U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

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

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

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

52–396 PDF 2009

THE SECTION 8 VOUCHER REFORM ACT 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON 

HOUSING AND COMMUNITY OPPORTUNITY 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON FINANCIAL SERVICES 

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

JUNE 4, 2009 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Financial Services 

Serial No. 111–40 

( 

(II) 

HOUSE COMMITTEE ON FINANCIAL SERVICES 

BARNEY FRANK, Massachusetts, Chairman 

PAUL E. KANJORSKI, Pennsylvania 

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 

DENNIS MOORE, Kansas 

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 

MELISSA L. BEAN, Illinois 

GWEN MOORE, Wisconsin 

PAUL W. HODES, New Hampshire 

KEITH ELLISON, Minnesota 

RON KLEIN, Florida 

CHARLES A. WILSON, Ohio 

ED PERLMUTTER, Colorado 

JOE DONNELLY, Indiana 

BILL FOSTER, Illinois 

ANDRE ́ CARSON, Indiana 

JACKIE SPEIER, California 

TRAVIS CHILDERS, Mississippi 

WALT MINNICK, Idaho 

JOHN ADLER, New Jersey 

MARY JO KILROY, Ohio 

STEVE DRIEHAUS, Ohio 

SUZANNE KOSMAS, Florida 

ALAN GRAYSON, Florida 

JIM HIMES, Connecticut 

GARY PETERS, Michigan 

DAN MAFFEI, New York 

SPENCER BACHUS, Alabama 

MICHAEL N. CASTLE, Delaware 

PETER T. KING, New York 

EDWARD R. ROYCE, California 

FRANK D. LUCAS, Oklahoma 

RON PAUL, Texas 

DONALD A. MANZULLO, Illinois 

WALTER B. JONES, JR., North Carolina 

JUDY BIGGERT, Illinois 

GARY G. MILLER, California 

SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West Virginia 

JEB HENSARLING, Texas 

SCOTT GARRETT, New Jersey 

J. GRESHAM BARRETT, South Carolina 

JIM GERLACH, Pennsylvania 

RANDY NEUGEBAUER, Texas 

TOM PRICE, Georgia 

PATRICK T. MCHENRY, North Carolina 

JOHN CAMPBELL, California 

ADAM PUTNAM, Florida 

MICHELE BACHMANN, Minnesota 

KENNY MARCHANT, Texas 

THADDEUS G. McCOTTER, Michigan 

KEVIN McCARTHY, California 

BILL POSEY, Florida 

LYNN JENKINS, Kansas 

CHRISTOPHER LEE, New York 

ERIK PAULSEN, Minnesota 

LEONARD LANCE, New Jersey 

JEANNE M. ROSLANOWICK, Staff Director and Chief Counsel 

(III) 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON HOUSING AND COMMUNITY OPPORTUNITY

MAXINE WATERS, California, Chairwoman 

NYDIA M. VELA ́ ZQUEZ, New York 

STEPHEN F. LYNCH, Massachusetts 

EMANUEL CLEAVER, Missouri 

AL GREEN, Texas 

WM. LACY CLAY, Missouri 

KEITH ELLISON, Minnesota 

JOE DONNELLY, Indiana 

MICHAEL E. CAPUANO, Massachusetts 

PAUL E. KANJORSKI, Pennsylvania 

LUIS V. GUTIERREZ, Illinois 

STEVE DRIEHAUS, Ohio 

MARY JO KILROY, Ohio 

JIM HIMES, Connecticut 

DAN MAFFEI, New York 

SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West Virginia 

THADDEUS G. McCOTTER, Michigan 

JUDY BIGGERT, Illinois 

GARY G. MILLER, California 

RANDY NEUGEBAUER, Texas 

WALTER B. JONES, JR., North Carolina 

ADAM PUTNAM, Florida 

KENNY MARCHANT, Texas 

LYNN JENKINS, Kansas 

CHRISTOPHER LEE, New York 

(V) 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

Hearing held on: 

June 4, 2009 ...................................................................................................... 1 

Appendix: 

June 4, 2009 ...................................................................................................... 49 

WITNESSES 

THURSDAY, JUNE 4, 2009 

Bazzie, Tony, Executive Director, Raleigh County Housing Authority ............... 32 

Couch, Linda M., Deputy Director, the National Low Income Housing Coalition ........................................................................................................................ 6 

Fischer, Will, Senior Policy Analyst, Center on Budget and Policy Priorities ... 7 

Hiebert, P. Curtis, President, the Public Housing Authorities Directors Association .................................................................................................................... 29 

Houghton, Ted, Executive Director, Supportive Housing Network of New 

York ....................................................................................................................... 13 

Montiel, Rudolf C., P.E., President and CEO, the Housing Authority of the 

City of Los Angeles .............................................................................................. 28 

Newsome, Karen, Vice President, WinnResidential, on behalf of the National 

Affordable Housing Management Association (NAHMA) ................................. 37 

Robinson, Gloria J., Tenant Organizer, Organizing Neighborhood Equity DC 

(ONE DC), and Housing Choice Voucher Recipient .......................................... 11 

Roman, Nan, President and Chief Executive Officer, National Alliance to 

End Homelessness ............................................................................................... 9 

Rooker, Renee, President, National Association of Housing and Redevelopment Officials ....................................................................................................... 33 

Zaterman, Sunia, Executive Director, Council of Large Public Housing Authorities (CLPHA) ................................................................................................ 35 

APPENDIX 

Prepared statements: 

Bazzie, Tony ...................................................................................................... 50 

Couch, Linda M. ............................................................................................... 60 

Fischer, Will ...................................................................................................... 70 

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

Houghton, Ted .................................................................................................. 96 

Montiel, Rudolf C. ............................................................................................ 102 

Newsome, Karen ............................................................................................... 106 

Robinson, Gloria J. ........................................................................................... 113 

Roman, Nan ...................................................................................................... 116 

Rooker, Renee ................................................................................................... 120 

Zaterman, Sunia ............................................................................................... 136 

ADDITIONAL MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD

Waters, Hon. Maxine: 

Letter to Chairwoman Waters and Chairman Frank from various undersigned organizations ..................................................................................... 143 

Letter from the California Housing Partnership Corporation and various 

undersigned organizations ........................................................................... 149 

Written statement of the National Leased Housing Association ................. 151 

(1) 

THE SECTION 8 VOUCHER REFORM ACT 

Thursday, June 4, 2009 

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON HOUSING AND

COMMUNITY OPPORTUNITY, 

COMMITTEE ON FINANCIAL SERVICES, 

Washington, D.C. 

The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:06 a.m., in room 

2128, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Maxine Waters [chairwoman of the subcommittee] presiding. 

Members present: Representatives Waters, Velazquez, Lynch, 

Cleaver, Green, Clay, Ellison, Driehaus, Himes, Maffei; Capito, 

Biggert, Putnam, Jenkins, and Lee. 

Chairwoman WATERS. This hearing of the Subcommittee on 

Housing and Community Opportunity will come to order. Good 

morning, ladies and gentlemen. 

I would like to thank our ranking member, Shelley Moore Capito, 

and other members of the Subcommittee On Housing and Community Opportunity for joining me for our second hearing on the Section 8 Voucher Reform Act (SEVRA). 

At our first hearing, we were joined by HUD Secretary Shaun 

Donovan, who testified about the need for this legislation and its 

importance in protecting the continued viability of the Section 8 

Program which provides housing assistance for 2 million low-income families nationwide. 

Today, we will hear from residents, housing advocates, housing 

authorities, and the housing managers who deal with this Program 

on a day-to-day basis, and will be directly affected by this legislation. 

This is legislation that has broad support, including the support 

of 72 housing and redevelopment stakeholders in California, and 

the California Housing Partnership. These groups have sent a letter of support, which I would ask unanimous consent to enter into 

the record. 

It also has broad bipartisan support, passing the House in 2007 

on a vote of 333 to 83. 

Over the years, the Section 8 Program, which pays the difference 

between 30 percent of a tenant’s income and the fair market rent, 

has become increasingly complicated for residents and the PHAs 

that administer the Program. Residents must routinely re-verify 

their income, through a time-consuming, error-prone process. 

As we will hear from Ms. Robinson, the inspections process, although well-intended, can actually prevent a tenant from leasing a 

unit if it needs minor repairs. 

2 

The proposed bill would simplify these processes by streamlining 

the rent determination process requiring certifications less often, 

and improving inspections by allowing PHAs to perform some repairs. 

The proposed bill also addresses the funding formula for the Section 8 Program. Because of a drastic Bush Administration change 

to how vouchers were funded, over 150,000 vouchers were lost. I 

agree with the assessment of Secretary Donovan, who testified that 

the changes to the funding formula contributed to a slide in funding utilization. 

In fact, in order to make up for lost funding, PHAs limited services to residents and even began to restrict or deny moves to higher-cost areas. 

While the Democratic Congress has corrected this funding formula, the Program has still not achieved the same leasing levels 

as it had before the formula change. 

In short, the voucher program serves fewer people today than it 

did in 2004. Last year, only 90 percent of authorized vouchers were 

under lease. In 2004, 96 percent of vouchers were under lease. 

The legislation before us would establish a sustainable and 

transparent formula that would stop the reductions in voucher use 

and actually increase the number of families assisted through the 

program. 

The draft we will be discussing today does not include the Moving To Work Program, which allows about 30 PHAs to waive most 

of the rules that govern public housing and Section 8. 

As I stated in our first hearing, Chairman Frank and I have 

agreed that there will be a Moving To Work component to this bill, 

I would like to reiterate the concerns I have about the Moving 

To Work Program: 

First, I’m deeply concerned about the imposition of time limits 

and work requirements by Moving To Work agencies. Second, I’m 

aware that there has been a substantial decrease—by one estimate 

24,000 vouchers have gone unused—in the number of vouchers 

issued by Moving To Work agencies. Finally, there has never been 

a thorough evaluation of the Moving To Work Program. 

So I look forward to hearing from our witnesses on these very 

important issues, and I would now like to recognize Ranking Member Capito for her opening statement. 

Mrs. CAPITO. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. 

I would like to yield to my colleague, Ms. Biggert, because she 

has time constraints, let her make her statement first, and then 

make mine second. Thank you. 

Chairwoman WATERS. Without objection. 

Mrs. BIGGERT. Thank you very much, Ranking Member Capito, 

and thank you, Madam Chairwoman, for holding this hearing 

today. I would also like to thank all of the witnesses. And many 

of them worked on this with us in the last draft, in the last passage 

of this bill, and I think that, so they bring real expertise, and hopefully, we can get the Senate to move a bill this year, after we finish 

this one. 

There seems to be something that happens in that rarified air 

over in the Senate that sometimes the bills just sit there, and I 

think this is a very important bill, this is a very important hearing, 

3 

and I hope that we will be able to do it expeditiously, and then the 

Senate will take it up. 

I thank you for talking about the Moving To Work, because I do 

think that is a very important component of this bill for those who 

are able to move expeditiously, and hopefully we will be able to 

work out something that will be of benefit to all of us. 

And I would also like to thank you for having the family self-sufficiency bill that I worked on early on in this bill. 

So again, thank you very much for holding this hearing, and I 

look forward to the witnesses. 

I yield back. 

Chairwoman WATERS. Thank you very much. 

Mr. Lynch. 

Mr. LYNCH. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. I appreciate you 

holding this hearing, and all your good work on this issue. 

As someone who grew up in Section 8 housing, project-based Section 8 housing—I lived there for 15 years with my mom and dad 

when I was growing up—I understand how important this program 

is to a lot of families, especially now. In tough economic times, 

when people may have been able to rent in the private market or 

maybe they were forced out of their homes because of foreclosure, 

this is becoming a more important program to a lot of families. 

The Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher Program provides monthly rental assistance to about 2 million low-income households every 

year. Nearly 2,500 public housing agencies administer the program 

at the local level across the country. 

During the past two sessions of Congress, under the great leadership of Chairwoman Waters, this committee has completed a great 

deal of work on this issue, and I’m pleased to help in the effort to 

bridge those efforts to this Section 8 Voucher Reform Act of 2009. 

As we know from our past work, however, the Section 8 Program 

has encountered structural inefficiencies and challenges that do affect the ability of public health authorities to effectively administer 

the Program. 

We know, from a 2003 HUD quality control study, that there 

have been high error rates in the subsidy calculations. A study released in 2004 also found that 40 percent of the subsidies were erroneously calculated. These high error rates are not acceptable, and 

formulas must be simplified to avoid those errors. 

We have also heard from public housing authorities that many 

times there are not sufficient staff and resources to perform inspections to certify Section 8 housing stock. Especially in the Northeast, 

in my area, notably in the district of Boston, where the housing 

stock is older than in many parts of the country, additional inspections are necessary to ensure tenant safety and proper allocation 

of Federal resources. 

The Section 8 Voucher Reform Act of 2009 addresses a lot of 

these issues, and it puts in place needed reforms to this essential 

program that play an important part in our communities. 

I look forward to the testimony from all of our witnesses on both 

panels, and I thank you for the courtesy, Madam Chairwoman, and 

I yield back the balance of my time. 

Chairwoman WATERS. Thank you. 

Ranking Member Capito. 

4 

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

for holding this hearing on the Section 8 Voucher Program, as you 

said in your opening statement, the second hearing on this subject 

following Secretary Donovan’s appearance before the committee. 

We’re going to hear from witnesses who interact with this program every single day, and I look forward to their assessment of 

the program, and ways in which we can make improvements. 

As has been stated before, this program is already, the Federal 

housing voucher program, assistance program, is helping approximately 2 million low-income families and individuals each year, administered by 2,500 public housing authorities. 

The Section 8 Program provides families and individuals with 

the flexibility to choose where they want to live and tailor their 

housing to their needs, rather than being designated to public 

housing, and the freedom and mobility of this program, I think, are 

two of the key benefits. 

But the Section 8 Program does face, I believe, significant challenges. 

The program already consumes over 40 percent of HUD’s budget 

and it is overly complex and burdensome to administer. This program is in need of some fundamental reform that revises the funding formula, reduces the administrative cost, simplifies the rent 

calculation, and levels the playing field for those working families 

in rural America. 

We have tried to reform this program since the 108th Congress, 

and it is my hope we will be successful this time. 

I look forward to working with Chairwoman Waters to improve 

the Section 8 Program for Americans living in both urban and 

rural areas. Today’s witnesses will give us valuable input on how 

to best reshape this program. 

I would also like to introduce a gentleman on the second panel, 

from West Virginia, Mr. Tony Bazzie, who is a friend of mine, and 

he has been working with the public housing authority in Raleigh 

County for 29 years, so I think, I know he has seen it inside and 

out, so I look forward to hearing his experience and his unique perspective on the second panel, and I welcome the other panelists, as 

well. 

Thank you. 

Chairwoman WATERS. Thank you very much. 

Mr. Cleaver. 

Mr. CLEAVER. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman, and Ranking 

Member Capito. 

And I apologize. At 10:30, I will have to go get another meeting 

started, and I will rush back to this committee, because this is a 

very personal issue with me. 

As did my colleague, Mr. Lynch, I, too, lived in public housing, 

and in those tough days when my mother, father, 3 sisters, and I 

lived in public housing, I never thought the day would come when 

I would actually be in charge of public housing, but when I became 

Mayor of Kansas City, I walked into a buzzsaw, because our housing authority was in receivership, and I had to work to get that 

taken care of, and having lived there, I understood a lot of the 

problems that the people faced. 

5 

And it pains me that we failed in the 109th and 110th Congresses to do the Section 8 reform. I agree with my colleague that 

we did our part under the leadership of Chairwoman Waters to get 

legislation from this subcommittee through the full committee to 

the House Floor and over to the Senate, where all good legislation 

goes to die. 

And we hopefully will be able to do this reform, because it’s more 

needed now than ever. 

I just read yesterday that the foreclosure rate is not dropping, 

that people are continuing to lose their homes, and when you look 

at all of the GM and Chrysler workers, not the CEOs, the workers 

who will lose their jobs, which means that in many instances, they 

will lose their homes, we’re going to need to make sure that this 

program is inclusive and that the reform will allow us to address 

the housing needs that we have in this country. 

I was hurt over the fact that the President, for the last 4 years, 

zeroed out the public housing, because we already had a terribly 

underfunded program, and now we have to restore not only the 

units, but some credibility to the program. 

And so I appreciate this hearing. We have not only 2 million people who are currently using the program who desperately need to 

see this reform, but I think the people who are going to be lined 

up at public housing doors, local public housing authority doors, 

trying to get vouchers. 

So, Madam Chairwoman, thank you very much for all the work 

that you have done on this issue, and I stand ready to be of continuous support to you. Thank you. 

Chairwoman WATERS. Thank you very much. 

Mr. Maffei? 

Mr. MAFFEI. No statement. 

Chairwoman WATERS. No statement? 

Then we will go right to our panel. And I am very pleased to welcome our distinguished first panel. 

Our first witness will be Ms. Linda Couch, deputy director, National Low Income Housing Coalition. 

Our second witness will be Mr. William Fischer, senior policy analyst, Center On Budget and Policy Priorities. 

Our third witness will be Ms. Nan Roman, president and chief 

executive officer, National Alliance to End Homelessness. 

Our fourth witness will be Ms. Gloria Robinson, a Section 8 

voucher holder, from Washington, D.C., who will be testifying on 

behalf of the National People’s Action. 

And our fifth witness will be Mr. Ted Houghton, executive director, Supportive Housing Network of New York. Mr. Houghton, we 

were told by Ms. Velazquez that, if she were present, she would 

want to introduce you. She’s not here yet, so please feel welcome. 

I would like to thank you all for appearing before the subcommittee today, and without objection, your written statements 

will be made a part of the record. 

You will each be recognized for a 5-minute summary of your testimony. 

We will start with our first witness. 

6 

STATEMENT OF LINDA M. COUCH, DEPUTY DIRECTOR, THE 

NATIONAL LOW INCOME HOUSING COALITION 

Ms. COUCH. Chairwoman Waters, Ranking Member Capito, and 

members of the subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to testify today on draft legislation to stabilize and expand the Section 

8 housing choice voucher program. 

The National Low Income Housing Coalition does not represent 

any sector of the housing industry. Rather, we work on behalf of 

and with low-income people who need safe, decent, and affordable 

housing, especially those with the most serious housing problems. 

On behalf of the Coalition, I would like to thank you for your 

work on the draft bill, which is testament to the subcommittee’s 

commitment to the Nation’s housing programs for the lowest-income people. 

Nationally, more than 70 percent of extremely-low-income renters, those with incomes below 30 percent of area median, pay more 

than half of their incomes toward rent. 

Our analysis of the latest American community survey data finds 

that half of the 9 million renter households in the United States 

spent a stunning 80 percent or more of their incomes on housing 

in 2007. 

The voucher program, which targets 75 percent of its assistance 

to extremely poor households, addresses these most significant 

housing affordability challenges. 

We applaud the bill’s authorization of 150,000 new vouchers. At 

least this many are needed. Vouchers can prevent homelessness 

and allow severely cost-burdened families to rebalance their lives 

with affordable housing. 

We hope that the voucher program can be doubled in size, to 

serve 4 million families over the next 10 years, and that the number of authorized vouchers in the bill can be increased as the legislation moves forward. 

We also congratulate the subcommittee on developing a bill that 

simultaneously achieves several important rent-setting policy goals, 

assuring tenants will have affordable rents, simplifying public 

housing agencies’ administrative burdens, and encouraging increased earned income, among others. 

Affordable rent is one of the voucher program’s most basic benefits. Without affordable rents for each household, vouchers would 

quickly lose their ability to correct the significant and severe housing cost burdens faced by the Nation’s lowest-income households 

lucky enough to access them. 

The Coalition, however, does not support the ability provided in 

the bill that allows housing agencies to establish alternative rent 

structures for public housing residents, even though the bill includes a provision requiring the new rent structure not to result in 

rents higher than a household would pay under the normal rent 

structure. This sounds like double work for agencies that are asking for less paperwork. 

It is our firm belief that the innumerable benefits the Brooke 

Amendment has brought to low-income people with housing assistance should continue to be guarded with great fervor. 

We commend the bill’s several provisions that expand the ability 

of voucher holders to live in neighborhoods of their choosing by imVerDate Nov 24 2008 16:13 Oct 22, 2009 Jkt 052396 PO 00000 Frm 00012 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 K:\DOCS\52396.TXT TERRIE
7 

proving how fair market rents are set, directing HUD to improve 

the portability of vouchers, and allowing higher payment standards 

where a high rate of voucher concentration exists. 

The bill would also provide important protections for tenants in 

other federally-assisted housing programs, improve the inspection 

process for voucher units, and encourage the expansion of the family self-sufficiency program. 

The draft bill provides significant efficiencies for the voucher and 

public housing programs without compromising on which income 

groups are served or how deep their subsidies are. 

We do not believe that providing greater flexibilities from the 

program’s core goals by expanding and extending the existing Moving To Work demonstration program to more housing agencies 

should be included in this bill as it moves forward. 

Such flexibilities are not a correct counterbalance to the ongoing 

and historic underfunding of public housing. Increased funding for 

public housing and vouchers is among the Coalition’s highest priorities. 

We are certain that some agencies have used Moving To Work’s 

flexibilities to provide more housing to more people in more communities. We are equally certain that some agencies have done 

quite the opposite. 

Federal housing policy should not gamble on most agencies doing 

the right thing. 

We feel it is the responsibility of Federal housing policy to ensure 

to the greatest extent practical that Federal housing programs will 

do the right thing. Without such assurances, the Coalition worries 

that future funding for vouchers and public housing will be jeopardized. 

Given the lack of thorough evaluation and several scathing HUD 

Inspector General reports on agencies’ use of Moving To Work’s 

flexibilities, we believe Moving To Work should not be expanded or 

extended until we can assess what has occurred, move forward 

with the good, and leave behind that which has harmed residents 

with time limits, fewer housing options, and unaffordable rents. 

Thank you for considering our views on these issues. We look forward to working with you all to improve and expand HUD’s affordable housing programs. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Couch can be found on page 60 

of the appendix.] 

Chairwoman WATERS. Thank you very much. 

Mr. Fischer. 

STATEMENT OF WILL FISCHER, SENIOR POLICY ANALYST, 

CENTER ON BUDGET AND POLICY PRIORITIES 

Mr. FISCHER. Madam Chairwoman, Ranking Member Capito, and 

members of the subcommittee, I am Will Fischer, senior policy analyst with the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. It’s a privilege 

to testify before you today. 

The main point of my testimony is to commend the committee for 

considering SEVRA and to emphasize the important benefits that 

the bill would provide for housing agencies, for private owners, but 

particularly for the low-income families who receive housing assistance or are on waiting lists around the country. 

8 

I also want to urge caution concerning any expansion of the Moving To Work demonstration. 

First, I will talk some about the benefits of the bill. 

Overall, it is a package of important, timely, carefully crafted improvements that would strengthen and update the housing voucher 

program, which is already a highly effective form of housing assistance. SEVRA’s most important provisions would establish a stable, 

fair, efficient voucher funding system, and this is important because, as the Chair noted, the program has come out of a period 

of instability in funding policy from 2003 to 2006. 

Appropriations legislation changed the voucher funding policy 

every year, and this led to the decline, to close to 150,000 vouchers 

being taken out of use. 

The improvements that Congress made in 2007 and in 2008 restored about a third of those vouchers to use, and there’s a graph 

on Page 3 of my testimony, my written testimony, that shows that 

trend. SEVRA would build on that with the improvements to funding policy, and put more vouchers to use serving needy families. 

Importantly, SEVRA’s renewal funding provisions would do this 

without increasing costs. They would provide a series of tools and 

incentives for housing agencies to serve as many families as possible with the resources that are provided to them. 

SEVRA’s funding provisions are important under any circumstances, but they take on particular urgency during this period 

of an economic downturn, when rising poverty and unemployment 

are increasing homelessness and the need for housing assistance. 

The sooner that SEVRA is enacted, the sooner it will extend 

voucher assistance to more people who would otherwise be homeless or at risk of homelessness. 

Another improvement in SEVRA would be the provisions which 

simplify the rules for setting tenant rent payments, although we 

share some of Linda’s concerns about the provisions allowing alternative rent structures in public housing. 

Other key improvements in the bill would streamline the housing 

inspection system, strengthen work incentives, and allow expanded 

use of project-based vouchers. And project-based vouchers, because 

they can be tied to particular buildings, can be used to preserve 

and develop affordable housing. 

The bill’s project-based voucher provisions could be strengthened 

further by allowing some public housing developments to be converted to project-based vouchers to support their revitalization. 

I will turn now to our concerns about Moving To Work. 

The Moving To Work demonstration is intended to support experimentation with housing policies by allowing housing agencies 

to operate their programs without regard to many Federal statutes 

or regulations. 

The demonstration has allowed some housing agencies to test innovative and promising policies, but at the same time, it does allow 

many harsh measures, as has been mentioned, including sharp increases in tenant rents and time limits on assistance, even for 

working poor families who cannot afford housing without help. 

Importantly, the demonstration has not been subject to any rigorous evaluation, so it’s simply not known what the effects of these 

measures have been, and there also has not been any adequate 

9 

monitoring of people after they leave the program in situations 

where you have rent increases and time limits. 

In addition, there’s the issue that Moving To Work allows housing agencies to shift funds around and to accumulate very large reserves in ways that are prohibited for other housing agencies. Close to $1 billion just from 2005 to 2008 has been diverted out 

of the voucher program, either for other purposes or into large reserves, and that is money that could have been used to assist tens 

of thousands of families. 

As a result, those families went without assistance, even though 

Congress had provided money specifically for that purpose. 

If an expansion of Moving To Work is included in the bill, it’s important that it be of limited scope, that it have strong tenant protections, rigorous evaluation and transparency requirements, and 

that it have strict prohibitions on the diversion of voucher funds. 

Thank you for the opportunity to testify, and I would be pleased 

to take any questions from the committee. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Fischer can be found on page 70 

of the appendix.] 

Chairwoman WATERS. Thank you very much. 

Ms. Roman. 

STATEMENT OF NAN ROMAN, PRESIDENT AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, NATIONAL ALLIANCE TO END HOMELESSNESS 

Ms. ROMAN. Chairwoman Waters, Ranking Member Capito, and 

members of the subcommittee, I am honored that you have invited 

the National Alliance to End Homelessness to testify before you 

today. 

Section 8 is probably the most important government resource to 

prevent and end homelessness. If we had an adequate supply of 

Section 8 vouchers, there would be virtually no homelessness in our 

Nation, and the Alliance commends the work that the committee 

has done to stabilize, simplify, and expand the program. 

With respect to the connection between housing and homelessness, people’s lack of housing is what defines them as homeless. 

However, their need for housing plays out in different ways. 

About 80 percent of individuals, and well over 90 percent of 

homeless families, are homeless for economic reasons. If they had 

affordable housing, while they might still be poor, they would not 

be homeless. 

Research has consistently shown that a Section 8 voucher allows 

virtually everyone to exit homelessness and never become homeless 

again. 

The remainder of homeless people need permanent, supportive 

housing. This includes people with disabilities, about 50,000 veterans, and the increasing number of elderly homeless people. Tenant and project-based Section 8 have proven to be effective in providing permanent, supportive housing. 

In terms of preventing homelessness, Section 8 is also effective. 

There is a much larger pool of extremely poor people and doubledup people from which the homeless population emerges. Some 16 

million people live at half of the poverty level, and as many as 10 

million live below the poverty level and are doubled up. Only a 

10 

handful of these people would become homeless if they had affordable housing. 

In summary, housing is the key intervention in ending and preventing homelessness, and Section 8 is the linchpin to providing 

that housing. 

It is for this reason that we’re so grateful to the subcommittee 

for its work to stabilize the Section 8 housing choice voucher program. The draft SEVRA bill improves Section 8 in several ways 

that will specifically help to end homelessness. 

It makes the program more reliable. Landlords, developers, and 

tenants must have confidence in the Section 8 Program, in how it 

operates and in what resources it can deliver. 

By settling basic questions of funding distribution in ways that 

incentivize full utilization of authorized vouchers, SEVRA accomplishes this goal. This will encourage landlord participation, sometimes a challenge in housing homeless people, and it will increase 

the number of families who are assisted. 

Project-based Section 8 is essential for the creation of permanent, 

supportive housing for disabled and elderly homeless people, including veterans. SEVRA takes a much-improved approach to 

project basing, and this will have a positive impact on communities’ 

efforts to end homelessness among people with special needs. 

SEVRA’s simplification of rent calculations and inspections 

makes an important contribution, as well. This simplification will 

encourage more landlords to participate and make the program 

easier for tenants to understand. 

To maximize the impact of the Section 8 Voucher Program, we 

offer the following suggestions: 

Distributing scarce resources across a wide variety of eligible 

populations has little impact, while tightly targeting distribution 

can drive toward solutions. Section 8 is a rich resource, and it 

should be targeted to those who need it most in order to maximize 

its impact. In particular, targeting to people with mental illness, 

veterans, and families with children in foster care should be retained. 

Further, given the extensive unmet need for affordable housing 

among very poor people, we can see no situation in which it would 

be reasonable to waive or raise income eligibility. Income targeting 

should be retained. 

In the recovery legislation, Congress recently passed the Homelessness Prevention and Rapid Rehousing Program, HPRP, to ameliorate recession-related homelessness. This Program provides 

short- to moderate-term rent assistance to people who are threatened with homelessness, or who are homeless. 

HPRP should work well for a lot of people. However, there are 

some people who need longer-term assistance, such as people with 

disabilities, and we need to figure out how to make a linkage between HPRP and Section 8. 

The Housing Trust Fund is a key piece of legislation to develop 

affordable housing. We thank you very much for creating it. However, to reach the target population of that program, operating subsidies will be required. When the Trust Fund is resourced, it is also 

going to be important to consider how Section 8 can best be linked 

with it. 

11 

Section 8 should be a vehicle for exiting homelessness, not a vehicle for entering homelessness. A small percentage of people become homeless while receiving Section 8. The reasons tend to be 

administrative. PHAs should be given the resources to solve such 

problems before eviction, and in particular, we recommend that 

PHAs report their termination rates on a regular basis, including 

whether or not people terminated end up homeless. 

On behalf of the board of directors of the National Alliance to 

End Homelessness, we support your efforts to try to improve the 

Section 8 Program. We hope that they will eventually lead to an 

adequate supply of Section 8 vouchers to meet the needs of all people who need them. 

Thank you very much. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Roman can be found on page 116 

of the appendix.] 

Chairwoman WATERS. Thank you. 

Ms. Robinson. 

STATEMENT OF GLORIA J. ROBINSON, TENANT ORGANIZER, 

ORGANIZING NEIGHBORHOOD EQUITY DC (ONE DC), AND 

HOUSING CHOICE VOUCHER RECIPIENT 

Ms. ROBINSON. Thank you, Chairwoman Waters, Ranking Member Capito, and members of the committee for inviting me to testify 

on the draft of SEVRA. 

My name is Gloria Robinson, and I work for Organizing Neighborhood Equity, or ONE DC, which is a member of the National 

People’s Action Network. I am also a housing choice voucher holder. 

In the past year, there has been a great deal of dialogue about 

the ailing economy, the housing and mortgage crisis, and its devastating effects on middle-class America. 

I’m pleased to be a part of a dialogue that addresses another population, a population that often seems to exist beneath the radar 

screens of lawmakers and politicians. This is a population for 

which little has changed as a result of the economic downturn and 

the mortgage and foreclosure crisis. 

Many of us were poor, living in substandard housing, or homeless way before this conversation began to take place. I was part 

of this population. 

In 1994, I entered a transitional housing program, and was 

placed on the waiting list for subsidized housing. Fifteen years 

later, I have still yet to receive the letter informing me that my 

name had reached the top of that list. 

The D.C. Housing Authority has over 26,000 households waiting. 

That number is growing steadily. 

Without the 750,000 vouchers proposed by SEVRA over the next 

5 years, they will continue to wait. They will wait in substandard 

housing, and they will wait on the streets. Some of them will die 

waiting for decent, affordable housing. It is essential that SEVRA 

gets introduced and passed through the House with this provision 

in place. 

I became a housing choice voucher holder in June of 2008, not 

because of any movement on the waiting list, but because there 

12 

was an opt-out at the project-based subsidized property where I 

was renting. 

Over 2,000 affordable housing units have been lost in Washington, D.C., since 2000, and the rent burden carried by thousands 

of low-income tenants continues to grow. For this reason, I applaud 

the proposal to increase the number of vouchers made available, 

and the continued funding for the current housing choice vouchers. 

I’m concerned about the sometimes prohibitive background 

checks required of voucher applicants. For example, outstanding or 

delinquent student loans would negatively affect an applicant’s 

credit score. These debts may be decades old, but their negative impact is current. 

Generally, low-income people are going to have weaker credit histories, because the reality is that it’s more expensive to be poor in 

this country. For that reason, an applicant’s credit history 

shouldn’t be considered when they apply for a voucher, unless 

there is overwhelming evidence that they will not be able to pay 

rent. 

D.C.’s Housing Authority requires criminal background checks 

for all household members over the age of 18. I would like to see 

SEVRA include language that limits criminal background checks to 

certain felonies that have occurred within the past 2 years. 

I don’t know if it’s still the case now, but the Chicago Housing 

Authority used to only screen for drug offenses and violent crimes, 

such as rape or murder. 

Although there is a law in D.C. that is supposed to protect tenants from being discriminated against based on the source of income, I was told on more than one occasion that the property did 

not accept vouchers. 

There needs to be a provision added to SEVRA that expressly 

prohibits discrimination based on source of income at the national 

level. There also needs to be a mechanism put in place to enforce 

this provision. 

I am happy that SEVRA addresses the issue of inspections, especially failed inspections that result in delayed lease-ups where 

there are no life-threatening reasons for the failure. 

When I located an apartment and was approved on August 2nd, 

7 weeks later, the inspections were done, and the unit failed, the 

first time, for one bedroom window that had been painted shut, 

and the second time for a shower pole missing in the master bathroom—not life-threatening issues. Each time the unit failed, it 

went to the end of the inspection list. 

While housing authorities should withhold rents from landlords 

who don’t make necessary repairs within 30 days, non-life-threatening issues should not delay the occupancy of an otherwise habitable unit. 

I was finally able to lease up and move in on November 3, 2008, 

after sitting in overflowing waiting rooms every week, sometimes 

from 7:30 a.m. to 3:00 p.m. 

Every employed housing authority client doesn’t have the luxury 

or flexibility to spend 6 to 8 hours away from their jobs every week, 

without seriously jeopardizing their employment status. 

Finally, I agree with Secretary Donovan’s opinion on the Moving 

To Work Program. 

13 

Because housing authorities were not required to collect any 

data, there is no empirical evidence to show that the program has 

been effective. Extensive data needs to be collected, and that data 

thoroughly analyzed before the program is expanded. 

Thank you for the opportunity to submit this testimony on behalf 

of SEVRA. 

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

113 of the appendix.] 

Chairwoman WATERS. Thank you. 

Mr. Ted Houghton. 

STATEMENT OF TED HOUGHTON, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, 

SUPPORTIVE HOUSING NETWORK OF NEW YORK 

Mr. HOUGHTON. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman, Ranking 

Member Capito, and members of the subcommittee. I am glad to 

be here. 

I want to say that the Supportive Housing Network, which represents 180 nonprofit providers and developers of supportive housing across New York State supports all of these comments that our 

national advocacy partners and Ms. Robinson have made. 

There is an awful lot of consensus on this bill. You guys have 

done a terrific job of listening to people and crafting a very strong 

bill that not only provides additional resources, but also makes 

some very smart decisions and makes some efficiencies and gets 

some incentives in there that are going to really help this program 

along. 

But I can’t help but emphasize that the most important thing 

here is that we’re going to get more vouchers. There is such a great 

need both in urban areas and in rural areas for more housing assistance. 

We have 34,000 people living in homeless shelters each night in 

New York City right now. It’s one of the highest levels ever. And 

we really have not been able to address that, because we don’t have 

the long-term rental assistance available to us in the numbers that 

we need. 

Not only that, but if we can get these vouchers, we will be able 

to not only create housing stability for the families who need them, 

but it will also create community stability, neighborhood stability, 

as we are able to maintain housing in good condition. 

And that’s going to also help create jobs in maintaining this 

housing. It also creates housing stability. That helps people concentrate on getting jobs. 

We use the supportive housing network, and our partners in government use the Section 8 Program as a means to leverage other 

resources to build supportive housing for people with special needs, 

and the Section 8 Program is one of the most important sources of 

that. There’s just not nearly enough shelter-plus-care vouchers 

under the McKinney Program to build the amount of supportive 

housing that we need in New York City. 

We are about to open up our 40,000th unit of housing in New 

York State for people with special needs. We’re very proud of that. 

But we could be doing much more if we had the ongoing rent subsidies to serve the extremely-low-income people who live in our 

residences. 

14 

A person on SSI in New York State gets $8,000 a year. You cannot fund housing and the ongoing need to maintain that housing 

and pay for oil and heat and all those other things with that level 

of money. You need to have Section 8 in addition to that. 

We use that, in New York City, we take tenant-based Section 8s 

and we put them in supportive housing. What happens, though, is 

that there is so much administrative burden in inspections and certifications. 

And try to inspect an apartment or get a signature on a certification from a mentally ill tenant who is paranoid, who has had all 

sorts of troubles working with authorities over the years. It’s very 

difficult. And sometimes what happens is, we lose the Section 8, 

but we continue to keep the tenant, and we end up paying for that. 

Because of late Section 8, our members are losing millions of dollars a year because we rent to people, they apply for Section 8, and 

then we wait as long as 11 months, maybe 18 months, before that 

Section 8 certificate comes through. 

And so what happens is that we lose money and we still serve 

the people, but the buildings struggle to maintain themselves. 

There are a lot of great things in this bill. We’re very happy 

about it. What we would like to see is improvements in the 

prioritization, so that we’re not just stuck with homeless 

prioritization, but we’re also able to prioritize people who are just 

about on the edge of homelessness, and get them, and we can hook 

that up with HPRP and will be able to do that, and also to work 

with the project basing. 

What happens is, there’s a disincentive for localities to projectbase because if they give out a Section 8 to a tenant-based, they 

know that they will just have to pay for that one tenant-based Section 8. If you do a project-based, the person is allowed to move in 

a year, and they go to the front of the line and get a tenant-based. 

Then the next person comes in, and they move a year later, and 

they get another tenant-based. So you start generating more and 

more. 

So if we could create a national pool of tenant-based, to help people moving on from supportive housing that is project-based, I 

think that would be a very helpful thing, because then we would 

be able to project-base more and help people move on to independence. 

Thank you very much. I think that I have used up my time. I’m 

open to any questions. 

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

96 of the appendix.] 

Chairwoman WATERS. Thank you very much for your testimony. 

I will now recognize myself for 5 minutes for questions. 

I want to talk a little bit about Moving To Work, because, as you 

can imagine, this becomes kind of a hot political issue. 

There are members who believe that somehow the Moving To 

Work Program will make you, if you’re in it, more deserving, that 

somehow, if we have rules that dictate your life in some way, that 

this is what you deserve to have happen in exchange for being able 

to receive government support or live in public housing. 

15 

Ms. Couch, in your testimony, you state that Moving To Work 

should not be expanded unless there is a thorough evaluation of existing sites. 

Could you explain how Moving To Work has had a negative impact on residents and communities? How can Moving To Work be 

reformed so that residents are protected from harmful policies, 

such as time limits or work requirements? I mean, would you give 

me your thoughts on this? 

Ms. COUCH. Sure. Thank you for the question. And it is truly an 

honor to be here today to testify before you. 

I wish I could tell you a lot more about the Moving To Work Program, but the truth is, we don’t know very much. We don’t know 

very much about the residents going into Moving To Work Programs and the housing agencies participating in the demonstration, and we don’t know very much about what has happened to 

them at a national level. 

Our concerns, I think, are your concerns that you have expressed, that there is some data that show that resident rent burdens have increased from pre-Moving To Work participation to participating in the Moving To Work Program after a few years, because housing authorities in the Moving To Work are given the 

ability to divorce rents from incomes, and the Brooke Amendment, 

which housing residents have today, says that rents have to be 

about 30 percent of a resident’s income. 

With the ability of Moving To Work to divorce rents from income, 

rents can be what housing agencies think might be a good deal, 

and it seems to us frequently that the Moving To Work aspect of 

the program is simply ratcheting up rents in such a way that people would be compelled to get higher earning jobs, but when they 

can’t find those higher earning jobs, their public housing or their 

voucher assistance becomes unaffordable to them. 

Some of the more troubling aspects of Moving To Work, from our 

perspective, are the ability to change the income targeting of the 

program. The public housing, in particular the voucher program, 

are deeply income targeted. 

Under Moving To Work, housing agencies can allow 90 percent 

of their assistance to serve residents up to 60 percent of area median, and in many, many communities across the country, you 

would be hard-pressed to find severely cost-burdened residents at 

60 percent of area median income, which is precisely why the public housing and voucher programs are targeted so deeply. So income targeting, we think, must be maintained at least at today’s 

current standards. 

And again, as I said in our testimony, the ability of residents to 

know that in a Federal housing safety net program like public 

housing or the voucher program, their rents will be affordable, is 

critical, and we must have national standards that ensure affordable rents. Time limits, work requirements, other social policies or 

the contracts associated with the Moving To Work Program we 

think are troublesome. 

We do think that there have been some goods, some flexibilities 

that have allowed more supportive services in Moving To Work 

agencies, but we just don’t know, and we think it would be quite 

troubling to expand the Moving To Work Program to more agencies 

16 

until we have a solid sense of what has been demonstrated, so we 

can really move forward with what has worked and leave behind 

that which has harmed not just housing residents, but the health 

and the financial health and the physical health of the housing 

stock. 

Chairwoman WATERS. Thank you very much. 

Ms. Robinson, I wanted to talk with you or get you to answer 

some questions about background checks. 

Ms. ROBINSON. Sure. 

Chairwoman WATERS. Now, Ms. Robinson, politically here in the 

House of Representatives, we have members who say we must keep 

all criminals out of public housing, we must have these background 

checks so that we can make sure that these bad people don’t move 

into public housing. 

But you’re saying that there are people who would otherwise be 

eligible, and you alluded to the fact that there may be people who 

are excluded because they have been in trouble, they were not felonies, they were more minor crimes. 

Can you talk a little bit about that? 

Ms. ROBINSON. Yes, absolutely. 

Except for the more serious crimes, the drug offenses—and even 

with the drug offenses, if an applicant is completing some sort of 

treatment program and really trying to get well, they should have 

the opportunity, if there’s a need for assisted housing. 

In cases where applicants or members of their family who are 

over 18 have served their time and completed their sentences, their 

families and they should not be prohibited from getting the assistance for housing. 

If they do, then essentially, they’re back on the streets, which 

opens up the door for more criminal activity. 

So I believe that within the 2-year period, you know, if there is 

no significant criminal activity, then they should be able to receive 

the assistance as any other low-income person. 

Chairwoman WATERS. Thank you. 

Ms. Capito, for questions. 

Mrs. CAPITO. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. 

I would first like to ask unanimous consent to enter into the 

record the National Multi-Housing Council’s comments on the proposed Section— 

Chairwoman WATERS. Without objection, it is so ordered. 

Mrs. CAPITO. Thank you. 

This is a question for whomever wants to answer on the panel. 

In recent years, Congress changed the way the voucher program 

was funded, moving from a formula-based on the number of units 

that a PHA has under contract with HUD at their current per-unit 

cost, to a dollar-based formula established by the number of units 

under lease on a given date adjusted by an inflation formula. 

Has this change proven to be more cost-effective, and what further improvements would you recommend be made? 

Will anyone take that? 

Mr. Fischer? 

Mr. FISCHER. I think the change has, certainly the cost of vouchers has fallen during this period. The average cost of a voucher, I 

think it hasn’t necessarily been reflecting increased efficiency. 

17 

In a lot of cases, housing agencies have ratcheted down the cost 

of vouchers, in some cases excessively, so they don’t cover rents in 

an adequate range of areas. 

And I think that the changes in the formula, the way they have 

been done, and particularly the fact that they have—the formulas 

have changed, or did change significantly from year to year during 

this period from 2003 to 2006, made it difficult for housing agencies 

to manage their program, and contributed to a really big loss in the 

number of vouchers that were in use. 

Agencies took those vouchers out of use, in some cases because 

they didn’t have enough funding to cover them in the current year, 

but sometimes also because they didn’t know how much funding 

they would receive the next year. 

I think SEVRA, what SEVRA does is it builds on that system, 

it builds on the change that you mentioned. It sticks with a system 

that’s not—it provides funding based on the vouchers in use in the 

previous year, but it doesn’t actually, on an ongoing basis, fund 

every voucher at its current cost. 

But it builds on that by establishing a stable funding system 

year after year, and creating a series of incentives for agencies to 

use more vouchers. It allows reserves that let them plan their programs better. 

And I think it really does start from the change that you were 

talking about going to a dollar-based system, then improve on its 

strengths, and strengthen it in a way that will make the program 

work better going forward. 

Mr. HOUGHTON. And if I can add— 

Mrs. CAPITO. Yes. 

Mr. HOUGHTON. —that uncertainty is a big cause for a lot of the 

delays in payments, because the PHA is wondering how much Section 8— 

Mrs. CAPITO. Let me just clarify. Uncertainty as to what’s going 

to be coming down the pike? 

Mr. HOUGHTON. Yes. 

Mrs. CAPITO. Okay. 

Mr. HOUGHTON. Yes. Because you don’t know how much you’re 

going to get this year, and so you don’t know whether you can release enough tenant-based Section 8s to cover our developments 

and make sure that they’re running well. And so that has been 

very important for us, if we can get that change in there. 

Mrs. CAPITO. Okay. I have a question that, we’re talking about 

redoing the rent calculations and the problems of income 

verifications that everybody has, and the reason this kind of caught 

my attention is, certainly we have learned through the subprime 

lending debacle that the income verification was either: (a) non-existent; or (b) extremely inadequate. 

What kind of improvements can be made for income 

verifications? Do you think we address that, that this is addressed 

in this bill, and is that sort of a moving target, I think, that presents more difficulties in, I don’t know, in this day and time? 

Ms. COUCH. Well, I think that this is a great question for the 

public housing agency administrators, as well, but I would just say 

that the bill’s simplification of rents is going to help a lot, but it’s 

my understanding that what is in place to certify incomes could 

18 

work well if the housing authority staff had enough funding and 

enough staff to implement what’s there as far as certifying incomes. 

It’s extremely important that we have an accurate understanding 

of what incomes are, and it’s my sense that what is in place now 

works, but we just have to make sure we comply with what is in 

place. 

Mrs. CAPITO. I think some of the studies that were out showed 

that, and it was a rather large percent, maybe 30 percent, under 

or over— 

Ms. COUCH. Right, and I think that’s because there are inconsistencies with how the rules that exist are implemented. 

Mrs. CAPITO.Does anyone else want to— 

Mr. HOUGHTON. I would say that the—a lot of Section 8s are now 

used to support tax credit projects, where the income verifications 

are very strict, and so we’re able to do it well there. 

I think with the additional administrative fees that are, the administrative costs that are covered under SEVRA, we will be able 

to do a better job at the PHAs, as well. 

Mr. FISCHER. I think that’s absolutely right, that the administrative funding in SEVRA would give PHAs more ability to manage 

their programs well, including income verification. 

There are also several provisions in SEVRA that make it both 

simpler, the system simpler so it’s easier to verify, and there are 

also things that directly help with verification, and one example of 

that is that the bill allows housing agencies to rely on verifications 

from other public assistance programs, so a housing agency could 

set up a system with a food stamp agency that would let them 

avoid duplicating all the work that the food stamp agency does, 

and that, I think, could help a lot. 

Mrs. CAPITO. Okay. One final question. And this is sort of at the 

30,000-foot level. 

Ms. Couch, in your written statement, you mentioned that you 

hoped the voucher program could be doubled in size to serve 4 million families over the next 10 years. 

What effect do you think that could have, doubling the size of 

that, on other discretionary programs? I mean, it’s like putting air 

in a balloon. You only have so much. And we have other great programs under HUD’s jurisdiction, the homeless program being one, 

disabled housing, elderly, and others. 

Do you have a comment on that? 

Ms. COUCH. Well, we think it would greatly increase the cost of 

the Section 8 voucher program over the years, but we do think that 

we do need to put significant new resources into new vouchers. 

Unless and until we do that, we will not address our Nation’s 

homelessness problems, we will not address the number of families 

of all types living with severe housing cost burdens. 

As you well know, housing programs are not an entitlement, and 

it’s estimated only 1 in 4 families eligible for them actually receive 

them. 

We would like to see a rebalancing of where we put our resources, and the Nation has long supported financially people’s 

ability to enter into homeownership, and we would like to see a 

19 

commitment at the national level to also support people’s ability to 

rent homes that are affordable to them. 

So I guess what I’m saying is that we would anticipate that a 

doubling of the voucher program would greatly increase the cost of 

the voucher program to the Federal Government, but we think that 

the society’s benefits to those costs would greatly outweigh them. 

Ms. ROMAN. If I could just add one thing to that, I think one of 

the lessons from the homelessness field is that there are a lot of 

costs associated with not housing people. 

There are increased health care costs, there are education costs, 

there are law enforcement costs and corrections costs, and the costs 

of unemployment. 

So while that might not be within the HUD budget, I think that 

we have to look at cost offsets in other programs when we talk 

about housing people. 

Housing stability seems to be a necessary bedrock upon which a 

lot of other things rest, and if you don’t have it, you pay in other 

ways. 

Mr. HOUGHTON. I’m sorry— 

Mrs. CAPITO. Go ahead. 

Mr. HOUGHTON. To add onto Nan Roman, in New York City, we 

discovered, and this is 10 years ago, a homeless mentally ill person 

costs $40,000 a year, because of their use of emergency rooms, shelters, and all those other things. And once you place them into supportive housing, it reduces it so much that it pays for almost all 

of the cost. 

And we have gotten very good at targeting the housing to the 

most needy, and really been much more cost effective. 

So I think this is a very good investment. It will rise, but I think 

the costs that you spend on homelessness dwarf any increase that 

would happen in the Section 8 Program. 

Mrs. CAPITO. Thank you. 

Chairwoman WATERS. Thank you very much. 

Ms. Velazquez. 

Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. 

Ms. Couch, I heard what you were saying about your concern regarding the changes to the Moving To Work Program, and one of 

them is the lack of data and evaluation. 

Can you tell us what are some of the critical resident protections 

that must be included in any program expansion? 

Ms. COUCH. Well, we would start with income targeting. We 

think at least the current income targeting standards must be 

maintained. 

The current rent structures, we think that giving flexibility to divorce rents from incomes for households or for tiers of households 

is a mistake that could lead to harm to residents. 

We think an important protection would be an inability of housing authorities to impose time limits. I think the HUD data show 

that most people who can move out of the housing assistance programs when they’re able to, and those who don’t would be the ones 

most likely to be harmed under time limits. 

We also think that there has to be a strong evaluation component and that the data have to be evaluated regularly, you know, 

at 2 years, at 4 years, at—you know, so that we can not just collect 

20 

that data, but evaluate it, so that HUD could have the authority 

and Congress could step in to make sure that those housing agencies which are obviously harming residents or harming the physical 

or financial health of their own housing agencies would be directed 

to change their policies because the demonstration wasn’t working 

in the best interests— 

Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Thank you. 

If any of the other members of the panel would like to comment, 

I would like to ask you where and how should we focus our evaluation efforts regarding the Moving To Work Program, since we know 

that there is such a strong push to allow more housing authorities 

to participate? 

Ms. Robinson? 

Ms. ROBINSON. Yes. My concern with the Moving To Work Program is the quality of work that participants would have the ability 

to get. 

With employment rates being in the double digits, I’m concerned 

that folks won’t be able to find work that preserves some human 

dignity, you know. If people are going to be forced to work in order 

to receive housing assistance, where are they going to work? Will 

they be sweeping streets? 

You know, I’m just concerned with any measure that makes it 

mandatory that you work in a climate of unemployment. And that’s 

my comment. 

Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Mr. Fischer? 

Mr. FISCHER. I think I agree with both of the comments that we 

heard before. 

I think it’s also very important in order to have adequate tenant 

protections in Moving To Work, in order to avoid exposing tenants 

to unnecessary risk to limit the scope of any expansion. I think 

Moving To Work’s purpose should be research, it shouldn’t be 

something that’s just meant to give general flexibility to agencies. 

If there are statutes or regulations that are too burdensome or 

too complex, it’s something that Congress should look at nationally 

and see if there are ways to improve that, and SEVRA does that 

in a whole range of areas. 

But the purpose of Moving To Work should be targeted on testing particular policies and should only be expanded to cover a limited number of agencies to do that. 

Ms. VELAZQUEZ. And how do we measure success? 

Mr. FISCHER. Well, I mean, I think that the—I will give you an 

example of something where experimentation might make sense, is 

rent policy. I think that there are a lot of ideas out there about 

changes that could be made to rent policy. 

I think it would be important to narrow the scope and look at 

things that protect the lowest-income tenants and make sure that 

you’re not putting people out on the streets because you’re charging 

excessive rents. 

But there is some experimentation that could be done that would 

be effective, and I think that if the Moving To Work demonstration 

should only allow experimentation on rents, it should be focused on 

that. 

It should be just the relatively small number of agencies that 

would be needed to do that, and it should have controlled experiVerDate Nov 24 2008 16:13 Oct 22, 2009 Jkt 052396 PO 00000 Frm 00026 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 K:\DOCS\52396.TXT TERRIE
21 

mental evaluation so that you have—so that you don’t go through, 

like you have with the current demonstration, where 10 years 

later, or 13 years later, you don’t know what exactly happened. 

Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Thank you. 

Mr. Houghton, you spoke about homelessness that is on the rise 

due to the economic downturn. And in this draft, we have an appropriation for 150,000 incremental vouchers. 

Given the circumstances that we are facing today in our Nation, 

are the proposed levels sufficient, and if not, what is an appropriate level to have a real impact? 

Mr. HOUGHTON. Well, I think Nan Roman could speak to the national level, but I think in general, New York State often gets 

about 10 percent of housing assistance because of need and population, and so that would be about 15,000 vouchers a year, and we 

could use that very, very quickly. We have 125,000 people on the 

waiting list for Section 8, and we have 34,000 people in the shelters, as I said. 

When you talk about the number of people who are homeless 

each night, you’re not capturing the entire group of people. Five 

percent of all people living under the poverty line in New York City 

are going to end up in the shelter at one time during the course 

of a year. So it goes on. There’s shifting through. 

And so when you have those homeless episodes again and again, 

especially when you’re hitting children with this, you have these 

long-term effects that really end up costing in educational attainment, in employment prospects, in health, and all those things cost 

us in all these other different systems. This investment is really 

what we need to do. 

So I think that if you took a look at the total cost of what homelessness does, you could very well justify a much larger investment, 

and I could certainly find the people to get these vouchers to them. 

So, if you can do that. 

Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Thank you. Thank you. 

Chairwoman WATERS. Thank you very much. 

Mr. Lee? 

Mr. LEE. Thank you. 

Just a few brief questions. 

I am one of the newer Members here in Congress, and I have 

tried to learn as much as I can about this program, and I know 

in two of my counties, it is very much needed. In fact, there is a 

5-year backlog in terms of a wait period. 

The part that I’m troubled with, because it is a very good program, I have heard a lot of positives, the other issue, though, is the 

reality of the fact that we have limited dollars and the fact that 

this program has continued to take an inordinate amount of the entire HUD budget, and eventually, you know, we’re going to run out 

of dollars. Look at our current fiscal situation. 

So my concern is making sure we use these dollars most effectively. The little research that I have done shows that, on average, 

an individual who is in this program is in it for up to 8 years, an 

8-year average, while you have other people who are waiting 4 or 

5 years to get in, and that, to me, is a concern. How do you equitably try to incentivize individuals to—because this was supposed 

to be a helping hand to get them out of trouble, but ultimately, it’s 

22 

not a long-term solution. It’s to ultimately let them be self-sufficient. 

I would be interested to hear any ideas on ways to promote or 

ultimately move people off this, so that you can—those in need can 

get on, because right now, on an 8-year average, that means only 

12 percent of the people are getting out of this program a year, 

which is a fairly small number. 

Does anybody have a comment on any concepts or ideas? 

Mr. HOUGHTON. We serve an awful lot of people who are on SSI 

and SSD, supplemental security income for people with disabilities, 

and that, as I said, is about $8,000 a year, about almost $700 a 

month. 

They’re not going to get off that. They’re disabled. And it’s not 

enough to pay for the rent. 

And so getting them Section 8 and having them on, it’s akin, I 

think the corollary might be health care reform. We’re trying to figure out ways to reduce emergency room spending by increasing primary care. 

And this is the same thing. We’re trying to get—we’re willing to 

make the investment in subsidizing the rent for this group in order 

to reduce the amount of spending, and it is an inordinate amount 

of spending that we spend on emergency shelter, on repeated 

detoxes, and psychiatric hospitalizations, and all the other costs 

that are going. 

Now, that’s one part of the population, but the fact is that we 

are targeting, I think, better and better, within the housing world, 

because we have been able to use data and really be able to figure 

out who needs it and be able to track income— 

Mr. LEE. I agree, those individuals, that data can be separated 

out, but again, that might skew the numbers somewhat, but on average, you have people there for 8 years. 

What other way—to do this in a way that incentivizes people to 

ultimately be self-sufficient, are there any concepts or ideas for 

those individuals who have been on it for a long time? 

Mr. HOUGHTON. In supportive housing, which has services attached, our average is about 51⁄2 years, and then people move on 

to independence, where they probably take a Section 8 with them, 

but they’re not using the services in the level that they were. So 

there is some independence and there is some lowering of cost. 

But I’ll give it over to— 

Mr. FISCHER. I’m not familiar with the 8-year average. The numbers I had heard you know, either median or average, were move 

in the 3- to 5-year range for the voucher program. 

But I think regardless, it’s important to have, as you’re saying, 

incentives, ways to encourage people to increase their income to a 

point where they don’t need housing assistance anymore. 

And this bill does some really important things to do that. The 

rent provisions would provide a new earnings incentive that 

would—an earnings deduction that would count less of earned income towards the rent, so there would be a little bit more of a— 

less of a rent increase when your earnings go up. 

Probably the most important provision is that it would strengthen the family self-sufficiency program, which is a program within 

both vouchers and the public housing program that provides emVerDate Nov 24 2008 16:13 Oct 22, 2009 Jkt 052396 PO 00000 Frm 00028 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 K:\DOCS\52396.TXT TERRIE
23 

ployment counseling to tenants and it also gives a work incentive, 

where tenants, if they have—if they are following a self-sufficiency 

plan that they come up with, with their employment counselor, 

then their increases in earnings will go into an escrow account that 

then they can use for purchasing a home or starting a business or 

an education or things along those lines. That provides both support and incentives for people to increase their earnings, and 

SEVRA would provide a dedicated source of administrative funding 

for employment counselors under that, and would also provide a 

better source of funding to cover these financial incentives, and I 

think that really would go a long way towards furthering the goals 

that you’re talking about. 

Ms. ROBINSON. Statistics have shown that in the D.C. area, a 

resident would need to earn at least $21 an hour to afford a onebedroom market rent apartment. 

So we would need better quality jobs to increase the incomes of 

these Section 8 voucher holders. 

Ms. COUCH. And I would just like to chime in and say that the 

data that I have seen show that about 54 percent of voucher holders cycled out of the program within 5 years, and so it would be 

good if we all got on the same page on the data. 

But I would strongly agree with Will that the bill does several 

things to encourage increased earned income of voucher holders 

and of public housing residents. 

And the gap today between what people are earning at the lowest income levels and what rents are is so broad that you will have 

to do what Ms. Robinson said, get those higher-paying jobs and 

make them available, or we’re going to continue to have to subsidize people’s rents if we want to bolster their ability to have stable housing. 

Mr. LEE. Thank you. 

Chairwoman WATERS. Thank you very much. 

Mr. Driehaus? 

Mr. DRIEHAUS. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. 

I would like to continue the conversation that Congressman Lee 

has initiated. 

And I’m struck by the last figure, Ms. Couch, that you give, 

about 54 percent of the people cycling off the program within 5 

years. 

It’s the 46 percent who stay longer than 5 years that concern me, 

and it goes back to Ms. Robinson’s comment about the waiting list. 

And, you know, the fact is that, the more people we have on the 

program for a longer period of time, the longer that waiting list becomes. 

I think all of us believe very strongly in emergency housing, and 

we believe very strongly in providing housing for people with disabilities, for people who have lost their jobs. But I think we have 

to have the courage to have a conversation, a serious conversation, 

about dependency. 

My background is in international development. We talk a great 

deal about dependency, and creating dependent situations. 

And that number, that 46 percent who are over there, over 5 

years, that’s a big number. That’s no small number. 

24 

And so when we talk about Moving To Work, just not having 

enough data for it, you know, that really doesn’t make me very 

comfortable, that we shouldn’t be working on programs such as 

that because there’s not enough data. 

Sometimes I feel as if we look at this equation, and we think, 

well, there are a lot of people who need housing, so we should provide more housing. 

I look at the equation and say, there are a lot of people in poverty. They need housing. So we should try to get them out of poverty. 

You know, and I think too often we look at our housing program 

in the wrong way, in that rather than building the capacity of individuals on the program, especially those prone to long-term times 

on the program, we look at continuing and expanding the number 

of vouchers. 

So I would really like you to explore a little further, you know, 

how we might do a better job of building the wealth of families. 

You know, we embarked initially on things like IDAs through the 

Congress, individual development accounts, to help build the 

wealth and build the capacity of families to achieve self-sufficiency. 

So I would like you to explore a little further with me how we 

might do a better job of working with that 46 percent, because 

that’s a big number, in my mind. 

Ms. COUCH. My first response is that, let’s say the number is 54 

percent are on for less than 5 years, and then we have that balance 

of that 46 percent. 

What Mr. Houghton is saying happens in New York, is also the 

case nationally, that a large percentage of the people in voucher assisted households are people who are elderly or disabled and on 

fixed incomes, whose incomes won’t be increasing to the point that 

we can count on that they’ll be able to enter. And so I think that 

they take up a large majority of that balance. 

Mr. DRIEHAUS. Do you know how much—and I’m with you there, 

and I don’t think any of us are talking— 

Ms. COUCH. Forty percent. 

Mr. DRIEHAUS. —about people with disabilities or who fall into 

those situations. 

Ms. COUCH. Right. 

Mr. FISCHER. In the voucher program. It is closer to 30 percent 

in public housing. 

In project-based Section 8, it is much higher, but it varies. But 

it is a substantial—when you look at people who are on for longer 

lengths of time, a lot of those people are elderly or people with disabilities. 

Mr. HOUGHTON. I would say that also a large number of them 

are children who are getting educations and growing up in a stable 

environment. 

The one thing that I think it’s important to talk about with Section 8 is that, while it may be framed as dependency, it does not 

disincentivize work. 

You pay 30 percent of your income, and the fact is, many, many 

people are working who receive Section 8. I don’t know if you have 

statistics, but I know that, within our residences, people who are 

25 

struggling with disabilities, we have 25 to 40 percent of them are 

getting jobs of some kind. 

The fact is, though, that it’s very difficult for them to live completely independently with the levels of income that they’re earning. 

And we get into a problem of markets. The job market has depressed wages and the housing market has made it very difficult 

to build enough housing where it’s needed. 

When you try to build—I spend most of my time talking about 

developing housing and representing nonprofit developers. When 

you try to site buildings in an urban area, it takes years to get all 

the approvals and zoning regulations and everything like that. 

And because of those pressures, housing has gotten much more 

expensive, and at the same time, globalization and other pressures 

have lowered wages, and so we have a very big gap that we’re trying to fill. Section 8, I think, is one of the best, most efficient targeting of trying to address that gap. 

Mr. FISCHER. I think the other point to remember, or another 

thing to be aware of in looking at these length of stay numbers is 

that they vary enormously from one part of the country to another, 

and in places like New York City, it tends to be much longer, because you can be a person who is working and climbing the ladder 

in New York City for a long time before you can afford an apartment, or in a place like San Francisco, whereas in places with 

lower housing costs, the costs tend to be lower. 

And as we heard, the majority of people who are not elderly or 

not disabled in the voucher program do work. They do have some 

kind of employment. 

But I think what needs to be done is we need to look at things 

to build their assets, build their—give them incentives to work 

more. 

And I mentioned this before, but I think it’s important, this family self-sufficiency program within the housing assistance programs 

is one of the largest asset development programs out there. 

It’s a major work incentive, and it just has been underused so far 

because it hasn’t had the resources, it hasn’t had the funding, and 

SEVRA would make enormous progress in changing that. 

Chairwoman WATERS. Thank you very much. 

Mr. Clay? 

Mr. CLAY. Thank you so much for holding the hearing, and thank 

you all for being here. 

Let me kind of follow up on Mr. Driehaus’ line of questioning, 

and what you just mentioned, Mr. Fischer, about employment assistance, Section 3, and just what we should do, or should that be 

part of this restructuring or new law that would allow people who 

live in economically-socially disadvantaged communities in Section 

8 housing to seek and capture gainful employment, especially when 

we do these projects in these communities. 

Just panel-wide, give me your impression of what you think 

could make Section 3 more effective and how we could actually connect the people who live in these communities with meaningful employment opportunities. 

I represent Missouri, and we have two different strategies going 

now between Kansas City and St. Louis, and the whole Section 3 

26 

issue. Kansas City seems to do it a little better than St. Louis 

when it comes to employment opportunity. 

So can I start with you, Ms. Couch, and get your impression of 

how we can improve a program like Section 3, so that it actually 

provides meaningful employment opportunities to people? 

Ms. COUCH. Sure. The Section 3 Program could be a very important way to help residents increase their earned income. 

I would say off the cuff that the new HUD could do a better job 

in clarifying and making very clear to housing agencies what the 

rules are with Section 3, to make sure that everyone is on the same 

page with educating resident advisory boards and tenant councils 

about what they should be expecting as far as Section 3 notices and 

what the work opportunities are. 

You know, the Nation, I think, was very grateful for the stimulus 

money for public housing that’s pushing a lot of new capital funds 

down to the local level, and that $4 billion in new public housing 

capital funds I think is a great place to test new mechanisms to 

make sure that housing agencies are implementing Section 3, and 

that Section 8, or that public housing tenants and low-income people get some of those jobs. 

Mr. CLAY. Thank you for that response. 

Mr. Fischer, anything? 

Mr. FISCHER. Just on the issue of voucher holders and Section 3, 

Ms. Velazquez has a bill that would do that, would expand the Section 3 preferences to cover voucher holders. That improves the ability of voucher holders to benefit from jobs under Section 3, so that’s 

sort of something that’s going forward and that there could be 

progress on. 

Mr. CLAY. And where do you think the disconnect is as far as 

having an effective program and having something written on a 

piece of paper and saying it’s law but not really implementing it? 

Where is the disconnect? 

Mr. FISCHER. Well, I think there has to be HUD enforcement, 

HUD monitoring of it, in order to make sure that people really are 

getting the jobs that they should be getting. 

Mr. CLAY. I see. 

Ms. Roman, anything there? 

Ms. ROMAN. Well, I’m not an expert on Section 3, but I will say 

that people’s need for training is an issue that comes up a lot 

around Section 3. Also, there is a tremendous opportunity moving 

forward with the Administration’s goals around energy and green 

construction, to create a highly trained new workforce. And therefore, there is an opportunity to use Section 3 and train Section 8 

and public housing residents in these new skills. 

Mr. CLAY. Okay. Thank you. 

Ms. Robinson? 

Ms. ROBINSON. I agree with Ms. Roman. There does need to be 

training. But not only for the participants of Section 3, but also for 

the local public housing authorities. 

And then there ought to be some monitoring in effect to make 

sure that the program is being implemented as established. 

Mr. CLAY. Thank you. 

And Mr. Houghton. 

27 

Mr. HOUGHTON. I would echo the connection Section 3 to development. 

The National Housing Trust Fund in addition to the Federal 

stimulus money, the National Housing Trust Fund will also drive 

development of housing and there are a lot of opportunities that 

maybe we can try to focus, that we try to get jobs to people like 

that. 

In New York right now, we are struggling with an issue of prevailing wages and affordable housing. My members build about 

half their housing with prevailing wage, and we do a very good job 

with that, and then we also do the other half with non-prevailing 

wage. It’s still very good money. It’s better than what our case 

managers get. But the fact is that it’s—and the end result is the 

same. 

But there is talk now, there are two bills in the State that are 

going to look at making all affordable housing construction prevailing wage. 

One of our concerns is that when we go into a community, one 

of the things we’re able to give in return for their approval of our 

siting our building is that we will hire locally, and in prevailing 

wage, that’s not always possible, because often the unions don’t always hire from the minority neighborhoods that we often— 

Mr. CLAY. Thank you. And I do understand. And thank you for 

that response. 

And before I close out, Madam Chairwoman, I don’t know if Section 3 fits on this legislation, but I’m really interested in it, and 

hopefully we can shed some light and have a discussion about that 

as a committee. 

Chairwoman WATERS. Thank you very much, Mr. Clay. 

I will talk with you and work with you to see what we can do 

to maybe include some more definitive ways by which we can offer 

opportunities for work and be of assistance to the housing authorities. 

Mr. CLAY. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. I yield back. 

Chairwoman WATERS. You’re welcome. Thank you very much. 

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 written questions to these witnesses and to 

place their responses in the record. 

This panel is now dismissed, and I would like to welcome our 

second panel. Thank you very much. 

Ladies and gentlemen, I get to introduce our first witness. Mr. 

Rudy Montiel happens to be the executive director for the Housing 

Authority of my City, the City of Los Angeles. 

Since his appointment as executive director, at the end of 2004, 

Mr. Montiel’s leadership has been instrumental in the financial 

turnaround of the Housing Authority of the City of Los Angeles. 

Under his guidance, the housing authority has turned a $25 million operating loss at the end of 2004 into net operating income in 

2005. 

Prior to coming to Los Angeles, he successfully led the Housing 

Authority of the City of El Paso for 3 years. 

28 

His strong private sector experience includes engagements with 

Fortune 500 companies such as General Motors, Delphi, and the IT 

Group Shaw Companies. 

He is a licensed professional engineer in Texas and sits on the 

boards of the Housing Authority Insurance Group, the Public Housing Authority Directors Association, the Council Of Large Public 

Housing Authorities, and the Hispanic Engineers National Achievement Awards Corporation. 

I thank you for joining us today. Welcome, Mr. Montiel. 

Mr. MONTIEL. Good morning. 

Chairwoman WATERS. Our second witness will be Mr. Tony 

Bazzie, executive director of the Raleigh County Housing Authority, which I will turn to my ranking member, Ms. Capito, for an 

introduction. 

Mrs. CAPITO. Thank you. I am very pleased that Mr. Bazzie is 

joining us here today. 

As I mentioned in my opening statement, he has been in this 

field for 29 years, and I can personally attest that he is a forceful 

advocate, as I see him and many others in the group that he comes 

with every year to tell their story and to make improvements and 

to serve as many people as possible with good quality housing. 

So thank you, Tony, for joining us, and I appreciate and look forward to your comments. Thank you. 

Chairwoman WATERS. Thank you very much. 

Our third witness will be Mr. Curt Hiebert, president of the Public Housing Authorities Directors Association. 

Our fourth witness will be Ms. Renee Rooker, president of the 

National Association of Housing and Redevelopment Officials. 

Our fifth witness will be Ms. Sunia Zaterman, executive director, 

Council of Large Public Housing Authorities. 

And our sixth witness will be Ms. Karen Newsome, vice president, WinnResidential, on behalf of the National Affordable Housing Management Association. 

Without objection, your written statements will be made a part 

of the record. You will now be recognized for a 5-minute of your 

testimony. 

Mr. Montiel. 

STATEMENT OF RUDOLF C. MONTIEL, P.E., PRESIDENT AND 

CEO, THE HOUSING AUTHORITY OF THE CITY OF LOS ANGELES 

Mr. MONTIEL. Good morning, Chairwoman Waters, and Ranking 

Member Capito. My name is Rudolph Montiel, and I come to you 

from Los Angeles, the Nation’s second-largest city and the city with 

the largest homeless population on any given night in this country. 

In 2004, L.A. was near receivership and close to bankruptcy. 

Today, we are HUD-certified high-performance Section 8. We have 

over 50,000 units, 100 percent leased up, and this year we’ll complete expending all of our net restricted assets. We are running the 

program the way the program should be run. 

Over the last 3 to 4 years, we have experienced significant innovation and development utilizing Section 8 funds. 

29 

We have instituted a permanent supportive housing program in 

Los Angeles that has created over 700 units in close partnership 

with the City of Los Angeles. 

We have a homeless set-aside that today serves almost 9,100 

families in Los Angeles, families and individuals. 

And most importantly, we are embarking on a redevelopment of 

Jordan Downs in Watts with one-to-one public housing replacement 

for a 2,100 mixed-income unit development that will be the start 

of redevelopment of public housing citywide. 

But there is a price to pay for this success. The price is that 

today we are fully utilized. Today, we cannot serve additional 

homeless families. Today, we cannot serve additional low-income 

working families. And, in order to be able to do more, we need additional resources. 

We need stable funding. We can no longer, as Secretary Donovan 

said in one of his presentations, operate under a binge and purge 

scenario for Section 8 funding. It needs to be predictable. We need 

to know how many families we can serve year-to-year. 

We need to reallocate resources in this country. If there are areas 

of the country that are not using the resources, and yet there are 

areas of the country that have desperate need, then we should be 

able to reallocate those resources nationally. In Los Angeles, when 

we open our wait list next year, we expect fully 300,000 households 

to apply for Section 8 assistance. 

And we need to provide flexibility when it comes to converting 

tenant-based vouchers to project-based vouchers, especially in redevelopment of public housing or in development of permanent supportive housing or other affordable units. 

I think it is widely accepted now that the project-based voucher 

represents a hard unit. 

We are also in support of MTW, and I prefer the name housing 

innovations program, HIP, when it comes to redevelopment and 

creation of new hard units, with a focus on that, and not necessarily a focus on somehow disenfranchising tenant protections. 

We believe that we should focus on incentives to Moving To Work, 

and not so much exclusions or requirements. 

That is my testimony, and I again applaud your leadership for 

bringing this very important hearing forth, and this very good piece 

of legislation. Thank you. 

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

102 of the appendix.] 

Chairwoman WATERS. Thank you very much. 

Our next witness is Mr. Curt Hiebert. 

STATEMENT OF P. CURTIS HIEBERT, PRESIDENT, THE PUBLIC 

HOUSING AUTHORITIES DIRECTORS ASSOCIATION 

Mr. HIEBERT. Thank you, Chairwoman Waters, Ranking Member 

Capito, and subcommittee members. 

My name is Curt Hiebert and I am president of the Public Housing Authority Directors Association, which, as another acronym, I’ll 

refer to as PHADA in the interest of time, as we go on. 

Our Association was founded in 1979 and represents over 1,900 

housing authority chief administrative officers. A significant proVerDate Nov 24 2008 16:13 Oct 22, 2009 Jkt 052396 PO 00000 Frm 00035 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 K:\DOCS\52396.TXT TERRIE
30 

portion of PHADA members administer small or medium-sized 

agencies that operate a mixture of assisted housing programs. 

Some operate public housing, some the housing choice voucher 

program, many operate both programs, and a number of members 

operate assisted, financed with HOME, CDBG, low-income housing 

tax credits, Department of Agriculture, and other non-Federal support. 

We’re very grateful that you’re investing the committee’s resources to address this assisted housing reform initiative. Many 

provisions contained in the draft bill are attractive to PHADA and 

its members. 

Some may reduce administrative requirements for program sponsors, or program intrusiveness into participants’ personal affairs, 

such as reducing the frequency of housing choice vouchers subsidized unit inspections, reducing the frequency of some household 

income recertifications, and other things. 

However, other provisions may have some significant cost or revenue implications for housing authorities and some may introduce 

new, more complex administrative requirements, such as new asset 

eligibility standards may require new inquiries into real estate 

ownership and its availability to applicants and participants. 

Of particular concern to us are provisions that may diminish potential rent revenue in public housing when the Congress faces significant budget challenges, which they shall. 

The public housing program lacks cost-reducing mechanisms that 

are available in various Section 8 Program components. 

The bill, however, permanently restores the housing choice 

voucher funding allocation protocol based on units in use and actual cost. 

The bill also establishes an administrative fee that is based on 

vouchers in use. 

Such funding mechanisms are critical to the program’s stability, 

permit sponsors to build HCV utilization, and provide ways for program sponsors to accommodate local market variability. 

In the interest of full disclosure, Madam Chairwoman, as you 

could probably tell from the horns I wear, and I am carrying a 

pitchfork, the Keene Housing Authority is an MTW agency, and 

has been since 1999. 

While I applaud the intentions of the concerns about MTW, I do 

have a couple comments about that portion of the bill. 

Unlike the previously passed version of SEVRA, the proposed bill 

does not yet include provisions concerning the housing innovation 

program, HIP, or other permanent authorization for Moving To 

Work. 

We believe the committee should include HIP or another MTW 

authorization provision as it considers a revised SEVRA bill. 

We urge the committee to include provisions that: make the 

MTW demonstration permanent; moderately expand the MTW program; assure a robust evaluation process focused on the effects of 

local flexibility on program participants and applicants; offer reasonable protections for applicants, tenants, and participants; and 

continue existing MTW agencies’ participation. 

31 

I agree with the sentiments of the previous panel, in that tenant 

protections are vital, and the effects on our tenants are vital, as 

well, and as a matter of fact, I don’t think they go far enough. 

I think it is wrong to just insist on protecting our tenants. They 

are not our children, and also, MTW is not just an experiment. 

I can speak from personal experience. What we were doing was 

working with our community, working with our residents, working 

with the people on our waiting list, to find problems that were exigent in Keene, New Hampshire. 

It’s wonderful if we develop a program that may work in Detroit 

or Kansas City or wherever, but the circumstances are entirely different there. 

The flexibility to allow dealing with local conditions, demographics, employment circumstances, opportunities for training, 

education, and everything else is vital for housing authorities. It 

would be a mistake to make a ‘‘one-size-fits-all’’ program again. I 

urge the continuation of the MTW Program. 

I do know that we have a very transparent process. We go 

through a long process every year of saying what we’re going to be 

doing the following year. 

There are public hearings. There are opportunities for our stakeholders to be part of that entire process. 

And at the end of every year, we report back to our community, 

not only to HUD, but to our community, to our residents, to our 

participants, to our waiting list. Okay, what happened with last 

year’s program? Did it work? Did it not? 

In our case, we have actually increased the utilization of Section 

8. We now range between 105 and 110 percent utilization. We 

house more people than we would under the normal program. 

Other MTW programs have used vouchers to support homeless 

participants’ transition to permanent housing in ways that aren’t 

permitted presently; have implemented homeownership initiatives 

that enhance Section 8 ownership; and encourage landlord participation in increased housing choice. 

PHADA has participated in the development of the HIP provision 

in the previous version of SEVRA passed by the House during the 

last Congress, and we strongly urge the committee to include a 

similar section in the version of SEVRA under consideration. 

SEVRA is a complex statute with many provisions that will have 

unanticipated and anticipated outcomes. The bill includes many 

provisions that PHADA has supported and it includes some provisions that PHADA has opposed. 

On balance, we believe that this bill represents a very positive 

step for the Section 8 Program and for public housing. 

However, we are concerned that the bill lacks authorization and 

modest expansion of the MTW demonstration. 

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

of the appendix.] 

Chairwoman WATERS. Thank you very much. 

Mr. HIEBERT. Thank you. 

Chairwoman WATERS. Now, Mr. Bazzie. 

32 

STATEMENT OF TONY BAZZIE, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, 

RALEIGH COUNTY HOUSING AUTHORITY 

Mr. BAZZIE. Thank you, Chairwoman Waters, Ranking Member 

Capito, and members of the subcommittee. 

My name is Tony Bazzie, and I have been the executive director 

of the Raleigh County Housing Authority in Beckley, West Virginia, for the past 29 years. 

My agency assists nearly 1,300 families in a 6-county area of our 

State. Due to the time constraints in addressing you today, I certainly cannot touch upon a number of the topics included in the 

draft legislation, so I would encourage you to read the lengthier 

written testimony that has been submitted to you. 

I do thank the members of the subcommittee for all the work 

that has been done thus far in the draft legislation, as it seeks to 

bring about changes that will make the housing choice voucher program more inviting to landlords, ease the administrative burden on 

housing authorities, and better assist low-income families in their 

quest for decent, safe, and affordable housing. 

For the most part, housing authorities in West Virginia are small 

and medium-sized, but yet all are hopeful for the changes that will 

ensure the continued viability of the voucher program which assists 

families in every county in my State. 

I and others in West Virginia support many of the proposed 

changes, including one that will allow HUD-funded rental assistance to begin from the date of the initial inspection, so long as 

there are no life-threatening HQS violations. 

One agency in West Virginia, the Charleston-Kanawha Housing 

Authority, which is in your district, Ranking Member Capito, has 

determined that, on average, 18 days elapse between the initial 

failing inspection and a date that the unit does meet HQS. Removing this obstacle, as this bill would, will provide an incentive for 

more landlords to participate in the program, in addition to getting 

families into units much sooner. 

Likewise, I support the biennial inspection option as a change 

that would be cost-efficient for many housing authorities. 

In West Virginia, a number of agencies administer the program 

in multiple counties. My agency administers the voucher program 

in 6 counties, with more than 3,350 square miles, a geographic 

area larger than the States of Rhode Island and Delaware combined. 

The annual inspection process is a major program expense, ranging from staff salaries to vehicle maintenance to postage for mailing notification of inspection results. 

While I do support the goal of trying to keep low-income families 

from having to relocate as much as possible due to HQS violations, 

I do not favor the provision in this bill whereby a housing authority 

can use the abated HAP funds to make or cause to be made repairs 

to a landlord’s unit. 

My agency and many others in West Virginia are ill-equipped to 

administer such a provision, and in my opinion, this would have 

the negative consequence of keeping landlords from participating in 

the voucher program, as they would view this as an intrusion into 

their private property. 

33 

The rent reform and simplified reporting provisions in SEVRA 

are a welcome change that will encourage work on the part of assisted households and relieve housing authority staff of many 

verification and processing tasks. 

For example, in 2008, again, the Charleston-Kanawha Housing 

Authority conducted approximately 1,200 interim reviews in addition to over 2,400 annual re-exams. Undoubtedly, many of these interim adjustments would be eliminated through the provisions that 

would no longer require examinations for increases in earned income. 

Also, the provision that allows for 3-year recertifications for 

fixed-income households will provide much relief. 

In recent years, the uncertainty of the renewal funding process 

has made the management and operation of the voucher program 

a difficult challenge. The goal of any housing authority is to maximize its leasing to the baseline. 

Unfortunately, with constant formula changes and delays in the 

annual budget process, many agencies have been hesitant to issue 

vouchers. 

In closing, Madam Chairwoman, and Ranking Member Capito, 

let me thank you again for your work. 

However, I would caution that a number of the proposed changes 

in this bill, such as increased deductions for earned income, elderly 

and disabled, and child care, and applying HAP dollars towards relocation, while they certainly will provide a benefit to the families 

we serve, they will increase the overall HAP costs and, as I’m sure 

you know, I know Ms. Capito knows, there already exists a serious 

situation being encountered by housing authorities in that net restricted assets, which can be used to cover increasing and unfunded 

HAP costs, are dwindling. 

For example, my agency will be losing at least 26 families per 

month for the next 6 months this year, just due to inadequate 

funding in HAPs by the Federal Government. 

Overall, I’m very confident that the proposed changes to the program will make it more attractive to private property owners and 

increase the available housing stock. 

Reducing the reporting burdens and providing incentives for 

work will make the program more accommodating to low-income 

families. 

I also trust the provisions related to administrative simplification 

will produce more customer-oriented agencies throughout the State. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Bazzie can be found on page 50 

of the appendix.] 

Chairwoman WATERS. Thank you very much. 

Ms. Renee Rooker, president, National Association of Housing 

and Redevelopment Officials. 

STATEMENT OF RENEE ROOKER, PRESIDENT, NATIONAL 

ASSOCIATION OF HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT OFFICIALS 

Ms. ROOKER. Chairwoman Waters, Ranking Member Capito, and 

members of the subcommittee, my name is Renee Rooker. I am the 

executive director of the Walla Walla, Washington, Housing Authority. I’m pleased to be here today in my capacity as president 

of the National Association of Housing and Redevelopment OffiVerDate Nov 24 2008 16:13 Oct 22, 2009 Jkt 052396 PO 00000 Frm 00039 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 K:\DOCS\52396.TXT TERRIE
34 

cials, representing the Association’s 23,000 agency and individual 

members. 

NAHRO is the Nation’s oldest and largest nonprofit organization 

representing public housing authorities and redevelopment agencies. 

This year, we are celebrating our 75th anniversary. NAHRO 

agency members administer more than 80 percent of the vouchers 

under the Section 8 housing choice voucher program. 

The need to advance voucher reform legislation in this Congress 

is unquestionable. We applaud you for holding this hearing today 

to move this process forward. 

Madam Chairwoman, there is much about SEVRA, as it has matured to date, that is extremely positive, including a sound distributional funding formula, the ability to retain and use unobligated fund balances, authorization to undertake maximized leasing 

with funds available, a reallocation provision to provide, among 

other things, funding to housing authorities with high budget utilization rates and a need for additional voucher assistance to increase leasing rates, and housing quality standard inspection reforms. 

My written testimony goes into greater detail on these and other 

SEVRA reforms that we like and can support. 

I would like to highlight this morning our more significant comments on the current discussion draft of the legislation. 

First, regarding the inspection of dwelling units, there is much 

in the draft that we support. 

I agree with my colleague, Mr. Bazzie, that it would be a hindrance to the program to have housing authorities do the repairs 

on owner units, and it would disincentivize landlords from participating in the program. 

With regard to income reviews and rent determinations, NAHRO 

recognizes that efforts to address rent simplicity are difficult. We 

applaud the effort in the discussion draft to simplify some administrative elements in the rent and income calculation process. 

We do have some concerns, and we suggest that the Secretary be 

given the discretionary authority to address increases in rent for elderly or disabled families and for families with dependent children 

whose rent has increased due to changes in the allowable exclusions for medical or disability expenses, or child care expenses enacted in this Act. I refer you to my written testimony for further 

recommendations. 

We appreciate that the draft bill demonstrates an understanding 

that the rent and income provisions in SEVRA may have an unintended and negative impact on housing authorities’ rent revenue 

and public housing program. 

In this regard, we suggest that language be included in the bill 

to compensate housing authorities, through increased operating 

funds, the same year that they go into effect and thereafter. Improvements to the portability feature of the voucher program 

through regulation are welcome. 

We support the provision on portability that provides tenant mobility, reduces or eliminates interagency billing, and gives the ability for local agencies to address their wait list. 

35 

NAHRO has consistently recommended that the Secretary administer funding for portability adjustments, primarily through a 

central fund. 

NAHRO continues to recommend that funding structured to support the administrative functions necessary to help families succeed and to enforce housing quality standards should be stabilized 

by the Congress, and not left open to change by the executive 

branch. 

Additionally, we suggest modifying the Housing Act to provide 

affirmatively that the same administrative fees shall be paid with 

respect to housing authority-owned units assisted by the program, 

as is paid to non-owned units. 

Currently, housing authority-owned and operated units receive 

60 percent less in administrative fees than vouchers leased in the 

private sector. 

However, because housing authorities must contract out for inspections of their units and for the rent reasonableness determination, the case can be made that fees for housing authority units exceeds non-owned units. 

In closing, we understand the subcommittee is considering the 

possible inclusion of language regarding the housing innovation 

program in the version of SEVRA you intend to move forward in 

this Congress. 

NAHRO has long advocated for greater program flexibility that 

brings innovation and expanded the Moving To Work demonstration, and urges you to include provisions previously contained in 

H.R. 1851. 

This concludes my testimony, and NAHRO looks forward to continuing to work with you and other members for the passage of this 

important bill, and I would be happy to answer any questions that 

you or the members have. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Rooker can be found on page 120 

of the appendix.] 

Chairwoman WATERS. Thank you very much. 

The committee will stand in recess. We have about 5 minutes to 

get to the Floor. We have a series of votes which are going to take 

us about half-an-hour. I would suggest you stretch your legs. We 

will be back as quickly as possible. 

[recess] 

Chairwoman WATERS. The committee will come to order, and we 

will resume our testimony from our witnesses. My page has been 

turned, and I think we were—Ms. Zaterman. Okay. 

STATEMENT OF SUNIA ZATERMAN, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, 

COUNCIL OF LARGE PUBLIC HOUSING AUTHORITIES (CLPHA) 

Ms. ZATERMAN. Chairwoman Waters, Ranking Member Capito, 

and members of the subcommittee, my name is Sunia Zaterman, 

and I am the executive director of the Council of Large Public 

Housing Authorities, comprised of nearly 60 of the largest public 

housing authorities in the country, in virtually every major metropolitan area. These agencies serve over 1 million households under 

the public housing and Section 8 programs. 

36 

We thank the subcommittee for holding this hearing, and the opportunity to present CLPHA’s views on the Section 8 Voucher Reform Act. 

In some respects, this hearing today has a deja vu quality to it. 

As you well remember, this committee worked hard on the passage 

of H.R. 1861, the 2007 version of SEVRA, and CLPHA applauds 

the subcommittee for once again continuing with efforts to reform 

and improve this much-needed program. 

We are pleased that this bill will stabilize the funding of voucher 

renewals. With a permanent statutory formula, PHAs will be able 

to plan for the future, taking steps to increase utilization, reduce 

costs, eliminate inefficiencies, and improve service delivery. 

An adequate and stable reserve is the bedrock of any well-run 

enterprise. While we would prefer a higher level of allowable reserves, for example, at least 1 month of funding, we appreciate that 

the bill allows agencies to retain not less than 5 percent of their 

allocation, allowing the Secretary to determine when a higher 

amount is needed. 

This provision could be especially helpful when renewal funds 

must be pro-rated and agencies need more reserves to maintain 

their program. 

CLPHA recommends that reserve amounts be based on formula 

eligibility rather than funding allocations, so that agencies do not 

have to wait for HUD to determine their pro-ration before knowing 

the amount of their allowable reserves, or alternatively, the higher 

of the formula eligibility or funding allocation. 

We applaud the commitment to increase the supply of tenantbased subsidies; 150,000 incremental vouchers annually for the 

next 5 years is sorely needed to move families off waiting lists and 

into decent, affordable housing. 

The provision allowing agencies to lease more vouchers than 

their specific authorized level is one we have sought for years. We 

strongly support removing the authorized caps to allow housing authorities to fully utilize their funding allocation. 

We are very pleased that the bill increases the cap on projectbased vouchers, and al lows PHAs to project base vouchers in their 

own buildings without going through a competitive process. This 

provision eliminates a significant, unnecessary administrative burden. 

Further, we urge greater flexibility in using project-based vouchers to preserve and replace public housing that would not be subject to this cap. 

We appreciate the program simplification measures in SEVRA, 

particularly those allowing biennial inspections and triennial income recertification. 

We commend the committee for taking important first steps in 

rent reform. However, during the first year of implementation of 

SEVRA’s public housing rent reforms, housing authorities may receive substantially less rental income than anticipated by their operating fund formula allocation. We believe that the Secretary 

should be directed to provide funding adjustments in such cases. 

Once again, we are concerned that the bill authorizes agencies to 

take on the role of private landlords and make repairs and pay for 

37 

utilities in units where the actual landlord is neglecting his or her 

duties. 

Though understandably well-intentioned, these provisions will 

open PHAs to many legal, administrative, and liability issues. We 

recommend removing this language from the bill. 

Expansion of Moving To Work is a high priority for us. H.R. 

1861, renamed MTW the housing innovation program and expanded it to 60 PHAs and another 20 PHAs granting funding 

fungibility, in what was called HIP Lite. It also included provisions 

that provided for rigorous program evaluation and strong tenant 

protections. 

While this bill does not yet include the MTW provisions of HIP 

provisions, we are hopeful that it will included the HIP provisions 

from H.R. 1851. 

Adding HIP from the 2000 SEVRA is a well-reasoned approach, 

as these provisions represent policies and principles that were already vetted through a full airing of the issues, and they were 

achieved through the consensus building amendment process at the 

subcommittee, full committee, and House considered levels. 

Under HIP Lite, work requirements and time limits are prohibited and rent reform initiatives are limited. What remains under 

HIP Lite is the funding fungibility, flexibility, and innovation that 

PHAs desperately need to undertake redevelopment and expansion 

activities. We recommend that HIP Lite be expanded. 

We urge you also to consider a preservation proposal that would 

allow the conversion of public housing subsidies to project-based 

voucher assistance under Section 8. 

In addition, we propose linking the award of project-based vouchers for public housing preservation activities with the award of lowincome housing tax credits in order to facilitate greater leveraging 

of resources and public housing. 

In closing, we appreciate the subcommittee’s dedication to reshaping the voucher program through the initiatives included in 

SEVRA. We look forward to continuing to work with you and with 

HUD on refining these proposals for reform and developing additional improvements. 

Thank you again for the opportunity to testify. 

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

136 of the appendix.] 

Chairwoman WATERS. Thank you. 

Ms. Newsome. 

STATEMENT OF KAREN NEWSOME, VICE PRESIDENT, 

WINNRESIDENTIAL, ON BEHALF OF THE NATIONAL AFFORDABLE HOUSING MANAGEMENT ASSOCIATION (NAHMA) 

Ms. NEWSOME. Thank you, Chairwoman Waters, and good afternoon, Ranking Member Capito, and members of this distinguished 

subcommittee. 

My name is Karen Newsome. I’m here on behalf of the National 

Affordable Housing Management Association, NAHMA. I’m also 

the vice president of administration for WinnResidential. 

NAHMA strongly supports the Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher 

Program, and we look forward to working with this subcommittee 

38 

to improve this program, as well as the project-based Section 8 Programs administered by HUD’s Office of Housing. 

My written statement has been submitted for the record, and I 

would like to summarize that testimony by focusing on the positive 

results that can be achieved by creating a more efficient voucher 

inspection process, authorizing a limited English proficiency technical assistance program at HUD, and expanding the project-based 

and enhanced voucher programs. 

I would also like to express NAHMA’s strong support for authorizing a stable voucher renewal funding formula and providing 

150,000 new incremental vouchers for each of Fiscal Years 2010 

through 2014. 

And finally, I would like to thank Chairwoman Waters and the 

subcommittee for the strong leadership you provided in stabilizing 

the project-based Section 8 funding. 

SEVRA proposes common-sense reforms to the inspection requirements that will help expedite the lease-up process for voucher 

holders. 

NAHMA strongly supports provisions in SEVRA which will permit housing authorities to approve lease-ups in properties which 

pass inspections under a program with standards at least as stringent as HQS, such as the home or tax credit program, to provide 

residents with housing sooner and to reduce lost income for owners, 

to allow minor repairs to be made after the tenant moves into the 

apartment, and to give public housing agencies the discretion to inspect units occupied by voucher holders every other year, rather 

than annually, for the term of the HAP contract. 

The streamlined inspection process proposed in SEVRA would remove a major obstacle for voucher holders in tight rental markets. 

NAHMA strongly supports Section 17 of the SEVRA draft, which 

allows HUD to better serve persons with limited English proficiency, LEP, by providing technical assistance to recipients of 

Federal funds. In the last Congress, this language was included in 

both the House and Senate versions of SEVRA. 

HUD’s LEP guidance became effective on March 7, 2007. The 

guidance states that recipients of HUD funding, including affordable rental housing providers, have an obligation to provide translated documents and oral interpretation services to persons who 

have difficulty communicating and reading in the English language. 

Originally, HUD provided no additional funding for affordable 

housing providers to offset the costs of providing language services, 

nor did they identify a specific list of documents housing providers 

would be expected to translate. 

In the summer of 2007, a coalition of multi-family housing representatives and civil rights advocates proposed the LEP language 

which is included in language. Our compromise addresses the cost 

and vagueness concerns raised by housing providers, and it will 

provide greater assistance to our residents and applicants with 

LEP. 

NAHMA is especially interested in the provisions which create a 

task force of industry and civil rights stakeholders to identify vital 

documents, require HUD to translate the vital documents within 6 

39 

months, create a HUD-administered 1–800 hotline to assist with 

oral interpretation needs, and authorized appropriations. 

In Fiscal Year 2008 and Fiscal Year 2009, Congress appropriated 

funds for HUD to provide LEP technical assistance and document 

translations. So far, HUD has used this funding to translate the 

four multi-family model leases and other important documents into 

12 languages. 

We appreciate HUD’s progress, but we strongly believe the authorization language is still necessary. 

First, it reaffirms Congress’s commitment to provide consistency 

in the level of service for individuals with LEP, but NAHMA is concerned by HUD’s budget request to consolidate the account. We 

fear eliminating the LEP line item will make it more difficult to 

secure funding for future translations or to update current translations as the documents change. 

Project-based vouchers are an important tool for expanding the 

supply of affordable housing, particularly when used for the tax 

credit program. NAHMA welcomes the new project-based preservation vouchers which will protect residents while ensuring that actual units are preserved as affordable. 

In July 2004, GAO released a report on the options for protecting 

tenants in properties with expiring HUD mortgages, noting that 

mortgages on more than 2,300 subsidized properties will reach maturity through the year 2013. 

In many instances, rents in these developments were kept low by 

subsidizing the mortgage and limiting the rents that could be 

charged, and on several occasions, NAHMA has called on Congress 

to provide enhanced vouchers to tenants whose rent would be 

unaffordable after the HUD mortgage reached maturity when affordability requirements expire. We are pleased that the SEVRA 

draft authorizes enhanced vouchers for low-income and certain 

moderate-income tenants who live in properties with expiring mortgages under the Section 221 and 236 Programs. 

Thank you for allowing NAHMA to comment on the draft SEVRA 

bill, and we look forward to working with you to improve what 

works about the Section 8 Program and to reform the areas that 

need attention. 

Thank you. 

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

106 of the appendix.] 

Chairwoman WATERS. Thank you very much. 

I will now recognize myself for 5 minutes to raise a few questions. 

How many people feel—well, let me ask how the credit reports 

work. If you have a tenant, or a would-be tenant applying, and 

they meet all the criteria except for credit reports, could they be 

denied Section 8 or rentals in public housing? I mean, how does it 

work? 

Mr. MONTIEL. In Los Angeles, they would not be denied that assistance. 

Furthermore, we would go on record, Madam Chairwoman, indicating that we believe that minimum credit scores, especially in a 

redevelopment right to return situation, don’t make sense, in the 

sense that if people have minimum credit scores, or good credit 

40 

scores, they probably would not require our public housing assistance to begin with. 

Chairwoman WATERS. Does anyone feel differently about credit 

scores? 

[no response] 

Chairwoman WATERS. Okay. Mr. Montiel, you talked about a different way of dealing with Moving To Work, and you talked about 

incentives. 

Can you give us some idea of what you were talking about? 

Mr. MONTIEL. Indeed. And we have seen many aspects of that, 

Chairwoman Waters, in our redevelopment efforts in Jordan 

Downs. 

Incentives could be things such as linking people to jobs, for example, skilled trades jobs, to take advantage of massive redevelopment efforts that will take place, but then, to keep those people engaged with unions, so that they can move up, if you will, the income ladder without necessarily leaving their unit. They can go 

from a public housing unit, then it is a workforce housing unit, and 

then it is a market rate unit, then maybe even to homeownership, 

without ever having moved. 

Incentives also become— 

Chairwoman WATERS. Would you pay initially, like union initiation fees? 

Mr. MONTIEL. Initiation fees, it could be things such as helping 

a person who wants to become a carpenter but doesn’t have the 

GED and algebra skills, getting them the assistance, so that they 

are then prepared to enter the job market in the apprenticeship 

program. 

Chairwoman WATERS. And let me just ask, it has been brought 

up several times that perhaps the role of the housing authorities 

should not include, I guess hiring a workforce to do repairs when 

the owners of our Section 8 units are not in compliance, that this 

somehow creates, what, additional responsibility? 

Didn’t we say something about limiting the liability or making 

sure that you would not be held responsible for repairs in some 

way? Does that not satisfy your concerns? Or is it something else 

you would like to tell us about that? 

Yes, Ms. Rooker? 

Ms. ROOKER. Chairwoman Waters, yes, in the bill it does limit 

the liability issues to the housing authority. I’m not clear that it 

even goes far enough. 

But one is, it’s the property that’s owned by the landlord, and in 

the experience in the Walla Walla Housing Authority, landlords are 

not particularly in favor of other people touching their property 

and abating those issues, and they want to take ownership. It’s 

their property. They want to maintain it as they see fit. 

Maybe we could have more discussion of how we can encourage 

them to do that in some rental markets that are very tight, how 

to do that, but it is private ownership that is so important, and it 

is for them to deal with that, and I think there’s other incentives 

we could look at. 

Chairwoman WATERS. Another way of looking at this may be 

that the owner who is in noncompliance could be asked, what contractors, what handymen, what—who do they use, and then we 

41 

could—you could utilize those persons, because they’re familiar 

with the building or the units, etc., and then the owner could be 

billed by the housing authority for that work, or something like 

that? 

Ms. ROOKER. That may entail more legal aspects, so if the owner 

didn’t pay you, and you were already out that money, then you’d 

have to go through a whole collection process. 

But I think there are opportunities to further discuss this in 

more detail, that there could become some resolution so that there 

are more units opening up for families. 

Chairwoman WATERS. Despite the fact that we have a housing 

shortage and we need units, do we have landlords who are constantly in violation, who do not do the repairs, and who may be 

troubled even in another way, that we attempt to do it, that we 

could just exclude from the program? 

Mr. MONTIEL. I think that’s an approach that could possibly 

work, Chairwoman Waters, and keep in mind that many, certainly 

all the large urban areas—New York, Chicago, Los Angeles—have 

very appropriate code enforcement areas, so that’s one way of tying 

it to having landlords meet their obligation for safe, decent, and affordable housing, is many times just meeting the strict code enforcement requirements of the city. 

Ms. ROOKER. And also, for example, in some rural areas, if that 

housing is on the substandard side, landlords can make more 

money renting to non-voucher holders, because they will allow doubling-up in their units, especially with agricultural workers, and 

they’ll charge a rent per head. 

So they don’t want to make the repairs. Unless it’s a court enforcement issue within that particular community, they can just 

make more money. 

Chairwoman WATERS. Lastly, are any of our housing authorities 

dealing with the cities about their codes and code enforcement, so 

as to eliminate your having to even get into all of that? 

Mr. HIEBERT. Yes, Madam Chairwoman. 

It’s an ongoing conversation, in a lot of smaller to medium-sized 

communities, about formulation of codes and how they affect, and 

it really is an ongoing discussion, particularly in areas such as our 

community, which is also a college community, which we have the 

same problem with landlords can very often make more money by 

renting to a number of college kids instead of a family. 

So we’re constantly having conversations, both with groups of 

landlords and with the city inspection group. 

Chairwoman WATERS. All right. Thank you very much. 

Ms. Capito? 

Mrs. CAPITO. Thank you. 

Mr. Bazzie, in your statement, your verbal statement, you mentioned that your PHA is going to be losing 26 families a month. 

Could you expound on that, why that is, and just, I know you gave 

a brief explanation, but I would like a fuller explanation for that. 

And do you think that’s a trend nationwide? 

Mr. BAZZIE. I know that it is definitely a trend in West Virginia, 

and I would expect that it’s a national problem. 

42 

The funding that our housing authority received this year, based 

on past numbers, has just not been adequate to cover our increasing costs to house a family. 

As a result, we’re using what’s called net restricted assets, or 

money that had been in reserve for some time, to cover those costs, 

and in my county, in my county housing authority, our HAP costs 

are exceeding our funding by about $100,000 a month now. 

So we’re able to use that net restricted asset to cover those costs. 

However, come next month, that money is gone, and if we continue 

to lease at our current leasing rate, by the end of the year, we’ll 

have a large 70-some thousand dollar deficit. 

So to not have that deficit, where we have no money in the bank 

to pay landlords, we’re going to have to start decreasing the number of families who are receiving assistance by at least 28 per 

month, which comes out to about 150-some at the end of the year, 

just to have enough HUD HAP money to pay landlords. 

Mrs. CAPITO. How are you going to pick which 28 are the ones 

that don’t— 

Mr. BAZZIE. That’s going to be the difficult question towards the 

end of this year. We do have a certain amount of attrition each 

month— 

Mrs. CAPITO. Right. 

Mr. BAZZIE. —maybe 20, 25, sometimes more, sometimes less, so 

come November or December, I don’t know what we’re going to do 

to—are we going to have to decide who on our program must come 

off? And that’s a conference call I have scheduled with HUD Baltimore come next week. 

Mrs. CAPITO. What kind of notification do you have to give of the 

non-renewal? Is it 30 days or 60 days? Thirty? 

Mr. BAZZIE. The notification for— 

Mrs. CAPITO. Non-renewal of your voucher. 

Mr. BAZZIE. You know, because this has never been a problem 

before, I’m not sure, but I would think that it is probably a 30-day 

notice, but we would definitely want to give a family as much possible notice as we can. 

Mrs. CAPITO. Right. 

Mr. BAZZIE. Because the rent from then on is up to them. 

Mrs. CAPITO. You also mention in your written testimony some 

issues concerning the utility allowances in rural areas. Has that 

been a problem for you? 

Mr. BAZZIE. It is somewhat of a problem. The requirement is that 

each year, housing authorities update their utility allowances so 

that the family is not paying more than 30 percent of their income 

towards rent and utilities. 

So for every— 

Mrs. CAPITO. So utilities are included in that, right? 

Mr. BAZZIE. Yes. 

Mrs. CAPITO. Okay. 

Mr. BAZZIE. So for every dwelling unit that is rented, we’ll make 

an individual determination of an estimated utility cost. 

In order to come up with that estimate, we have to contact every 

utility company within our jurisdiction, and in a 6-county area, 

that’s hundreds, when you include all of the water and sewer public service— 

43 

Mrs. CAPITO. Right. 

Mr. BAZZIE. —districts, gas. 

HUD is already determining estimated utility costs for every fair 

market area. They have to, in order to come up with this fair market— 

Mrs. CAPITO. Right. 

Mr. BAZZIE. So my suggestion in the written was that this may 

be one area that SEVRA will explore, because it’s not in there now, 

is to allow housing authorities to use this HUD data if they so desire. 

Now, a smaller community, it may not be a problem. In West 

Virginia, the average housing authority is covering three counties. 

So it is very staff-intensive and time-consuming when the information is already there. 

Mrs. CAPITO. Okay. I would like to ask whoever wants to answer 

this question, are any of your housing authorities or the folks that 

you interact with daily, are you all receiving any money from the 

stimulus package? 

Could you just briefly tell me how much and what you’re using 

it for, just really quick, because I don’t have much time. 

Mr. MONTIEL. $25 million in Los Angeles for rehab of vacant 

units and for public safety cameras in public housing developments. 

Mr. BAZZIE. In Raleigh County, approximately $100,000, 

$120,000 we’re going to receive, really just to make additional repairs to our public housing units. 

Mr. HIEBERT. I’m extremely envious of the $25 million figure. We 

got $400,000, which is used for roofs and siding that we hadn’t 

been able to do in the last 20 years. 

Ms. ROOKER. And in Walla Walla, we’re getting $245,000, we’ll 

deal with energy upgrades. 

Ms. ZATERMAN. Every one of our members is using their stimulus 

money, a lot of the money focused on upgrades that have been in 

their 5-year plans for more than 5 years. 

Many housing authorities are using it to fill a credit gap on deals 

that were stalled or the value of the tax credit dropping, so they 

can move forward with expanding the supply of affordable housing. 

And many of them are very focused on green energy efficiencies 

and upgrading properties, not just on reducing energy conservation, 

but looking at the surrounding sites to how they impact climate 

change. 

Ms. NEWSOME. And the $2 billion in project-based Section 8 

funding to fund the gap has helped all of the members of NAHMA. 

Mrs. CAPITO. Thank you. 

Chairwoman WATERS. Thank you. 

Mr. Cleaver? 

Mr. CLEAVER. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. 

I would like to focus on the rent structure. And this probably is 

a question that I should have asked the Secretary when he was 

here on this same subject a couple of weeks ago. 

Where do we get the 30 percent of the adjusted income from? I 

mean, do any of you know? 

Ms. ROOKER. The Brooke Amendment. 

44 

Mr. CLEAVER. Yes, I know. But I mean, where did it come from? 

I mean, what is it based on? How was it designed? Was it just a 

figure that was just pulled out of the air? 

Ms. ROOKER. It was negotiated by Congress, and this is where 

we’re at today. 

Mr. CLEAVER. Well, you’re not suggesting we did that technically 

and that we actually thought deeply about it? 

Ms. ZATERMAN. It began at 25 percent, and it has been raised to 

30 percent, so there has been a second look. We have looked at the 

percentage before, and in terms of the development. 

Mr. CLEAVER. Well, do you believe that—do any of you believe 

that in this legislation, that maybe we ought to look at a flat rate? 

Do any of you have difficulty with a flat rate? 

Mr. HIEBERT. I think that may be something that can be done 

on a case-by-case basis in different areas, depending on their local 

community and their residents and their waiting list. I think that 

ought to be part of the discussion that they have, and that’s why 

we’re recommending the housing innovations program. 

That’s the sort of thing that they can take a look at, rather than 

making one decision here, allowing that local flexibility to be able 

to work it in a particular community or region. 

Ms. ZATERMAN. And Congressman Cleaver, I would like to add 

also that if we look at the current MTW agencies, they submit annual plans every year, and report on what they have accomplished 

each year. 

A number of housing authorities are looking at rent reform policies, not just flat rents, but reducing the percentage of the rent to 

income to 28 or 27 percent, and eliminating deductions. 

I think this is a very strong argument for the housing innovations program, where you continue to have tenant protections and 

a rigorous evaluation, because we need to look at what the impact 

actually is on residents, both in the incentives for work, the 

amount of disposable income available for education expenses and 

transportation, work-related expenses. 

So this is really the time we should be looking at what current 

MTW housing authorities are doing in rent policy, because I think 

we will find some very interesting results, and contrary to early 

testimony, they are required to report on their activities and the 

outcome of their activities. 

But we do currently have data that we can look at, and we 

should expand our experimentation in this area. 

Mr. CLEAVER. So all of you would then support the flexibility to 

modify the rent subsidy? 

I mean, you talked about, Ms. Zaterman, the—you know, someone who has to, you know, ride the bus each day and who has to 

pay for child care, may need a greater level of help, and maybe 30 

percent is too high, compared to someone who works around the 

corner, they walk around the corner, and they can drop their kids 

off at Grandma’s. 

Ms. ZATERMAN. I think the other case is for households who are 

increasing their income, that every additional dollar that they earn 

goes into an increased rent payment. 

The thinking behind flat rents for some housing authorities who 

are interested in this is, it is an incentive for work, in that your 

45 

rent does not go up when your income goes up, and that you can 

budget and plan in terms of your expenses and not be subject to 

rent increases every time your income goes up. 

Mr. CLEAVER. Well, the previous HUD Secretary—well, not the— 

Mr. Jackson had supported the flat rate, which caused me to not 

want to support it, but the—that was not nice—but he pushed that, 

and I just recently started looking more thoroughly and deeply at 

it, and if we can achieve what a flat rate would do by making adjustments, then that certainly ought to be something that we would 

include in the legislation. I’m assuming all of you would agree with 

that. 

Mr. MONTIEL. Yes. 

Mr. BAZZIE. Mr. Montiel? 

Mr. MONTIEL. Yes. 

Mr. BAZZIE. Yes. 

Mr. HIEBERT. Yes, I very strongly agree with that. Also, Congressman, in the original legislation of MTW and also contained in 

the new contracts, is public housing, and our programs have often 

been referred to as a safety net. 

We have to have a safety net within that safety net. Nobody fits 

the entire mold of any program. So we do take into account somebody who has different circumstances and can’t afford whatever innovative program is being tried. So that is contained in every HIP 

or Moving To Work Program. 

Mr. CLEAVER. Ms. Rooker? 

Ms. ROOKER. I would agree, and just on the administrative side, 

it’s just very complicated to deal with rent calculations, and, you 

know, error rates, all the exclusions, and NAHRO has done some 

modeling and studies as to what those exclusions cost and then 

where that percentage goes to be able to react to this bill, and 

hopefully be informative. 

Mr. CLEAVER. Ms. Newsome? 

Ms. NEWSOME. NAHMA would definitely welcome looking into 

how rents are calculated. In our written testimony, we also brought 

up the issue of the fact that many of our residents we pay a check 

to, to live in our communities. 

Mr. CLEAVER. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. I yield back. 

Chairwoman WATERS. Mr. Driehaus? 

Mr. DRIEHAUS. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. 

I would like to pursue a little further the issue of rent, but from 

a different perspective, and that is rent reasonableness. And I’m interested in your perspectives. 

We talked a little bit about HIP and MTR and the flexibility that 

local housing authorities might want or should have with regard to 

those programs, but I also find, certainly in Cincinnati, we have 

seen that there are restrictions placed upon local housing authorities when it comes to rent reasonableness studies. 

And at times, it has caused a reconcentration of pockets of poverty in neighborhoods, because we see certain neighborhoods where 

the rents are so high and landlords are not willing to accept vouchers, that they’re essentially closed off. 

And so where that rental reimbursement is rather significant relative to the market rate, and where the greatest profit margin exists, we see landlords flocking into those neighborhoods, especially 

46 

to purchase very affordable single-family homes, and then, you 

know, an introduction of significant numbers of vouchers into those 

neighborhoods, thereby reconcentrating pockets of poverty. 

You know, the idea initially of the voucher program was to 

deconcentrate poverty, not to reconcentrate it. And I’m interested 

in your perspectives in terms of the flexibility given to local housing authorities when it comes to rent reasonableness and whether 

or not you are limited in your ability to achieve the objective of decentralizing poverty. 

Mr. Hiebert, maybe you could offer some perspective? 

Mr. HIEBERT. Yes. The original intent was very good, to make 

sure that program participants weren’t overpaying for housing. 

Our program in Keene exactly went through that thought process 

you were just talking about. It makes allowance for somebody to 

make a choice, if they would like to live closer to their school, 

where they’re working, closer to public transportation. For instance, if they did that, maybe they wouldn’t have to have a car, 

wouldn’t have to pay for parking, wouldn’t need insurance. 

And even the housing industry, in looking at the magic 30 percent figure, and looking at, for instance, if somebody is qualified for 

a mortgage, goes beyond that, and looks at what other debts do 

they have, do they have a car payment, do they have insurance, 

and that sort of thing. 

If somebody would like to pay a little bit more to get closer to 

their school or work of whatever, or a nicer neighborhood, they 

should be able to have that choice. That’s what it’s all about. 

So yes, I would certainly like to see that added flexibility, which 

is not actually contained in the Section 8 Program now, but is during, again, in my mantra, in the Moving To Work Program. 

Mr. DRIEHAUS. Mr. Montiel? 

Mr. MONTIEL. Yes. I think your comments are very well taken, 

and whether definitely would benefit from the flexibility, as would 

the clients that we serve. 

In Los Angeles, we have our council district of 15 in the city that 

has 25 percent of our 50,000 vouchers, Councilman Parks. 

And whereas, I’m not one to advocate that everyone should live 

in Brentwood, that would be great, but that’s really not what the 

program is designed for, it’s obvious that, as you get into better 

neighborhoods, you have a double bottom, or triple bottom line, 

more jobs, better transportation, and better schools. 

So anything that we can do to help the families get into situations where they can become more self-sufficient quicker, I think 

is a good thing, and that flexibility would certainly be welcome. 

Mr. DRIEHAUS. Do you feel that there are restrictions right now 

placed upon you in terms of your ability to adjust reimbursement 

rates in given neighborhoods? 

Mr. MONTIEL. Absolutely. We have a maximum of 100 percent 

that we can provide of the FMR for any particular neighborhood in 

Los Angeles, and to go past 110 percent, you have to get HUD approval. 

I’ll give you an example. Right next door in Santa Monica, they 

have gotten a HUD waiver because their minimum is 147 percent 

of the FMR, just because of the markets. 

So yes, right now, we have a cap of 110 without approval. 

47 

Mr. DRIEHAUS. Ms. Rooker? 

Ms. ROOKER. One item that may be of assistance is that HUD 

bases the fair market rent at 40 percent of the percentile within 

your market. Some markets have been raised to the 50th. And it 

used to be at the 50th. 

And raising the amount of rental stock available within your fair 

market rent and your payment standard, whether it goes to 110, 

opens up what I think you’re trying to achieve, is deconcentration, 

so the more rental units. 

But that has a cost to the program, and that’s why HUD decreased the fair market percentile to the 40th versus keeping it at 

the 50th, which provides more rental options within your community, and then you get deconcentration. 

Mr. DRIEHAUS. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. I yield back the 

balance of my time. 

Chairwoman WATERS. 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 written questions to 

these witnesses and to place their responses in the record. 

Now, this panel is dismissed, but before we adjourn, the written 

statements of the following organizations will be made part of the 

record of this hearing: The National Leased Housing Association; 

the Poverty and Race Research Action Council; and the California 

Housing Partnership. 

I would like to thank our witnesses for being here today, for their 

patience while we had to go to vote. We appreciate the work that 

you are doing. 

And this hearing is now adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 1:08 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.] 

(49) 

A P P E N D I X 

June 4, 2009 

50 


52396.001
51 


52396.002
52 


52396.003
53 


52396.004
54 


52396.005
55 


52396.006
56 


52396.007
57 


52396.008
58 


52396.009
59 


52396.010
60 


52396.011
61 


52396.012
62 


52396.013
63 


52396.014
64 


52396.015
65 


52396.016
66 


52396.017
67 


52396.018
68 


52396.019
69 


52396.020
70 


52396.021
71 


52396.022
72 


52396.023
73 


52396.024
74 


52396.025
75 


52396.026
76 


52396.027
77 


52396.028
78 


52396.029
79 


52396.030
80 


52396.031
81 


52396.032
82 


52396.033
83 


52396.034
84 


52396.035
85 


52396.036
86 


52396.037
87 


52396.038
88 


52396.039
89 


52396.040
90 


52396.041
91 


52396.042
92 


52396.043
93 


52396.044
94 


52396.045
95 


52396.046
96 


52396.047
97 


52396.048
98 


52396.049
99 


52396.050
100 


52396.051
101 


52396.052
102 


52396.053
103 


52396.054
104 


52396.055
105 


52396.056
106 


52396.057
107 


52396.058
108 


52396.059
109 


52396.060
110 


52396.061
111 


52396.062
112 


52396.063
113 


52396.064
114 


52396.065
115 


52396.066
116 


52396.067
117 


52396.068
118 


52396.069
119 


52396.070
120 


52396.071
121 


52396.072
122 


52396.073
123 


52396.074
124 


52396.075
125 


52396.076
126 


52396.077
127 


52396.078
128 


52396.079
129 


52396.080
130 


52396.081
131 


52396.082
132 


52396.083
133 


52396.084
134 


52396.085
135 


52396.086
136 


52396.087
137 


52396.088
138 


52396.089
139 


52396.090
140 


52396.091
141 


52396.092
142 


52396.093
143 


52396.094
144 


52396.095
145 


52396.096
146 


52396.097
147 


52396.098
148 


52396.099
149 


52396.100
150 


52396.101
151 


52396.102
152 


52396.103
153 


52396.104
154 


52396.105
155 


52396.106