U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

52–443 2010

S. HRG. 110–979 

AFFORDABLE HOUSING OPPORTUNITIES: 

REFORMING THE HOUSING VOUCHER PROGRAM 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON 

HOUSING, TRANSPORTATION, AND COMMUNITY 

DEVELOPMENT 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON 

BANKING, HOUSING, AND URBAN AFFAIRS 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

ON 

EFFORTS TO REFORM THE HOUSING VOUCHER PROGRAM, INCLUDING 

S. 2684, THE SECTION EIGHT VOUCHER REFORM ACT (SEVRA) 

WEDNESDAY, APRIL 16, 2008 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs 

( 

Available at: http://www.access.gpo.gov/congress/senate/senate05sh.html 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
(II) 

COMMITTEE ON BANKING, HOUSING, AND URBAN AFFAIRS 

CHRISTOPHER J. DODD, Connecticut, Chairman 

TIM JOHNSON, South Dakota 

JACK REED, Rhode Island 

CHARLES E. SCHUMER, New York 

EVAN BAYH, Indiana 

THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware 

ROBERT MENENDEZ, New Jersey 

DANIEL K. AKAKA, Hawaii 

SHERROD BROWN, Ohio 

ROBERT P. CASEY, Pennsylvania 

JON TESTER, Montana 

RICHARD C. SHELBY, Alabama 

ROBERT F. BENNETT, Utah 

WAYNE ALLARD, Colorado 

MICHAEL B. ENZI, Wyoming 

CHUCK HAGEL, Nebraska 

JIM BUNNING, Kentucky 

MIKE CRAPO, Idaho 

ELIZABETH DOLE, North Carolina 

MEL MARTINEZ, Florida 

BOB CORKER, Tennessee 

SHAWN MAHER, Staff Director 

WILLIAM D. DUHNKE, Republican Staff Director and Counsel 

JENNIFER FOGEL-BUBLICK, Counsel 

DAWN RATLIFF, Chief Clerk 

SHELVIN SIMMONS, IT Director 

JIM CROWELL, Editor 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON HOUSING, TRANSPORTATION, AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT

CHARLES E. SCHUMER, New York, Chairman 

MIKE CRAPO, Idaho, Ranking Member 

DANIEL K. AKAKA, Hawaii 

ROBERT P. CASEY, Pennsylvania 

JACK REED, Rhode Island 

THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware 

SHERROD BROWN, Ohio 

JON TESTER, Montana 

ROBERT MENENDEZ, New Jersey 

ELIZABETH DOLE, North Carolina 

MEL MARTINEZ, Florida 

WAYNE ALLARD, Colorado 

MICHAEL B. ENZI, Wyoming 

CHUCK HAGEL, Nebraska 

DAVID STOOPLER, Staff Director 

GREGG A. RICHARD, Republican Staff Director 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

WEDNESDAY, APRIL 16, 2008 

Page 

Opening statement of Chairman Schumer ............................................................ 1 

Opening statements, comments, or prepared statements of: 

Senator Crapo ................................................................................................... 2 

Senator Obama 

Prepared statement ................................................................................... 20 

WITNESSES 

Shaun Donovan, Commissioner, New York City Department of Housing Preservation and Development ................................................................................... 4 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 22 

Curt Hiebert, Chief Executive Officer, Keene Housing Authority of New 

Hampshire and Senior Vice President of the Public Housing Authorities 

Directors’ Association ........................................................................................... 6 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 28 

Barbara Sard, Director of Housing Policy, Center on Budget and Policy Priorities ........................................................................................................................ 8

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 37 

George Moses, Secretary, Housing Alliance of Pennsylvania, representing the 

National Low Income Housing Coalition ........................................................... 10 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 62 

Jack Murray, Edgewood Management Corporation, representing the National 

Affordable Housing Management Association and the National Leased 

Housing Association ............................................................................................. 12 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 75 

ADDITIONAL MATERIAL SUPPLIED FOR THE RECORD

Letters and list of support for S. 2684, the Section Eight Voucher Reform 

Act (SEVRA) ......................................................................................................... 82 

Prepared statement of Roy A. Bernardi, Deputy Secretary, Department of 

Housing and Urban Development ....................................................................... 128 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING

jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
(1) 

AFFORDABLE HOUSING OPPORTUNITIES: REFORMING THE HOUSING VOUCHER PROGRAM 

WEDNESDAY, APRIL 16, 2008 

U.S. SENATE,

SUBCOMMITTEE ON HOUSING, TRANSPORTATION, 

AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT, 

COMMITTEE ON BANKING, HOUSING, AND URBAN AFFAIRS, Washington, DC. 

The subcommittee met at 2 p.m., in room SD–538, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Charles E. Schumer (Chairman of the 

Subcommittee) presiding. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN CHARLES E. SCHUMER 

Chairman SCHUMER. The hearing will come to order. And because we have a vote coming up shortly, we are going to try to 

move as quickly as we can. 

First, I want to thank our witnesses. I want to thank Senator 

Crapo for being here. And we are here to talk about reforming the 

Section 8 voucher program. 

The Section 8 Voucher Reform Act, which Senator Dodd and I introduced with several of our colleagues last month, has been endorsed by all of the major groups involved in the Section 8 voucher 

program. Owners, tenants, and voucher administrators all stand to 

benefit from the improvement that this bill makes to the program. 

The Section 8 program is one of this nation’s most important affordable housing programs, serving around 2 million households 

each year. Studies have shown that Section 8 program reduces 

homelessness, overcrowding, and frequent apartment moves. The 

stable affordable housing afforded by the Section 8 program helps 

families move to neighborhoods where there is less concentration of 

poverty, which often means better schools, lower crime rates, and 

more opportunities for economic advancement. 

So, despite these obvious successes during the last several year, 

HUD action and changes in the formula for funding Section 8 have 

undermined the program, making it more difficult to administer. 

As costs escalated earlier this decade, Congress made changes to 

the Section 8 funding formula that attempted to control costs in the 

program. The changes enacted created an inefficient system, where 

some agencies were given funds they could not legally use, while 

others were left with too little funding to serve even those families 

already on the voucher. 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
2 

The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities estimates that 

150,000 vouchers were lost, as public housing authorities scrambled to adapt funding formulas that changed every fiscal year. 

With a reasonable and efficient formula, 150,000 additional families could be assisted. In Fiscal Years 2007 and 2008, Congress reversed the formula changes and again began funding public housing authorities based on the actual costs of running their programs. 

Although the restoration of the earlier funding formula does allow 

PHAs to offer additional vouchers, it doesn’t address the costs and 

administrative issues still affecting the Section 8 program. 

The bill before the subcommittee today addresses the challenges 

faced by Section 8 in a number of ways. The bill, first, stabilizes 

funding. The bill establishes a stable funding formula that ensures 

PHAs will receive funding to cover all of the vouchers in use. To 

help control rising costs, agencies are encouraged to lower the cost 

per voucher in the new funding formula, helping create efficiencies 

in the program. It encourages employment. The bill provides a 

standardized earning disregard each year, and provides other incentives for families to increase earning in savings. Additional 

earnings by tenants will reduce voucher costs for the government. 

It ensures the housing is safe, decent, and adequate. It requires 

effective voucher administration, biannual assessments of local 

voucher programs to ensure they’re operating efficiently, and also 

requires fair market rents to be set based on smaller geographic 

areas so that in large metropolitan areas tenants have the opportunity to live in all of the areas’ communities. It encourages housing development and preserves affordable housing. It streamlines 

the requirements and does many other good things. 

Before I conclude, I would also like to take a moment to address 

the Moving-to-Work program. I know this has been a source of 

some controversy in the past. While administrators feel that the 

flexibility that the program provides will help them control costs, 

tenants are concerned that the many protections provided in abrogated rules and restrictions will be lost. In New York, we have organized a series of roundtable meetings involving tenants, owners 

and administrators to develop an agreement on the provisions for 

this bill that all sides could support. The continuation of the Moving-to-Work program is an important part of the agreement, so I 

look forward to working with Chairman Dodd, Ranking Member 

Shelby, Ranking Member Crapo, and the rest of my colleagues on 

the committee to find a compromise that continues the program but 

creates a new degree of evaluation and accountability. 

I’m now going to turn things over to Senator Crapo, but first I 

would first like to ask unanimous consent that a list of supporters 

and letters of support from a number of interested groups be entered into the record. 

Without objection. 

Chairman SCHUMER. I would also like to thank our witnesses 

again for appearing, and turn it over to Senator Crapo. 

STATEMENT OF SENATOR MIKE CRAPO 

Senator CRAPO. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the opportunity to work with you and to help find ways to improve Section 8 housing voucher programs. 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
3 

I would like to see the Section 8 voucher rental assistance program be in better position to provide the long-term assistance to 

those who are without other options. I hear a lot of frustration 

from the public housing authorities in Idaho about the fact that 

they don’t have the flexibility to move families toward self-sufficiency and provide help where it is most desperately needed. These 

public housing authorities do an amazing job with scarce resources, 

an I believe is important to understand that one size does not fit 

all, and that a local community should be able to adjust the dollars 

in programs to deal with local situations. 

I also appreciate your attention, Mr. Chairman, to the Movingto-Work program. This is a very popular program in Idaho, and I 

intend to push—to expand the number of public housing authorities who are able to participate in the Moving-to-Work program. 

Moving-to-Work provides the flexibility for housing authorities to 

adjust to their local conditions, and to make the Federal programs 

work more effectively and efficiently in their own communities. 

The stated intent was for four goals to be met by encouraging the 

design and implementation of innovative local strategies, to reduce 

costs and achieve greater effectiveness in housing programs, to increase housing choices for families, to move families toward selfsufficiency while protecting extremely low- or fixed-income families 

or the elderly, and to allow for flexibility in funding and programs. 

Senator Sununu has been a strong champion of expanding the 

number of public housing authorities able to participate in the 

Moving-to-Work program, and I appreciate the fact that he’s here 

today to talk about this issue and introduce Curt Hiebert, who is 

the CEO of the Keene New Hampshire Housing Authority. 

And, finally, I think it’s important to recognize that, although 

there is a lot of support for reforming the Section 8 voucher program to serve more low-income families, there has been some disagreement over the best way to achieve this. 

At this time, I would like to insert into the record HUD’s written 

statement; for the record, S. 2664. 

Chairman SCHUMER. Without objection. 

Senator CRAPO. And I want to thank our witnesses for coming 

here today and also for your involvement in this important issue. 

Chairman SCHUMER. Well, thank you. 

I will introduce the four other witnesses, but I will first turn it 

over to Senator Sununu to introduce Mr. Hiebert. 

Senator SUNUNU. I thank you very much, Senator Schumer, Senator Crapo. It is a real pleasure to be here to introduce a good 

friend, Curt Hiebert, who has been a true leader in affordable 

housing, but has been the CEO of the Keene Housing Authority for 

20 years. He’s been active in the affordable housing area for much 

longer than that, longer than I’m sure he wants me to relay in any 

real detail, but he’s been just a stand-up advocate for doing the 

right thing, for making sure that the ideals you both spoke about— 

flexibility, innovation at the local level, serving tenants—are all 

priorities, not just in his housing authority in Keene but across the 

State of New Hampshire and across the country. 

Curt has participated at a senior level in the National Association of Housing Directors, PHADA, who I know has testified before 

this committee before on a range of issues. The Moving-to-Work 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
4 

program in particular is a great area of expertise for Curt. He has 

had great success in designing and innovating and moving the 

work program in New Hampshire, and has worked very hard on 

making sure that the goal of accountability remains even as we 

give more flexibility and ability to innovate to housing authorities 

and housing directors across the country. Moving-to-Work, I think, 

has great potential because it really does allow different solutions 

to be tailored to local needs, local tenants, local economy, local 

housing situation, and I think it’s absolutely imperative that the 

committee find a way to strengthen and expand Moving-to-Work. 

I’m pleased to have Curt here to be able to testify not just on his 

experience with Moving-to-Work but also his experience with the 

Section 8 voucher program and other housing initiatives in New 

Hampshire that I think the Members of this Committee and the 

Senate can learn a great deal from. 

Thank you very much for being here, Curt. Thank you, Senator 

Schumer and Senator Crapo. 

Chairman SCHUMER. Thank you, Senator Sununu. 

Let me introduce our other four guests. 

Shaun Donovan was appointed Commissioner of the New York 

City Department of Housing Preservation and Development in 

March 2004. As Commissioner, Mr. Donovan manages the largest 

municipal developer of affordable housing in the nation, and oversees the fourth-largest Section 8 voucher program in the country 

with 27,000 vouchers under management. 

Barbara Sard has been the Center’s Director, the Center on 

Budget and Policy Priorities, Director of Housing Policies since 

1997. Her work focuses on low-income housing policy, particularly 

housing voucher programs and admissions to subsidized housing. 

George Moses is the Secretary of the Housing Alliance of Pennsylvania and Chairman of the Board of the National Low-Income 

Housing Coalition. Mr. Moses has been active in advocating for 

housing policy for the last decade. 

And, finally, Jack Murray is President and Chief Executive Officer of Edgewood Management Corporation. He has over 30 years’ 

experience in the field of property management, and oversees a 

portfolio of over 24,000 units that include private-market and federally assisted housing. 

Each of your statements, guests, will be read into the record. We 

are going to try to limit you to 5 minutes each so we can finish the 

opening statements before the vote, then break for the vote and 

come back and ask questions. 

So, Commissioner Donovan, you may proceed. 

STATEMENT OF SHAUN DONOVAN, COMMISSIONER, NEW 

YORK CITY DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING PRESERVATION AND 

DEVELOPMENT 

Mr. DONOVAN. Good afternoon, Chairman Schumer, Ranking 

Member Crapo, and members of the Committee. I’m Shaun Donovan, Commissioner of the New York City Department of Housing 

Preservation and Development. HPD is the largest municipal developer of affordable housing in the nation, and also administers 

the fourth-largest Section 8 program in the country. Together with 

the New York City Housing Authority, whose program is the largVerDate Nov 24 2008 02:34 Mar 23, 2010 Jkt 052443 PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A443.XXX A443

jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
5 

est in the country, we administer vouchers for over 112,000 families in the five boroughs. 

Section 8 is integral to our affordable housing efforts in New 

York, so I’m very happy to be here to testify on S. 2684, the Section 

8 Voucher Reform Act. I think I speak for the entire affordable 

housing community when I say ‘‘thank you’’ for taking up this critical and complicated program for review. We are in the fifth year 

of Mayor Bloomberg’s New Housing Marketplace Plan, a 10-year 

$7.5 billion dollar plan to create affordable housing for over 

500,000 New Yorkers. Since Mayor Bloomberg came to office, the 

city has funded over 88,000 units of affordable housing, including 

the 70,000 units started under the New Housing Marketplace Plan. 

Of course, we couldn’t have had such success without the partnership of the Federal Government and the unflagging advocacy of 

Senator Schumer and our great congressional delegation. 

Unfortunately, the last few years have not been good ones for our 

Section 8 program. Yearly changes in the way Section 8 voucher 

funding is allocated to HUD to PHAs has made administering a 

Section 8 program very challenging. Funding uncertainty, combined with large increases in our enhanced voucher program, have 

led to large swings in the size of HPD’s program. At this point, 

we’re utilizing about 93 percent of authorized vouchers when only 

2 years ago we were using city funds to supplement our program 

because we were at 102 percent utilization. 

SEVRA’s greatest result, therefore, will be restoring predictability to the way in which Section 8 funds are awarded. Under 

SEVRA, a PHA’s voucher funding will be based on actual costs in 

the preceding year. In a much-needed reversal, PHAs would now 

be able to count on the fact that vouchers leased this year will be 

renewed next year. Predictability will allow PHAs to maximize use 

of limited resources, an imperative in a market such as New York 

City’s, with a 3 percent vacancy rate. 

In tight markets such as New York City’s, project-based vouchers 

could be an important tool for increasing the supply of affordable 

housing, but there are barriers within the current structure to 

making the program work. 

This bill makes three critical changes to the program. First, it allows 40 percent of units in a project in tight market areas to be 

project-based rather than the current 25 percent. This is important 

because finding buildings in which to project-base vouchers in New 

York City is a significant obstacle to success. Second, your bill allows project basing in cooperatives and buildings with elevators. 

And, third, it changes the initial contract term to 15 years so that 

the project-based contract runs concurrently with the Low-Income 

Housing Tax Credit compliance period. 

The bill also provides common sense administrative flexibilities 

that cash-strapped housing authorities will benefit from. Sixty-two 

percent of HPD’s Section 8 families are on a fixed income. By 

changing the requirement for income certifications for this population to once every 3 years from once every year, we will be able 

to save on administrative costs. In 2007 alone, HPD performed over 

43,000 inspections on Section 8 units. With the passage of SEVRA, 

our inspection workload will decline considerably because we will 

be able use to inspections already performed that are equivalent to 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
6 

the voucher program inspection standards. This administrative 

streamlining will allow PHAs to make more efficient use of lean 

budgets. 

There are many other provisions in SEVRA that we believe will 

make the Section 8 program more effective, but in the interest of 

time I will submit them for the record. 

There is one thing not in the Senate Bill, however, that I hope 

will be added, and that is the Housing Innovation Program, or HIP, 

the House bill’s name for the current Moving-to-Work program. 

New York City is not a Moving-to-Work site, but we believe we are 

a good candidate for an updated version of the program, one which 

balances the need for PHA flexibility and tenant protections. 

In September and October of last year, as Senator Schumer mentioned, HPD and NYCHA held roundtables with representatives 

from the Section 8 tenant advocacy and owner communities. The 

full recommendations of that group, which the committee very generously considered when drafting this bill, are submitted for the 

record. The group agreed that designating New York City as a 

HIP-lite site would give us much needed budget flexibility. NYCHA 

has an operating shortfall of $195 million in 2008 and last month 

had a reduction in force of 427 employees. The budgetary 

fungibility that HIP-lite allows would permit NYCHA to spend 

money where it is needed most and balance priorities. However, 

flexibility mustn’t come at the expense of tenants; and we believe 

that tenant protections, such as organizing participation and hearing rights, need to be codified in the HIP provisions, should they 

be added to the bill. 

Thank you for the opportunity to testify before you today. I’m 

happy to answer any questions you have. 

Chairman SCHUMER. Thank you, Commissioner. 

Mr. Hiebert. 

STATEMENT OF CURT HIEBERT, CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, 

KEENE HOUSING AUTHORITY OF NEW HAMPSHIRE AND SENIOR VICE PRESIDENT OF THE PUBLIC HOUSING AUTHORITIES DIRECTOR’S ASSOCIATION 

Mr. HIEBERT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member. I’m 

Curt Hiebert. I’m CEO of the Keene New Hampshire Housing Authority, and I do appreciate this opportunity to discuss this legislation with you. My testimony is in support of this bill, and I urge 

you to support it as well. I would also like to thank Senator 

Sununu for his most gracious introduction. 

I’m here representing the Keene Housing Authority, but I also 

have the honor of serving as a Senior Vice President of the Public 

Housing Authority Directors Association, which represents over 

1,900 Housing Authorities across the United States. I participated 

over the past several years in developing industry rent reform proposals and positions, and have participated in discussions of many 

provisions in the Housing Innovation Program contained in the 

House version of SEVRA. 

The Keene Housing Authority was one of the original 24 Housing 

Authorities that were designated as Moving-to-Work demonstration 

sites, and we continue to operate all of our public housing in Section 8 under that program. The flexibility that was granted under 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
7 

that program has made some dramatic differences in our community, which I will itemize later. Our participation in this program 

has allowed us to work better with our community and with our 

residents and to provide a program that serves the neediest of our 

region, providing stability to those on fixed incomes and yet providing a system that encourages families to move toward self-reliance. This bill, as it stands now, misses an opportunity to authorize 

and modestly expand this program, which is an innovation engine 

for the public housing and Section 8 programs. 

SEVRA does contain a large number of detailed provisions, many 

of which are very attractive to housing sponsors, tenants and participants, but there are a couple of items that are also missing. 

Some of the needed and welcomed provisions, the rent and income 

provisions, allowing biannual inspections, and the FSS fee entitlement and Housing Choice Voucher program, and enshrining a rational renewal and administrative fee funding system that has 

been dealt with chaotically in the past through appropriations and 

regulation interpretation. 

However, the Senate version of SEVRA also includes some problematic provisions. Imposing a permanent cap on vouchers in use 

of 103 percent of the sponsor’s authorized units. Though absorption 

of incoming portable tenant-based vouchers is an acceptable solution to a long-standing problem, the method described is cumbersome and needs refining. And authority for the Secretary of 

HUD to redefine the basis for voucher administrative fees is a 

problem. 

Most importantly, though, there are two omissions: The Senate 

bill does not include authority to establish alternative rent structures and assisted housing; and the Senate bill, as has been mentioned several times, does not include permanent authorization of 

the Moving-to-Work demonstration. Although ongoing discussions 

of problematic provisions in the Senate version are important—and 

we expect to resolve a number of these concerns—the omissions are 

particularly troubling. 

The discussions that produced the provisions of the Housing Innovation Program and the House SEVRA bill involve significant 

give and take on the part of a number of stakeholder communities, 

and these provisions should form the foundation for MTW or HIP 

authorization. These provisions should provide for, one, a modest 

expansion of the number of agencies under an MTW or HIP agreement; assurance that newly participating agencies will reflect the 

diversity among local housing authorities as to size and location; 

and a new status called ‘‘HIP-lite,’’ which provides funding but not 

policy flexibility. 

Also important is an application of a number of tenant protections to participates at MTW or HIP participating agencies, elimination of the uncertainties about the—by the 30 current participants concerning the future of their MTW status. 

To give you an example, the MTW program in Keene and many 

of the other participating housing authorities have had some strikingly successful changes in their communities. In 1999, 47 percent 

of the heads of household in the families of the Keene Housing Authority were working full time. Last year, 65 percent were working 

full time. In that same period of time, average income for families 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
8 

increased by over 30 percent. In part, this was because our system 

did not discourage increase in income but actually rewarded it. Our 

system of rent steps and the vital service coordination that we provide does not penalize rises in income, but instead our program encourages job skills, education, financial competency, and ambition. 

At the same time, those neediest are protected by our Safety Net 

provisions in our program. The key is our program would not work 

everywhere—the program that works in Keene would not necessarily work in other communities—but the flexibility contained in 

Moving-to-Work, we were able to make a program that is good for 

our residents and our stakeholders. Other communities and housing authorities should have the same opportunity. 

Please make sure that a provision in SEVRA is for the Movingto-Work or HIP program that would, one, make the program work; 

two, grandfather the existing MTW agencies that are in compliance 

with their agreements; three, modestly increase the number of 

agencies; and, four, ad an effective and easily administered mechanism to evaluate the program. 

Thank you very much for this opportunity, and I will be glad to 

answer any questions. 

Chairman SCHUMER. Thank you, Mr. Hiebert. 

Ms. Sard. 

STATEMENT OF BARBARA SARD, DIRECTOR OF HOUSING 

POLICY, CENTER ON BUDGET AND POLICY PRIORITIES 

Ms. SARD. Thank you, Chairman. My name is Barbara Sard. I’m 

the Director of Housing Policy at the Center on Budget and Policy 

Priorities. My testimony today first will briefly review why the Section 8 Voucher Reform Act enjoys unusually broad support, and 

then will address why it is important for the Banking Committee 

to approve S. 2684 promptly so that final legislation may be enacted this year. 

As the chairman mentioned in his opening remarks, SEVRA, as 

passed by the House and as introduced recently in the Senate, is 

supported by a full spectrum of organizations that represent stakeholders in the Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher program. Unfortunately, as a member of that housing advocacy community, I can 

confess that such unity in our community is rare, and I think we 

should applaud the fact that this is such a common sense bill that 

it has appealed to such a broad range of stakeholders. 

There are many provisions in the bill, but to make them kind of 

simple to understand, I have put them into three categories: The 

first is common sense reforms to reduce administrative burdens for 

everyone. For example, changes to the rules governing inspections 

and rent policies will benefit owners, families, and public housing 

agencies alike by reducing the frequency of required actions, and 

allowing Housing Authorities to rely on inspections or income 

verifications performed by other agencies, and simplifying the 

Rules for setting tenant rents. Changes to portability policies, the 

rules that allow someone to take a voucher from one community 

and use it to live in another, will substantially reduce the administrative cost was such moves. And SEVRA accomplishes such increased efficiency while retaining key tenant protections, which is 

a measure of the balance in the bill. 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
9 

In addition, SEVRA makes a number of changes that will support work. As the Ranking Member mentioned, increased self-sufficiency is one of his goals, and I think this bill goes a long way to 

address these goals. It has a new earnings disregard, and other aspects of the rent policy also create a financial incentive for families 

to work, and the changes in the Family Self-Sufficiency program in 

terms of how administrative fees are allocated and how the funding 

policy works better with FSS will make it much easier and create 

an incentive for more agencies to have FSS programs. 

Second, SEVRA will update key policies in the program which 

haven’t been comprehensively addressed in the last 10 years. There 

are many examples of this, but just a few. The bill takes advantage 

of new data sources to produce fair-market rent figures for smaller 

areas that can be more accurate and, thereby, be more efficient in 

the allocation of funds. SEVRA uses new rent and income information that agencies already submit to HUD to report on rent burdens, and recent data indicate that rent burdens in the program 

have gotten excessively high. 

And SEVRA will also update the Rules that govern the projectbased voucher program that was addressed by Congress in 2000, 

but, as Mr. Donovan mentioned, some changes are needed to better 

coordinate the program with the low-income housing tax credit, 

work better for supportive housing for the homeless, et cetera. 

But perhaps most importantly, SEVRA creates new flexibility for 

all agencies. It will help vouchers be a Preservation tool for housing that is privately owned and being lost. It will help respond to 

the current foreclosure crisis by creating mechanisms for housing 

agencies to help tenants in buildings where the owners are financially troubled and have been struggling to make utility payments. 

And perhaps most importantly, it will help the program better 

respond to growing housing needs. Escalating foreclosures and the 

softening economy are exacerbating the need for rental assistance, 

and the utilization of already authorized vouchers has been substantially decreased. In 2007, we were using only 91 percent of the 

vouchers that Congress has authorized; in 2004, we were using 98 

percent. Many agencies are doing better in this last year because 

of funding improvements which Congress made in 2007 and 2008, 

but to continue those improvements, they need a permanent 

change in authorizing law. 

On Moving-to-Work, you have heard people talk about a modest 

expansion; I want to underscore that. Already under the House 

provision, one-third of assisted families can be in Moving-to-Work 

agencies. That is far more than is needed to learn new lessons from 

local experimentation and, as Mr. Donovan and Mr. Hiebert mentioned, protecting tenants from overly harsh changes in policy 

while those changes are being made, and we learn through an improved evaluation method are also vital. 

Thank you very much, and I look forward to answering any questions. 

Chairman SCHUMER. I think we only have about 3 minutes left 

to the vote, so we are going to break, and we will come back as 

soon as possible and hear from Mr. Moses and Mr. Murray and ask 

questions. So, the hearing is temporarily in recess until we return. 

[Recess.] 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
10 

Chairman SCHUMER. The hearing will come to order. 

And, Mr. Moses, your entire statement will be read into the 

record, and you may proceed. 

STATEMENT OF GEORGE MOSES, SECRETARY, HOUSING ALLIANCE OF PENNSYLVANIA, REPRESENTING THE NATIONAL 

LOW INCOME HOUSING COALITION 

Mr. MOSES. Chairman Schumer, Ranking Member Crapo, and 

other members of the subcommittee, thank you for inviting me to 

testify here before you today on proposals to reform the Housing 

Choice Voucher program. 

I am George Moses. I am Chair of the Board of Directors for the 

National Low-Income Housing Coalition, which I’m representing 

here today. I’m also on the Board of Directors of the Housing Alliance of Pennsylvania. 

I lived in project-based Section 8 properties between 1990 and 

2006. I was elected Chair of the National Low-Income Housing Coalition in 2006, and I am the first tenant representative to serve 

in that role. 

The National Low-Income Housing Coalition strongly supports 

the Housing Choice Voucher program, and we are pleased that the 

subcommittee is having hearings on this critical program. We are 

particularly pleased that the bill adopts virtually all of the recommendations that came from the 2005 voucher summit sponsored 

by the National Low-Income Housing Coalition, including recommendations on income targeting, funding, inspections, portability, rent simplifications, project-basing vouchers, and enhanced 

vouchers. 

My written testimony provides comments on these and other aspects of the Section 8 Voucher Reform Act, S. 2684. During this 

time, I would like to highlight a couple of the points. 

We are, of course, pleased that the bill fixes the voucher funding 

distribution system. In 2004, HUD declared the voucher program 

broken and then proceeded to break it. This bill would correct those 

actions which prevented 150,000 families with children, people 

with disabilities, senior citizens, and others from becoming housed 

in a safe, decent, affordable way. This bill would restore reliability 

and credibility to the voucher program. 

The bill encourages increased income and provides much needed 

simplification to rent-setting policies, things that residents and 

housing agencies have long sought. These important reforms are 

done while maintaining the broad standard that tenants claim no 

more than 30 percent of their adjusted income for their housing. It 

is critical that the rents be connected to the incomes of the individual households so that one basic principal of assisted housing is 

preserved: Affordability. 

Mobility is another cornerstone of the voucher program. Vouchers 

should not lock families into certain neighborhoods or communities. 

The current system for porting vouchers from one administration’s 

agencies geographical area to another is broken and is in need of 

urgent repair for the sake of both tenants and administrative agencies. With some safeguards for lack of funding, S. 2684 would require receiving agencies to absorb incoming vouchers. The phasing 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
11 

in of this requirement is prudent and would hopefully result in a 

reliable long-term portability mechanism. 

The inclusion of 20,000 new vouchers a year for the next 5 years 

is also welcome. However, the broad improvements of this bill 

should allow for a much larger expansion of the voucher program. 

The National Low-Income Housing Coalition supports 100,000 new 

vouchers a year for the next 5 years at such a level new vouchers 

could significantly impact the nation’s housing crisis. And we say 

this because most of the PHAs across the country waiting for Section 8 vouchers are closed; therefore, many tenants cannot get a 

voucher. 

Finally, we are glad that S. 2684 does not provide for an expansion of the Moving-to-Work program. The failure of HUD to establish a program with an adequate data collection system has meant 

that no one, neither HUD, Congress, the HUD Inspector General, 

or tenants living in the projects subject to the Moving-to-Work accesses the effectiveness of the program at meeting its goals of reducing costs, promoting tenant self-sufficiency, increasing tenants’ 

housing choices. 

But what we do know about the program is troublesome. For example, the Housing Authority of the city of Pittsburgh, my home 

town, was found by the HUD Inspector General to have stockpiled 

more than 81 million of HUD funding during the first 4 years of 

its Moving-to-Work status, all completely legal under the Movingto-Work Rules. Meanwhile, the Pittsburgh Housing Authority 

Agency did not modernize its 6,700 public housing units and failed 

to serve 3,000 families waiting for vouchers. HUD’s Real Estate Assessment Center at the time said 30 percent of Pittsburgh’s developments had a physical inspection score below 70 out of a possible 

100. According to the HUD’s Inspector General, the relaxation of 

the requirements under Moving-to-Work allowed the housing authority to plan and execute a minimal modernization plan without 

penalty. The only thing that the community and the residents 

wanted from this Moving-to-Work program was an evaluation, tell 

us what you did, who you serve, how many people improve lives 

with this, and we never got that information. 

Again, we believe that S. 2684 is an extremely important bill, 

and we urge swift enactment. We would also like you to take up 

the National Affordable Housing Trust Fund Act of 2008, S. 2523. 

This legislation would create an off-budget housing trust fund to 

produce and preserve housing for our nation’s lowest-income people. The bill was introduced in December, and we hope that it will 

move quickly forward. We urge all Senators to join Senators Schumer, Reed, and Menendez of this subcommittee in cosponsoring 

this legislation. 

Again, I thank you for giving me the opportunity to testify before 

you today, and I will be available for questions. 

Chairman SCHUMER. Thank you, Mr. Moses. 

Mr. Murray. 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
12 

STATEMENT OF JACK MURRAY, EDGEWOOD MANAGEMENT 

CORPORATION, REPRESENTING THE NATIONAL AFFORDABLE HOUSING MANAGEMENT ASSOCIATION AND THE NATIONAL LEASED HOUSING ASSOCIATION 

Mr. MURRAY. Thank you, Chairman Schumer; and thank you, 

Ranking Member Crapo for the time that you are giving us on 

these issues. My name is Jack Murray. I’m here representing two 

very good trade associations: The National Affordable Housing 

Management Association and the National Leased Housing Management Association. The National Leased Housing Association 

represents interests of owners and developers and lenders and 

managing agents, and has over 500 organizational members that 

all work with Section 8, both project-based and vouchers, across the 

nation. National Affordable Housing Management Association is a 

trade association which represents multifamily property managers 

and owners whose mission is to provide quality affordable rental 

housing. Likewise, NAHMA is the voice in Washington for 20 regional affordable housing management associations. 

We commend both of you for your leadership, and thank you and 

the committee members for your valuable work addressing the nation’s need for affordable rental housing. We are pleased and honored to present our views on the Section 8 Voucher Reform Act, 

SEVRA. 

The Section 8 program has long served as America’s primary 

rental subsidy program, and we believe it has been largely successful in achieving the goal of assuring decent, safe, and affordable 

housing for low-Income families and the elderly. We do not believe 

that the Housing Choice Voucher program is in need of a major 

overhaul, but are convinced that it can be improved upon with the 

changes outlined in the SEVRA legislation. The bill has the broad 

support of so many national housing organizations as outlined in 

the attached letter to the committee. The groups include the National Multihousing Council, the National Association of Realtors, 

Home Builders, National Apartment Association—we could go on 

and on. 

Our testimony will focus on three particular interests to NAHMA 

and National Leased Housing: Inspections. 

The success of the voucher program is dependent on the willingness of owners and landlords to accept voucher tenants. These organizations have worked over the years to convince the professional 

apartment managers to participate in the voucher program, and 

many have; but there are a number of program requirements that 

give landlords pause, particularly with regard to the inspection 

standards. Renting to a voucher holder should not cost a landlord 

more than what it does to rent to an unsubsidized resident, but it 

often does due to the duplicative inspection standards. Before a 

Section 8 voucher holder can rent a specific apartment, the administering agency must first inspect the unit and confirm it complies 

with Housing Quality Standards. Such unit-by-unit inspections 

cause intolerable delays and do not necessarily satisfy HUD’s objective of protecting residents since many of these properties already 

inspect other Federal programs. 

And I would depart from my testimony to say this really is needed in the cities like D.C. and New York City and other places beVerDate Nov 24 2008 02:34 Mar 23, 2010 Jkt 052443 PO 00000 Frm 00016 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A443.XXX A443

jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
13 

cause of the tight market there. If they’ve got a choice of a person 

coming in with a check in their hand or person coming in with a 

voucher, they’re going to take the check every time because they 

don’t know when they are going to be able to move into the voucher 

holder until after an inspection. 

Delays caused by the initial inspections and related processing 

delays cause apartments to remain vacant. The apartment industry 

relies on seamless turnover to meet its overhead costs, and the financial implications of such delays are enough to deter many owners from participating in the program. NAHMA and National Lease 

Housing strongly support SEVRA’s provisions that address current 

redundancy in Federal inspection programs by permitting housing 

agencies to approve the lease-up of apartments that have recently 

been inspected by FHA, home or the low-Income housing tax credit 

program. The residents were provided much-needed housing sooner, and the owners are not losing income due to delayed move-ins. 

Under the bill, housing agencies will continue to inspect the units 

but will do so within 30 days after the tenant moves in. Further, 

SEVRA recognizes that minor repairs can be made after the tenant 

moves in, a provision supported by our organizations. 

SEVRA also permits housing agencies the discretion to inspect 

apartments occupied by ongoing voucher residents every other year 

instead of annually. We support that provision for professional 

landlords but recommend that small apartment properties, maybe 

20 units or less that are not generally professionally managed, 

might be inspected every year. 

NAHMA and National Leased Housing are especially pleased 

that SEVRA incorporates Senator Menendez’s legislation 1218, 

Limited English Proficiency, which allows HUD to better serve persons with limited English proficiency by providing technical assistance to recipients of Federal funds. HUD’s Limited English Proficiency guidelines became effective on March 2007. The guideline 

states that recipients of HUD funding, including affordable housing 

providers, have an obligation to provide translated documents and 

oral interpretation services to all the many different languages that 

are in that area. Unfortunately, HUD provided no additional funding to provide the offset of the cost of providing those services. Another major concern with the guidance was HUD’s failure to identify a specific list of documents housing providers would be expected to translate. 

Last summer, a coalition of multifamily housing representatives 

and civil rights advocates proposed the LEP language which is included in SEVRA. Our compromise addresses the cost and the 

vagueness. SEVRA’s LEP language is strongly supported by 

NAHMA and National Leased Housing. 

Project-based vouchers, if I can just finish up. Our members are 

actively involved in the operation and development of affordable 

rental housing. We are particularly pleased that SEVRA would provide flexibility and consistency with regard to use of vouchers with 

low-Income housing, particularly expanding the contracts from 10 

years to 15 years, and allowing the housing agencies to move from 

20 percent to 25 percent is project-based. All of these things help 

both the landlord and the residents. 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
14 

At the request of a property owner, they would also allow a PHA 

to provide existing residents with project-based vouchers in lieu of 

enhanced vouchers when owner opts out of any federally subsidized 

program. This option will protect the residents while ensuring that 

the actual units are preserved as affordable. 

Conclusion: Affordable housing is sorely lacking in America. According to Harvard, 35 million households spend 30 percent. . . . 

Chairman SCHUMER. You know you could finish your sentence or 

so. 

Mr. MURRAY. Oh, that’s OK, you know where I’m going. 

Chairman SCHUMER. Thank you. We do, indeed. And thank you 

for your excellent testimony, Mr. Murray, all the testimony was 

very good. 

I’m going to defer to Senator Crapo who has another appointment to which he must go, and then I will ask my questions. So, 

Senator Crapo, take as much time as you need. 

Senator CRAPO. Well, thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, for 

your kind accommodation. I just have one question. 

As I indicated in my opening remarks, I’m very interested in the 

Moving-to-Work program. I would like to see my state, Idaho, have 

the opportunity to participate in this program. But as I look at the 

numbers, it kind of looks daunting. Right now, there are about 30 

Moving-to-Work programs authorized, and about 20 of those, I 

think, are actually in effect and operating. Just to give you some 

statistics—and these are rough, at least as to the national numbers—there is about 2 million vouchers in the country; in Idaho 

there is 6,500. There is about 3,000 agencies in the country; in 

Idaho, there is five. 

So, as I look at trying to get two or three of my agencies access 

to the Moving-to-Work program with those kind of statistics, it becomes evident that I want to see a big expansion of the opportunity 

to get into the Moving-to-Work program. 

So, really, the question I have is, if the housing authority already 

operates a successful family self-sufficiency program and has a satisfactory or higher CEMAP rating for the previous 3 years, then 

one would assume that that Housing Authority is able to meet 

their and their community’s and HUD’s expectations. Why 

shouldn’t we provide an avenue for these housing authorities to be 

given the discretion to elect to move into the Moving-to-Work program and then tailor the Section 8 programs to the local needs as 

opposed to the less flexible requirements that they otherwise deal 

with? In other words, why shouldn’t we just open this up? 

I throw that out to the whole panel. 

Mr. HIEBERT. I would be glad to jump on that, Senator. Part of 

it is the balance that you need to maintain. Part of it is accountability of HUD being able to administer varying programs. You’re 

preaching to the choir, if you’re talking to me about expansion of 

this program. I think it’s—the future of public housing and Section 

8 is that exact flexibility that you’re talking about. 

A lot of things that have been done in 1999 and 2000 in the Moving-to-Work program, some of them have already been initiated in 

the general program because they proved not to be effective. 

There is concern that, if some innovations are administered and 

they don’t turn out to be good, you don’t want them replicated. 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
15 

However, I think that the accountability, if it is there, it should be 

expanded to as many housing authorities as possible. And in the 

original HIP, in the House bill, there is a suggestion that the distribution be equitable geographically and size of housing authorities, both. 

Senator CRAPO. Thank you. 

Ms. Sard. 

Ms. SARD. Just to add to that, the important thing in authorizing 

law, I think, is to take advantage of the lessons learned and spread 

them to everyone and not make it a privileged few; and to do that, 

we need to, yes, allow experimentation, but to do it in a way that 

we can actually learn something and make reasoned conclusions 

about what works and what ought to be expanded. And in order 

to do that, the experiment can’t be too large, or managing the gathering of data and the assessing of it becomes expensive and unwieldy. 

And if we give in again, as we did in the first stage of MTW, and 

say, ‘‘Well, it’s just going to be too expensive and too difficult to 

learn anything from this, so let’s just let people do it,’’ we will end 

up in the same bind where agencies that should be allowed to benefit from flexibility and new lessons won’t get that opportunity. So, 

I think that, in order to achieve your goal, we have to take this in 

measured steps. 

I would add that the House bill does not necessarily give preference to high-performing agencies to be selected for MTW, and 

that is a change that, if the Senate wanted to consider—there may 

be differences of opinion on that on the panel, but I, for one, would 

support it, so I think that’s important. 

But I think it’s important to recognize that the changes that 

SEVRA would make would increase flexibility across the board for 

agencies. So, while I appreciate your concern for MTW, I think it’s 

really important to recognize a lot of the goal you’re seeking is 

achieved by enacting SEVRA. 

Senator CRAPO. Well, thank you. 

Mr. Chairman, from what I hear, I’m going to continue to advocate for ways to get Idaho agencies to have the flexibility to be involved, but maybe what we will need is an earmark in the bill to 

designate the Idaho agencies as part of the study. How would that 

work? 

Chairman SCHUMER. I, for one, have nothing against earmarks 

as long as they are public, debated, and honorable. 

Senator CRAPO. I agree with you. 

Chairman SCHUMER. OK. 

Mr. MOSES. Mr. Chairman, if I might—— 

Chairman SCHUMER. Yes, Mr. Moses. 

Mr. MOSES. To come back and answer Senate Crapo’s question, 

we are not just only talking about self-sufficiency in those programs. We are talking about an ability to change rent standards. 

Example. In Pittsburgh, we just learned through, unbeknownst to 

publications, that they were raising the rent to the minimal rent 

to $150, and we went to the public housing communities, and we 

asked, did you know these changes were taking place? And they 

said no, we were never conferred, talked about it, doing it like this. 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
16 

And as you said in your opening statement, sir, this could not be 

just as all housing authorities can be judged to be the same because there are so many of them, and they do things so differently 

across the country. 

So, in looking at this, we must be able to look at what’s done, 

ask for a good evaluation, as Ms. Sard said about collecting data 

and information, that we can then make a good determination on 

what’s good and what’s bad because, in Pittsburgh, when we asked 

for that sort of evaluation, we were told, ‘‘Well, it’s not in the rules, 

so we don’t have to do it.’’ 

Senator CRAPO. Thank you very much. I appreciate all these perspectives. 

And again, thank you, Mr. Chairman, for allowing me to do this, 

and I apologize I will have to slip out. 

Chairman SCHUMER. No problem. Thank you, Senator Crapo, for 

coming to this hearing, and now I will go on with my questions. 

First. Mr. Murray, as you say in your testimony, the success of 

the voucher program is dependent on landlord participation. What 

are the largest barriers to landlord participation, and are we moving in the right direction with the Section 8 Voucher Reform Act? 

Mr. MURRAY. Yes, sir. Yes, sir, I think we are moving in the 

right direction with this. 

Chairman SCHUMER. Mr. Moses was moving in the right direction with pushing the button for you. 

Mr. MURRAY. Yes, absolutely, yes, sir. 

Getting these inspections so that you don’t have to hold up the 

move-in of a resident so that the vacancy is kept less will help a 

number of properties, but will also help the owner to want to take 

these vouchers because, right now, many of them don’t want to because they don’t know when the inspection’s coming or what the 

problems are going to be, and this helps get beyond that. I think 

that’s very good. 

Chairman SCHUMER. Good. 

Mr. Donovan, I’m troubled by your testimony that congressional 

interference with the voucher funding formula has led to a decrease in the number of families being served. How many more 

families in New York City could have been served over the past few 

years if the funding formula had been stable and predictable? And 

will the reform act help stabilize funding so you can serve those additional families? 

Mr. DONOVAN. Currently, I would estimate that roughly 10,000 

more families could be served, if we had not had the uncertainty 

and the ups and downs that we have had over the last few years. 

And I would just emphasize that this has been both ups and 

downs. As I mentioned in my testimony, because of the unpredictability and the changes in the formula over the last few years, we 

have actually gone from being underutilized to overutilized to underutilized in a very short period of time, and so that piece is incredibly important. 

What I would also mention about the formula as well is that, in 

some ways, the budget-based formula we have lived with over the 

last few years has been the worst of both worlds. It has gone to 

a budget-based system which was intended to encourage savings 

yet, on the other hand, has not allowed us to go above a hard cap 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
17 

on the number of vouchers utilized. And one of the very positive 

things about your bill would be to lift that cap. 

Just to be clear, any savings we could have achieved would not 

have allowed us, under the prior formula, to actually serve more 

families. What this would allow us to do and what it would give 

us is a real incentive for the kind of savings and efficiencies that 

I think were intended all along, but frankly, because of the flaws 

in the formula, were never able to be achieved—— 

Chairman SCHUMER. Sounds like a free-market solution, to a 

government agency. 

Ms. Sard, do you want to comment on that? Are you the same 

Ms. Sard I went to law school with? 

Ms. SARD. I’m glad you remember that. 

Chairman SCHUMER. How do you like that. 

Ms. SARD. We were even in the first section in our first year. 

Chairman SCHUMER. Our contracts teacher just passed away—I 

just read it in the paper—but he was a great teacher. 

Ms. SARD. We analyzed data for agencies throughout New York 

State as well as for the states represented by other members of the 

Banking Committee, and New York is an unfortunate example of 

the typical pattern. In 2004, agencies in the state were using 98 

percent of their authorized vouchers; by 2006, that had gone down 

to 87 percent, and it improved somewhat last year. And we estimate that, in New York State, nearly 27,000 additional families 

could be served this year with the money that agencies have, but 

it’s very risky for agencies to put those vouchers out on the street. 

It’s risky for landlords to agree to accept them, unless Congress 

passes a law that makes clear that the funding policy will provide 

funds for those vouchers the next year. 

Chairman SCHUMER. Right. 

And let me just, you know, the statement the administration 

submitted said that PHAs in the present law are provided incentives to increase costs under the bill. They also say that we should 

rebenchmark every 3 years. 

Can you comment on this? And then Mr. Hiebert and Mr. Donovan as well. 

Ms. SARD. I think it is—perhaps they fail to understand how the 

bill would work because it’s just false to say that costs would increase. 

It is important to look at—there are two types of costs in the 

voucher program. There is the cost of the program overall, and 

then there is the cost per voucher. The costs of the program overall 

remains absolutely within the control of Congress. The appropriators decide how much they are going to spend. If there is not 

enough to fully fund the program, then payments are prorated to 

the remaining agencies. So, that’s just false. 

Chairman SCHUMER. Right. 

Ms. SARD. On the per-voucher cost, your bill creates a complex 

balance of different forces so that, on the one hand, it allows agencies to pay more in order for families to move to more expensive 

areas. It also, by fixing the fair market rents for smaller areas, 

would reduce some payments. 

And as Mr. Donovan said, by allowing agencies to go over the 

cap, it creates an incentive for agencies to keep each voucher costVerDate Nov 24 2008 02:34 Mar 23, 2010 Jkt 052443 PO 00000 Frm 00021 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A443.XXX A443

jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
18 

ing less so they can serve more people. It creates the right balance 

of incentives in a complex program. 

Chairman SCHUMER. Right. 

Comments from Mr. Hiebert. 

Mr. HIEBERT. Yes, Senator, I would agree with Barbara on that, 

but also I would like to add something. The additional flexibility 

under the Moving-to-Work program with our Section 8, we were 

able to have utilization rates upwards of 108 to 110 percent, to be 

able to serve up to 10 percent more people than otherwise would 

have been allowed. 

Also different populations that are not presently allowed under 

the Housing Choice Voucher program are available also under the 

MTW program. 

Mr. DONOVAN. Senator, one final point I would make on that as 

well, one of the key issues, I think, has been that there are programs, much as we might not like to admit it as people who manage voucher programs, there are programs around the country that 

are not being well managed. And currently, under a formula, or 

historically under a formula that used a 3-year-old or a 5-year-old 

benchmark for how budgets were set, there was really no incentive 

there from a funding basis to get out of that cycle of mismanagement. 

This funding formula would move to a system where, if you don’t 

fully utilize your funds, they could be taken away, and that is both 

overall the potential for cost savings but, on an individual basis for 

those housing authorities, an incentive to better manage the program. I think something we could all agree is a positive thing. 

Chairman SCHUMER. One gets the feeling that much of the administration’s view was motivated by spending the least amount of 

money possible, no matter how many fewer people are served, and 

no matter how less efficient the program is. 

Would either of you, Mr. Murray or Ms. Moses, disagree with 

what I have to say? 

Mr. MURRAY. I wish I could. 

Chairman SCHUMER. How about you, Mr. Moses? 

Mr. MOSES. No comment. 

Chairman SCHUMER. No comment. OK. 

Finally, Mr. Donovan, HUD submitted a statement for today’s 

hearing that says this bill would result ‘‘in a more complicated and 

less effective program than we have today.’’ 

I take it you very much disagree with that, from your previous 

comments? 

Mr. DONOVAN. Well, I would go back to the discussion we had 

with Senator Crapo when he was here, and I think the important 

thing to recognize here is that, while we can discuss whether it’s 

in HIP or HIP-lite, which we certainly support the availability of 

and the ability to do that. The fundamental purpose to this bill, 

and I think why there is such broad support across so many stakeholders, from owners to advocates, et cetera, as well as those of us 

who run the programs is that this bill does lead to fundamental 

simplification of the program. Administrative reforms, reforms 

around eligibility and rent setting, the inspection protocols, all of 

those things will lead to a simpler program to administer, to live 

with, if you’re a resident, or to live with if you’re an owner. 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
19 

So, I think that’s why there is such broad support for many of 

these fundamental common sense reforms. 

Chairman SCHUMER. Anyone else, final comments? 

Well, then, I can assure all of you that Senator Dodd and I are 

going to try to move this legislation which seems to meet with your 

approval, whether you’re a big authority or a small authority, 

whether you represent tenants or you represent the landlords. 

Seems to be pretty good. I would say to the administration, ‘‘You’re 

odd man out; better get with it.’’ 

Anyway, I thank everybody for being here. 

The hearing is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 3:27 p.m., the hearing was concluded.] 

[Prepared statements and additional material supplied for the 

record follow:] 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
20 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 56 52443A.001
21 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 57 52443A.002
22 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 58 52443A.003
23 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 59 52443A.004
24 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 60 52443A.005
25 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 61 52443A.006
26 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 62 52443A.007
27 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 63 52443A.008
28 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 64 52443A.009
29 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 65 52443A.010
30 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 66 52443A.011
31 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 67 52443A.012
32 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 68 52443A.013
33 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 69 52443A.014
34 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 70 52443A.015
35 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 71 52443A.016
36 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 72 52443A.017
37 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 73 52443A.018
38 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 74 52443A.019
39 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 75 52443A.020
40 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 76 52443A.021
41 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 77 52443A.022
42 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 78 52443A.023
43 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 79 52443A.024
44 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 80 52443A.025
45 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 81 52443A.026
46 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 82 52443A.027
47 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 83 52443A.028
48 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 84 52443A.029
49 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 85 52443A.030
50 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 86 52443A.031
51 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 87 52443A.032
52 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 88 52443A.033
53 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 89 52443A.034
54 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 90 52443A.035
55 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 91 52443A.036
56 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 92 52443A.037
57 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 93 52443A.038
58 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 94 52443A.039
59 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 95 52443A.040
60 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 96 52443A.041
61 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 97 52443A.042
62 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 98 52443A.043
63 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 99 52443A.044
64 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 100 52443A.045
65 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 101 52443A.046
66 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 102 52443A.047
67 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 103 52443A.048
68 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 104 52443A.049
69 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 105 52443A.050
70 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 106 52443A.051
71 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 107 52443A.052
72 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 108 52443A.053
73 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 109 52443A.054
74 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 110 52443A.055
75 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 111 52443A.056
76 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 112 52443A.057
77 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 113 52443A.058
78 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 114 52443A.059
79 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 115 52443A.060
80 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 116 52443A.061
81 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 117 52443A.062
82 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 118 52443A.063
83 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 119 52443A.064
84 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 120 52443A.065
85 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 121 52443A.066
86 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 122 52443A.067
87 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 123 52443A.068
88 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 124 52443A.069
89 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 125 52443A.070
90 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 126 52443A.071
91 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 127 52443A.072
92 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 128 52443A.073
93 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 129 52443A.074
94 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 130 52443A.075
95 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 131 52443A.076
96 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 132 52443A.077
97 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 133 52443A.078
98 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 134 52443A.079
99 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 135 52443A.080
100 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 136 52443A.081
101 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 137 52443A.082
102 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 138 52443A.083
103 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 139 52443A.084
104 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 140 52443A.085
105 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 141 52443A.086
106 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 142 52443A.087
107 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 143 52443A.088
108 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 144 52443A.089
109 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 145 52443A.090
110 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 146 52443A.091
111 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 147 52443A.092
112 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 148 52443A.093
113 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 149 52443A.094
114 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 150 52443A.095
115 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 151 52443A.096
116 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 152 52443A.097
117 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 153 52443A.098
118 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 154 52443A.099
119 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 155 52443A.100
120 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 156 52443A.101
121 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 157 52443A.102
122 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 158 52443A.103
123 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 159 52443A.104
124 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 160 52443A.105
125 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 161 52443A.106
126 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 162 52443A.107
127 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 163 52443A.108
128 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 164 52443A.109
129 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 165 52443A.110
130 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 166 52443A.111
131 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 167 52443A.112
132 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 168 52443A.113
133 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 169 52443A.114
134 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 170 52443A.115
135 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 171/200 52443A.116