of 1 percent of all of those vouchers, whichever is less, so we are 
talking about a small portion of all of the total vouchers that are 
available.
  But here is what we do know, Mr. Chairman. Our country, our States, 
and our communities are in crisis right now. Over the last decade, 
there has been this dramatic rise in opioid abuse, whether it is the 
nonmedical use of prescription drugs, as well as illicitly manufactured 
heroin. We need engagement at every level.
  In light of this medical emergency, there is an extremely pressing 
need for additional transitional housing for

[[Page H5176]]

opioid recovery. These housing programs must follow a proven evidence-
based approach that has helped thousands of Americans to maintain 
sobriety after completing rehab, gain valuable job skills, and 
eventually transition back into society to lead independent lives.
  Time and time again, individuals who have just completed inpatient 
rehab programs are forced to live in housing situations where they are 
surrounded by people who are using the same illegal substances that 
sent them into rehab. We have to change that.
  While the evidence suggests that effective treatment and recovery 
plans should cover a span of 3 to 5 years for an individual, based on 
their needs and severity, we have a long way to go to properly 
prioritize and fund the recovery support programs and resources that 
individuals need in their communities. Twenty-three million Americans 
are in recovery today--let me repeat that--23 million people are in 
recovery today for substance abuse.
  A sober, safe, and healthy living environment that promotes recovery 
from substance abuse is essential in providing recovery support. These 
are people who qualify, as I said before, for these Section 8 vouchers. 
Because they have exhausted their resources, let's throw them a 
lifeline. Let's throw them some help. Let's allow them to have an 
opportunity to go and succeed.
  That is why I support the THRIVE Act, which also has the support of 
the Michigan Heroin and Opiate Prevention and Education program, which 
is known as Mi-HOPE, and I urge all of my colleagues to support this 
bill.
  Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such 
time as I may consume.
  Again, I am so pleased that Members on the opposite side of the aisle 
are just being introduced to this crisis. I am so pleased that they are 
just learning about addiction. I am so pleased that they are willing to 
talk about it. But I am not so pleased that they are not willing to 
spend any resources on it. I don't know if they understand that the 
average cost of a voucher annually is $9,500.
  Why can't they support that amount of money to deal with credible, 
decent housing for the very individuals that they say they are trying 
to give some support to. I don't know how much they know about 
addiction. And I don't know how much they know about the history of the 
war on drugs.
  Have any of them ever visited a drug rehabilitation project? Let me 
commend them to one that they need to know about. It is right here in 
Washington, D.C. It is known as N Street Village. Please go. I want 
them to learn about what they do, or what the costs are, and how they 
struggle for more and more resources to help more and more people. They 
cannot legislate. They cannot come up with programs without having an 
understanding of, and an appreciation of, what has happened in this 
country and the many people who have died, and the families who have 
suffered.
  It didn't just start now. The gentleman who just spoke talked about 
it is now a crisis. No, it has been a crisis for a long time.
  Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

                              {time}  1345

  Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Illinois (Mr. Hultgren), vice chairman of our Capital Markets, 
Securities, and Investments Subcommittee.
  Mr. HULTGREN. Mr. Chair, I thank Chairman Hensarling for his 
leadership and for moving this important legislation forward.
  Mr. Chair, the United States has an opioid epidemic, one that is 
claiming more than 115 lives every single day. The faces and the 
stories of the opioid crisis and those family members, friends, 
students, and loved ones who have been affected by it demand some 
solutions from us.
  Over 4 years ago, in March 2014, I launched our community action plan 
on opioids in the 14th Congressional District of Illinois. Since then, 
I have worked with community leaders in my district to update our 
action plan with local, State, and Federal policy recommendations.
  One of our key objectives is increasing access to sober living 
facilities for individuals who have undergone inpatient treatment and 
need support as they navigate their recovery. An immediate step we can 
take is to allow individuals in recovery to have access to Federal 
housing programs, especially transitional housing.
  Transitional housing is an important, evidence-based piece of 
recovery that empowers these men and women to maintain sobriety, 
acquire job training and employment, and find a community.
  I have met individuals whose lives have been changed by transitional 
housing. Chris Reed from McHenry, Illinois, has been sober since 2009. 
He was a founding member of New Directions Addiction Recovery Services, 
which opened a sober living house for men in Crystal Lake, Illinois, in 
October of 2016. The organization opened a home for women in December 
2017 and a third home in McHenry County this year.
  According to Chris, he said: ``Sober living and recovery housing 
provides structure, support, and accountability that greatly increases 
the chances a person with a substance use disorder (SUD) will achieve 
long-term sobriety. By providing housing stability along with 
appropriate resources--such as job placement, peer recovery support, 
social activities, and services to others--people with SUD begin to 
disconnect from drugs and alcohol and reconnect with a supportive 
community.''
  I am proud to support the THRIVE Act, which will expand access to 
these life-changing transitional recovery homes through existing 
Federal housing programs. This is something Congress can do right now 
to prevent opioid overdoses.
  Let's make a statement about the importance of support in recovery 
and offer resources to individuals for whom a transitional home could 
be lifesaving.
  Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Chair, I yield 3 minutes to the 
gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Velazquez), the ranking member of the 
Small Business Committee and a senior member of the Financial Services 
Committee.
  Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Mr. Chair, I would like to take this opportunity to 
thank the ranking member for her leadership on this issue.
  Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to H.R. 5735, the THRIVE Act.
  H.R. 5735 has a worthy goal. Helping individuals struggling with 
addiction to access treatment and recovery services is certainly 
important, but despite these intentions, H.R. 5735 has significant 
flaws which, in the end, make the bill unworkable.
  My primary concern is that H.R. 5735 carves out 10,000 existing 
Section 8 vouchers for use in this pilot program without authorizing 
new funding for any additional vouchers. This essentially decreases the 
number of Section 8 vouchers in circulation and increases wait times 
for millions of other households already seeking a voucher. Those 
forced to wait will include low-income families, seniors, people with 
disabilities, veterans, and those experiencing homelessness.
  You cannot just change words in the law. You need to open your 
checking account or your checkbook.
  Currently, only one in four households who are eligible for Federal 
affordable housing assistance receive it. In New York City, we have 
more than 150,000 people waiting for a voucher.
  While I fully support helping all people with substance abuse 
disorders and recognize the important role affordable housing plays in 
an individual's recovery process, providing affordable housing for 
individuals with substance use disorders should not come at the expense 
of others in need.
  HUD's Affordable Housing and Section 8 programs are woefully 
underfunded. Instead of providing Section 8 vouchers to just those with 
substance use disorders, we should be providing significantly more 
resources and expanding the Section 8 program to help all those in 
need.
  Additionally, this bill places arbitrary time limits on the 
individuals participating in the demonstration program. This is 
counterproductive and out of step with other existing supportive 
housing programs.
  Finally, while H.R. 5735 seeks to help individuals suffering from 
substance use disorders, it does nothing to address the fact that many 
people with these disorders lose their housing because of the harsh 
eviction policies in Federal housing assistance programs.

[[Page H5177]]

  I support the ranking member in her continued effort to ensure those 
individuals with substance use disorders face fairer eviction 
procedures and ban one strike policies that cause tenants to lose their 
assistance for a single incident of drug use.
  The Acting CHAIR. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
  Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Chair, I yield an additional 1 
minute to the gentlewoman from New York.
  Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Mr. Chair, again, H.R. 5735 has a worthy goal. 
However, this bill is plagued with a number of problems, and I urge my 
colleagues to oppose it unless you provide the resources to make this 
legislation work.
  Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Chair, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Minnesota (Mr. Emmer), a valued member of the Financial Services 
Committee.
  Mr. EMMER. Mr. Chairman, when we talk about the opiate crisis, we 
talk often of its victims, but there is an important group that we are 
leaving out: survivors.
  Individuals who complete inpatient rehabilitation and other treatment 
programs have been forgotten and left behind without a way to begin a 
new life. In particular, finding a suitable place to call home can be 
especially challenging.
  Research has proven the connection between substance use and 
homelessness. It is time that Congress take a closer look.
  Today, nearly 110,000 Americans are homeless, with approximately half 
suffering chronic addictions to drugs, alcohol, or both. Approximately 
70 percent of homeless veterans are estimated to suffer from substance 
use disorder.
  We continue to focus on treatment and prevention, but unless we 
simultaneously look toward assisting those who need support after 
treatment, this terrible crisis will continue. That is why I rise today 
in support of H.R. 5735 introduced by my colleague,  Andy Barr, whose 
home State of Kentucky is no stranger to the opiate crisis.
  Called the THRIVE Act, or the Transitional Housing for Recovery in 
Viable Environments Demonstration Program Act, this program will kick 
off a 5-year demonstration program to support transitional housing. 
Specifically, 10,000 Section 8 housing vouchers will be set aside 
specifically for people with an opiate use disorder.
  Transitional housing takes a wraparound approach by providing its 
residents with a stable, supportive environment to address their 
addiction, mental health, and/or homelessness. Required participation 
in recovery classes, life skills education classes, mandatory savings 
plans, and full-time or part-time employment work together to support 
residents as they continue to improve their lives.
  Homelessness and addiction create a vicious cycle, and these 
Americans need help to break it. With this bill, Congress can step in 
and provide some assistance for their next step of recovery.
  Mr. Chair, I urge all my colleagues to support H.R. 5735.
  Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Chair, I yield myself such time 
as I may consume.
  Mr. Chair, it is interesting that my colleagues on the opposite side 
of the aisle can come into this Chamber and talk about homelessness and 
talk about rehabilitation and talk about the need for housing.
  I am the ranking member on the Financial Services Committee with 
every wish and every hope to be able to have this committee take up a 
bill on homelessness. I have not been able to get that done. We have 
taken up over 100 bills on the Financial Services Committee, but not 
once have we dealt with the issue of homelessness.
  The gentleman from Minnesota who talked about homelessness and the 
fact that veterans are homeless is absolutely correct, but what are you 
going to do about it?
  Are you going to come to the floor to try and convince the Members of 
this House that somehow a demonstration project where you take 10,000 
vouchers from the existing vouchers that people are standing in line 
for is going to make a dent in this problem? I don't think so.
  This problem has been around for a long time, and I really do want 
the Members on the opposite side of the aisle to understand what has 
not been done to help those people who have needed a lot of assistance 
and a lot of help.
  I can recall, God bless her soul, when Nancy Reagan said to drug 
abusers, ``Just Say No.'' This is another piece of legislation that 
falls in that category: 10,000 vouchers in a demonstration project.
  You have been hearing how huge this problem is. We don't need a 
demonstration project for a few people taking 10,000 vouchers from 
those who have been standing in line. We need to appropriate the 
dollars that are necessary, number one, to help fund those 
organizations that have been working on this problem for years that 
need more money, that need more beds, that need more resources.
  We need more money not only to deal with the housing issue that is 
attempting to be addressed in this demonstration project, but whether 
it is helping to equip police departments with the necessary equipment 
to save lives of the people on the street who are overdosed that they 
encounter in their daily work. Some communities have that, a few 
communities have that, but every community experiencing this problem 
needs to have that.

  In addition to that, we need more beds for rehabilitation. You can't 
get to supportive housing until you deal with the addiction so that 
when people are ready to go into transitional housing, they get the 
support that goes along with that. That is not just a bed and a roof, 
but it is the social services that go along with it.
  It will cost money, and unless you are willing to put up the dollars, 
unless you are willing to work with our appropriators to do what is 
necessary to honestly and forcefully deal with this issue, we are just 
talking about it. We are just pontificating. We are just saying things 
that we don't even understand.
  Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
North Carolina (Mr. Budd), a very hardworking member of the Financial 
Services Committee.
  Mr. BUDD. Mr. Chairman, I want to first thank my friend from Kentucky 
for his leadership on this bill. The THRIVE Act is an important piece 
of legislation, and I am proud to cosponsor it.
  The National Institute on Drug Abuse has found that we lose about 115 
Americans each and every day to the opioid crisis. These are our 
brothers, our sisters, our friends, and our coworkers. This is a 
national crisis, and inaction just won't change a single thing.
  I have met with a number of people back home who told me that we need 
to think about more than just the prevention and the treatment stage of 
the opioid crisis, and they are exactly right.
  When you hear people tell me this, it reminds me of a conversation I 
had recently with David Kessler, who lives in my district and started 
an organization called GRIP It based in Mocksville. Group classes, one-
on-one coaching, and assistance with detox programs are just three of 
the things that this group offers.
  David has found evidence of a ``cultural method'' that works, and it 
goes to show us that there are many different things that we could be 
trying.

                              {time}  1400

  This brings me to the bill that we are voting on today, the THRIVE 
Act, which is part and parcel of this approach. It would expand housing 
options for individuals who are transitioning out of addiction 
treatments and require continued support.
  This is exactly the kind of policy that we need to be considering. 
Housing is part of a foundation that helps former addicts get off the 
streets and into a place that they can rise above poverty and 
addiction.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to make a larger point on this issue before I 
close. There has always been and still is a stigma around drug 
addiction. But if we want to make real progress on battling this 
epidemic, we need to change the way we look at those who are suffering. 
Rather than seeing them as liabilities, we need to see them as assets.
  The THRIVE Act, by helping people transition from recovery to a home,

[[Page H5178]]

will do just that. And when they have a home, they will be more likely 
to get a job and get back to being a contributing member of society.
  Bold ideas are needed in the public space, and there is no doubt that 
Mr. Barr's bill falls into this category.
  I think Ronald Reagan said it best when he said: ``That what is right 
will always eventually triumph. And there's purpose and worth to each 
and every life.''
  Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such 
time as I may consume.
  While I have this opportunity, I will refer to my bill on 
homelessness again. My bill is a bill that will end homelessness. It 
costs $13 billion, and I would dare say that we could have funded this 
effort when we were thinking about the tax cuts.
  Some of those tax cuts benefit the richest people in this country. 
While we were reducing the corporate tax rate from 35 percent to 21 
percent, we could have easily spent $13 billion to deal with ending 
homelessness.
  That tax cut was worth $1.8 trillion. $13 billion from that $1.8 
trillion, what would that have done for homelessness in America? We 
could have been on the road to ending homelessness.
  So the bill number is H.R. 2076. I am hopeful that the Members of the 
House and the Members of the Senate will take a look at this 
legislation so that they know that we have something that has been 
given a lot of attention, that has a lot of research, that understands 
what it takes to get rid of homelessness. So my bill, H.R. 2076, is a 
bill that I would ask my colleagues to immediately support.
  Mr. Chairman, we have many Members of this Congress who want to do 
something about providing housing opportunities for those who are the 
victims of opioid abuse and drugs. I join with them, and I, too, am 
very concerned, and I know that we can do something substantive about 
this issue of providing housing opportunities.
  But again, I will say over and over again, it should not be done in 
such a way that we have a little demonstration project that will take 
away 10,000 vouchers from the neediest of people who have been standing 
in line, in order to say or think or have anyone believe that we are 
doing something about this crisis in America.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman 
from New York (Ms. Tenney), another hardworking member of the House 
Financial Services Committee.
  Ms. TENNEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise to state my strong support of the 
Transitional Housing for Recovery in Viable Environments Act, or the 
THRIVE Act.
  In my district and across the Nation, the opioid epidemic has ravaged 
communities, torn apart families, and destroyed the lives of everyday 
Americans.
  Opioid abuse and drug-related deaths are rising at alarming rates. In 
my rural New York district, drug-related deaths rose over 350 percent 
in the short period between 2012 and 2016.
  Each day, I continue to hear from families across the 22nd District 
affected by this epidemic. They share their stories of loss and triumph 
and always urge me that more needs to be done. It is very difficult to 
find anyone in our communities who hasn't been affected by addiction, 
with either a family member or a friend. This week, we are delivering 
on the promises we have made to those struggling with the pain of 
addiction.
  During a recent opioid roundtable that I hosted in Binghamton, New 
York, a young woman named Jessica shared her story of opioid addiction 
and recovery. Jessica's story is a story of loss, recovery, resilience, 
and survival. At the end, Jessica stressed the importance of post-
treatment programs to help those who are addicted to remain in recovery 
programs and to avoid potential relapses.
  The THRIVE Act begins the process of delivering on this important 
element of addiction recovery by expanding transitional housing options 
to those most in need.
  Furthermore, the THRIVE Act focuses on evidence-based programs, 
ensuring that those in recovery are given access to proven, high-
quality transitional housing options.
  I thank my colleague, the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Barr), for his 
hard work in crafting this legislation to provide a better future for 
those suffering from addiction.
  Mr. Chairman, H.R. 5735 fills a critical void and will empower 
countless individuals in my district to break free from the grips of 
drug addiction.
  I thank the chairman for providing me an opportunity to speak in 
support of this important legislation.
  Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Chairman, I continue to reserve 
the balance of my time.
  Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the 
gentlewoman from Georgia (Mrs. Handel), a member of the Judiciary 
Committee and the Education and the Workforce Committee.
  Mrs. HANDEL. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the THRIVE Act.
  In the Sixth District, my district, Fulton and Cobb Counties have the 
highest opioid and heroin overdose rates of all counties in the entire 
State of Georgia.

  For those struggling with addiction who make that hard commitment to 
recovery, aftercare and stability are critical to their ability to 
remain drug-free. Too often they return to the very same environments 
that helped foster their addiction, increasing the risk of relapse. 
Worse, many find themselves homeless, with no resources and no job.
  The THRIVE Act would create a 5-year pilot program that expands 
housing options for individuals transitioning out of treatment programs 
but still needing help. The program sets aside a small percentage of 
Section 8 housing choice vouchers for supportive and transitional 
housing nonprofits.
  Earlier this year, former Kentucky Governor Ernie Fletcher attended 
an opioid summit in my district. He shared with us the incredible 
outcomes from the Recovery Kentucky initiative launched during his 
administration. This legislation draws on the program and its success.
  I commend Governor Fletcher and, in particular, my colleague from 
Kentucky,  Andy Barr, for their leadership on this legislation. This 
bill will give recovering addicts the added help they need to rise 
above their addictions and fulfill their real potential in life.
  I encourage my colleagues to support the THRIVE Act.
  Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire of Mr. 
Hensarling how many more speakers he has.
  Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Chairman, I anticipate no more speakers. I am 
prepared to close.
  Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the 
balance of my time.
  Mr. Chairman, this week, we are seeing my colleagues on the other 
side of the aisle advance legislation focused on individuals with 
opioid use disorders. We are really talking about drug addiction. These 
are the people they used to call drug addicts, and I don't want us to 
hide behind any new language. We are talking about a serious problem of 
addiction here.
  But something very important is missing from these bills and that is 
new resources and funding necessary to actually make a difference for 
those individuals.
  H.R. 5735 is a clear example of this problematic approach. Rather 
than providing funding for housing assistance vouchers for individuals 
with disorders, individuals who are addicted, this bill takes away 
10,000 existing vouchers that would otherwise go to people in need, 
many of whom have been waiting and waiting for years.
  There are millions of people on waiting lists across the country, 
including families with children, seniors, veterans, persons with 
disabilities, persons experiencing homelessness, and others in need. 
Redistributing these vouchers away from others who need housing is 
simply not a fair or reasonable step.
  What we need is bold action to commit real dollars to tackling this 
public health crisis, and also to address the shortage of affordable 
housing in this country. Unfortunately, this bill falls short and 
commits no new funding for additional vouchers.
  While H.R. 5735 has an important goal, the way it tries to get there 
is ultimately harmful and counterproductive.
  For these reasons, I urge Members to vote ``no'' on this bill. This 
will not begin to make a dent in the crisis. We

[[Page H5179]]

don't need a demonstration project. We need to move forward with a 
committed project with the funding that is necessary in order to deal 
with drug addiction.
  We have drug addicts who are in the alleys and on the streets in 
communities who never saw this before, who never experienced this 
before.
  Listen to someone who has seen it, who knows about it, who 
understands how many lives have been lost because of it, and let's do 
the right thing. It is not about a demonstration project. It is not 
about just a few vouchers. This is about real action.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire how much time I have 
remaining.
  The Acting CHAIR (Mr. Paulsen). The gentleman from Texas has 4 
minutes remaining.
  Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Chairman, in my congressional career, I have experienced a number 
of surreal moments. I think perhaps I am experiencing another one, and 
that is, typically, within my career, next to a study, I think the 
least controversial provisions we take up in this body are 
demonstration projects.
  We do it all the time, and it is good that we do it all the time so 
we can find out if what is happening in a small subset within our 
society is going to work, and so we will roll out the program 
throughout our country. Typically, these receive very strong bipartisan 
support.
  I couldn't help but notice, there are only two, two Members on the 
other side of the aisle, who are against this opioid housing recovery 
program, and we had almost a dozen Republicans on our side of the aisle 
come to support it.

  I listened very carefully to the ranking member who, on more than one 
occasion, said we should not rob Peter to pay Paul. Well, what happens 
when she or other Members on the other side of the aisle decide to 
submit budgets that aren't balanced?
  We just had a balanced budget amendment come to this floor, and if 
memory serves me right, it was not supported by the ranking member. So 
thus, she appears to be robbing Peter to pay Paul. If that is of great 
concern, I will certainly be happy to go to our leadership and see if 
we can bring that vote to the House floor, so that we might balance the 
budget.
  I heard it said, well, this demonstration project may take away a 
voucher from a veteran, somebody homeless, somebody disabled. Who do 
you think these people who are suffering with opioid addiction are? 
They are veterans. They are homeless. They are disabled, Mr. Chairman, 
and that is why it is so critical that we reach out and we help them.
  Then I continue to hear from the ranking member, well, this doesn't 
make a dent. This doesn't make a dent in the problem.
  So let me get this straight. If we can't help everybody, we ought to 
help nobody is, I think, the logic of that argument. Well, we reject 
that. We reject that argument, Mr. Chairman.
  So, again, I just cannot believe something that should be on our 
suspension calendar, something that should be receiving overwhelming 
bipartisan support apparently has to come with what we call a rule 
bill.
  But we know that 42,000 people have died in the last calendar year, 
to where we have the data, due to opioid abuse--up tremendously. So 
there is just an urgent need to target resources for substance use 
treatment services, to make effective treatment more widely available.
  We have an opportunity, right here in this House, right now, today, 
to say that we have the evidence. Let's take some Section 8 vouchers 
and make sure that they are part of the solution.

                              {time}  1415

  And so I thank the gentleman from Kentucky. What a wonderful leader 
he is on our committee in trying to help--and we are not helping 
everybody. I admit it.--to begin to put people in transitional housing.
  Mr. Chair, I urge all Members to support the THRIVE Act. We can make 
a difference today.
  Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. All time for general debate has expired.
  Pursuant to the rule, the bill shall be considered for amendment 
under the 5-minute rule.
  In lieu of the amendments recommended by the Committee on Financial 
Services, printed in the bill, it shall be in order to consider as an 
original bill for the purpose of amendment under the 5-minute rule an 
amendment in the nature of a substitute consisting of the text of Rules 
Committee Print 115-73. That amendment in the nature of a substitute 
shall be considered as read.
  The text of the amendment in the nature of a substitute is as 
follows:

                               H.R. 5735

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

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Transitional Housing for 
     Recovery in Viable Environments Demonstration Program Act'' 
     or the ``THRIVE Act''.

     SEC. 2. DEMONSTRATION PROGRAM TO STUDY THE IMPACT OF USING 
                   RENTAL VOUCHERS FOR SUPPORTIVE AND TRANSITIONAL 
                   HOUSING FOR INDIVIDUALS RECOVERING FROM OPIOID 
                   USE DISORDERS OR OTHER SUBSTANCE USE DISORDERS.

       Section 8(o) of the United States Housing Act of 1937 (42 
     U.S.C. 1437f(o)) is amended by adding at the end the 
     following new paragraph:
       ``(21) Rental voucher demonstration program for supportive 
     and transitional housing for individuals recovering from 
     opioid use disorders or other substance use disorders.--
       ``(A) Establishment.--The Secretary shall establish a 
     demonstration program under which the Secretary shall set 
     aside, allocate, and distribute directly to eligible 
     entities, from amounts made available for rental assistance 
     under this subsection, the amounts specified in subparagraph 
     (B) for an eligible entity to provide a voucher for such 
     assistance to a covered individual through a supportive and 
     transitional housing program that provides treatment for 
     opioid use disorders or other substance use disorders (as 
     applicable), job skills training, and such assistance for a 
     period of 12 to 24 months.
       ``(B) Amount.--The amount specified in this subparagraph 
     is, for each of fiscal years 2019 through 2023, the amount 
     necessary to provide the lesser of--
       ``(i) 0.5 percent of the total number of vouchers allocated 
     under this subsection during the fiscal year ending 
     immediately before the date of the enactment of this 
     paragraph; or
       ``(ii) 10,000 vouchers.
       ``(C) Criteria for eligible entities.--An eligible entity 
     shall--
       ``(i) provide an evidence-based treatment program and a job 
     skills training program for individuals recovering from an 
     opioid use disorder or other substance use disorder, as 
     applicable, that meet standards established by the Secretary; 
     and
       ``(ii) demonstrate prior experience administering rental 
     assistance vouchers, demonstrate prior experience 
     administering transitional housing programs under the 
     McKinney-Vento Homeless Act, or demonstrate a partnership 
     with a public housing agency or a housing program of a State, 
     unit of local government, or Indian tribe (as such term is 
     defined in section 4 of the Native American Housing and Self-
     Determination Act of 1996 (25 U.S.C. 4103)) that ensures 
     effective administration of rental assistance vouchers.
       ``(D) Application.--To receive a rental assistance voucher 
     under this paragraph, an eligible entity shall submit an 
     application to the Secretary that shall include--
       ``(i) a description of the terms of treatment program, job 
     skills training, and rental assistance to be provided to a 
     covered individual, and assurances that such description 
     shall be communicated to covered individuals that receive 
     vouchers pursuant to the demonstration program established 
     under this paragraph; and
       ``(ii) a transitional plan that begins on the date on which 
     a covered individual completes the treatment program of the 
     eligible entity that includes information on additional 
     treatment, job skills training, and housing resources and 
     services available to such covered individual.
       ``(E) Selection.--In selecting eligible entities to receive 
     rental assistance vouchers under this paragraph, the 
     Secretary shall--
       ``(i) ensure that such eligible entities--

       ``(I) are diverse;
       ``(II) represent an appropriate balance of eligible 
     entities located in urban and rural areas; and
       ``(III) provide supportive and transitional housing 
     programs in diverse geographic regions with high rates of 
     mortality due to opioid use disorders or other substance use 
     disorders, as applicable, based on data of the Centers for 
     Disease Control and Prevention; and

       ``(ii) consider--

       ``(I) the success of each recipient eligible entity at 
     helping individuals complete the treatment program of the 
     eligible entity and refrain from opioid or other substance 
     usage, as applicable;
       ``(II) the type of job skills training program provided by 
     the eligible entity;
       ``(III) the percentage of participants in the job skills 
     training program that gain and maintain employment;
       ``(IV) the percentage of participants in the treatment 
     program of the eligible entity that--

       ``(aa) do not relapse into opioid or other substance usage, 
     as applicable; and
       ``(bb) do not receive Federal assistance for treatment of 
     an opioid use disorder or other substance use disorder, as 
     applicable, after completion of the program.

[[Page H5180]]

       ``(F) Transfer of voucher.--Upon termination of the 
     provision of rental assistance through a voucher to a covered 
     individual, the eligible entity that initially offered such 
     voucher may use such voucher to provide rental assistance to 
     another covered individual.
       ``(G) Duration.--The Secretary shall not make rental 
     assistance available under this paragraph after the 
     expiration of the 5-year period beginning on the date of the 
     enactment of this paragraph.
       ``(H) Reports.--
       ``(i) By the eligible entity.--An eligible entity that 
     receives a rental assistance voucher under this paragraph 
     shall submit to the Secretary--

       ``(I) annually, the transitional plan described in 
     subparagraph (D)(ii) and information on each covered 
     individual's housing upon termination of the provision of 
     rental assistance through a voucher to such covered 
     individual in a manner that protects the privacy of such 
     covered individual; and
       ``(II) not later than 4 years after the date of the 
     enactment of this paragraph, a plan describing the treatment 
     and housing options for any covered individual assisted by 
     such voucher who will not have completed the program before 
     the day that is 5 years after such date of enactment.

       ``(ii) By the secretary.--The Secretary shall submit to 
     Congress a report that analyzes the impact of rental 
     assistance provided under this paragraph--

       ``(I) not later than 2 years after the date of the 
     enactment of this paragraph; and
       ``(II) not later than 4 years after the date of the 
     enactment of this paragraph, that includes recommendations 
     for the continuation or expansion of the program established 
     under this paragraph and improving the process for providing 
     such assistance.

       ``(I) Definitions.--In this paragraph:
       ``(i) Eligible entity.--The term `eligible entity' means a 
     nonprofit organization that meets the criteria described 
     under subparagraph (C).
       ``(ii) Covered individual.--The term `covered individual' 
     means an individual recovering from an opioid use disorder or 
     other substance use disorder.''.

     SEC. 3. REPEAL OF RENTAL VOUCHER DEMONSTRATION PROGRAM.

       Effective the day that is 5 years after the date of the 
     enactment of this Act, paragraph (21) of section 8(o) of the 
     United States Housing Act of 1937 (42 U.S.C. 1437f(o)), as 
     added by this Act, is repealed.

     SEC. 4. RETURN OF VOUCHERS.

       An eligible entity that provided vouchers for rental 
     assistance under paragraph (21) of section 8(o) of the United 
     States Housing Act of 1937 (42 U.S.C. 1437f(o)), as added by 
     this Act, shall return any such vouchers to the Secretary of 
     Housing and Urban Development on the day that is 5 years 
     after the date of the enactment of this Act.

  The Acting CHAIR. No amendment to that amendment in the nature of a 
substitute shall be in order except those printed in part B of House 
Report 115-751. Each such amendment may be offered only in the order 
printed in the report, by a Member designated in the report, shall be 
considered read, shall be debatable for the time specified in the 
report, equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an 
opponent, shall not be subject to amendment, and shall not be subject 
to a demand for division of the question.


                  Amendment No. 1 Offered by Mr. Barr

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 1 
printed in part B of House Report 115-751.
  Mr. BARR. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Page 1, line 7, strike ``and transitional''.
       Page 1, line 15, strike ``and transitional''.
       Page 2, line 11, strike ``and transitional''.
       Page 2, line 14, strike ``job skills training'' and insert 
     ``coordination with workforce development providers''.
       Page 2, lines 15 and 16, strike ``for a period of 12 to 24 
     months'' and insert ``, as determined by the entity''.
       Page 2, lines 18 and 19, strike ``for each of fiscal years 
     2019 through 2023'' and insert ``for fiscal year 2019''.
       Page 2, line 22, strike ``allocated'' and insert 
     ``renewed''.

       Page 3, lines 5 and 6, strike ``a job skills training 
     program'' and insert ``demonstrate the ability to coordinate 
     with workforce development providers''.
       Page 3, line 13, strike ``transitional'' and insert 
     ``supportive''.
       Page 4, line 4, strike ``job skills training'' and insert 
     ``coordination with workforce development providers''.
       Page 4, line 15, strike ``job skills training'' and insert 
     ``coordination with workforce development opportunities''.
       Page 5, line 3, strike ``and''.
       Page 5, after line 3, insert the following:

       ``(III) have adequate resources for treatment, recovery, 
     and supportive services;
       ``(IV) fully comply with the Fair Housing Act (42 U.S.C. 
     3601 et seq.) and the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42 U.S.C. 
     2000a et seq.); and''.

       Page 5, line 4, strike ``(III)'' and insert ``(V)''.
       Page 5, line 12, before the dash insert ``, in consultation 
     with the Secretary of Health and Human Services and the 
     Secretary of Labor''.
       Page 5, line 17, before ``opioid'' insert ``illicit''.
       Page 5, strike lines 19 through 25 and insert the 
     following:

       ``(II) the coordination with workforce development 
     providers by the eligible entity;
       ``(III) the percentage of participants in unsubsidized 
     employment during the second and fourth calendar quarter 
     after exit from the program;''.

       Page 6, strike ``that--'' in line 3 and all that follows 
     through ``do not'' in line 4 and insert ``that do not''.
       Page 6, line 6, strike ``; and'' and insert a period.
       Page 6, strike lines 7 through 12.
       Page 6, line 13, strike ``Transfer'' and insert 
     ``Reissuance''.
       Page 6, after line 23, insert the following:
       ``(H) Waivers.--The Secretary may, through publication of a 
     notice in the Federal Register, waive or specify alternative 
     requirements for any provision of statue or regulation 
     governing the use of vouchers under this subsection (except 
     for requirements relating to fair housing, nondiscrimination, 
     labor standards, or the environment) upon a finding by the 
     Secretary that such waiver or alternative requirement is 
     necessary for the purposes of this paragraph.''.
       Page 6, line 24, strike ``(H)'' and insert ``(I)''.
       Page 8, line 11, strike ``(I)'' and insert ``(J)''.
       Page 9, line 1, strike ``return of vouchers'' and insert 
     ``demonstration close-out''.
       Page 9, line 6, strike ``on'' and insert ``not later 
     than''.
       Page 9, line 8, before the period insert ``for use only for 
     renewals of expiring contracts for such assistance''.
       Page 9, after line 8, add the following new section:

     SEC. 5. NO ADDITIONAL FUNDS AUTHORIZED.

       No additional funds are authorized to be appropriated to 
     carry out the requirements of this Act and the amendments 
     made by this Act. Such requirements shall be carried out 
     using amounts otherwise authorized to be appropriated.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 934, the gentleman 
from Kentucky (Mr. Barr) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Kentucky.
  Mr. BARR. Mr. Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of my manager's amendment to 
the legislation at issue today, H.R. 5735, the THRIVE Act, which, 
again, would make supportive housing more accessible to those most in 
need by allocating a limited number of housing choice vouchers to 
nonprofits that provide housing, workforce development, job placement, 
and continued addiction recovery support for individuals who are 
transitioning out of rehab and back into the workforce.
  This manager's amendment introduces improvements to the THRIVE Act 
based on feedback we have received from various stakeholders in the 
affordable housing and recovery communities, my colleagues on the House 
Financial Services Committee, as well as technical drafting assistance 
from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development.
  Among these changes include:
  Clarifying the distinction between illicit drug use and medication-
assisted treatment;
  Requiring nonprofits to show that they have experience administering 
housing programs and are in full compliance with the Fair Housing Act 
and Civil Rights Act of 1964;
  Requiring HUD and eligible entities to coordinate with the Department 
of Health and Human Services, the Department of Labor, and local 
workforce development boards;
  Eliminating time limits for individuals in the program;
  Authorizing waiver authority allowing HUD greater flexibility to 
administer the program, while still requiring full compliance with 
statutes and regulations related to fair housing nondiscrimination, 
labor standards, and other requirements; and other technical changes.
  Mr. Chair, I would like to thank my Democratic colleagues, including 
Congresswoman Sinema, for suggesting several of the improvements to the 
bill that are included in this amendment. I would also like to 
emphasize, once again, my commitment to working with Ms. Sinema and 
other colleagues to request additional funding from the Appropriations 
Committee to support this demonstration program.
  The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention estimates that the 
total economic burden of prescription opioid misuse alone in the United 
States is $78.5 billion per year. Our Federal housing programs are an 
underutilized

[[Page H5181]]

source in the fight against this national public health crisis.
  The THRIVE Act is a small investment of only 10,000 housing choice 
vouchers out of a total of over 2 million, to people who are literally 
dying every day. It has earned the support of over 140 recovery 
organizations who are on the front lines of this epidemic.
  Once again, Mr. Chairman, it is not a reason to vote against this 
legislation because it is using existing appropriations for the Housing 
Choice Voucher Program.
  Our friends on the other side of the aisle who are objecting to this 
legislation are making the wrongheaded and misguided argument that 
claims that this is somehow taking away from other members of the 
program.
  There are 198,000 vouchers that come up each and every year. We are 
talking about not taking vouchers away from anyone, but using those 
vouchers that become available for new recipients. These recipients are 
oftentimes eligible for the Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher Program 
anyway, because they come out of rehab without resources. They are 
statutorily eligible.
  So when they talk about taking away from veterans, when they talk 
about taking away from the disabled, or from the homeless, that is who 
these people are. These people typically are without homes. They are, 
in many cases, veterans.
  Saint James Apartments, which is one of these recovery centers in my 
district, focuses exclusively on veterans who are addicted to opioids, 
and these people, obviously, are also struggling with a disability. So 
the THRIVE Act deserves every one of our Members' support. These 
organizations and these folks who are struggling with addiction are 
literally crying out for Congress to help, and we need to answer that 
call.
  I urge support for my manager's amendment, and the underlying 
legislation so we can work together in a bipartisan manner to improve 
housing options for individuals recovering from opioid addiction and 
other substance abuse disorders.
  Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Chair, I claim the time in 
opposition to the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Chair, this manager's amendment 
is simply a last-ditch attempt to address significant administrative 
concerns and questions about the correct interpretation of the 
underlying legislation.
  The fact that this amendment had to be revised three times before a 
final version was submitted past the deadline for consideration by the 
Rules Committee, is indicative of the hasty and haphazard nature in 
which this bill has been cobbled together.
  For example, in response to a Congressional Budget Office score that 
interpreted the bill to create up to 50,000 new vouchers, resulting in 
a cost of $1.2 billion, this amendment would clarify that the intent of 
the gentleman from Kentucky was not to provide new funding, but, 
instead, to take vouchers away from people waiting in line for housing 
assistance.
  And while this amendment resolves a few technical issues, it also 
creates new problems. In particular, this amendment would add broad 
authority for the Secretary of the Department of Housing and Urban 
Development to waive requirements that would otherwise apply under the 
Section 8 program. This includes being able to waive basic tenant 
protections as well as the requirement that rents are affordable to 
residents at 30 percent of their adjusted income, which is known as the 
Brooke amendment.

  In sum, this amendment does nothing to address the fundamental issues 
with this bill, including the fact that it prohibits new funding.
  Mr. Chairman, I really do need to point out that perhaps it was not 
clear in Mr. Barr's presentation about this amendment that this 
amendment additionally reinforces his point that no additional funds 
would be authorized.
  As a matter of fact, if you look at section 5 of the amendment where 
it says, ``No additional funds are authorized to be appropriated to 
carry out the requirements of this act and the amendments made by this 
act. Such requirement shall be carried out using amounts otherwise 
authorized to be appropriated,'' which simply means taking 10,000 
vouchers from people who are waiting in line, who are desperate for the 
need for safe and secure housing, and it makes sure that you understand 
that he does not want any more funds appropriated. Except, there is 
some kind of contradiction that can be confusing.
  When he first introduced the bill--and I talked about the fact that 
he had not only asked me to sign on to a letter to the appropriators 
asking for more money, and I decided not to do that because of the fact 
that he still had this amendment that would say that there should be no 
additional funds spent on this.
  What is my friend doing? What is he talking about? How can he send a 
letter to the appropriators asking for more money when, not only does 
he have in the bill, but in the amendment to the bill, very clear 
language that says there should be no additional funds appropriated.
  Well, of course, that is confusing. And I am not so sure why the 
contradiction is there. But I do know this: I believe that the intent 
of my colleague is a good intent; that he really would like to do 
something about opioid addiction. I believe that most of the Members 
who have gotten involved in this issue and who are learning about it 
for the first time, and understanding that there is a crisis for the 
first time, want to do something about this issue.
  But what they have not done is, they have not taken the time to 
construct legislation to truly deal with the issue, and spend the 
money, ask for the money, ask for the resources that are necessary to 
deal with what they say is a crisis.
  They come here and they talk about homelessness, and they talk about 
the opioid abusers who are on the streets who need housing. Yes, they 
do. Just as all of those people who have been standing in line waiting 
for Section 8 housing need housing.
  They talk about veterans who are homeless. They are absolutely 
correct. Some of those veterans have drug problems. Others don't have 
drug problems. They have come back from their service to their country 
without jobs, without a place to live, and here we are, talking about 
robbing the folks who have been standing in line and who are in need--
including the veterans on the street--robbing them of their 
opportunities because we want to take away 10,000 housing vouchers from 
them.
  Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. BARR. Mr. Chairman, just to respond briefly to some of those 
claims, our efforts to work in a bipartisan way, an overture to the 
ranking member to actually meet her halfway, should be actually 
welcomed. It shouldn't be rejected.
  And if she is concerned about more funding, guess what, that is not 
what the authorizing committees do. That is what the appropriators do, 
and if the ranking member were sincere, she would sign on to the letter 
to the appropriators with respect to providing additional funds.
  But in any event, this is not hastily put together. This is the 
result of a lot of feedback, of hearings, of many years of actually 
talking and listening to not-for-profits that are in this line of work. 
And they are begging us, along with 144 other organizations in 
addiction recovery, to pass this bill.
  I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the manager's amendment, and 
the underlying bill.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Barr).
  The amendment was agreed to.


               Amendment No. 2 Offered by Mr. Rohrabacher

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 2 
printed in part B of House Report 115-751.
  Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Page 4, line 10, strike ``and''.
       Page 4, line 17, strike the period and insert ``; and''.
       Page 4, after line 17, insert the following:
       ``(iii) evidence sufficient to demonstrate that the local 
     government having jurisdiction over the location of any 
     supportive

[[Page H5182]]

     housing facility to be used by the eligible entity in 
     connection with the demonstration program under this 
     paragraph permits such facilities in such location.''.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 934, the gentleman 
from California (Mr. Rohrabacher) and a Member opposed each will 
control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California.
  Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, I rise to offer a simple but crucial 
amendment to the THRIVE Act to ensure that local governments have a say 
in which sober living homes are able to participate in this 
demonstration program.
  My amendment would require the nonprofits who apply for funding under 
this bill to prove that the Federal dollars they receive are 
distributed only to facilities that have permission from the relevant 
local government to operate in that location.
  The proliferation of unlicensed sober living homes in residential 
communities in my district and throughout our country has had a 
deleterious impact on local residents and has not well-served the drug 
and alcohol addicts the program is supposed to help.

                              {time}  1430

  Many--not all, but many--of these facilities are owned and operated 
by unscrupulous actors. These bad actors totally disregard the impact 
on local residents of the neighborhoods as well as those who reside in 
the sober living homes themselves. The Federal Government must not 
subsidize this.
  It is not only the surrounding neighborhood that suffers in these 
circumstances, but also recovering addicts whose treatment facility has 
no oversight and sometimes no actual personal program for recovery. 
This bill with my amendment produces a balanced first step toward 
helping the victims of the opioid epidemic while safeguarding the 
rights of families, homeowners, and local communities.
  I am grateful for the support of my friend and colleague Congressman 
Barr, and I am grateful for his support through this amendment. I urge 
the rest of my colleagues to join with us and vote in favor of this 
amendment.
  I would also note that it is the Federal Fair Housing Act that 
shields the bad actors and prevents local governments from doing 
anything meaningful about the problems associated with sober living 
homes. Municipalities face costly litigation for trying to address 
their transient nature, and local residents often experience an 
increase in crime in their neighborhoods, not to mention other threats 
to their quality of life.
  The THRIVE Act does not address the Fair Housing Act, but I have 
authored a bill that would do this. I encourage a serious consideration 
of H.R. 5724, the Restoring Community Oversight of Sober Living Homes 
Act.
  My bill would narrowly amend the Fair Housing Act to return to local 
governments their proper zoning authority to manage sober living homes 
in a manner acceptable to the local people and something that will help 
those drug addicts as well as the local community. So I gladly offer 
this amendment and ask my colleagues to consider both this amendment as 
well as the bill that I will submit on this issue.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in 
opposition to the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Chairman, I don't think the 
amendment really does what the gentleman would like to have it do, but 
I am not opposed.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                  Amendment No. 3 Offered by Ms. Moore

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 3 
printed in part B of House Report 115-751.
  Ms. MOORE. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:
       Page 5, line 3, strike ``; and'' and insert ``, including 
     tribal communities;''.
       Page 5, after line 3, insert the following:

       ``(III) appropriately reflect the impact that opioids are 
     having in tribal communities; and''.

       Page 5, line 4, strike ``(III)'' and insert ``(IV)''.
       Page 8, line 13, after ``means'' insert the following: ``a 
     tribally designated housing entity (as such term is defined 
     in section 4 of the Native American Housing and Self-
     Determination Act of 1996 (24 U.S.C. 4103)), or''.
       Page 8, line 14, after ``tion'' insert a comma.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 934, the gentlewoman 
from Wisconsin (Ms. Moore) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Wisconsin.
  Ms. MOORE. Mr. Chairman, the legislation before us today makes 
nonprofit organizations eligible for Federal Government vouchers to 
house people in recovery for drug addiction. My amendment simply makes 
Tribal housing authorities also eligible to apply and receive the 
vouchers.
  I, like the gentlewoman from California, am concerned that this bill, 
without additional funding, however well-intended, really robs Peter to 
pay Paul, and it would cannibalize our local housing authorities of 
funds and prioritize seeking housing solutions for those individuals 
with addiction problems over other individuals who are victims of 
domestic violence, who are low-income families who have been waiting in 
line and need a subsidy in order to make ends meet, and other homeless 
populations.
  Again, I think this is a laudable goal, but I am concerned about this 
bill not having any appropriations connected to it.
  But, Mr. Chairman, if we, in fact, are going to take this approach, I 
am sure we can all agree that Tribal housing authorities should also be 
eligible. Indian Country has been devastated by drug addiction, and 
Tribes from across the Nation have struggled to keep pace with treating 
their addicted population and all the tertiary problems associated with 
addiction, including housing problems.
  The reality is that nonprofits are not really operating in Indian 
Country now, and the unique geographic and cultural challenges make it 
very unlikely that any nonprofit will actually be able to serve Indian 
Country even if the program is successful in other areas.
  Indian Tribes are making do. There are some success stories, like the 
Potawatomi in Milwaukee, but the need is so overwhelming. So as we 
provide aid to our States, I strongly believe that our sacred trust 
obligations to Indian Country make it necessary for us to include our 
Tribes in this legislation.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BARR. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to claim time in 
opposition to this amendment, although I do not oppose the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman 
from Kentucky?
  There was no objection.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Kentucky is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. BARR. Mr. Chairman, I want to make an observation that, in the 
course of this debate, not one of the Members speaking in opposition to 
this legislation has made the argument that these evidence-based 
transitional housing models won't work. None of the arguments are that 
this model won't work and won't help people achieve long-term recovery. 
So why would anyone oppose the legislation?
  I will accept my friend's, the gentlewoman from Wisconsin's 
amendment. I appreciate the contribution that she is making to make 
sure that Native American Tribal communities and their Tribal housing 
authorities are designated as eligible entities to receive vouchers.
  This amendment will ensure that Native American communities residing 
in Tribal areas would have the opportunity to benefit from this 
demonstration, similar to urban, suburban, and other rural areas, and 
this amendment protects persons recovering from addiction in Native 
American Tribal communities by ensuring that vouchers

[[Page H5183]]

might still be available through Tribal housing authorities should an 
eligible nonprofit not be available.
  Because some of the Tribal areas are located in very remote areas, 
the nonprofit entities envisioned under this demonstration program may 
not have the capacity to reach onto those reservations. This amendment 
provides remote Tribal communities an avenue for providing transitional 
housing to persons recovering from addiction when such nonprofit 
participation could be low. This amendment ensures that Tribal 
communities are not disadvantaged by a lack of nonprofit access so that 
they have an adequate voucher dispersion entity to community 
individuals in need of transitional housing as they recover from 
addiction.
  I reserve the balance of my time, Mr. Chairman.
  Ms. MOORE. Mr. Chairman, I have absolutely no doubt at all about the 
gentleman's commitment and his sincerity to solve the problem of 
housing challenges for those who are addicted.
  I would just note that my own experience in my community is similar 
to the gentlewoman from California. We have seen people be on the 
waiting list for 10 years to get in housing. If we appear to be 
skeptical about there being enough housing resources, it is only 
because of that experience where we have seen people on the wait list 
for 10 years.
  Mr. Chairman, again, I thank the gentleman for his consideration, and 
I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. BARR. Mr. Chairman, in conclusion, I accept and support the 
gentlewoman's amendment.
  I will just remind all Members, and especially Members who might be 
considering whether or not they want to vote for the legislation, if 
you are concerned about additional appropriations, the proper channel 
is to request that from the appropriators. Any Member of Congress 
considering voting on this legislation can sign this bipartisan letter 
to the appropriators asking for additional financial support for this 
demonstration project. But it is not a reason to not vote ``yes.''
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentlewoman from Wisconsin (Ms. Moore).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                  Amendment No. 4 Offered by Mr. Biggs

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 4 
printed in part B of House Report 115-751.
  Mr. BIGGS. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:
       Page 8, strike ``, that includes'' in line 6 and all that 
     follows through ``such assistance'' in line 10.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 934, the gentleman 
from Arizona (Mr. Biggs) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Arizona.
  Mr. BIGGS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  First of all, I commend Chairman Hensarling and the gentleman from 
Kentucky for their thoughtful efforts on this bill to put together a 
pilot program that is designed to help people who suffer this opioid 
addiction. I am grateful to them for their thoughtful efforts.
  My amendment simply narrows the reporting requirements that are 
imposed on the Secretary. This does not proscribe or necessarily limit 
the parameters of the report, but it prevents unnecessary 
prognostication on the part of the Secretary, which I believe will 
allow for an accurate and valuable assessment at the conclusion of the 
pilot program's testing period.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to claim the 
time in opposition, although I am not opposed.
  The Acting CHAIR. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman 
from Texas?
  There was no objection.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Texas is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman for 
coming and offering this very simple amendment. I thank him for his 
kind words for the gentleman from Kentucky, who has been an outstanding 
leader in this effort.
  The amendment will simply allow Congress to work its will on the 
report from the Secretary and allow us to have our own full analysis. I 
think it is a helpful amendment. I would urge its adoption.
  Finally, I would just echo what my friend from Kentucky, the leader 
of this effort, has said. We are an authorizing committee, not an 
appropriating committee under the rules of the House, and we authorize 
programs based upon priorities.
  We do demonstration projects all the time, and if there were ever a 
worthy one that should be considered by this body in the midst of, 
again, a legitimate crisis on opioid addiction, it ought to be this 
program.
  We have had several amendments that have been agreed to by the 
majority. I think all have probably improved the underlying 
legislation. But again, this is something that should have been on the 
suspension calendar, I don't understand why we have to take so much 
floor time on this. I don't understand the argument that, if you can't 
help everybody, then don't help anybody. I don't understand the 
argument that, since you are not an appropriating committee, then don't 
authorize the help. I simply don't understand that.
  Again, we have the opportunity in this Congress, on this floor, at 
this moment to make a difference, a huge difference, in the road to 
recovery for thousands of opioid addicts who are trying to get their 
lives back together. If we believe in their hope and if we believe in 
their cause, then we should support the THRIVE Act of the gentleman 
from Kentucky.
  Mr. Chairman, I certainly support the amendment from the gentleman 
from Arizona, and I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. BIGGS. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Biggs).
  The amendment was agreed to.
  The Acting CHAIR (Mr. Biggs). The question is on the amendment in the 
nature of a substitute, as amended.
  The amendment was agreed to.
  The Acting CHAIR. Under the rule, the Committee rises.
  Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr. 
Paulsen) having assumed the chair, Mr. Biggs, Acting Chair of the 
Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union, reported that 
that Committee, having had under consideration the bill (H.R. 5735) to 
amend the United States Housing Act of 1937 to establish a 
demonstration program to set aside section 8 housing vouchers for 
supportive and transitional housing for individuals recovering from 
opioid use disorders or other substance use disorders, and for other 
purposes, and, pursuant to House Resolution 934, he reported the bill 
back to the House with an amendment adopted in the Committee of the 
Whole.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the rule, the previous question is 
ordered.
  Is a separate vote demanded on any amendment to the amendment 
reported from the Committee of the Whole?
  If not, the question is on the amendment in the nature of a 
substitute, as amended.
  The amendment was agreed to.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the engrossment and third 
reading of the bill.
  The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was 
read the third time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the passage of the bill.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further 
proceedings on this question will be postponed.

                          ____________________