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

67–935 PDF 2011

LEGISLATIVE PROPOSALS TO REFORM 

THE HOUSING CHOICE VOUCHER PROGRAM 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON 

INSURANCE, HOUSING AND 

COMMUNITY OPPORTUNITY 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON FINANCIAL SERVICES 

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

JUNE 23, 2011 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Financial Services 

Serial No. 112–40 

( 

(II) 

HOUSE COMMITTEE ON FINANCIAL SERVICES 

SPENCER BACHUS, Alabama, Chairman 

JEB HENSARLING, Texas, Vice Chairman 

PETER T. KING, New York 

EDWARD R. ROYCE, California 

FRANK D. LUCAS, Oklahoma 

RON PAUL, Texas 

DONALD A. MANZULLO, Illinois 

WALTER B. JONES, North Carolina 

JUDY BIGGERT, Illinois 

GARY G. MILLER, California 

SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West Virginia 

SCOTT GARRETT, New Jersey 

RANDY NEUGEBAUER, Texas 

PATRICK T. MCHENRY, North Carolina 

JOHN CAMPBELL, California 

MICHELE BACHMANN, Minnesota 

THADDEUS G. McCOTTER, Michigan 

KEVIN McCARTHY, California 

STEVAN PEARCE, New Mexico 

BILL POSEY, Florida 

MICHAEL G. FITZPATRICK, Pennsylvania 

LYNN A. WESTMORELAND, Georgia 

BLAINE LUETKEMEYER, Missouri 

BILL HUIZENGA, Michigan 

SEAN P. DUFFY, Wisconsin 

NAN A. S. HAYWORTH, New York 

JAMES B. RENACCI, Ohio 

ROBERT HURT, Virginia 

ROBERT J. DOLD, Illinois 

DAVID SCHWEIKERT, Arizona 

MICHAEL G. GRIMM, New York 

FRANCISCO ‘‘QUICO’’ CANSECO, Texas 

STEVE STIVERS, Ohio 

STEPHEN LEE FINCHER, Tennessee 

BARNEY FRANK, Massachusetts, Ranking 

Member 

MAXINE WATERS, California 

CAROLYN B. MALONEY, New York 

LUIS V. GUTIERREZ, Illinois 

NYDIA M. VELA ́ ZQUEZ, New York 

MELVIN L. WATT, North Carolina 

GARY L. ACKERMAN, New York 

BRAD SHERMAN, California 

GREGORY W. MEEKS, New York 

MICHAEL E. CAPUANO, Massachusetts 

RUBE ́ N HINOJOSA, Texas 

WM. LACY CLAY, Missouri 

CAROLYN MCCARTHY, New York 

JOE BACA, California 

STEPHEN F. LYNCH, Massachusetts 

BRAD MILLER, North Carolina 

DAVID SCOTT, Georgia 

AL GREEN, Texas 

EMANUEL CLEAVER, Missouri 

GWEN MOORE, Wisconsin 

KEITH ELLISON, Minnesota 

ED PERLMUTTER, Colorado 

JOE DONNELLY, Indiana 

ANDRE ́ CARSON, Indiana 

JAMES A. HIMES, Connecticut 

GARY C. PETERS, Michigan 

JOHN C. CARNEY, JR., Delaware 

LARRY C. LAVENDER, Chief of Staff 

(III) 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON INSURANCE, HOUSING AND COMMUNITY OPPORTUNITY

JUDY BIGGERT, Illinois, Chairman 

ROBERT HURT, Virginia, Vice Chairman 

GARY G. MILLER, California 

SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West Virginia 

SCOTT GARRETT, New Jersey 

PATRICK T. MCHENRY, North Carolina 

LYNN A. WESTMORELAND, Georgia 

SEAN P. DUFFY, Wisconsin 

ROBERT J. DOLD, Illinois 

STEVE STIVERS, Ohio 

LUIS V. GUTIERREZ, Illinois, Ranking 

Member 

MAXINE WATERS, California 

NYDIA M. VELA ́ ZQUEZ, New York 

EMANUEL CLEAVER, Missouri 

WM. LACY CLAY, Missouri 

MELVIN L. WATT, North Carolina 

BRAD SHERMAN, California 

MICHAEL E. CAPUANO, Massachusetts 

(V) 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

Hearing held on: 

June 23, 2011 .................................................................................................... 1 

Appendix: 

June 23, 2011 .................................................................................................... 39 

WITNESSES 

THURSDAY, JUNE 23, 2011 

Bazzie, Tony G., Executive Director, Raleigh County Housing Authority, 

Beckley, West Virginia, on behalf of the National Association of Housing 

and Redevelopment Officials (NAHRO) ............................................................. 15 

Couch, Linda, Senior Vice President for Policy, The National Low Income 

Housing Coalition (NLIHC), Washington, D.C. ................................................. 17 

Graham, Roberta, Vice President, Housing Choice Voucher Services, Quadel 

Consulting, Washington, D.C. ............................................................................. 19 

Gunsolley, Tory, President/Chief Executive Officer, Housing Authority of the 

City of Houston, Texas, on behalf of the Council of Large Public Housing 

Authorities (CLPHA) ........................................................................................... 21 

Henriquez, Hon. Sandra B., Assistant Secretary, Office of Public and Indian 

Housing, U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development .................... 4 

Hiebert, P. Curtis, Chief Executive Officer, Keene, New Hampshire Housing 

Authority, on behalf of the Public Housing Authorities Directors Association 

(PHADA) ............................................................................................................... 22 

Sanchez, Alex, Executive Director, Housing Authority of the County of Santa 

Clara, California, on behalf of the National Leased Housing Association 

(NLHA) .................................................................................................................. 24 

Sard, Barbara, Vice President for Housing Policy, Center on Budget and 

Policy Priorities, Washington, D.C. .................................................................... 26 

APPENDIX 

Prepared statements: 

Bazzie, Tony G. ................................................................................................. 40 

Couch, Linda ..................................................................................................... 53 

Graham, Roberta .............................................................................................. 62 

Gunsolley, Tory ................................................................................................. 73 

Henriquez, Hon. Sandra B. .............................................................................. 80 

Hiebert, P. Curtis ............................................................................................. 86 

Sanchez, Alex, ................................................................................................... 96 

Sard, Barbara ................................................................................................... 103 

ADDITIONAL MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD

Biggert, Hon. Judy: 

Written statement of the Housing Authority of the County of San 

Bernardino ..................................................................................................... 120 

Written statement of the American Association of Service Coordinators 

and the National Housing Conference ........................................................ 124 

Written statement of the Chicago Rehab Network ........................................ 126 

Written statement of the Council for Affordable and Rural Housing, et 

al. .................................................................................................................... 127 

Written statement of the National Affordable Housing Management Association ............................................................................................................ 129 

Page

VI 

Biggert, Hon. Judy—Continued 

Written statement of the National Multi Housing Council and the National Apartment Association ...................................................................... 134 

Written statement of Stewards of Affordable Housing for the Future ........ 136 

Bazzie, Tony: 

Additional information provided for the record ............................................. 138 

(1) 

LEGISLATIVE PROPOSALS TO REFORM 

THE HOUSING CHOICE VOUCHER PROGRAM 

Thursday, June 23, 2011 

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON INSURANCE, HOUSING

AND COMMUNITY OPPORTUNITY, 

COMMITTEE ON FINANCIAL SERVICES, 

Washington, D.C. 

The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 9:31 a.m., in room 

2128, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Judy Biggert [chairwoman of the subcommittee] presiding. 

Members present: Representatives Biggert, Miller of California, 

Capito, Duffy; Gutierrez, Waters, Cleaver, Sherman, and Capuano. 

Also present: Representative Green. 

Chairwoman BIGGERT. This hearing of the Subcommittee on Insurance, Housing and Community Opportunity of the Committee 

on Financial Services will come to order. 

We will begin with our opening statements. Without objection, all 

members’ opening statements will be made a part of the record. 

And I recognize myself for such time as I may consume. 

Good morning, and welcome to today’s hearing to examine legislative proposals to reform the Housing Choice Voucher Program. 

Section 8 is an important program created in the 1970s to provide rental assistance as an alternative to public housing for lowincome families, especially veterans, people with disabilities, the elderly, and single parents. It is the Nation’s largest low-income 

housing assistance program, providing assistance to around two 

million families. 

Section 8 vouchers are tenant-based as well as project-based subsidies that low-income families use in the private market to lower 

their rental cost to 30 percent of their income. However, during the 

past decade, the program’s costs have grown by almost 80 percent 

and consume over 61 percent of HUD’s budget. In 2002, Section 8 appropriations were $15.6 billion. In Fiscal Year 2011, they amounted to $27.6 billion. That rate of growth is 

unsustainable. 

The legislative discussion draft that we will examine today to address these escalating costs reduces bureaucratic inefficiencies, burdens, and requirements in the Section 8 Program so Federal resources can be more effectively used to help those most in need. It 

also enhances the Family Self-Sufficiency Program so more families 

can gain the skills they need to transition from government assistance to independence. 

2 

I would appreciate hearing from today’s witnesses about the 

Moving to Work Program (MTW) and how to address the long waiting list. I look forward to our discussions about ways to cut red 

tape in Section 8, reduce costs, and better meet the needs of struggling families. These are especially important goals given the limited Federal resources at hand. 

I look forward to working with my colleagues on both sides of the 

aisle to achieve commonsense reforms, and achieve the Section 8 

program for local public housing authorities, housing owners and 

managers, taxpayers and families in need. 

With that, I recognize Ranking Member Gutierrez for an opening 

statement. 

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Good morning. And I would like to thank our 

witnesses for being here today. We are here to discuss the Housing 

Choice Voucher Program and the discussion draft circulated by the 

Majority of the Section 8 Savings Act, otherwise known as SESA. 

I commend the chairwoman for raising this very important topic, 

and for placing Section 8 reform on the subcommittee’s agenda. It 

is unfortunate we have been unable to get Section 8 reform passed 

in previous sessions of Congress, although we have come close on 

several occasions. I wish the lady Godspeed in getting it done this 

year. 

I am a strong supporter of Section 8 housing assistance and focusing our resources on what we can do to expand the availability 

of affordable housing, and by doing so expand the avenues available to families to enter the middle class and build strong, stable 

communities. 

Making safe, clean, affordable housing an obtainable goal for 

more Americans is not a threat to our economy. It is actually the 

backbone of our economy. So I welcome the discussion on how to 

make affordable housing programs better and stronger. 

I think that we can agree that is a starting point we can build 

upon in the coming months. In the spirit of collaboration, Madam 

Chairwoman, I would like to see the subcommittee work together 

on this, both to make sure that we can come to an agreement that 

properly addresses the issue and an agreement that most effectively serves those in need of a place to call home. 

I would like to share a little background of myself to put in context the issue of affordable housing availability to demonstrate the 

importance of HUD’s rental assistance programs. 

A little known fact about me is that I started grassroots organizing community advocacy in affordable housing opportunities in 

the City of Chicago in the 1980s. Through my work with 

Bickerdike Redevelopment Corporation, I experienced firsthand the 

wealth of contributions affordable housing rental units offered to 

extremely low-income communities where families were earning 

significantly less than 30 percent of the area’s medium income. 

I worked to bridge the disparity that existed in the lack of affordable, safe, and decent housing options to people with disabilities, 

senior citizens, homeless people, and severely low-income families. 

Today, I see these programs continuing to work for my constituents 

back home, especially during these very tough economic times. 

3 

These programs are critical now more than ever. We must be 

diligent in our effort in Congress to reform voucher legislation so 

that we can continue to provide this very important assistance. 

I look forward to the testimonies and comments on this matter. 

And I thank the chairwoman. 

Chairwoman BIGGERT. The gentleman yields back. 

The gentleman from California, Mr. Miller, is recognized for 4 

minutes. 

Mr. MILLER OF CALIFORNIA. I want to thank Chairwoman 

Biggert for convening this hearing today on Section 8, something 

we have been working on for quite a few years. 

Our subcommittee has been examining this issue for quite some 

time. It is important to move forward with legislation—administrative burdens on PHA so they can make sure low-income residents 

have safe, decent, and affordable housing. 

There is no question that we are asking the PHAs to do more 

with less Federal resources, particularly at this time of significant 

budget constraints. It is important to find a way to make programmatic changes that will increase efficiencies without impacting quality. 

The bill before us today, which reduces administrative burdens 

with respect to inspections of units, simplifies procedures of determining tenant contributions, reduces the recertification of certain 

residents, and targets those most in need, to save taxpayers $1 billion over 5 years. 

The bill takes an approach that I have supported. Rather than 

a one-size-fits-all approach and bureaucratic red tape, we should 

give the PHAs the flexibility to meet the unique challenges they 

face while making them accountable for results for the residents 

they serve. 

While this bill is an excellent step to alleviate the administrative 

burdens on PHAs while maintaining access to affordable housing, 

I believe it misses a key tool we already have in existence to further that important goal. 

Specifically, I believe any bill our subcommittee passes with Section 8 reform must include the expansion of the Moving to Work 

Program. This Program allows PHAs to have the flexibility they 

need to be innovative in servicing residents, increasing homeownership opportunity, and helping residents become employed and selfsufficient. 

HUD recently released a report about the program and found 

that the agencies that had the Moving to Work designation are reducing cost without negatively impacting the residents, and encouraging self-sufficiency through rent reform and services. 

There are currently only 35 PHAs in the country with Move to 

Work designations. This is 1 percent of all the housing authorities 

in the United States. I have long advocated for increasing this 

number so that more PHAs may have the opportunity to design 

strategies that work in their communities. 

In my district, the Housing Authority of the County of San 

Bernardino (HACSB) has moved the Moving Work Program to good 

status. Because they have MTW, HACSB has been able to implement a number of the reforms contemplated in the discussion draft 

4 

we are considering today. They have had a positive result with the 

community. 

In addition to those things contemplated in the discussion draft, 

the MTW status has allowed HACSB to promote self-sufficiency 

among assisted families, achieve programmatic efficiencies, reduce 

costs, and increase housing choices for low-income households. 

I would like to submit for the record testimony of Susan Benner, 

executive director of the Housing Authority of San Bernardino 

County, which outlines how flexibility has helped HACSB better 

serve their community— 

Chairwoman BIGGERT. Without objection, it is so ordered. 

Mr. MILLER OF CALIFORNIA. The PHA should be allowed to become MTW. And I hope that the chairwoman will work with me as 

this legislation moves forward to include the expansion of the MTW 

program in the Section 8 legislation. 

I do look forward to hearing the testimony today from our witness. I know you are very well-informed, and I have quite a few 

questions I would like to ask you. 

And I yield back my time. 

Chairwoman BIGGERT. The gentleman yields back. 

We will now turn to our first panel, consisting of the Honorable 

Sandra B. Henriquez, Assistant Secretary, Office of Public and Indian Housing, U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. 

Welcome, Assistant Secretary, and as usual, you will have 5 minutes for your opening statement, and then we will ask you questions. You may proceed. 

STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE SANDRA B. HENRIQUEZ, ASSISTANT SECRETARY, OFFICE OF PUBLIC AND INDIAN 

HOUSING, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT 

Ms. HENRIQUEZ. Thank you, Chairwoman Biggert, Ranking 

Member Gutierrez, and members of the subcommittee for inviting 

me to testify this morning on the Section 8 Savings Act discussion 

draft. 

As you know HUD’s three major rental programs—the Housing 

Choice Voucher Program, the Project-Based Section 8 Program, and 

the Public Housing Program—serve over four million low-income 

families nationwide. The annual median income of these families in 

HUD-assisted housing is $10,200 per year, and over half of those 

individuals or families are seniors or disabled individuals. 

HUD is committed to ensuring that our housing assistance programs become more efficient, cost-effective, and easier to operate 

for both the housing providers and the families that we serve. For 

these reasons, several changes were included in the Department’s 

Fiscal Year 2012 budget request. 

The changes we proposed would do the following: modify the frequency of recertification of income for families on fixed incomes; revise the elderly and disabled standard deductions to make it easier 

to calculate rent; create a definition of extremely low income to increase access to housing assistance programs for working poor families in rural areas; authorize housing authorities to approve rents 

up to 120 percent of the fair market rent for families with disabilVerDate Nov 24 2008 17:40 Nov 03, 2011 Jkt 067935 PO 00000 Frm 00010 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 K:\DOCS\67935.TXT TERRIE
5 

ities instead of waiting for HUD approval; and allow HUD to undertake a rent policy demonstration in order to test various rent 

structures to promote self-sufficiency, to increase income, and to reduce administrative burdens on public housing authorities and 

residents. 

Taken together, these changes would save over $1 billion over 

the next 5 years in our 3 largest rental assistance programs. And 

many of these provisions, as you know, are included in the draft 

of SESA. 

I would like to briefly discuss some of these provisions and additional modifications to SESA that would strengthen the legislation 

and ensure that our programs are working effectively for housing 

authorities, multifamily owners, and for our residents. SESA includes many provisions that will streamline the administrative 

burden for housing authorities and landlords while improving access to safe, decent, and affordable housing. 

For example, the bill allows for biannual housing inspections instead of annual ones, and allows housing authorities to use inspection certification from other State or Federal housing assistance 

programs to meet inspection requirements. These changes will provide housing authorities with the flexibility to concentrate their inspection resources on those units that are in poorer condition. 

In addition, SESA would reform the current income and rent calculation system by allowing housing authorities to defer their income reexamination for families with fixed incomes for up to 3 

years. 

The draft also allows housing authorities to utilize income data 

collected from other Federal means-tested programs to determine a 

family’s income. This will encourage information sharing between 

housing authorities and other Federal and State assistance providers, and reduce staff time in determining eligibility and income. 

It is important to note that unit inspections, income verification, 

and tenant eligibility are some of the most time-consuming and 

costly elements of running the Housing Choice Voucher Program, 

which is currently conducting an in-depth time and motion study 

to determine the cost necessary to run an HCV program effectively 

and efficiently. 

The results of this study will not only provide justification to establish a viable and supported fee formula, but will allow HUD to 

analyze all aspects of the voucher administration program in order 

to further reduce and simplify administrative responsibilities. 

While the results from the study will not be available for some 

time, it is clear that the streamlining provisions in SESA for inspections and income determinations will reduce administrative 

burden and allow housing authorities to direct their resources to 

better serve families. 

While it is important for us to get a better picture of the cost of 

running this program, it is also important that funding for vouchers remains stable and consistent. SESA establishes a minimum 

reserve amount at a housing authority that they would hold for 

their voucher program at 6 percent of funding. 

And as a way to ensure adequate funding for existing vouchers, 

HUD has proposed language that would allow us to offset funding 

against any reserves and then reallocate excess amount to highVerDate Nov 24 2008 17:40 Nov 03, 2011 Jkt 067935 PO 00000 Frm 00011 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 K:\DOCS\67935.TXT TERRIE
6 

performing PHAs. Combined with the minimum reserve provision 

in SESA, offsetting reallocation authority will help to ensure that 

housing authorities do not build up excess reserves, and will assist 

additional families. 

I want to quickly touch on the provisions in the draft bill in the 

Family Self-Sufficiency Program. The Family Self-Sufficiency Program is available to our tenants in public housing and our voucher 

program, but not to tenants in our multifamily properties. 

SESA expands the program to these tenants, and in addition, the 

bill proposes to merge public housing and the HCV Family SelfSufficiency Program, cutting back on duplicative administrative requirements for housing authorities that operate both programs. 

One additional change would streamline administration of these 

programs to create a single funding stream for self-sufficiency service coordination. 

Chairwoman Biggert, you have been a strong supporter of the 

Family Self-Sufficiency Program, and I want to commend you for 

your leadership on these programs. You recognize just how important these programs are in helping families become more self-sufficient, decreasing the need for rental assistance. 

Lastly, in order for HUD and PHAs to be effective and successful 

housing providers, the right tools need to be in place to ensure that 

we can respond to the needs of local communities. SESA includes 

language that would allow housing authorities to provide ProjectBased Voucher contracts for 20 years instead of 15 years. This is 

an important housing preservation tool. 

We believe that this provision, in addition to other changes in 

the Project-Based Voucher Program, will enable housing officials to 

increase access to housing opportunities based on the need in their 

communities, and promote the development of mixed-income housing while reducing or eliminating administrative red tape in the 

program. HUD is committed to ensuring that our programs can operate in a manner that works well for our housing providers, for 

multifamily owners, for our housing authorities, and for our residents. 

We believe that SESA will help reduce administrative burdens to 

those operators and to residents, to expand self-sufficiency opportunities for families we serve. And I look forward to answering any 

of your questions. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Assistant Secretary Henriquez can be 

found on page 80 of the appendix.] 

Chairwoman BIGGERT. Thank you very much for your testimony, 

and now we will proceed with our questions. We will try and limit 

ourselves to 5 minutes each. And I will start with my 5 minutes. 

Let me turn to the Family Self-Sufficiency Program. First of all, 

do you think it is an effective program? 

Ms. HENRIQUEZ. Yes, I do. 

Chairwoman BIGGERT. Okay. 

Ms. HENRIQUEZ. I think it needs to be expanded and to increase 

its effectiveness. 

Chairwoman BIGGERT. And do you think then that it should be 

expanded to programs that it has not included right now? 

7 

Ms. HENRIQUEZ. Yes, I do, Chairwoman Biggert. There are about 

1,000 housing authorities that run both programs, have self-sufficiency programs for its voucher and public housing residents. 

We want to expand it to our multifamily residents as well. And 

we really want to encourage more housing authorities that run 

these programs to increase— 

Chairwoman BIGGERT. I know that when Ms. Waters was chairwoman of this subcommittee and I was the ranking member, we 

went down to New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina. And there was 

a public housing development there that the residents wanted to go 

back into. 

And I think that most of them had been there so, so long that 

it would have been nice to have the self-sufficiency stuff. That 

maybe they could have had the coordinator to help them move on. 

It seemed like it was just a stall of time there that nothing had 

happened. 

But how do we address the long waiting list for such programs? 

Ms. HENRIQUEZ. I think the issue is our long waiting list for people to move into public housing agencies, as well as both their public housing program and their voucher program. Once people have 

moved into those programs they are—those self-sufficiency programs are available to them. Again, we would like to have the expansion to more housing authorities and of course the multifamily 

portfolio as well. 

The issue of the wait on waiting lists is really an issue of demand and supply and demand. And one of the reasons we are very 

anxious to make sure we have a consistent and stable funding 

source for the voucher program is so that more families can avail 

themselves of affordable housing that is needed, number one, and 

then be able to push the paid-in programs like the FSS. 

Chairwoman BIGGERT. When there is a long waiting list, and you 

know it comes up that somebody is next in line and eligible, what 

has happened to them? Let us say, how long is the waiting list? 

And what happens to the people who are trying to be in the program? 

Ms. HENRIQUEZ. That is a good question. Having run a housing 

authority, I can tell you that sometimes in Boston we would have 

as many as 100 families a week applying, new families applying for 

the affordability offered by our program. 

Waiting lists and the length of those waiting lists varies by locality, by jurisdiction. It depends on what other affordable housing is 

available in that particular community or jurisdiction. It is not uncommon, however, for people to be on waiting lists for many years 

waiting for an opportunity for that affordability. 

And what happens in the meantime, I think, is people do struggle. I think people do try to figure out how to hold on for as long 

as possible. It may mean that families double up with other family 

members. It may mean that they are living in less than safe and 

decent circumstances while they are waiting. 

People will do a variety of things. And as you know, a number 

of people will fall out of shelter and into homelessness either in 

shelters or on the street, which is unfortunate. 

I do think that we find more and more people staying longer, 

which is why self-sufficiency is so important. And to get public 

8 

housing and other affordable programs to be the platform they 

were originally meant to be, which is to move in, get financially 

stable, create a basket of services around families who then can 

build on their educational opportunities and their economic development and get into the workplace, stabilize their income and selfsufficiency. 

As they increase income, money is set aside so those families can 

take that once they have reached their goals and move to homeownership, move to a different sort of rental setting where the subsidy is not necessary, but really make decisions for themselves and 

their families where we all probably take them for granted. And I 

would say about 20 percent of the participants in the FSS program 

currently do move onto homeownership. 

Chairwoman BIGGERT. Thank you, and just one other quick question. 

One provision that you suggest for inclusion in SESA is in your 

testimony is language authorizing the PHAs to approve rents up to 

120 percent of the fair market value, rents for families with disabilities, instead of waiting for HUD HQ approval. Why is this important for the PHAs? 

Ms. HENRIQUEZ. I think it is more important for the residents 

who need that kind of flexibility and a much more timely decision 

on the SMRs and the waiver to go to 120 percent. Otherwise you 

then—a disabled family would find a unit, negotiate the rent as 

best they could, would send it to the housing authority who then 

sends it into local HUD office, sends it into headquarters and then 

you might end up losing that unit. 

And so it is—to streamline this really means that at the local 

level, a quicker decision can facilitate that family being housed 

more quickly, more appropriately, and not losing any unit. 

Chairwoman BIGGERT. Thank you. I yield back my time I do not 

have. 

The gentleman from Illinois? 

Mr. GUTIERREZ. I would like to ask you about—I do not see anything in the discussion draft about utility payments. Could you talk 

a little bit about how you see us moving forward in terms of the 

inclusion? Because it seems to me that it is one of the largest parts 

of housing. That is, how do you pay to keep your apartment warm 

and keep the electricity on? 

Ms. HENRIQUEZ. I will tell you a little bit and then I would probably want to get back to you with more complete information. In 

the voucher program right now, a family’s household rent is based 

on, as you know, their income. And if utilities are included or need 

to be paid separately rather, as it happens mostly in the voucher 

program— 

Mr. GUTIERREZ. I guess I just do not see it in the discussion 

draft, any mention of it. And it was in the bill last year. I am 

with— 

Ms. HENRIQUEZ. I do not see it there so I—we would be willing 

to work with the committee about getting some language in there, 

as long as it meets the parameters of the program. 

We have to figure out ways in which we need to do a better job 

in doing utility allowances and what those schedules mean and 

how to implement them more quickly for the families who need to 

9 

pay the utility separately. But we would like to work with the committee about that. 

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Another area that I would just like to get your 

thoughts—so give me your thoughts on how you deal with keeping 

units safe from criminal elements. 

Ms. HENRIQUEZ. I am going to hearken back to my days as executive director of the Boston Housing Authority. 

First of all, every housing authority, a housing provider goes 

through a screening process, an application process with residents, 

applicants. They then are screened, background checks, checks just 

in terms of landlord/tenant references, etc., acceptance of mitigation—savings of mitigation should there have been a problem in 

the past which may affect one’s ability to be a successful tenant 

and abide by the lease. Go through all of that process, then make 

an offer to a family to be housed. 

So that is one way of trying to make sure that going in, the resident community is a stable community. And that the neighborhood 

is not unduly influenced by negative effects of crime and things 

against public safety. 

I would go further to say, however, that when a public housing 

community or voucher residents are out in a neighborhood in a 

community, that it is incumbent upon the public safety officers in 

that jurisdiction to provide security as they would to any other 

non-subsidized resident in a neighborhood. 

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Because the time has gone out. 

And I guess that is the point I would like to be able to discuss 

further because it seems to me that as, especially in those units 

that—in multiple-unit complexes that the standard should be as 

high as necessary in order to keep the population as safe as possible. And that we should look at what is within the confines of the 

law in the private sector so that we are not using a lesser standard. 

Because I think your experience and my experience is probably 

the same, is that you have many more people who need and qualify 

for the units than the units that are available. And should not at 

some point we take into consideration just how it is that family has 

dealt with the challenges in raising young men and women, and 

within their own responsibility as American citizens and adults 

who want to join a program. 

What do you think about that? 

Ms. HENRIQUEZ. I would agree with you. And I do believe that 

housing providers provide an incredibly high bar for people to, in 

terms of eligibility and screening. I think that is appropriate. 

I think that is the standard that public housing providers and 

multifamily owners provide that is consistent in the marketplace 

with those who provide housing that is not subsidized. So there is 

that consistency. 

We all want good communities. We all want safe communities for 

residents, regardless of their economic levels. And housing authorities and other providers have the opportunity to use their funds 

both to enhance public safety— 

Mr. GUTIERREZ. And because of my time—so I want to work with 

you on that. 

Ms. HENRIQUEZ. I will look forward to that. 

10 

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Here is the specific issue. Just because you are 

low and moderate income, you should not be kind of denied the 

same access to safety. When you get a housing unit, that housing 

unit should be considered within the management, the safety of the 

community of people. There should not be a lesser standard. Thank 

you. 

Ms. HENRIQUEZ. We agree. 

Chairwoman BIGGERT. The gentleman yields back. 

Mr. Gutierrez, this bill does actually address the utility data in 

Section 12. It has for HUD to collect and publish the utility consumption data to assist in the establishment of a tenant-paid utility allowance by public housing agencies. So you might take a look 

at that. 

The gentleman from California, Mr. Miller, is recognized for 5 

minutes. 

Mr. MILLER OF CALIFORNIA. You stated the percentage of individuals on Section 8 who move on to homeownership. What percentage 

was that? 

Ms. HENRIQUEZ. We calculated about 20 percent of people who 

have participated in FSS. 

Mr. MILLER OF CALIFORNIA. Twenty percent are able to move 

onto homeownership. I know the problem I have always had with 

the program is that the time people have to wait to be serviced to 

get on the program. And that is an extensive length of time. 

Mr. Gutierrez talked about the safety issue, and the longer people are in that situation the more difficult their life can be in many 

ways. And that is why I have always supported the Move to Work 

Program because it has been proven to work. 

In fact, in August 2010, in a report on Moving to Work, HUD 

stated, ‘‘Most MTW agencies have actually served substantially 

more families than they would have been able to serve without 

MTW by streamlining operations and using accumulated funds to 

administer new assisted housing units.’’ 

Do you agree or disagree with that statement? 

Ms. HENRIQUEZ. I do agree with that statement. 

Mr. MILLER OF CALIFORNIA. So if we are really trying to help 

people who are in a very difficult situation, understanding the long 

waiting list of people who are in need of help. If we implemented 

these reforms, and in fact we have done that in my County of San 

Bernardino and it has proven very successful, do you think we can 

actually do a better job helping people who need assistance? 

Ms. HENRIQUEZ. I would answer your question this way. I do believe that the MTW program is unique. I think we need to do—and 

I do believe what was written in the report. 

We are, however, doing an evaluation, having a contractor come 

in to evaluate the merits of the program to make sure that indeed 

all of the things that those MTW agencies are working towards and 

that they are delivering on are indeed. We have the facts, we have 

the data to support all that agency-by-agency. 

Mr. MILLER OF CALIFORNIA. What benefits are you seeing in 

MTW that you have personally noticing do you think is working? 

Ms. HENRIQUEZ. I did not run an MTW agency, unfortunately— 

Mr. MILLER OF CALIFORNIA. But you have seen the results— 

11 

Ms. HENRIQUEZ. I would see, for example, in some agencies there 

has been the use of their funding to create sort of a mini voucher 

program for supportive services because they are really helping stabilize and transition housing for a number of individuals. 

Mr. MILLER OF CALIFORNIA. Which is very important. 

Ms. HENRIQUEZ. Which is very important. 

I have seen that they have—the housing authorities have created 

baskets of services around families at particular developments so 

that they could move those families more quickly into self-sufficiency. 

Mr. MILLER OF CALIFORNIA. So people are being moved off of the 

waiting list into a situation where they are bettering themselves. 

Then they are being moved onto a better life at the end. 

Do you believe that the MTW program helps PHAs do more with 

less? Because we are stuck in a situation in this government where 

we have less. Like it or not, there are just less available dollars out 

there. 

Ms. HENRIQUEZ. I can not equivocally say that I think that they 

do more with less. I think that they are able to do more with the 

money they currently have, and to reach more people more effectively in the community. 

I would be remiss if I did not suggest as well, though, that there 

are non-MTW agencies who also are able to do similar programs. 

They do not have quite the flexibility on the funding, but are able 

to use resources in a way and partner with other agencies at their 

local levels to effect a kind of change as well for the residents who 

live in those program areas. 

Mr. MILLER OF CALIFORNIA. But the benefit I see in the flexibility is it allows the individual agencies to deal with the issues of 

their community, because not every community has identical 

issues. They vary dramatically. 

Some are critical of the Moving to Work Program. One concern, 

and I think you started to address it, is a lack of data captured in 

demonstration HUD has administered over the last 10 years. How 

would you change the demonstration to effectively assemble the 

needed data to understand whether Moving to Work is helping 

families move toward self-sufficiency? 

Ms. HENRIQUEZ. There are a couple of things. 

One is as new agencies come into the program, we have been 

asking for them to identify in their proposal what changes they 

propose to take in this new flexibility, and then to give us baseline 

data; they must set up their own evaluation tools so we know going 

in what they look like in the current model. And as they move 

through and implement fully their MTW flexibility, what that data 

proves and shows us moving forward. 

So we have a body of evidence of what the changes are so that 

for both those who support MTW and those who do not, we will 

have consistent data to look at and make sure we are all on the 

right track. And if we need them to work together to figure this 

out in a better way, we can do that. 

Mr. MILLER OF CALIFORNIA. So data is pretty much available, it 

is just a matter of accumulating it on how an agency effectively 

worked prior to and after the MTW implementation. Thank you. 

I yield back. 

12 

Chairwoman BIGGERT. The gentleman yields back. 

The gentlelady from California, Ms. Waters, is recognized for 5 

minutes. 

Ms. WATERS. Thank you very much, Madam Chairwoman, for 

holding this hearing. 

Ms. Henriquez, as you know the public housing program is facing 

what I believe is a serious crisis. Public housing is underfunded, 

and as a result units are falling into disrepair, putting the health 

and safety of residents at risk. 

Demolishing units and providing vouchers is not the answer. I 

have long been a champion of one-for-one replacement as that is 

the only way to preserve units, protect families and ensure provision of much needed hard units of portable housing in our communities. 

Can you tell me what steps the Department has taken to address 

this crisis in public housing? And describe what resources you need 

in order to preserve this stock? 

Ms. HENRIQUEZ. Thank you, Ms. Waters, for the question. As you 

know, the public housing program is a 75-year-old program. That 

is an incredible investment on the Federal Government side, and 

preservation of that resource is critical. It is a resource for millions 

of families in the past, and should be preserved moving forward. 

I would say that while one-for-one replacement is important to 

have hard units, that does not always work in every community. 

And we need to figure out and have as many opportunities to make 

sure that we have affordable housing in a community based on the 

need of that community. 

But I would say, however, that you will see one-for-one replacement language in our Choice Neighborhoods Initiative. You will see 

it as we move in our rental assistance demonstration while indeed 

we are looking forward to one-for-one replacement. 

We really are looking for in those markets that can handle it we 

will do so. There are sometimes markets that do not afford the ability for one-for-one. And it is the affordability and the preservation 

of that affordability for families who need it is our utmost concern. 

To the extent that we look to our rental assistance demonstration 

to preserve for the longer term, the existing housing stock to put 

it on a stable financial footing, to put it on a stable physical condition footing by doing capital improvement and therefore preserving 

as much as possible that stock moving forward. 

Ms. WATERS. Thank you very much. 

While you are here I want to ask, are you familiar with the recent discrimination suit that was filed against two California cities, 

the Cities of Palmdale and Lancaster? 

Ms. HENRIQUEZ. I am not, unfortunately. 

Ms. WATERS. Would you take a look at the discrimination suit 

that was filed against Palmdale and Lancaster? We have been 

hearing about the harassment of Section 8 tenants for quite some 

time now. And Los Angeles County sheriffs have been used to—basically, they are a part of the harassment. It seems as if L.A. County shares this understanding that they are being called out by city 

officials to basically ask tenants if they are Section 8, to arrest 

them, and on and on and on. 

13 

And I think HUD should be aware of this. It should find out 

what your role is in protecting Section 8 tenants. Would you please 

take a look at that? 

Ms. HENRIQUEZ. I will do so, and we will get back to you. 

Chairwoman BIGGERT. Thank you very much. 

I now recognize the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Green. I would 

just like to add that he is on the full committee and not on the subcommittee, but I think he has better attendance than most of the 

members of this subcommittee. 

So we are really glad that you are here. You are recognized for 

5 minutes. 

Mr. GREEN. Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. And I 

thank the ranking member and the witnesses as well. And thank 

you for your testimony. 

I would like, if I may, to explore something that seems to be occurring that I do not have empirical evidence to support, the 

changing face of those who are in need of public housing. As you 

know, with the downturn in the economy, many persons who were 

homeowners are finding themselves in need of housing that they 

cannot afford. 

And you may have addressed this. But can you just give some 

commentary on the changing—when I say the changing face, I am 

obviously talking about the economic status of persons who at one 

time were working and had a home that they were paying for, 

never thought that they would need assistance, and now they find 

themselves in need. 

Are you finding—are the numbers supporting a large group of 

folks who are finding themselves in this position? Or is this just 

something that appears to be taking place, but there is no empirical evidence to support it? 

Ms. HENRIQUEZ. I do not have empirical information or evidence 

to support that specifically. What I can tell you is that what we 

have seen over time given the financial conditions of the country 

at this point is that people are staying longer in affordable housing 

units. It is more difficult for people to move in and to move out and 

move up because of the affordability issue. 

We also see that the waiting lists are getting longer. More people 

are applying because they need the affordability, given the change 

in their economic circumstances. 

Mr. GREEN. And are you finding that you have people who do 

have some assets, but they do not have enough assets to afford 

housing without some assistance? 

Ms. HENRIQUEZ. Yes. I would say that has been a constant. 

Mr. GREEN. And is the asset base—typically, we like to think 

that the people who are the neediest are getting the public housing, 

and that is what I want to be the case. But when we start to look 

at the asset base of persons, you can find that there are people who 

have some assets who need help too. 

And it seems that group is expanding rather than contracting because you have persons who had assets who lost their homes, they 

have been foreclosed on and now they need public housing. I call 

it public housing, affordable housing. That is the class of people 

that I am talking about. Any thoughts on this, please? 

14 

Ms. HENRIQUEZ. I guess I would say initially that indeed meeting 

with housing authorities are generally structured chronologically. 

And so therefore the first people who have applied, been on the list 

the longest, move through the system and get housed. And traditionally in most locations it has been folks who are the poorest who 

have applied early on and remain on that list. 

And so the folks now come onto the list who find themselves as 

former homeowners who now move and find their circumstances 

change and need the affordability, you will find that they will be 

at the lower—the longest or at the bottom of those waiting lists, 

waiting their turn to move up and through the system as well. 

Mr. GREEN. What about veterans? Are you finding more veterans 

applying for affordable housing? Or is there any way to quantify 

the number of veterans applying? 

Ms. HENRIQUEZ. Veterans are applying both to the regular both 

Section 8 and to the public housing program. However, I would say 

that given the vast voucher program that has been in effect for a 

number of years, we are seeing more and more veterans housed 

through that Section 8 Program than in probably our regular public housing or Housing Choice Voucher Program. 

Mr. GREEN. Are we finding that we have the vast program and 

veterans are taking advantage of it, but that because there may 

not be enough, they are also seeking other opportunities or other 

help? 

Ms. HENRIQUEZ. I would say that whether it is veterans or other 

folks who need the affordability, people tend to then apply in as 

many different places as possible, whether they are applying to the 

multifamily program or to a public housing authority for a voucher 

program or public housing program. And people are trying to maximize their names on waiting lists so that they can afford themselves the affordability. 

Mr. GREEN. My time has expired. Thank you. 

I yield back. 

Chairwoman BIGGERT. The gentleman yields back. 

I would like to thank the witness for being here today. And the 

Chair notes that some members may have additional questions for 

this witness that they may wish to submit in writing. Without objection, the hearing record will remain open for 30 days for members to submit written questions to this witness and to place her 

responses in the record. 

Again, thank you so much for being here today. And we will proceed to our second panel. 

While we are making the change, I would ask unanimous consent that the following letters or statements be inserted in the 

hearing record: a June 21, 2011, letter from the American Association of Service Coordinators and the National Housing Conference; 

a June 21, 2011, letter from the Chicago Rehab Network; a June 

21, 2011, letter from the Stewards of Affordable Housing for the 

Future; a National Affordable Housing Management Association 

written statement on SESA; a June 23, 2011, industry letter in 

support of SESA; a June 23, 2011, Housing Authority of the County of San Bernardino, California, statement on SESA; a June 23, 

2011, National Multi Housing Council/NAA letter; and a statement 

from a number of housing groups, which are listed. 

15 

Thank you. Without objection, it is so ordered. 

Welcome to the second panel, and we will start with Mrs. Capito 

from West Virginia will do the first introduction. 

Mrs. CAPITO. Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman, and 

thank you for holding this hearing. 

I want to welcome my friend Tony Bazzie back to the committee. 

He has testified before our committee before. Tony is executive director of the Raleigh County Housing Authority, a position which 

he has held for just a short period of time, as in 31 years. 

So I think we have a real expert here. He has seen the highs, 

the lows, the ups and downs and the all arounds of housing. And 

he serves his six counties very well. He has also participated with 

the National Association of Housing and Redevelopment Officials. 

Tony has been a great source of guidance for me and for those of 

us in the State and housing issues. 

It is always a pleasure to work with you, Tony. And welcome 

back to the committee. 

Chairwoman BIGGERT. Thank you, Mrs. Capito. 

Our second panelist is Ms. Linda Couch, senior vice president for 

Policy for the National Low Income Housing Coalition. Welcome. 

Third, is Ms. Roberta Graham, vice president, housing choice 

voucher services, Quadel Consulting. Welcome. 

Fourth, Mr. Tony Gunsolley, president and CEO, Housing Authority of the City of Houston, on behalf of the Council of Large 

Public Housing Authorities. 

Fifth, Mr. P. Curtis Hiebert, chief executive officer, Keene Housing Authority, on behalf of the Public Housing Authorities Directors Association. Welcome. 

Sixth, Mr. Alex Sanchez, executive director, Housing Authority of 

Santa Clara, California, on behalf of the National Leased Housing 

Association. 

And last, but not least, Ms. Barbara Sard, vice president for 

housing policy, Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. 

Welcome, all of you. And as you know, each of you will have 5 

minutes to give your opening statement. All written statements 

will be included in the record. 

And we will start with Mr. Bazzie for 5 minutes. You are recognized. 

STATEMENT OF TONY G. BAZZIE, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, RALEIGH COUNTY HOUSING AUTHORITY, BECKLEY, WEST VIRGINIA, ON BEHALF OF THE NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF 

HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT OFFICIALS (NAHRO) 

Mr. BAZZIE. Chairwoman Biggert, Ranking Member Gutierrez, 

and members of the subcommittee, my name is Tony Bazzie, and 

I am the executive director of the Raleigh County Housing Authority in Beckley, West Virginia. My agency assists nearly 1,300 families in a 6-county area in southern and central West Virginia. 

I am here today representing the National Association of Housing and Redevelopment Officials, one of the oldest and largest 

housing advocacy organizations. We are pleased to be called upon 

again to express our views. I was honored to be asked by Representative Capito, the distinguished member of this committee, to 

testify on the same subject in 2009. 

16 

Speaking for housing authorities in West Virginia, and on behalf 

of my colleagues nationwide, the need to support responsible reform of the Section 8 Voucher Program is even more important 

today than it was when I was here 2 years ago. The work of my 

authority and others and our efforts to support those in need have 

been greatly impacted by recent spending reductions. 

The net effect of this administrative fee reduction has forced me 

to lay off 3 of my staff members—which in a housing authority of 

my size is 25 percent of my staff—which significantly undermines 

my agency’s ability to fulfill the mission of this program, which is 

to serve very low- and extremely low-income families with housing 

needs. Simply put, fewer staff means fewer people can be served. 

NAHRO proposes using all existing funding sources to help stabilize the voucher program. Taking into account an estimated proration in administrative fees of 83 percent in calendar year 2011, 

and resultant staff layoffs that are occurring across the country, 

NAHRO is estimating that approximately 87,000 fewer families 

will be served by the voucher program in the next 12 months if the 

current situation remains unchanged, which would be the largest 

drop in voucher-assisted families in the shortest period of time in 

the program’s history. 

I realize the funding issues are not within the purview of this 

subcommittee, but authorizing responsible legislation to reduce the 

administrative cost and lessen the administrative burdens in the 

voucher program can prevent fewer of these families from losing 

their vouchers in today’s appropriations environment. It is crucial 

to act on a reform bill now. 

In response to some of the questions in your invitation letter, 

with the permission of the Chair, I ask that the results of 

NAHRO’s administrative fee survey as well as the chart showing 

the historic relationship between admin fee prorations and national 

voucher lease up rates be entered into the record of this hearing. 

Chairwoman BIGGERT. Without objection, it is so ordered. 

Mr. BAZZIE. Thank you. 

Changes with respect to property inspections, utility allowances, 

and rent calculation are contained in the draft you are now considering, as they were in previous drafts of SEVRA. In this regard, I 

want to thank you again, Representative Capito, for your many efforts to improve the voucher program through reforms. 

Specifically a Capito amendment to the SEVRA bill approved by 

the Financial Services Committee in the previous Congress required HUD to share utility costs with housing authorities, and 

allow them to use these estimated utility costs as standard allowances, a greatly time-consuming effort. I hope this or similar language that is adapted to current circumstances will again be included in any bill you adopt. 

In my written statement, I refer to a NAHRO-supported compromise version of SEVRA dated December 1, 2010, and I have attached our support letter to my written statement. That bill, while 

not perfect, accomplished much in the way of reform, including a 

provision authorizing a responsible renewal funding formula. 

My written testimony highlights a number of other provisions in 

the December bill, including the modification of income targeting 

for extremely low-income households, a provision which gives housVerDate Nov 24 2008 17:40 Nov 03, 2011 Jkt 067935 PO 00000 Frm 00022 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 K:\DOCS\67935.TXT TERRIE
17 

ing authorities the option to conduct inspections every 2 years rather than annually, and the option to commence a lease and contract 

following an initial inspection. 

Given the support for that bill at that time, NAHRO strongly encourages the subcommittee to approve language that reads as 

much as possible like the December 2010 version of SEVRA. Having said that, we applaud you for developing a discussion draft 

which promotes reforms, including the restoration of maximized 

leasing and keeps in place much of what we found positive in the 

December version of SEVRA. 

NAHRO is, however, deeply concerned that the discussion draft 

eliminates comprehensive language to stabilize the voucher renewal funding formula, which was found in the December bill and 

in previous SEVRA provisions. It is important that comprehensive 

changes to the funding formula be included going forward in order 

to bring stability to a program that has been extremely difficult to 

manage due to the uncertainty of annual appropriations. 

The discussion draft you are now considering contains many provisions NAHRO could support, including, but not limited to the 

chairwoman’s own FSS legislation which we know, Chairwoman 

Biggert, you care about deeply. 

We stand ready to work with you to alleviate any differences we 

may have, and perfect that which we can agree upon in SESA. We 

also hope you will work with us to encourage any and all regulatory reforms that HUD can do now to maximize program efficiency. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Bazzie can be found on page 40 

of the appendix.] 

Chairwoman BIGGERT. I thank the witness. 

And Ms. Couch, you are recognized for 5 minutes. 

STATEMENT OF LINDA COUCH, SENIOR VICE PRESIDENT FOR 

POLICY, THE NATIONAL LOW INCOME HOUSING COALITION 

(NLIHC), WASHINGTON, D.C. 

Ms. COUCH. Thank you. I would like to thank Chairwoman 

Biggert, Ranking Member Gutierrez, and the other members of the 

subcommittee and the full committee for the opportunity to testify 

on the discussion draft of the Section 8 Savings Act. We greatly appreciate your work to improve HUD’s housing program. 

The National Low Income Housing Coalition is dedicated solely 

to achieving socially just public policy that assures people with the 

lowest incomes in the United States have affordable and decent 

homes. The Coalition strongly supports the Housing Choice Voucher Program because of the stability it provides to households and 

to communities. 

The voucher program’s income targeting standards make it the 

most deeply targeted of HUD’s large housing assistance program. 

Vouchers are needed in places like Illinois, where 76 percent of extremely low-income renter households pay more than half of their 

incomes on housing. That is where the need is, and that is where 

the gap of homes is. 

Nationally, when affordable and available units are compared to 

the number of extremely low-income households, the Coalition 

finds a shortage of six million homes. In Illinois, for every 100 exVerDate Nov 24 2008 17:40 Nov 03, 2011 Jkt 067935 PO 00000 Frm 00023 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 K:\DOCS\67935.TXT TERRIE
18 

tremely low-income households, there are only 32 affordable and 

available homes. 

Simply put, if our programs are not targeting extremely low-income households, they are not meeting our community’s pervasive 

and most acute housing affordability problems. Indeed, the Coalition believes that a significant expansion of the voucher program 

and capitalization of the National Housing Trust Fund, both of 

which are targeted to the lowest-income households, are the primary vehicles through which the United States can and will end 

homelessness. 

You asked about areas that could be streamlined while maintaining proper program oversight. We are very interested in achieving 

this critical balance. The Coalition believes that there is a point at 

which reducing administrative tasks will undermine our understanding of and appreciation for the programs, as well as Congress’ 

and HUD’s ability to exercise their oversight. 

We applaud the draft bill’s streamlining and simplification of 

rent settings, and its encouragement of increased earned income 

while maintaining the core benefits of these programs to assisted 

households, rent set to the Brooke Standard, which ensures each 

household’s rent is always affordable. 

While the draft bill’s language on leasing rates and reserves is 

helpful, the Coalition urges the subcommittee to codify that voucher renewal funding will be based on leasing and cost data from the 

previous calendar year with adjustments, rather than rely on annual appropriations bills for such directives. 

The Coalition also thinks it would be useful to agencies and tenants if HUD had the authority to offset and reallocate excess reserves as it saw fit. The history of SESA is based on the need for 

a predictable and sufficient funding allocation, and adding such 

provisions would help SESA achieve these longstanding goals. 

The Coalition hopes that additional provisions to support the 

project-based vouchers will also be added, including authorizing an 

additional 5 percent of vouchers are vouchers fund for project basing and units housing homeless families, for supportive housing for 

persons of disabilities or for units in tight rental markets. 

We also very much appreciate that the discussion draft does not 

expand the Moving to Work demonstration to additional agencies 

or make it permanent. 

To this end, we could consider the rent policy demonstration outlined in the draft bill if it included certain parameters. These might 

include a strong evaluation component, prohibiting rent burdens 

that are de facto time limits, and limiting the demonstration to the 

smallest number of families and for the shortest timeframe necessary to test various rent structures. 

What impact has the Moving to Work Program had on participating public housing authorities? To be brief, we do not know. For 

now, we have anecdotal reports based on anecdotal reports. 

HUD’s recent report on Moving to Work was criticized sharply by 

the Low Income Housing Coalition. Before we expand the Moving 

to Work demonstration, we must learn its lessons. 

Notable for this hearing, all of the rent simplification measures 

touted in this report as used by MTW agencies would be achieved 

for all PHAs for the passage of SESA. These include reducing rent 

19 

recertification frequency for fixed-income households, eliminating 

or simplifying the earned income disregard, ignoring some or all of 

the asset income, and replacing medical deductions with a standard 

deduction. 

We support the SESA draft, and we look forward to working with 

you on it. Thank you for considering our comments. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Couch can be found on page 53 

of the appendix.] 

Chairwoman BIGGERT. Thank you very much. 

Ms. Graham, you are recognized for 5 minutes. 

STATEMENT OF ROBERTA GRAHAM, VICE PRESIDENT, HOUSING CHOICE VOUCHER SERVICES, QUADEL CONSULTING, 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 

Ms. GRAHAM. Thank you. Chairwoman Biggert, Ranking Member 

Gutierrez, and other distinguished members of the panel, I am Roberta Graham, vice president for housing choice voucher services at 

Quadel Consulting Corporation. 

Quadel is a private company that for over 30 years has provided 

private management, consulting, and training to the housing community. Since 1984, Quadel has managed front-line operations for 

29 PHA programs. We currently operate five Housing Choice 

Voucher Programs and conduct training on the voucher program 

throughout the country. 

I appreciate the opportunity to testify today, and thank you for 

taking a thorough look at the Housing Choice Voucher Program 

and how to simplify burdensome and complex statutory and regulatory requirements. 

This year, administrative fees, the funding used to manage and 

operate the voucher program, were cut by Congress. And HUD is 

determined that administrative fees will be funded at an 83 percent proration for the year. 

The effects of this cut are compounded by the fact that fees were 

funded at a much higher proration for the first 5 months of 2011, 

when an appropriations bill was not yet in place. This means that 

for the remainder of Fiscal Year 2011 administrative fees will be 

significantly lower than anticipated. 

In light of significant cuts in administrative fees and the downward pressure on domestic discretionary funding, regulatory relief 

is now needed to ensure that the voucher program can be effectively operated. 

Chairwoman Biggert, we applaud your efforts to streamline this 

program and the intent of your legislation, the Section 8 Savings 

Act, or SESA. And we look forward to working with you to ensure 

that your legislation achieves your objectives. 

In my written testimony, I detail exact procedures and administrative requirements in many voucher programs functions. In this 

statement, I will focus on our recommendations in the areas that 

are most burdensome. 

Thirty-five percent of the administrative fees in our program are 

spent on income reexaminations, the most expensive of any function. An analysis of 2 of our sites shows that almost 30 percent of 

tenants are on a fixed income. Your draft bill would require reVerDate Nov 24 2008 17:40 Nov 03, 2011 Jkt 067935 PO 00000 Frm 00025 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 K:\DOCS\67935.TXT TERRIE
20 

exams of those on fixed incomes every 3 years, a great improvement to the current annual requirement. 

Recalculating and re-verifying the incomes of households with 

fixed incomes is a significant administrative burden that results in 

very little change in assistance payments and tenant contribution. 

We are concerned that as drafted, some HUD regulatory requirements would still exist that could lessen the desired relief. However, we look forward to working with you on this language. 

We urge you to look at moving to a biannual re-exam for all residents unless there is a significant change in family income. We 

found that only one third of assistance payments change from yearto-year. So for two-thirds of residents, there is no real need to do 

a full reexamination of income. 

At one Quadel-managed site, 12 percent of the administrative fee 

is spent on interim reexaminations. While SESA attempts to limit 

the interim reexaminations, we urge the committee to go further 

and eliminate interims unless there is going to be a significant 

change in assistance payments. 

An analysis of one of our programs shows that 17 percent of our 

administrative fees are spent on inspections, the second most costly 

function. 

Your draft legislation proposes biannual inspections for all units, 

and allows for an alternative inspection conducted within the past 

year to suffice. For the most part, this schedule will result in cost 

savings to PHAs, and will speed up the process of approving units 

and encouraging more private landlords to participate in the program. 

We recommend tying reduction in inspection frequency to documented history of good quality housing. One proposal would be to 

inspect all units every 2 years when there are no prior deficiency. 

In addition, the determination of income and the verification 

process is incredibly complex. Income definitions are used for admissions and annual re-exams and interim re-exam functions. The 

total is nearly 55 percent of program costs. 

By streamlining the definitions in the way income is computed, 

we would find cost savings in all three of these functions. We 

strongly support the proposed elimination of the requirement to 

verify and report excluded income. 

We urge you to eliminate the need to verify and calculate income 

from assets, which at two of our sites resulted in less than $1.00 

in decreased assistance payments per resident per year. 

In addition, we urge you to further streamline the income allowances so that standard and not individualized allowances are used. 

This would significantly reduce administrative cost. 

We also urge the committee to consider simplifying rents by moving to a tiered rent structure based on income. This would do away 

with the need to calculate adjusted income, assets, and deductions, 

creating a significant administrative relief. While there is some 

concern that this would increase rent burdens, we believe this 

would also decrease rents to some families and incentivize employment. 

In closing, we are pleased the committee is seriously looking at 

voucher administrative reform. At a time when administrative fees 

are being cut, Congress must also provide regulatory relief. 

21 

We look forward to working with you on this issue, and I am 

happy to answer any questions. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Graham can be found on page 

62 of the appendix.] 

Chairwoman BIGGERT. Thank you very much. 

Mr. Gunsolley, you are recognized for 5 minutes. 

STATEMENT OF TORY GUNSOLLEY, PRESIDENT/CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, HOUSING AUTHORITY OF THE CITY OF 

HOUSTON, TEXAS, ON BEHALF OF THE COUNCIL OF LARGE 

PUBLIC HOUSING AUTHORITIES (CLPHA) 

Mr. GUNSOLLEY. Thank you. Chairwoman Biggert, Ranking 

Member Gutierrez, and members of the subcommittee, my name is 

Tory Gunsolley, and I am the president and CEO at the Houston 

Housing Authority, which serves over 55,000 Houstonians through 

16,000 vouchers and 5,300 apartments. 

I am testifying today on behalf of the Council of Large Public 

Housing Authorities, known as CLPHA, whose members manage 

almost half of the Nation’s public housing and administer over one 

quarter of the Housing Choice Voucher Program. We thank the 

subcommittee for holding this hearing, and this opportunity to comment on the Section 8 Savings Act of 2011, SESA. 

Madam Chairwoman, PHAs are swimming in paperwork. The 

Houston Housing Authority alone has over 5,600 linear feet of 

voucher program files. That is over a mile of files. This bill will 

help reduce that stack. 

Before turning to some specifics, generally, CLPHA is pleased 

that SESA retains much of what is good in SEVRA, eliminates 

some of what was problematic, and is a good foundation for improving what was needed in SEVRA. In my testimony today, I will 

touch on the highlights of our written recommendations. 

First, we were quite surprised that SESA did not retain the provisions from SEVRA which would have provided predictability and 

stability in the voucher renewal funding formula. Not knowing the 

funding formula creates great uncertainty and causes inefficiency 

systemwide. CLPHA strongly recommends that the SEVRA renewal funding language be included in SESA. 

We were pleased that SESA retained protection of some reserve 

HAP funds. We, of course, prefer that public housing authorities retain 100 percent of the reserves, but we appreciate 6 percent. 

However, we would also recommend allowing additional reserves 

for PHAs that have defined plans which require higher reserve levels to increase leasing. CLPHA has long advocated eliminating the 

authorized vouchers cap on leasing, and we are pleased that SESA 

takes a step in that direction. 

Project basing vouchers is a great tool that more PHAs and their 

partners should use. However, the current regulations offer no incentive to do so, and actually creates additional burdens. 

We urge including the language from SEVRA which allows PHAs 

to project base vouchers in their own buildings without going 

through a competitive process. Also, increasing the percentage and 

the number of vouchers that may be project based in individual 

buildings would be helpful. 

22 

We also urge restoring the site-based waiting list for project 

based projects. Currently, PHAs must send out thousands of letters 

and spend hundreds of hours of staff time that is an unnecessary 

administrative burden. 

Turning to administrative fees, a name that is somewhat pedestrian and unimaginative, and certainly not fitting of the role it 

plays in the voucher program. A detailed listing of the many activities funded by the fees are listed in my written testimony. But suffice it to say, without admin fees the voucher program would cease 

to exist. 

In Houston, our admin fees are used to perform more than 

35,000 inspections, 20,000 reviews of family income, and 25,000 

rent calculations annually. Changing the frequency and length of 

those items will allow us to be more efficient as these are some of 

the most staff intensive and costly activities paid for by admin fees. 

SESA makes good progress in reducing the administrative burdens with its increase in the asset cap, and less frequent inspections and interim certification. It is worth noting that these similar 

innovations were started and tested for years at MTW agencies. 

These MTW agencies get to ask themselves questions like, what 

are the most profound needs in my community and how can we address them? Instead of asking themselves, what do we need to do 

to be a high performer on CMAP? 

This fundamental shift in thinking allows MTW agencies to solve 

problems more efficiently and rapidly than most non-MTW agencies could even imagine. I would love to have MTW in Houston. 

While SEVRA included an expansion of MTW, we are hopeful that 

as SESA develops, a path for the expansion of MTW will be included. 

CLPHA also supports converting public housing to project-based 

vouchers or contracts. While not the subject of today’s hearing, we 

believe that a conversion option with a loan guarantee like FHA 

could be a way to maintain long-term use restriction on the property. And in the rare but unfortunate event of a mortgage default, 

prevent the loss of this important public housing asset. 

In closing, while we work to improve the Housing Choice Voucher Program, there is still an urgent need to preserve and increase 

the supply of actual housing units specifically dedicated to those 

most in need. We look forward to working with you and HUD on 

making additional improvements to the Housing Choice Voucher 

Program and perfecting this legislation. Thank you for the opportunity to testify. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Gunsolley can be found on page 

73 of the appendix.] 

Chairwoman BIGGERT. Thank you very much. 

I would now recognize Mr. Hiebert for 5 minutes. 

STATEMENT OF P. CURTIS HIEBERT, CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, KEENE, NEW HAMPSHIRE HOUSING AUTHORITY, ON 

BEHALF OF THE PUBLIC HOUSING AUTHORITIES DIRECTORS ASSOCIATION (PHADA) 

Mr. HIEBERT. Thank you very much. Chairwoman Biggert, Ranking Member Gutierez, and subcommittee members, I appreciate 

this opportunity to offer testimony concerning the Section 8 SavVerDate Nov 24 2008 17:40 Nov 03, 2011 Jkt 067935 PO 00000 Frm 00028 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 K:\DOCS\67935.TXT TERRIE
23 

ings Act of 2011 on behalf of the Public Housing Authorities Directors Association. I am Curt Hiebert, PHADA’s immediate past 

president and the chief executive officer of the Keene, New Hampshire Housing Authority. 

PHADA was founded in 1979 and represents over 1,900 housing 

authority chief administrative officers. A significant proportion of 

PHADA members administer small and medium-sized agencies 

that operate a mixture of assisted housing programs. 

Some operate public housing, some the Housing Choice Voucher 

Program, and many operate both programs. And a number of members operate assisted housing financed with HOME, CDBG, 

LIHTC, Department of Agriculture, and other non-Federal support. 

The Keene Housing Authority was one of the original 24 Moving 

to Work demonstration sites, and continues to operate its entire 

public housing and Section 8 programs under that program. MTW 

has made dramatic differences in our community. Our participation 

in MTW has allowed us, our residents and our community together, 

to develop a program that provides for the neediest of our region, 

providing stability to those on fixed incomes and a system that encourages families to move toward self-reliance. 

In 1999, 47 percent of the heads of household at the KHA were 

working full time. Last year, 64 percent were working full time. In 

that same period of time, average income for residents’ families 

housing increased by 30 percent. 

In part, this was because our system does not discourage increases in income, but actually rewards it. Our system of rent steps 

does not penalize rises in income, but instead our program encourages the acquisition of job skills, education, financial competency, 

and ambition. At the same time, though, the neediest of our programs and our residents are protected by our safety net provisions. 

Our program will not work everywhere. But the key is that by 

utilizing the flexibility contained in MTW, we were able to make 

a program that is good for Keene, New Hampshire, our residents, 

and our stakeholders. 

Concerning SESA, as with the past Section 8 bills, we believe 

that SESA includes elements helpful to housing authorities, but 

also includes some problematic elements. However, the change in 

the budget environment that has occurred in the past few years, 

we believe that new fiscal constraints radically shift the issues authorizing legislation such as SESA must address. 

Also, we urge that expectations that any cost savings will be extensive or immediate must be curbed. It will take a lot of time for 

these things to take effect. 

While deregulation, local flexibility and reductions in administrative overhead have been attractive alternatives in the past, they 

have become almost necessities. They directly affect the preservation of the inventory of deeply assisted housing programs, as well 

as the survival of and maintenance of capacities at local housing 

authorities. 

Federal interests in maintaining affordable housing initiatives, 

initiatives in States and localities drives PHADA’s efforts to simplify and reform housing programs with an eye to cost reduction 

and revenue generation. In addition to elements of SESA, PHADA 

urges the committee to consider PHADA’s and NAHRO’s Small 

24 

Housing Authority Reform Proposal called SHARP, an expansion of 

the Moving to Work demonstration for inclusion in authorizing legislation. 

PHADA supports discretion for housing authorities to be in 

short-term housing assistance while owners complete repairs to 

non-life-threatening HQS deficiencies. We also support a number of 

proposed provisions that offer housing authorities opportunities to 

reduce administrative overhead and deliver housing assistance 

more efficiently and effectively. 

There were also some questions posed by the subcommittee regarding, for instance, the use of administrative fees to operate the 

voucher program. The Housing Choice Voucher Program is administratively very complex. Programs, program sponsors and the jurisdictions they serve are diverse, and their uses of administrative 

fees for program operations reflect this complexity and diversity. 

And we applaud HUD’s efforts to engage associates to conduct a 

time and motion study. That should help provide us all with some 

information. 

Moving to Work has many impacts on all of us, and we really believe that opportunities such as the Moving to Work actions in Chicago, where they use their MTW discretion to renovate or replace 

over 17,000 public housing units, should be applauded. 

And we would also encourage, in closing, that speaking personally and on behalf of PHADA, we thank you for remaining engaged 

in reforming assisted housing programs. This is a complex task in 

the best of times. 

Reforms that include simplification, deregulation, and local flexibility have become critical to agencies that may experience severe 

funding constraints in the immediate future. Thank you very much 

for including us in the discussion. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Hiebert can be found on page 86 

of the appendix.] 

Chairwoman BIGGERT. Thank you so much. 

Mr. Sanchez, you are recognized for 5 minutes. 

STATEMENT OF ALEX SANCHEZ, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, 

HOUSING AUTHORITY OF THE COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA, 

CALIFORNIA, ON BEHALF OF THE NATIONAL LEASED HOUSING ASSOCIATION (NLHA) 

Mr. SANCHEZ. Good morning. Chairwoman Biggert, Ranking 

Member Gutierrez, and distinguished members of the subcommittee, my name is Alex Sanchez, and I am the executive director of the Housing Authority of the County of Santa Clara/Silicon 

Valley’s Housing Services Agency. I am here today on behalf of the 

National Leased Housing Association as its president-elect. 

National Leased Housing’s nearly 500 member organizations are 

primarily involved in the Section 8 housing programs, both projectbased and tenant-based, along with the housing tax credit program. 

And they provide or administer housing for over three million 

households. 

We believe the Section 8 program has been successful in ensuring decent, safe, and affordable housing for low-income families and 

the elderly. However, as with most government programs, the 

25 

longer they are in existence, the more rules and regulations are imposed that are often illogical, imposed at a cost. 

Overall, we believe the draft SESA legislation is a serious attempt to further streamline the Section 8 program beyond the reforms achieved in 1990s by the Quality Housing and Work Responsibility Act or QHWRA. 

My written statement goes into detail in a review of various provisions of the draft SESA legislation. There are a few items I would 

like to highlight briefly in my remarks today, including touching on 

the fact that in addition to running California’s third largest Section 8 program with 17,000 vouchers in 13 cities in a county of over 

2 million, my agency participates in a Moving to Work demonstration program, and has had good results for streamlining the Section 8 administration. 

We are very encouraged by the draft SESA provisions that would 

streamline the process for calculating income and rent. Such provisions would reduce the administrative burdens on PHAs and participating property owners, while not increasing the rent burden on 

residents. 

National Leased Housing strongly supports SESA provisions that 

make important reforms to the proper inspection process, including 

addressing a redundancy that exists in Federal inspection requirements. We also support the ability of PHAs to inspect properties 

every other year instead of annually. 

We are also pleased the SESA discussion draft includes a number of provisions to make the Project-Based Voucher Program more 

flexible, cost-effective, and responsive to community needs. National Leased Housing’s members are deeply involved in the preservation and rehabilitation of the older rental housing stock in the 

country. 

It is important that the scarce tools available to accomplish this 

preservation are as flexible as possible. To that end, we have made 

some specific cost-neutral suggestions to streamline the process of 

converting tenant production and enhance vouchers to projectbased assistance. 

We applaud the recognition of SESA in the self-sufficiency program that can be brought into other housing programs. A number 

of our PHA members have run successful programs for years and 

can share with the committee their successes upon request. 

Of course, the downside to the FSS program is that it can only 

work if there are sufficient social services in the community that 

can be accessed by the participants, with sufficient resources to 

hire someone to coordinate them. Too often, these resources are extremely limited. 

National Leased Housing has long supported the Moving to Work 

Program, and the agency I head has been an MTW participating 

agency for 31⁄2 years. Our agency serves one of the most expensive 

to live in the country. MTW allows us to make better use of limited 

Federal funds to meet the unique set of affordable housing needs 

and circumstances in our community. 

MTW has allowed us to dramatically streamline our Section 8 

voucher program administration. For example, we conduct tenant 

re-exams every 2 or 3 years instead of every year, and we conduct 

housing quality inspections every 3 years instead of annually. 

26 

These and other approved administrative efficiencies have translated into staff time savings valued at over $2 million, and other 

program cost savings of over $800,000 with no detrimental effects 

on the program and its participants to date. 

MTW has enabled us to shift these resources from things like 

one-size-fits-all annual tenant re-exams to over leasing the housing 

Section 8 program, providing more staff time to assist tenants and 

property owners, preserving existing affordable housing, taking advantage of rare opportunities to buy land well below market, collaborating with local governments and service providers to create 

successful direct voucher referral programs to better serve those 

who have been chronically homeless, and expanding modest but 

very effective resident services. 

In conclusion, the National Leased Housing Association supports 

the goals of SESA. We appreciate the opportunity to express our 

views. And we stand ready to work with the subcommittee on the 

Section 8 Program and other critical housing issues. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Sanchez can be found on page 

96 of the appendix.] 

Chairwoman BIGGERT. Thank you. 

And Ms. Sard, you are recognized for 5 minutes. 

STATEMENT OF BARBARA SARD, VICE PRESIDENT FOR HOUSING POLICY, CENTER ON BUDGET AND POLICY PRIORITIES, 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 

Ms. SARD. Thank you. Thank you, Chairwoman Biggert, Ranking 

Member Gutierrez, and other members of the subcommittee for the 

opportunity to testify at this important hearing. We commend the 

subcommittee for moving forward with the Section 8 Savings Act. 

Some of the most important SESA provisions would first, simplify rules for tenant rent payments, reducing the number of individualized calculations and recertifications, while continuing to cap 

rents at 30 percent of the tenant’s income. And second, would 

streamline housing quality inspections to encourage private owners 

to participate in the program. 

You have heard testimony from administrators of the program 

that these two sections alone will significantly reduce the administrative work for housing authorities and subsidized owners, and 

make the voucher program more owner-friendly. The Center on 

Budget and Policy Priorities estimates that these changes will result in several hundreds of millions of dollars of savings over 5 

years, critically important at a time when Congress has reduced 

administrative fees in the voucher program and there is a risk of 

reduction in public housing operating subsidies. 

These and other sections of the bill, according to the Congres- sional Budget Office, will save more than $700 million over 5 years, 

primarily by allowing the programs to serve more working poor 

families. I do not need to explain to you how important it is at this 

time to enact constructive policy changes that also save money. 

We also commend the chairwoman for including in the bill provisions to expand and strengthen the Family Self-Sufficiency Program. The Center wrote a report 10 years ago about how this program is HUD’s best-kept secret. And I am afraid that is still the 

case. We commend you for making it more visible. 

27 

You asked at the start of this hearing what the committee could 

do to enable the programs to serve more families at this time of 

tight resources. That is the critical question and I commend you for 

it. 

I suggest that in addition to enacting the bill that you have proposed, which is a terrific bill and will stretch dollars, as we have 

all said, there are two other things that are really important. 

The first is to complete the provisions of the bill regarding the 

voucher renewal funding formula. Doing what authorizers do, and 

having the full policy in permanent law so that appropriators can 

just plug in the dollar figure, will create the stability and the incentives that agencies need to use their money most efficiently. 

Programs now are using only about 92 percent of their authorized vouchers. Before the renewal funding policy began to change 

every year they were using 97 percent. That is a difference of more 

than 100,000 vouchers. Creating a stable policy and giving HUD 

the ability to offset excess reserves in allocating money will stretch 

any amount of money the appropriators provide most effectively. 

The second thing I submit that the committee needs to do is to 

not make the Moving to Work demonstration permanent or expand 

it. And there are really two reasons for this. 

The first is, you have already heard from the witnesses today the 

differences of opinion on this controversial issue. The best thing 

about the draft bill in addition to the substance of it is that it is 

a consensus bill. Everyone believes that the provisions in the bill 

make sense and should be enacted. 

We cannot afford to jeopardize enactment of this bill with political controversy. Some members believe MTW expansion is important. Others disagree. Let us consider it as a separate bill. 

The second concern we submit about MTW is that our analysis 

suggests that it has reduced, not expanded, the number of families 

served. For every $100,000 that agencies receive for their public 

housing and voucher programs, ordinary agencies serve nearly 15 

households while MTW agencies serve only 9 households. That is 

a huge difference in a time of constrained resources, and only a 

slight amount of the difference is due to the difference in housing 

costs in these communities. 

So we thank you, and we urge your speedy action on this bill. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Sard can be found on page 103 

of the appendix.] 

Chairwoman BIGGERT. Thank you. 

Now, we will turn to the questions, which each of us will ask 

within 5 minutes. And I will yield myself 5 minutes. 

And I guess I have to ask this question. In 2002, Section 8 programs consumed 46 percent of HUD’s annual budget. And by 2011, 

it has consumed 61 percent. 

Are you all comfortable with the increasing portion of the overall 

HUD budget the Housing Choice Voucher consumes? Or do you 

have any ideas for those other than what we have already—that 

has been talked about? 

And does such an increase suggest a design flaw within the program? Or do you know what other reasons would be? 

And further, what should Congress do to address the waiting 

list? 

28 

Ms. SARD. If I may— 

Chairwoman BIGGERT. Sure. 

Ms. SARD. —jump in on this because I think that the statistics, 

while true about budget authority, also create a misimpression. So 

I wanted to just clarify before answering. 

First of all, the statistics involve not only the voucher program, 

but also the Project-Based Section 8 Program, and together these 

two programs serve more than three quarters of the families receiving HUD rental assistance. So this is a huge share of the families served, and not disproportionate to the budget. 

Second, the use of budget authority figures for these statistics 

really distorts what is going on, on the ground. If you look instead 

at outlays, which is what matters for purposes of the deficit, the 

outlays for the two Section 8 programs have been nearly steady 

over the last 9 years. 

In 2002, outlays were 52 percent of HUD total discretionary 

spending. The high point was 2004 when the outlays were 57 percent. And in 2010, they were 55 percent. 

There are a lot of technical reasons, and we would be happy to 

explain all those. But the amount of budget authority has a lot to 

do with when there are rescissions and other technical things. 

And I have already answered the other question about what we 

think you can do to serve more families. So I will leave that— 

Chairwoman BIGGERT. Thank you. 

Anyone else, any comment on this? 

Ms. Couch? 

Ms. COUCH. I will chime in on what to do about the waiting list. 

It is our perspective that the draft bill would really help squeeze 

every dollar’s worth out of the voucher program and Congress’ allocation for the voucher program. 

And it is our long-term hope that the bill will provide a lot of 

credibility in the voucher program and stability in the voucher program, and that at some point in the not too distant future, the 

voucher program in better fiscal times, which must be ahead of us, 

that we will be able to expand the voucher program. 

But if we do not bring these sort of stability mechanisms and 

credibility to the voucher program now, when we are in those better financial times, will not have the will and the wherewithal to 

go ahead and expand the voucher program. 

Chairwoman BIGGERT. Thank you. 

Anyone else care to comment on that? 

Mr. Gunsolley? 

Mr. GUNSOLLEY. I just cannot emphasize enough how important 

it is to have that predictability of the funding formula as someone 

who runs this program. It is—you cannot spend 97 or 99 percent 

of your money because the formula changes 6 months through the 

year. And you have to have much higher reserves than the 6 percent. And so I would definitely—we talked about it, but I would 

definitely urge its consideration. 

Chairwoman BIGGERT. Okay. And while you are up, could you explain why site-based waiting lists are an important tool for a PHA? 

Mr. GUNSOLLEY. Sure. It is specifically in relation to the ProjectBased Voucher Program. Currently, there are regulations that exist 

that would require a housing authority if it establishes a ProjectVerDate Nov 24 2008 17:40 Nov 03, 2011 Jkt 067935 PO 00000 Frm 00034 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 K:\DOCS\67935.TXT TERRIE
29 

Based Voucher Program to notify everybody on its main list. And 

every time that there is a preference, you have to mail out letters 

to everybody on the list. 

And so what has happened in the past, I have done these programs and you will have a nonprofit provider who wants to serve 

the homeless. And that is their only mission in life. And we give 

them some project-based vouchers. They want a preference for 

homeless. 

My main list does not have a preference for homeless. So now I 

need to mail out thousands of letters to see is there anybody who 

is already on the list who may qualify, when the nonprofit provider 

already has all the clientele that they need. 

So it is just a simple regulatory fix that would help make it more 

efficient. 

Chairwoman BIGGERT. Thank you. 

And I have time to ask Ms. Graham, I think you have really 

been so helpful in looking at the cost for the programs and how we 

can lower those. I appreciate that. Are there any more commonsense reforms that we should consider that you do not think that 

this bill has considered, or that you have not mentioned? 

Ms. GRAHAM. Sorry. I think that those that are in the bill are 

the most significant in terms of administrative cost. And I think 

you have hit on them in the draft bill and we have addressed them 

in our written testimony. 

We would be happy to explore additional commonsense options 

or cost savings in the program with you. 

Chairwoman BIGGERT. If you find any, we would appreciate having them. Thank you very much. 

And my time has expired. 

We will go to the gentleman from Wisconsin, Mr. Duffy, for 5 

minutes. 

Mr. DUFFY. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. 

As we all sit here today, I think there is an agreement that this 

is a program that helps folks who are in need, and it is wonderful 

that we have a safety net in America which will help folks who fall 

upon hard times. We obviously want to streamline the program to 

make sure, again, we can squeeze every dollar out to help folks 

who are in need. 

But Ms. Couch, just to be clear, did I hear you say that if the 

economy recovers, we are going to hopefully have more money for 

the program to provide more vouchers? 

Ms. COUCH. It is the Coalition’s hope that the Nation focuses and 

puts resources toward affordable housing assistance as long as we 

have homelessness in the United States. HUD released a report 2 

weeks ago that showed more than 600,000 families remain homeless in the United States. 

And so until that ends, and until households are paying affordable amounts of their income towards housing costs, we certainly 

do believe that there should be some Federal investment in affordable housing programs. We see the voucher program working well 

today as helping the families today. But until we end homelessness 

in this country, we will fight for— 

Mr. DUFFY. And I guess for me, I agree with you, HUD should 

have a safety net program. But I also think that as an economy exVerDate Nov 24 2008 17:40 Nov 03, 2011 Jkt 067935 PO 00000 Frm 00035 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 K:\DOCS\67935.TXT TERRIE
30 

pands, what we really want in this country is opportunity. We 

want to have a country where folks can go out and get a job. 

Ms. COUCH. We agree. We would absolutely agree. So there are 

a couple of ways to attack the housing affordability shortage. 

One is to increase people’s incomes enough and have people’s incomes be enough to match the rents in the private market. And if 

that was the avenue that was going to work the best, then that 

would be the avenue we were taking. 

Right now— 

Mr. DUFFY. Would you— 

Ms. COUCH. —rents are completely out of whack. 

Mr. DUFFY. —agree that we should have some form of a work requirement or an education requirement in the program to make 

sure that people are actually aggressively working to better themselves so they can get off public assistance and contribute to society? 

Ms. COUCH. I would not say that the people on the voucher program or other HUD programs are not working. I would say that 

when they are working, and they do work, well the majority of 

them are actually elderly and disabled people. But for those who 

are work- eligible, it is that work does not pay enough. There is a 

wide gap between the minimum rent in Wisconsin and the $15 it 

costs an hour— 

Mr. DUFFY. Right. So you would be okay, though, if we had a 

work requirement. 

Ms. COUCH. No, we would oppose a work requirement. 

Mr. DUFFY. Okay. So to be clear, some are working. But those 

who are not working or seeking work or getting an education, you 

would be fine if they stay on the program? 

Ms. COUCH. This is our Federal housing safety net, and I think 

that we need parameters for how people live in there. But their 

ability to get housing assistance should not have to do with whether or not they are working or— 

Mr. DUFFY. And I think that is a good point. If it is a safety net, 

is this a program that we should use as a transition? Because I 

think we are on the same page. We want to help people out. 

Ms. COUCH. Right. 

Mr. DUFFY. And we know people fall on hard times. They are our 

friends, our family members, our neighbors— 

Ms. COUCH. Sure. 

Mr. DUFFY. —and we want to have a system in place to help 

them. 

Ms. COUCH. Right. 

Mr. DUFFY. But is this a safety net that helps with the transition? Or can it be a lifestyle for folks? 

Ms. COUCH. The issue right now is that it is not a safety net for 

very many people. Only one in four households are eligible for 

HUD housing— 

Mr. DUFFY. That was not my question. Are you okay with it 

being a lifestyle, or a program for transition? 

Ms. COUCH. I do not think it is a lifestyle. I think it is a safety 

net. I think people access it when they need it. And they cycle out 

of it when they do not need it anymore. 

Mr. DUFFY. So would you be okay with a— 

31 

Ms. COUCH. The majority— 

Mr. DUFFY. —time limit— 

Ms. COUCH. —of households— 

Mr. DUFFY. —on the program? 

Ms. COUCH. Never. No. The majority of households— 

Mr. DUFFY. So then it could be a lifestyle program, right? 

Ms. COUCH. But it is not. When you look at the data that HUD 

has on its Web site, the majority of voucher households are in and 

out of the program within 5 years. And more than 50 percent of 

the residents are elderly and disabled. 

Mr. DUFFY. And if you remove the elderly and the disabled— 

Ms. COUCH. Right. 

Mr. DUFFY. —because there was a section— 

Ms. COUCH. That is right. They are—sorry. 

Mr. DUFFY. —and in the language we have a funding issue there. 

Ms. COUCH. No, I am talking about the elderly and disabled people on the voucher program. So when you look at the people who 

participate in the voucher program, about half of them are elderly 

and disabled. And when you look at the length of stay data, most 

of them, more than half of them are out of the program within 5 

years. 

Mr. DUFFY. Excluding the disabled and the elderly— 

Ms. COUCH. Right. 

Mr. DUFFY. —if you have an able-bodied man or woman— 

Ms. COUCH. Right. 

Mr. DUFFY. —would you not agree that you could have a time 

limit on how long they could be on this program? Or that we 

should have some form of transition, whether it is a requirement 

to work or get an education? 

Ms. COUCH. Right. 

Mr. DUFFY. So people do not stay on the programs for a lifetime, 

and it truly becomes a safety net instead of a lifestyle? 

Ms. COUCH. But to what end? If people leave—if people are 

forced out of the program into a housing market for which there 

is no housing affordable to them, these are the people who go back 

on the waiting list, who go into shelters, who become homeless— 

Mr. DUFFY. Well— 

Ms. COUCH. —who become— 

Mr. DUFFY. —we also— 

Ms. COUCH. —housing needs— 

Mr. DUFFY. —do not you? If you continue to provide things for 

free and do not incentivize them to transition into the workforce, 

do we not see them potentially scam these programs not only for 

their lifetime, but it becomes generational. And that is my concern. 

Chairwoman BIGGERT. The gentleman’s time has expired. 

The gentleman from Texas, Mr. Green, is recognized for 5 minutes. 

Mr. GREEN. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. 

I thank the witnesses, again, for their testimony. And while I 

would like to visit with all the witnesses, Mr. Gunsolley is from 

Houston, and I represent a good many of the persons that he will 

be serving. 

I would like to compliment you and congratulate you on receiving 

your new station in life effective April 18th, I believe. And you 

32 

have mentioned some things that we would like to work with you 

on. So my office will be contacting you about some of the issues 

that you have raised. 

I would like to help everybody on the panel, but since he happens 

to be in an area that I serve, I am extending this invitation to him 

to work with him closely on some of these issues. 

Let us talk for a moment about project-based vouchers. Would 

you again give some additional indication as to why it is good to 

have flexibility with the project-based vouchers versus the individual vouchers? 

Mr. GUNSOLLEY. Sure. Thank you. And I look forward to working 

with you as well. 

Project-based vouchers really allow other groups and the housing 

authority to leverage the value of the voucher. Because you can 

commit it for 15 years, you can take that to a bank and turn it into 

capital money to be able to build new housing or substantially rehabilitate housing. 

I have used it in a number of different locations, and have 

worked closely with the nonprofit communities to do supportive 

housing, homeless housing, different niche groups that they are 

providing services, but the people also need a home. And so by 

doing the project-based voucher, it gives them kind of the missing 

piece. 

The SEVRA bill had some more freedoms that made it a little 

bit easier for this program to run. In the current regulations, it is 

a difficult program to administer, and the housing authority does 

not receive any additional administrative fees to do it. So a lot of 

housing authorities do not do it because they are not incentivized 

to do so. 

Mr. GREEN. And do you have some language that you have had 

an opportunity to review that you would like to share with us? You 

can share it by way of my office. 

Mr. GUNSOLLEY. I certainly could. The old SEVRA language also 

had many good improvements in it. But I will send you something. 

Mr. GREEN. Are there others who are in accord with this gentleman? If so, would you raise your hands, just so that I can, for 

the record, see how many people are in accord with—it looks— 

would you raise your hands a little higher? Sorry to do this in such 

an elementary way. One, two, three, it looks like everybody is. 

So let us let the record reflect—unless I am mistaken. If someone 

is not, perhaps I should ask you to raise your hand. Okay. Let us 

let the record reflect that everyone seems to be in agreement that 

we can improve the language. 

And now, I will go to a lady who is asking that I give her some 

consideration. And I do not have my list before me. Is this going 

to be Ms. Sanchez? 

Yes, ma’am. Would you pull your microphone closer? Yes, ma’am? 

Ms. SARD. My name is Barbara Sard. 

Mr. GREEN. Okay. Ms. Sard. You wanted to give a response? 

Ms. SARD. I wanted to add to what Mr. Gunsolley said, that particularly in the current soft real estate market, housing authorities 

could use the project-based vouchers strategy to lock in the use of 

vouchers at properties at lower rents. And so it actually is one of 

the few tools available in a market-based program to reduce costs. 

33 

After all, the vouchers depend on private landlords being willing 

to rent. But by making a long-term deal, as an agency can, they 

actually can both lock in desirable locations for voucher users, and 

potentially lower rents. 

As the market recovers, the rents would not have to keep pace 

because there would be this long-term contract. So it would be a 

very savvy strategy and it is important to make it more useful now 

for housing authorities. 

Mr. GREEN. The advocacy agencies seem to be in agreement with 

this. Am I correct? 

Would you like to give a comment, ma’am? And I apologize for 

not calling your names. My vision is not such that I can read them 

from this angle. 

Ms. COUCH. I can barely see my paper. The Low Income Housing 

Coalition supports adding back in provisions from earlier SEVRA 

drafts that would expand housing authorities’ ability to projectbased vouchers. The draft SESA bill would allow housing authorities to extend the project-based voucher contract from the current 

15 years to 20 years. 

But earlier drafts of SEVRA, including the December draft, had 

several other provisions, including site-based waiting lists and this 

bump up for—a small bump up for people who—serving people who 

are homeless, people with disabilities in tight rental markets. All 

of which the Low Income Housing Coalition would support including. 

Mr. GREEN. I thank all of you. And I would like to work with you 

to try to improve the language. There are no assurances that can 

be given, but we can say to you that we are willing to work with 

you to try to improve the language. 

Madam Chairwoman, I thank you for the opportunity to be heard 

this morning. And I will yield back the balance of my time. 

Chairwoman BIGGERT. Thank you. 

I think I have just a couple of quick questions. And if you both 

do or do not, then I will proceed. 

Mr. GREEN. I obviously yield to the Chair. 

Chairwoman BIGGERT. Okay. 

Oh. I am sorry, Mr. Cleaver. You are recognized for 5 minutes. 

Mr. CLEAVER. Thank you. 

I regret that the gentleman from Wisconsin left. I was trying to 

get his attention to remain in some way because I would like to 

have a colloquy with him. 

I am not sure how appropriate or significant it is to the legislation. But I am not sure the legislation deals with the worthiness 

or unworthiness of tenants. I am not sure. I missed that part if it 

is in here. 

And so, I think we have to disagree and question legislation. And 

that is why we have two parties, the Majority and the Minority 

parties. If we all thought alike, one of us would be unnecessary. 

So I think this is healthy and good debate. And our Chair happens to be one of the people who is most civil and bipartisan in how 

things are done. And I appreciate her, even in the Minority. 

My concern is, I lived in public housing. Maybe I am the only one 

in Congress who has. And I do not know one single family living 

in public housing who had public housing joy parties. I have never 

34 

heard one single family say, ‘‘I cannot wait until I can get into public housing.’’ 

There may be people who were there, some generational movement. The people in my class, Carla Cloer, Frank Anderson, Tony 

Nelson, maybe one more. Lou lived in the projects with me. None 

of them live in the projects today. Just in my class. 

None of them live in the projects today. None of them are angry 

because they do not live in the projects today. And so I think somehow there is some kind of misconception. 

We are talking about people who would not otherwise have shelter. And are there some people who do bad things in public housing? Yes. There are some people who do bad things in Beverly 

Hills. 

And so I just felt the need to—I would like for my colleague not 

to operate under the assumption that people are standing in line 

trying to get into public housing because they just want to be 

there. They are standing in line because there are not enough 

vouchers. They are standing in line because it is the only place 

they can go. 

Now, I could call out names. I would not do it because I do not 

know whether this is on C–SPAN or not, of people who live in public housing who, because of their own issues, are never going to be 

able to live on their own. And when you have the deinstitutionalization that we are having with State hospitals, you are going 

to find more and more people on the street. 

But it is pointless to deliver this sermon to the deacon board. So, 

I apologize. But it was cathartic; I had to do it. 

But this bill does have some cost savings to become relevant— 

Chairwoman BIGGERT. If the gentleman would yield for a moment, I think that was very appropriate for you to say that. Thank 

you. 

Mr. CLEAVER. Thank you. 

Chairwoman BIGGERT. You may continue. 

Mr. CLEAVER. The cost savings that are in this bill, and administrative savings, and it deals—and the reason we are having that 

is because of a rent simplification inspection and streamlining and 

other provisions of the bill. Do any or all of you agree that there 

are some cost savings in the legislation? 

VOICES. Yes. 

Mr. CLEAVER. And if somebody does not, you could help me see 

there is none. 

Ms. Graham? 

Ms. GRAHAM. I would agree there are definitely cost savings in 

this bill. Our recommendations would be given the downward pressure on funding that additional cost savings measures be implemented. But there are definitely cost savings in this bill. 

Mr. CLEAVER. Mr. Gunsolley? 

Mr. GUNSOLLEY. I was just going to reiterate and expand on Ms. 

Graham’s point that there are still regulations in place that may 

hamper the full effectiveness of some of these changes. 

Just because we might move to a biannual or a tri-annual, annual income exam does not mean I still have to meet with the person every year for other reasons. And so, I just would caution a 

rush to cut our administrative fees prospectively. 

35 

Mr. CLEAVER. Your statement actually confirms what I was saying about the cost savings. And I hate that that would take place. 

But as you know, the atmosphere we are in up here is different. 

I do have other statements, Madam Chairwoman, but I appreciate the opportunity. I know I went over, but thank you very kindly. 

Chairwoman BIGGERT. Thank you. And the gentleman yields 

back. 

I just have a couple of quick questions. 

Mr. Bazzie, you applauded Chairwoman Capito for her work on 

the utility allowances section of the discussion draft before us 

today. And she worked on the SEVRA last Congress. Can you explain why this language is helpful to program administrators such 

as yourself? 

Mr. BAZZIE. Sure. The amendment that Mrs. Capito successfully 

got through last time allows HUD to provide housing authorities 

with utility information that they apparently must use themselves 

to determine fair market rents throughout the country. 

Housing authorities such as mine operating in a multi-county 

area probably have to deal with over 100 different utility companies when you consider public service districts and small municipal 

water companies. To try to gather all that information on consumption, rates, apply it to four different types of structures such as single family, apartments, mobile homes, semi-detached, it is an arduous task to get, probably a good solid 2 weeks of work just to gather the information. 

And we feel like if HUD has this utility information available, to 

please provide it to us. Let us use what probably is more current 

and accurate information than what we gather that changes continuously. 

Chairwoman BIGGERT. Thank you. 

And then Mr. Hiebert, the PHAs are responsible for approving 

unit rents under the voucher program based on reasonable rents in 

the area. It might be hard to know what a reasonable rent is right 

now with the housing market. But in your experience, are the rents 

generally reflective of the market? Are they too low or too high? 

Mr. HIEBERT. That would really depend on the area. And that 

really depends on the fair market rent in the particular district. It 

may differ, as a matter of fact, from community to community. And 

so, that is difficult to say. 

They will be—and our community happens to be fairly reasonable. The fair market rent adequately reflects the 40th percentile 

in our community. But I cannot speak for the entire country. There 

is a wide difference from region to region. 

Chairwoman BIGGERT. Thank you. 

Ms. Sard? 

Ms. SARD. I probably should resist this temptation, but given 

your question, I wanted to suggest that one thing that was in an 

earlier version of the bill that was taken out would provide an objective test of whether agencies are making the right decisions 

about determining that rents are reasonable. 

The current policy is that agencies have to have a procedure and 

the quality control report looks at whether they follow their proceVerDate Nov 24 2008 17:40 Nov 03, 2011 Jkt 067935 PO 00000 Frm 00041 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 K:\DOCS\67935.TXT TERRIE
36 

dure. It does not actually look at the results, are the rents reasonable? 

And so I think one important change that HUD could make for 

both the voucher program and the project-based program is to use 

current evidence to come up with national recommendations about 

what is a good, sound policy to follow for determining rent reasonableness. And then hopefully, future committees would not have to 

come back to this question because there would actually be objective evidence. 

Chairwoman BIGGERT. Thank you. 

Mr. Bazzie, would you like to respond to that? 

Mr. BAZZIE. No. I just wanted to clarify my answer to your first 

question regarding the Capito amendment, regarding the allowances. That amendment did ask HUD to provide this information 

to housing authorities. 

I have been informed that HUD has since indicated that is not 

information that they do have available. So perhaps this committee 

can in some way determine if there is a better methodology that 

can be used if HUD in fact does not have this available. 

Chairwoman BIGGERT. Okay. Thank you for that clarification. 

Mr. Sherman, do you have a question? 

Mr. SHERMAN. Yes. I would like to talk about manufactured 

housing for a bit. What are the rules on using the voucher for manufactured housing? And what should they be? 

Ms. SARD. One of the changes that Congress made in 1998 was 

to change the policy that applies to the use of vouchers in manufactured housing or mobile homes. 

Since 1998, the voucher subsidy can only pay for helping someone afford to rent the land on which a mobile home sits if they are 

buying the mobile home through a commercial loan. And that is 

the most common practice that you are paying basically a consumer loan for the mobile home, but renting the land. 

And the subsidy is limited to 40 percent of what would otherwise 

be available. There had been a policy in earlier versions of SEVRA 

that would treat that kind of transaction, paying consumer loans 

to buy the home and renting the land, the same as any other rental, and apply the standard FMR and payment standard to it. 

Our understanding is that policy change is particularly important in the Congressman’s district in California, as well as in 

places like Vermont and others. It will expand the supply of affordable housing that can be used with vouchers. My testimony explains this in more detail, and states our support for this change. 

Mr. SHERMAN. But if somebody—if a landlord owns the mobile 

home and wants to rent it, there is a dramatic difference in this 

program between—I have a voucher. I have to decide where to live. 

And the voucher is good for brick and mortar housing, but is not 

good for— 

Ms. SARD. So let me clarify. 

Mr. SHERMAN. Yes. 

Ms. SARD. If a landlord owns the mobile home and the land— 

Mr. SHERMAN. Right. 

Ms. SARD. —and rents the whole thing— 

Mr. SHERMAN. Right. 

Ms. SARD. —the package, you can use the voucher there. 

37 

Mr. SHERMAN. Okay. That was— 

Ms. SARD. That works. 

Mr. SHERMAN. You gave me the sophisticated answer to my initially simple question. 

Ms. SARD. Right. 

Mr. SHERMAN. I yield back. Thank you. 

Chairwoman BIGGERT. The gentleman has yielded back. 

Mr. Cleaver, do you have a question? No? 

Okay. With that, let me thank the witnesses, and thank you for 

the written testimony. You have all been very thorough. We really 

appreciate it. And it has been very helpful for us as far as the draft 

legislation. 

And I would say that the Chair notes that some members may 

have additional questions for this panel, which they may wish to 

submit in writing. Without objection, the hearing record will remain open for 30 days for members to submit their written questions to these witnesses and to place their responses in the record. 

I very much appreciate you all being here. It has been a good 

hearing. 

And with that, this hearing is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 11:27 a.m., the hearing was adjourned.] 

(39) 

A P P E N D I X 

June 23, 2011 

40 


67935.001
41 


67935.002
42 


67935.003
43 


67935.004
44 


67935.005
45 


67935.006
46 


67935.007
47 


67935.008
48 


67935.009
49 


67935.010
50 


67935.011
51 


67935.012
52 


67935.013
53 


67935.014
54 


67935.015
55 


67935.016
56 


67935.017
57 


67935.018
58 


67935.019
59 


67935.020
60 


67935.021
61 


67935.022
62 


67935.023
63 


67935.024
64 


67935.025
65 


67935.026
66 


67935.027
67 


67935.028
68 


67935.029
69 


67935.030
70 


67935.031
71 


67935.032
72 


67935.033
73 


67935.034
74 


67935.035
75 


67935.036
76 


67935.037
77 


67935.038
78 


67935.039
79 


67935.040
80 


67935.041
81 


67935.042
82 


67935.043
83 


67935.044
84 


67935.045
85 


67935.046
86 


67935.047
87 


67935.048
88 


67935.049
89 


67935.050
90 


67935.051
91 


67935.052
92 


67935.053
93 


67935.054
94 


67935.055
95 


67935.056
96 


67935.057
97 


67935.058
98 


67935.059
99 


67935.060
100 


67935.061
101 


67935.062
102 


67935.063
103 


67935.064
104 


67935.065
105 


67935.066
106 


67935.067
107 


67935.068
108 


67935.069
109 


67935.070
110 


67935.071
111 


67935.072
112 


67935.073
113 


67935.074
114 


67935.075
115 


67935.076
116 


67935.077
117 


67935.078
118 


67935.079
119 


67935.080
120 


67935.081
121 


67935.082
122 


67935.083
123 


67935.084
124 


67935.085
125 


67935.086
126 


67935.087
127 


67935.088
128 


67935.089
129 


67935.090
130 


67935.091
131 


67935.092
132 


67935.093
133 


67935.094
134 


67935.095
135 


67935.096
136 


67935.097
137 


67935.098
138 


67935.099
139 


67935.100
140 


67935.101
141 


67935.102
142 


67935.103
143 


67935.104
144 


67935.105
145 


67935.106
146 


67935.107
147 


67935.108
148 


67935.109
149 


67935.110
150 


67935.111
151 


67935.112
152 


67935.113
153 


67935.114
154 


67935.115
155 


67935.116
156 


67935.117
157 


67935.118
158 


67935.119
159 


67935.120
160 


67935.121
161 


67935.122
162 


67935.123
163 


67935.124
164 


67935.125
165 


67935.126
166 


67935.127
167 


67935.128
168 


67935.129
169 


67935.130
170 


67935.131
171 


67935.132
172 


67935.133
173 


67935.134
174 


67935.135
175 


67935.136
176 


67935.137
177 


67935.138
178 


67935.139
179 


67935.140
180 


67935.141
181 


67935.142
182 


67935.143
183 


67935.144
184 


67935.145
185 


67935.146