U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

31–433 PDF WASHINGTON : 2018

HOUSING CHOICE VOUCHER PROGRAM: 

AN OVERSIGHT AND REVIEW OF 

LEGISLATIVE PROPOSALS 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON 

HOUSING AND INSURANCE 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON FINANCIAL SERVICES 

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED FIFTEENTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

APRIL 17, 2018 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Financial Services 

Serial No. 115–87 

( 

mcarroll on FSR431 with DISTILLER

(II) 

HOUSE COMMITTEE ON FINANCIAL SERVICES 

JEB HENSARLING, Texas, Chairman 

PATRICK T. MCHENRY, North Carolina, 

Vice Chairman 

PETER T. KING, New York 

EDWARD R. ROYCE, California 

FRANK D. LUCAS, Oklahoma 

STEVAN PEARCE, New Mexico 

BILL POSEY, Florida 

BLAINE LUETKEMEYER, Missouri 

BILL HUIZENGA, Michigan 

SEAN P. DUFFY, Wisconsin 

STEVE STIVERS, Ohio 

RANDY HULTGREN, Illinois 

DENNIS A. ROSS, Florida 

ROBERT PITTENGER, North Carolina 

ANN WAGNER, Missouri 

ANDY BARR, Kentucky 

KEITH J. ROTHFUS, Pennsylvania 

LUKE MESSER, Indiana 

SCOTT TIPTON, Colorado 

ROGER WILLIAMS, Texas 

BRUCE POLIQUIN, Maine 

MIA LOVE, Utah 

FRENCH HILL, Arkansas 

TOM EMMER, Minnesota 

LEE M. ZELDIN, New York 

DAVID A. TROTT, Michigan 

BARRY LOUDERMILK, Georgia 

ALEXANDER X. MOONEY, West Virginia 

THOMAS MACARTHUR, New Jersey 

WARREN DAVIDSON, Ohio 

TED BUDD, North Carolina 

DAVID KUSTOFF, Tennessee 

CLAUDIA TENNEY, New York 

TREY HOLLINGSWORTH, Indiana 

MAXINE WATERS, California, Ranking 

Member 

CAROLYN B. MALONEY, New York 

NYDIA M. VELA ́ ZQUEZ, New York 

BRAD SHERMAN, California 

GREGORY W. MEEKS, New York 

MICHAEL E. CAPUANO, Massachusetts 

WM. LACY CLAY, Missouri 

STEPHEN F. LYNCH, Massachusetts 

DAVID SCOTT, Georgia 

AL GREEN, Texas 

EMANUEL CLEAVER, Missouri 

GWEN MOORE, Wisconsin 

KEITH ELLISON, Minnesota 

ED PERLMUTTER, Colorado 

JAMES A. HIMES, Connecticut 

BILL FOSTER, Illinois 

DANIEL T. KILDEE, Michigan 

JOHN K. DELANEY, Maryland 

KYRSTEN SINEMA, Arizona 

JOYCE BEATTY, Ohio 

DENNY HECK, Washington 

JUAN VARGAS, California 

JOSH GOTTHEIMER, New Jersey 

VICENTE GONZALEZ, Texas 

CHARLIE CRIST, Florida 

RUBEN KIHUEN, Nevada 

SHANNON MCGAHN, Staff Director 

mcarroll on FSR431 with DISTILLER

(III) 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON HOUSING AND INSURANCE

SEAN P. DUFFY, Wisconsin, Chairman 

DENNIS A. ROSS, Florida, Vice Chairman 

EDWARD R. ROYCE, California 

STEVAN PEARCE, New Mexico 

BILL POSEY, Florida 

BLAINE LUETKEMEYER, Missouri 

STEVE STIVERS, Ohio 

RANDY HULTGREN, Illinois 

KEITH J. ROTHFUS, Pennsylvania 

LEE M. ZELDIN, New York 

DAVID A. TROTT, Michigan 

THOMAS MACARTHUR, New Jersey 

TED BUDD, North Carolina 

EMANUEL CLEAVER, Missouri, Ranking 

Member 

NYDIA M. VELA ́ ZQUEZ, New York 

MICHAEL E. CAPUANO, Massachusetts 

WM. LACY CLAY, Missouri 

BRAD SHERMAN, California 

STEPHEN F. LYNCH, Massachusetts 

JOYCE BEATTY, Ohio 

DANIEL T. KILDEE, Michigan 

JOHN K. DELANEY, Maryland 

RUBEN KIHUEN, Nevada 

mcarroll on FSR431 with DISTILLER

mcarroll on FSR431 with DISTILLER

(V) 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

Hearing held on: 

April 17, 2018 ................................................................................................... 1 

Appendix: 

April 17, 2018 ................................................................................................... 29 

WITNESSES 

TUESDAY, APRIL 17, 2018 

Hammond, Dean, Board Member, Foundation for Affordable Housing in Kentucky ...................................................................................................................... 11 

Kovich, Lynn, Deputy Secretary, Office of Mental Health and Substance 

Abuse Services, Pennsylvania Department of Human Services ....................... 9 

Sard, Barbara, Vice President for Housing Policy, Center for Budget & Policy 

Priorities ............................................................................................................... 5 

White, Ruth, Executive Director, National Center for Housing & Child Welfare ........................................................................................................................ 7 

APPENDIX 

Prepared statements: 

Hammond, Dean ............................................................................................... 30 

Kovich, Lynn ..................................................................................................... 35 

Sard, Barbara ................................................................................................... 41 

White, Ruth ....................................................................................................... 60 

ADDITIONAL MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD

Duffy, Hon. Sean: 

Statement for the record from the National Low Income Housing Coalition ................................................................................................................. 75 

Statement for the record from Lisa Dickson of ACTION Ohio ..................... 82 

Statement for the record from the Council of Large Public Housing Authorities .......................................................................................................... 84 

Statement for the record from the Columbus Metropolitan Housing Authority ............................................................................................................ 88 

Statement for the record from the Corporation for Supportive Housing ..... 89 

Statement for the record from the King County Housing Authority ........... 92 

Statement for the record from the National Association of Housing and 

Redevelopment Officials ............................................................................... 96 

Statement for the record from the National Housing Trust ......................... 98 

Statement for the record from the National Leased Housing Association .. 100 

Beatty, Hon. Joyce: 

Letter for the record from Representatives Beatty and Stivers ................... 102 

mcarroll on FSR431 with DISTILLER

mcarroll on FSR431 with DISTILLER

(1) 

HOUSING CHOICE VOUCHER PROGRAM: 

AN OVERSIGHT AND REVIEW OF 

LEGISLATIVE PROPOSALS 

Tuesday, April 17, 2018 

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON HOUSING

AND INSURANCE

COMMITTEE ON FINANCIAL SERVICES, 

Washington, D.C. 

The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:07 p.m., in room 

2128, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Sean Duffy [chairman 

of the subcommittee] presiding. 

Present: Representatives Duffy, Ross, Pearce, Posey, 

Luetkemeyer, Stivers, Hultgren, Rothfus, Zeldin, Trott, Cleaver, 

Velazquez, Beatty, Kildee, and Kihuen. 

Also present: Representatives Hensarling, Barr, Waters, and 

Green. 

Chairman DUFFY. The Subcommittee on Housing and Insurance 

will come to order. Today’s hearing is entitled, ‘‘Housing Choice 

Voucher Program: An Oversight and Review of Legislative Proposals.’’ 

Without objection, the Chair is authorized to declare a recess of 

the subcommittee at any time. Without objection, all members will 

have 5 legislative days within which to submit extraneous materials to the Chair for an inclusive in the record. 

Without objection, members of the full committee, who are not 

members of this subcommittee, may participate in today’s hearing 

for the purpose of making an opening statement and questioning 

the witnesses. 

The Chair now recognizes himself for 5 minutes for an opening 

statement. However, I might take less than that, and reserve some 

time for Mr. Barr who has a bill up today. 

I want to thank our witnesses, first, for their participation in today’s hearing, as we examine how to help insure that low-income 

families and the impoverished are not left on the streets and out 

in the cold. 

Many of you will recall Speaker Ryan’s Better Way agenda, a series of policy reforms to address America’s problems. With the recent announcement of Speaker Ryan, which as a Wisconsin guy I 

was sad to hear, it is bitter sweet for us to now be laying the 

groundwork and foundation for the speaker’s Better Way agenda to 

fight poverty. 

mcarroll on FSR431 with DISTILLER

2 

In our vision for a confident America, we outlined how we want 

to evaluate Federal Government programs that have a proven success rate of reducing poverty. 

I believe that the measures of success of our Federal Government 

programs shouldn’t be how much money we spend to alleviate poverty. We should be evaluating and investing in successful programs 

that lead people to self-sufficiency and independence, instead of 

Government dependence. 

So, not how much money we spend, but what are the results of 

the money we spend? 

Today, we will be looking at three different discussion drafts that 

utilize the Housing Choice Voucher Program (HCVP) which is administered locally by public housing agencies as a tool to increase 

mobility and lead families or individuals to better opportunities. 

Once a family has been issued a Housing Choice Voucher (HCV), 

they are responsible for finding the housing unit of their choice in 

which the owner agrees to rent the family a unit under the program. 

The local public housing authority, in turn, would pay the subsidy received by the family directly to the owner of the unit. Outside of that payment to the owner, the family is responsible for 

paying the difference between the gross rent and the amount subsidized by the program. 

Three discussion drafts that are the subject of this hearing focus 

on: mobility, foster youth, and those impacted by the opioid epidemic. 

Let us start on voucher mobility as a way to help those that are 

able to work, move to locations in which jobs are available. It 

seems fairly evident that if poverty is caused by a lack of employment, we should figure out ways to move people to opportunities. 

Where do opportunities exist? Let us move them to where the jobs 

are. 

In reviewing testimony for this hearing, I was compelled by Ms. 

Sard’s reference to a study by Raj Chetty entitled, quote, ‘‘The Effects of Exposure to Better Neighborhoods on Children: New Evidence From Moving to Poverty Experiment,’’ end quote. 

To quote Ms. Sard’s testimony, she says, ‘‘Evidence underscores 

that low-income children, whose families move from very poor 

neighborhoods to lower-poverty areas have higher earnings as 

adults and are less likely to become single parents and more likely 

to attend college, than children remaining in less advantageous 

neighborhoods.’’ End quote. I thought that was superb in her reference. 

Under my discussion draft, we would create a demonstration 

project in which the administration of Housing Choice Vouchers 

would be designated to encourage movement to lower-poverty areas 

with expanded employment opportunities. 

A qualifying public housing agency would be required to submit 

a regional housing mobility plan that would identify participants, 

identify the number of vouchers made available in connection with 

the demonstration, and identify organizations and businesses participating in the plan. 

The funding from ability-related services would come from administrative fees and support from private entities. Three years 

mcarroll on FSR431 with DISTILLER

3 

after implementation of the demonstration program, the secretary 

will submit a report evaluating the effectiveness of the program. 

I very much look forward to a discussion on this draft, seeking 

your comments and feedback on a draft legislation. 

Next, we have a bill that was introduced by Michael Turner, 

H.R. 2069, which is focused on ensuring that foster youth have 

available housing opportunities as they age out of the Government’s role as maybe their parent. 

Nearly one in five foster youth, initially surveyed at age 17, report that by the age of 19, they had experienced homelessness. One 

in five kids in foster care experience homelessness. That is an astounding number. 

I think Mr. Turner has a very thoughtful bill that would 

prioritize foster youth when providing the housing assistance. 

I am going to take a moment and reserve 1 minute of my time. 

I will yield to Chairman Barr after I yield to the Ranking Member, 

the Gentleman from Missouri, Mr. Cleaver, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. CLEAVER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate this hearing on the oversight and review of legislative proposals. Welcome 

to those of you who are giving of your time to present information 

to us today. 

This hearing gives an opportunity to examine three legislative 

housing proposals. Improving our Federal housing services continues to be a significant priority of mine. We should all work to 

ensure that families, veterans, the elderly, and those suffering from 

substance abuse have access to Federal services and housing support. 

I welcome this conversation today and look forward to hearing 

more from you who come here to present information to us. 

There are three proposals that we are going to consider today. 

The first would create a demonstration program within the Housing Choice Voucher Program. The proposal would allow the secretary of HUD to create a mobility demonstration program where 

up to 10 regions could be selected. 

It would allow public housing administrations in these regions to 

create consortia that could encourage residents to use their housing 

vouchers to move from high-poverty areas to low-poverty areas. 

The draft is similar to one that we discussed, and actually debated during the Obama Administration, which was based on evidence from a Harvard professor, that indicates that children who 

move to higher opportunity neighborhoods increase their chances of 

success. 

I am supportive of the proposal, though I would like to encourage 

the inclusion of authorized funding from the administration for the 

program. 

Congressman Barr also has a proposal that would create HCV 

demonstration program for people suffering from opioid addiction. 

This is a well-intentioned deal, and I am supportive of increasing 

resources for those suffering from drug addiction, whether it is 

opioids or other substances. 

However, I do have concerns that the bill would give not-for-profit entities or nonprofit entities that may not have housing experience the responsibility of administering this program. 

mcarroll on FSR431 with DISTILLER

4 

Housing authorities typically have the know-how and access to 

HUD databases to successfully administer voucher programs. The 

program also doesn’t authorize new vouchers, but instead could 

take existing vouchers from other needy families. 

Last, Congressman Turner has a proposal that would create 

Housing Choice Voucher preference for foster youth aging out of 

foster case. I a very supportive of the goal to assist foster youth 

which is why I included a provision to improve the Family Unification Program when we passed HOTMA last Congress. 

This proposal, however, would give foster children a preference 

over other vulnerable groups, like the homeless victims of domestic 

violence and veterans. There are a multitude of Federal programs 

targeting at aiding foster children and I would prefer to work to 

improve and fund existing opportunities. 

Thank you very much and I look forward to dialogically becoming 

involved with you. 

Chairman DUFFY. The gentleman yields back. 

The Chair now recognizes the Chair of the Monetary Policy Subcommittee, the gentleman from Kentucky, Mr. Barr, for 1 minute. 

Mr. BARR. Thank you, Chairman Duffy. Thank you to the Housing and Insurance Subcommittee for calling this hearing today. 

We all know that the opioid epidemic is a major health crisis 

that has impacted every community and every Congressional district. My home State of Kentucky suffers from the third highest 

drug overdose mortality rate in the country. 

In light of the declaration of a national public health emergency 

announced by President Trump last fall, there is a pressing need 

for additional transitional housing for opioid recovery, a proven evidenced-based approach that has helped thousands of Americans to 

maintain sobriety after completing rehab, gained valuable skills in 

job training, obtain employment, and eventually transition back to 

society to lead independent lives. 

Too many individuals find themselves with limited housing 

choices after completing in-patient rehabilitation and are forced 

into housing situations where they are surrounding by people using 

the very same illegal substances that they went to rehab to stop 

using. This perpetuates the cycle of addiction and prevents individuals from rising above substance abuse. 

Current Federal programs addressing the opioid epidemic focus 

on treatment and prevention. But they do not address the needs of 

individuals who complete intensive treatment and require continued support. 

Our legislation, Transitional Housing For Opioid Recovery Demonstration Program, would allow for a limited number of Section 8 

housing choice vouchers to be used for transitional housing nonprofits that have evidenced-based models of recovery, life skills 

training, and, I would add to my good friend, Reverend Cleaver, experience in housing. 

Today, you will hear from one transitional housing nonprofit 

from Kentucky that has had tremendous success in fighting the 

opioid epidemic and was listed recently by HUD secretary, Ben 

Carson. 

I would like to welcome to the committee my constituent, Dean 

Hammond, who helps to lead that nonprofit. 

mcarroll on FSR431 with DISTILLER

5 

Thank you and I yield back. 

Chairman DUFFY. The gentleman yields back time he doesn’t 

have. 

If the subcommittee would offer me a minute of personal privilege, I would like to recognize Theresa Dumais. She works for the 

Ranking Member on—the director of housing policy. 

This is her last week with the subcommittee. We want to thank 

her for her service to our committee. The great bipartisan work she 

has done to make the committee all possible. Thank you. 

Our loss is Freddie Mac’s gain, I guess, right? 

Theresa, thank you for your service. 

I now want to recognize our panel. First, I want to recognize Barbara Sard, the Vice President for Housing Policy at the Center on 

Budget and Policy Priorities. Next, I want to recognize Ms. Ruth 

White, the Executive Director of National Center for Housing and 

Child Welfare. Next, Ms. Lynn Kovich, the Deputy Secretary at the 

Office of Health and Substance Abuse Services in Pennsylvania’s 

Department of Human Services. 

Finally, Mr. Hammond, a Board Member for the Foundation for 

Affordable Housing in Kentucky. I don’t know if Mr. Barr wants to 

make any other introduction or is that fine? 

Mr. BARR. That is fine and I look forward to welcoming Dean 

Hammond. On behalf of Phil Gray, I see Phil Gray as well, the 

President of the foundation for affordable housing in Kentucky as 

well. Welcome to you as well. 

Chairman DUFFY. OK. The witnesses will, in a moment, be recognized for 5 minutes to give an oral presentation of their written 

testimony. 

Without objection, the witnesses’ written testimony will be made 

part of the record following their oral remarks. Once the witnesses 

have finished presenting their testimony, each member of the subcommittee will be given 5 minutes within which to ask the panel 

questions. 

I would just note that on the table, there are three lights. Green 

means go. Yellow means you have 1 minute left. The red light 

means that your time is up. 

The microphones are sensitive so please speak directly into them. 

With that, Ms. Sard, you are recognized now for 5 minutes for 

an oral presentation of your written statement. 

STATEMENT OF BARBARA SARD 

Ms. SARD. Thank you, Chairman Duffy, for inviting me to testify 

today and to you and Ranking Member Cleaver for holding this important hearing. 

At the subcommittee’s hearing some 18 months ago, I recommended that Congress take a series of actions to expand housing 

choice, improve economic mobility, and make the Housing Choice 

Voucher Program more efficient. I am very pleased that the draft 

Housing Choice Voucher Mobility Demonstration Act of 2018 would 

follow through on my number one recommendation. 

Today, I will focus on that bill and conclude with a few recommendations for improvements in the other two bills before you 

this afternoon. 

mcarroll on FSR431 with DISTILLER

6 

As the Chairman just noted, growing evidence underscores the 

importance of where low-income families live to a range of outcomes for adults and children. In particular, how moving from very 

poor neighborhoods to low-poverty ones can help prevent 

intergenerational poverty. 

While housing vouchers are very effective at reducing homelessness and other hardships, cutting foster care placements and reducing school moves, housing vouchers as currently administered, 

often do not enable families to access neighborhoods with greater 

opportunities. 

The draft Voucher Mobility Demonstration Act could help the 

voucher program reach its full potential in three ways. It would encourage local housing agencies to form regional collaboratives that 

lower barriers to families moving to higher-opportunity areas and 

reduce long-term operating costs. 

Second, it could make regional operation of the voucher program 

more feasible by providing the HUD Secretary authority to modify 

certain laws. 

Third, it provides a framework for learning what types of mobility-related services are most cost effective. 

My written testimony recommends various ways to strengthen 

the bill. I want to highlight three for you today. 

First, the bill should prioritize regional collaborations that serve 

areas with high concentrations of voucher holders in poor low-opportunity neighborhoods—the very families and children likely to 

most benefit from the demonstration—but that also include enough 

moderately priced rental units in higher-opportunity areas, so that 

the initiative has a high chance of success. 

Second, the bill should ensure that families moving within the 

region can continue to benefit from a well-performing family selfsufficiency program. As I am sure you all remember, the House recently passed H.R. 4258, the Family Self-Sufficiency Act, that was 

sponsored by Chairman Duffy and Ranking Member Cleaver. 

Unfortunately, this excellent bill won’t fix a problem that is particularly germane here that results from many housing authorities 

operating in a region. That problem is that families that move to 

another agency’s jurisdiction may not be able to continue to participate in the FSS program and even may forfeit the savings that 

they have generated as their earnings increase while participating 

in the program. 

Parents should not have to choose between a safer neighborhood 

with better opportunities for their children and their own economic 

advancement. With some tweaks, the bill could fix that problem. 

Finally, it is also vital to authorize sufficient funding for a robust 

demonstration. We estimate that $30 million would support 15 regional mobility programs that offer comprehensive mobility services 

to 22,500 families over a 3-year period. 

We anticipate that about one-third of the families that are offered these services will actually move to a low-poverty high-opportunity area. 

Turning to the draft bills submitted by Congressmen Turner and 

Barr, both of these bills aim to use housing vouchers to address serious problems as noted. While housing assistance has an impormcarroll on FSR431 with DISTILLER

7 

tant role to play in both cases, it is the Center’s view that these 

bills are not well designed to achieve their purposes. 

Most importantly, Congress should fund additional vouchers for 

these purposes. There is already a program, as Mr. Cleaver noted, 

the Family Unification Program, that provides vouchers that help 

former foster youth as well as prevent and shorten child placements in foster care. 

More of these vouchers would help address the serious problems 

the bill was designed to get at. Congress has shown a willingness, 

in recent years, to provide such vouchers. 

We agree with the provision of Mr. Turner’s bill that requiring 

housing authorities to allow youth aging out to make an early application, from the age of 16, is a sensible requirement. 

But we are concerned about the mandatory preference requirement and other provisions of the bill. We want to flag the recommendation in our testimony that HUD could be directed to ensure that housing authorities actually make use of the nearly 

50,000 Family Unification Program vouchers that have been funded over the years, many of which do not appear to be currently 

used. 

Vouchers also can help people exiting residential treatment. As 

we note in our testimony, building on the HUD-VASH model would 

be potentially more effective. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Sard can be found on page 41 of 

the appendix.] 

Chairman DUFFY. Thank you, Ms. Sard. 

The Chair now recognizes Ms. White for 5 minutes. 

STATEMENT OF RUTH WHITE 

Ms. WHITE. Good afternoon, Chairman Duffy and Ranking Member Cleaver. It is my honor to address this committee on the topic 

of housing as a platform for upward mobility, particularly in light 

of the significant improvements for youth included by Mr. 

Luetkemeyer of Missouri in the Housing Opportunities Through 

Modernization Act. 

Like the proposal I will focus on today, HOTMA was informed by 

the ideas and experiences of people who live in HUD’s assisted 

housing programs. 

Committee members and staff moved swiftly to draft straight-forward common-sense improvements. I hope that you will move fostering stable opportunities at a similarly impressive pace. 

My name is Ruth White, and I am the Co-founder and Executive 

Director of the National Center for Housing and Child Welfare, and 

a Professor of Social Work at the Catholic University of America. 

We are the leading advocacy organization for HUD’s Family Unification Program which provides housing choice vouchers to families at risk of separation due to inadequate housing. 

My co-founder, the late Bob McKay, and I were approached in 

1999 by the Child Welfare League of America Youth Advisory Committee who suggested that youth should be added as an eligible 

population for FUP. We brought that idea to Senator Kit Bond, 

also of Missouri, there must be something about Missouri, who 

moved to add youth that very year. 

mcarroll on FSR431 with DISTILLER

8 

My professional expertise, as it turns out, is the least important 

of what brings me here today. The Fostering Stable Housing Opportunities Act of 2017 emerged directly from an event called ‘‘3 

Days on the Hill’’ which brings youth, ages 14 or older, to D.C. to 

speak to Members of Congress. 

It is organized by three volunteers; Lisa Dixon, a full-time librarian; Jamal Callahan, a young business professional; and Doris 

Edelman, a retired 30-year veteran of child welfare work. 

Lisa is an alumna who graduated from foster care in 1989, and, 

at that time, experienced her own set of housing challenges. Jamal 

is also an alumni. 

These youth take time off of work and school, study the issues 

and come to Capitol Hill prepared to express gratitude when Congress gets it right, offer their gift of their personal stories and 

share suggestions from their unique vantage point. What a unique 

vantage point it is. 

Contributions to the literature by outstanding ethnographers, 

like Matthew Desmond, notwithstanding, the only way to inform 

public policy, based on experience, is to personally navigate the 

inner section between public systems as if your life depended on it. 

This is why, despite my 20 years of experience, I did not identify 

the obvious synchronization problems that this bill will fix, nor did 

anyone else in the professional class. 

Mr. Turner of Ohio and his staff crafted a solution to the synchronization problems with the system right along with youth. It 

is no surprise that Mr. Turner’s partner in refining and introducing 

this bill is the Honorable Karen Bass of California. The co-founder 

and co-chair of the Congressional Caucus on Foster Youth, who, 

among so many other accomplishments, shepherded the Improving 

Foster Care Services for Youth Act into law just last month. 

I understand that some professionals offer FUP as a simple solution to the issues these youth raised. FUP is a 20-year-old evidenced-based elegantly simple program that works. It needs a predictable stream of funding of $20 million annually. 

But, at this time, no authorizing changes are needed. Instead, 

foster youth identified a serious synchronization flaw that must be 

addressed outside of FUP. 

The fate of a foster child aging out who is in need of a FUP 

voucher to ease their transition into independence is tied to whether or not they live in a jurisdiction of a PHA that has successfully 

applied for FUP, whether or not the availability of that voucher is 

synchronized with their emancipation. 

Currently, 197 PHAs administer FUP. This is not for lack of interest. Public housing authorities are excellent partners. 

When considered in the aggregate and viewed against the backdrop of a finite affordable housing pool, this seems like a typical 

resource constraint problem. But from the perspective of Sydney, 

Tori, Kimberly, Shuana, Christopher, Perish, and Savian alone in 

the world at the intersection of childhood and adulthood without 

the support of a family, this mismatch is an epic policy fail. 

These young adults did not come to D.C. to complain about 

PHAs, FUP, or anything else. They came to express gratitude and 

to offer their expertise about the problems between systems that 

only they are qualified to see. 

mcarroll on FSR431 with DISTILLER

9 

The Fostering Stable Housing Opportunities Act of 2017 offers a 

two-pronged approach, early applications and priority preferences. 

Additionally, this still incorporates recommendations from former 

foster youth that have been repeatedly suggested year after year, 

dating back to Trudy Festinger’s study of 1983 entitled, ‘‘No One 

Ever Asked Us,’’ to ensure that young people aging out of foster 

care can use services as a platform for self-sufficiency. 

I will offer to you that the priority preference is problematic for 

other people because Federal preferences were eliminated in 1998. 

But the reality is that if every voucher that Congress gives out to 

housing authorities is a special-purpose voucher, then Congress is 

essentially running a Federal preference program at this time. 

I also want to mention, just briefly, that my work is focused 

largely on ensuring that HHS uses its funding to ensure that 

young people have a self-sufficiency platform as well. HHS funding 

is flexible and elastic and can be used for private housing, and it 

can also be used to end youth homelessness. 

With that, I also want to mention that this bill is proptitious be- cause we are not looking at a finite pool. A $4.9 million multi-sector Opportunity Starts at Home campaign is underway to vastly increase the pool of affordable housing. This bill is perfectly timed 

with that. 

With that, I thank you. I will hand it over. 

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

of the appendix.] 

Chairman DUFFY. Thank you, Ms. White. 

Ms. Kovich, you are recognized for 5 minutes. 

STATEMENT OF LYNN KOVICH 

Ms. KOVICH. Good afternoon, Chairman Duffy, Ranking Member 

Cleaver, and all the other members of the committee. It is my 

honor to be here this afternoon and testify about the Transitional 

Housing Opioid Recovery Demonstration Act of 2018. 

As the Chairman said, I am the Deputy Secretary for the Pennsylvania Office of Mental Health and Substance Abuse Services 

within the Pennsylvania Department of Human Services. 

Governor Wolf has made fighting the opioid crisis one of his administration’s top priorities. In fact, in January of this year, he declared a disaster declaration around the crisis to enable the State 

to increase its response time to offer more access to treatment, to 

provide support to families, as well as to provide data to be able 

to attack the problem. 

It brings together most officials of his cabinet and a group of us 

meet every Monday to talk about the State’s strategies to attack 

the crisis. 

I have been involved in either running, developing, or operating 

supportive housing for people with mental illness, people with substance-use disorder, people with developmental intellectual disabilities for the better part of my career. I am very devoted and committed to ensuring people have access to affordable housing, coupled with services that are specifically tailored to their individual 

needs. 

I have worked with many of the HUD-funded programs. I have 

used supportive housing as a platform to implement homestead setmcarroll on FSR431 with DISTILLER

10 

tlement agreements. I have also been touched personally by the 

opioid crisis, having lost a cousin to an overdose. She was homeless 

at the time that she overdosed and passed away. 

I am now in my second State having worked in New Jersey and 

now in Pennsylvania in trying to attack this crisis on all fronts. 

People though—I say that people with SUD or—and/or opioid use 

disorder can and do recover. They need treatment. They need access to housing. They need access to services. 

The housing should not be time limited. The housing needs to be 

permanent as if we were working with folks with a mental illness 

or an intellectual disability. 

I sit here in front of you and admit readily that I don’t think we 

have done a great job in providing affordable housing and supportive housing to people with an addiction, regardless of it being 

a substance-use disorder, like alcoholism or addiction to cocaine or 

an opioid-use disorder. 

While the legislation, the draft discussion, is really well intentioned, I would just like to offer four quick points. 

The voucher—the availability of a voucher should not be based 

on someone’s drug of choice. It should be open and available to people with any substance-use disorder. 

Within New Jersey itself, we had—I am sorry, Pennsylvania. We 

had over 176,000 individuals diagnosed with a substance-use disorder, alcohol, cocaine, marijuana, methamphetamine; 90,000 with 

an opioid-use disorder. 

The numbers really support an overall—to be able to have this 

open to people with any substance-use disorder. 

Services need to be available. In Pennsylvania, we fund our services through Medicaid, through State dollars, through local county 

dollars, through our Federal block grant dollars. 

But—and we have also done a lot of developing housing through 

State dollars. In an ideal world, those State dollars would be developed as a bridge. We have developed a lot of subsidies. That should 

be a bridge to a Federal subsidy. 

Supportive housing has been known as a three-legged stool, service funding, capital funding as well as subsidy. HUD having the 

two main roles in subsidy and capital. I really encourage the committee to continue to work on services’ funding. 

Second, the demo should not impose time limits for folks. Permanent housing has really been the success of the HUD Continuum 

of Care program. When PHAs engage with landlords, they typically 

are thinking they are engaging on a permanent basis. Having it be 

temporary can disincentivize the program. 

There is more than three decades of evidence that permanent 

housing is the most effective way to deal with folks who have a 

substance-use disorder and/or a mental illness. 

The demonstration points to supportive housing as the basis of 

the model but it runs counter to it, in terms of it not being permanent. The housing needs to be low-barriers. Services need to be individualized and tailored to folks’ needs. 

The third point is that it is not—public housing authority should 

be involved, as the Ranking Member indicated. I having run an 

opioid treatment program, addiction providers typically don’t have 

experience running housing programs. 

mcarroll on FSR431 with DISTILLER

11 

It is a very logistically, administratively burdensome program, 

and they have the specific expertise. Public housing authority 

should be involved in the demonstration. 

Housing and services should be—should be separate. Your service provider should not also be your housing provider. That is one 

of the tenets of supportive housing. Finally, I would offer that, as 

others have already testified, there should be additional vouchers 

as part of this program. The Housing Choice Voucher Program is 

currently—the demand far-exceeds the supply of affordable housing 

and of affordable vouchers. 

Three million people are on the waiting list. Nine million would 

be on the waiting list if waiting lists were open. Public housing authorities have to close them because the demand is too high. 

I will end there. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Kovich can be found on page 35 

of the appendix.] 

Chairman DUFFY. Thank you, Ms. Kovich. 

Mr. Hammond, you are now recognized for 5 minutes. 

STATEMENT OF DEAN HAMMOND 

Mr. HAMMOND. Chairman Duffy, Ranking Member Cleaver, and 

other interested parties, Phil Gray, the current President of the 

Foundation for Affordable Housing, and I thank you and the committee for this invitation. 

I have been working in low-income housing for 33 years, developing software to manage those authorities. For the last 14 years, 

as a Board Member, the President, and now consulting the Board 

of Directors for the Foundation for Affordable Housing at St. James 

Place. 

We have 102 units of low-income homeless housing there, and we 

have been running that for 23 years. For the last 14, we have been 

dealing with veteran housing. Those who have substance-abuse 

problems and have come through a rehab program and into serviceintensive transitional housing. 

Today, my focus will be on the Section 8 Voucher Set-Aside Bill 

for the support of transitional housing for opioid recovery and the 

Fostering Stable Housing Bill. Each is consistent with our service 

intensive transitional housing model. 

When we introduce opioid factor or other mental conditions, everything changes. It is not just some skills review kind of housing. 

There is a serious change in behavior, psych, and physiology. Our 

model seeks those who want to go beyond just existence and into 

unsubsidized permanent housing. 

The question of the candidate is, can you qualify and do you 

want to work to succeed? Because it is all up to the addict. 

Does—this doesn’t replace rapid housing. It is a different category in itself. Whenever we speak of a model, rebuild a life, before 

it goes completely bad and we look to easily measurable items and 

a checklist of components. 

First, we are talking about the opioid problem in Kentucky which 

is a massive problem. Sustained recovery from addiction, absolutely 

up to the addict. 90 days of rehab treatment direct must be there. 

It is a minimum. It is a minimum. Graduate from that. 

mcarroll on FSR431 with DISTILLER

12 

Stop here and most will go back to where they were. Relapse. If 

they are on heroin, there will be an O.D. That is how it goes with 

these folks, and we have been through this several times. 

Structured service intensive transitional housing brings something else to bear. It increases the odds of success. 

Structure. Most of our clients lack structure. That is what got 

them where they were. Considered successful, special schools uniforms, discipline structure, military structure, jail structure. 

Unfortunately, they continue to go back to the structure they 

know. In 3 years, 68 percent will be back in prison. In 5 years, 77 

percent will be back in prison. 84 percent of inmates 24 or younger, 

when released, will be arrested within 5 years. 

The stable housing. The stable housing has to be in a good environment. It can’t be back where they were. It has to be closed circuit. Group in one building. Special lease agreement tied to the 

program, not the client. 

Permanent employment. It has to be mandatory. They have to 

have a job. That is how they are going to get through this thing. 

Mandatory training and education. Two different things. Life 

skills, of course you hear that. Job skills, complete Dave Ramsey’s 

Financial Peace University. Trade schools. Equine therapy. Recovery meetings. All—whatever we have to do to get them there. 

Stable finances. Things like child support, trying to get that 

straightened out. 

Mandatory savings. This is one of our critical mandatory components. 30 percent of their adjusted gross income in savings. This 

is a great investment for us. 

Initially begins in the third quarter of the first year. Current program. Our veterans have saved over $300,000 in this program. Average was $2,200 a vet. Some over $10,000 each in less than 2 

years. 

When someone completes any course of rehab, training or even 

incarceration, and they have no savings to start their new life, the 

recovered life, they have no option but to go back where they were. 

Let us return to the Section 8 directorate set aside. This is an 

exciting proposal with a few variances from the normal Section 8 

directly combined with other funds to support all of the components 

of service intensive transitional housing, we have a successful 

model. 

For the purposes of this model, we would need a variance from 

the Section 8 normal lease to a behavior agreement. A variance 

from the 30 percent adjusted gross rent to no rent, at least for the 

first 6 months, so the savings can begin to build. 

Perhaps a hybrid project based or a unit based might be a better 

substitute for the authorization might work. 

To stay in housing, the candidate must be successful. Considering that, we are hopeful that the secretary will see fit to allocate 

the funds for the operation of the entire program. All of it. For support, as well as housing, as well as any of the outside support that 

we need for them. 

Let us take a look at this cost. If we enroll them in the University of Addiction Life Recovery, the total cost is about $700,000 a 

year based on 40 units of SRO housing. Housing comes in about 

mcarroll on FSR431 with DISTILLER

13 

$273,000. The program about $427,000. That was based on a Section 8 FMR in Lexington now. 

Based on 40 units at $17,500 per person per year. University of 

Incarceration. 2015 numbers, Federal prison, $31,900. Halfway 

house, $26,082. State prison in New York, $69,355. In the city of 

New York, $118,000. I studied this before we could put them in the 

Waldorf for that kind of money. 

We have a spread sheet that you were given to show you the statistics of our success working with these veterans over the last 14 

years. 

Thank you. 

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

30 of the appendix.] 

Chairman DUFFY. Thank you, Mr. Hammond. 

I want to thank our four witnesses for their testimony. 

The Chair now recognizes himself for 5 minutes. 

First, Ms. Sard, I want to thank you for your insightful feedback 

on my bill. That is the purpose of the discussion draft is to have 

well informed people take a look at it, and provide us smart feedback on how we can improve a legislation. I think a lot of your recommendations are sound, so I thank you for that feedback. 

But just—I want to quickly go to just the procedural cost and 

complexity, when we have an individual that wants to move from 

one authority to another authority. Could you elaborate on that for 

us? 

Ms. SARD. Sure. There are a variety of ways this is done in practice. There are a relatively small number of agencies that actually 

serve a whole region by themselves. 

Then, families can easily move with their voucher wherever they 

can find a willing landlord. But, in most cases, within a region, 

there are at least two agencies administering housing vouchers and 

often far more, 10 or more. 

Where I lived for many decades, and learned the voucher program policy in the Boston region, there are over 60 agencies that 

administer the housing voucher program. 

In those cases, when you have to move from agency A, and you 

want to rent a unit in an area served by agency B, you have to use 

what are called portability procedures. Under portability, almost 

everybody loses, currently. 

The original agency loses its voucher. The family moves to another community. They lose 80 percent of their administrative fee. 

Other than their concern for the well-being of the particular family, they have no self interest in promoting those moves. 

Chairman DUFFY. Because they are concerned about the agency 

itself and what they get, right? 

Ms. SARD. Right. Right. 

In terms of providing—HUD rules require them to give information to families about the value of moving to lower-poverty areas 

and about the portability procedures. But they have no incentive 

to go beyond the bare minimum required. 

Chairman DUFFY. Unless they had a pure heart that says, I am 

just looking out for the people in which I serve. But that is not always the case. Then, we have good people in these programs but 

mcarroll on FSR431 with DISTILLER

14 

sometimes they are concerned about the money that flows back 

into. 

Ms. SARD. Right. The receiving agencies also don’t have any 

great incentive to help a family from another community get a potentially scarce unit compared to their residents. They only get 80 

percent of their fee on an ongoing basis. 

Chairman DUFFY. I think that is a good point. But do you see— 

does the panel see a problem generational poverty? I think this 

goes to—and I am leading to the point of—and I think you mentioned this, Ms. Sard, in your testimony. But if we can move families in a place—from a place where there is not a lot of opportunity 

to a place where there is more opportunity and a job, I would think 

that, one, you can become self-sufficient. 

But, also, what impact does that have on your kids and the next 

generation if you see a family of opportunity and working and that 

compared to a place where there is no opportunity? Isn’t the whole 

system better off when you can easily move to a location of more 

opportunities? 

Ms. SARD. I agree entirely. I think the report of the speaker’s 

task force on poverty in 2016 really nailed it, in noting that not 

only does the current administrative geography of the voucher program undermine anti-poverty goals, but it is also inefficient. 

Figuring out ways that are consistent with State and local prerogatives, but providing incentives for agencies to figure out solutions to these problems and collaborate are a really important priority for Federal policy. 

Chairman DUFFY. Help get people job training. Help get people 

a job. Help move them hopefully off the system. 

Let us say I was to make—strongly consider a lot of the recommendations from Ms. Sard. Does anybody have an objection to 

my voucher mobility bill? Any other concerns out there? You guys 

all are bipartisan supportive? 

Great. Ms. Kovich is not saying no, so I appreciate that. Thank 

you. I don’t have a lot of time left, but I want to go to Mr. Turner’s 

bill. I would argue that when you fall into homelessness, it is harder to get out of homelessness. 

If we see kids in foster care—and one in five are falling into 

homelessness. This is a significant risk that we want to get them 

in the pipeline of the system and make sure they have a stable 

bridge into a home, making sure that they are going to school or 

getting a job. They can have an offramp into managing their lives 

on their own. I think that makes a lot of sense. 

I appreciate Mr.—you guys might be surprised that we seem so 

bipartisan up here on these bills. This is not the absolute priority 

but it has to be one of the three priorities from a housing authority. 

They have to include those in foster care. 

If we can keep kids in foster from homelessness, in the end, I 

think we save more money and make people’s lives better. With 

that concept, is there any objection? No? 

Ms. Sard, go ahead. 

Ms. SARD. We are concerned about reversing the 20-year-old decision that Congress painfully made, that the Federal Government 

shouldn’t be deciding local admission preferences. That that should 

be a local matter. 

mcarroll on FSR431 with DISTILLER

15 

I think that decision—while I had misgivings about it at the time 

20 years ago—actually has been a very successful policy change. 

Chairman DUFFY. But, isn’t fair it to say that the Government 

is the parent of the child. In the end when they— 

Ms. SARD. Yes, but I think— 

Chairman DUFFY. Hit an age, we are kicking them off a cliff. 

Ms. SARD. But— 

Chairman DUFFY. And saying, you are going to fly or you are 

going to crash. That is my concern when we are the responsible 

parties in foster care. 

Ms. SARD. I do not doubt, for a moment, that the child welfare 

system has failed these youth. 

But if you try to solve the problem through changing admissions 

preferences, the people who are paying for that failure are the people with, potentially, equally serious needs at the top of the agencies waiting lists, who are not getting served and who have been 

waiting. Perhaps a family that is going to lose their child to foster 

care because they don’t have a stable home. 

That is why the real solution here is more resources targeted on 

these— 

Chairman DUFFY. But, again, we are not making them the sole 

priority but one of the top three priorities. 

Ms. SARD. That is an improvement in the bill. 

Chairman DUFFY. But I am just—my time is well over. I think, 

in the long run, you are going to have these kids in the system, 

and we are going to be paying for them. 

It will be far more expensive, I think, to easily take them out instead of throwing them off the ledge, I think it is a better approach. But maybe that is a conversation we can continue to have, 

and I appreciate your honest and straight feedback that you have 

given. 

Mr. Hammond, I am 2 minutes over but I will make sure I get 

a chance to come to you. 

But with that, the Chair now recognizes the gentlelady from New 

York, Ms. Velazquez, for 5 minutes. 

Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Ms. Sard, while there is no question that we need to promote 

choice of mobility options for individual and families receiving rental assistance in the draft of the House Choice Voucher Mobility 

Demonstration Bill is a step in the right direction, I still have some 

outstanding issues regarding the discussion draft. 

Are you concerned that the draft comes with no additional resources or new vouchers to carry out the demonstration? What type 

of impact will this bill have on existing voucher holders or those 

on current waiting lists? 

Yes. 

Ms. SARD. You raise two somewhat different concerns, as I heard 

you. The first one is the need for additional dollars to support the 

services and, also, additional vouchers. 

Now, I have to be forthright with the committee. I would love to 

see additional vouchers for this purpose. I was an author—lead author of a paper with the Urban Institute that was recently published as part of the U.S. Partnership on Mobility from Poverty, 

mcarroll on FSR431 with DISTILLER

16 

sponsored by the Gates Foundation, that recommends 500,000 new 

vouchers for very much the same purpose. 

But given that we have now about a million families with children who have vouchers, you can do a reasonable demonstration 

that can enable us to learn what are the most cost-effective strategies to help families move to higher-opportunity communities. 

I am not concerned about any adverse consequence for existing 

families because the only ones that would participate in such a 

demonstration are those that chose to do so. 

Ms. VELAZQUEZ. OK. 

Ms. SARD. That would be choice. 

Ms. VELAZQUEZ. OK. Do you recommend the Voucher Mobility 

Demonstration Act can be improved by focusing on PHAs that 

serve areas with a high concentration of voucher holders in poor, 

low-opportunity neighborhoods that have an inadequate number of 

moderately priced rental units. 

Are you concerned about the implementation of a program like 

this in New York City, where there is an extremely low-vacancy 

rate, 3.4 percent, and an extremely high monthly rental price for 

unit? My question for you is, would you think that a program like 

this will work in New York? 

Ms. SARD. I think it can work in New York. My understanding 

is that the city’s Department of Housing Preservation and Development is working on such a program and would look forward to having some resources to help them. 

New York City is obviously a diverse place. There are a lot of different kinds of neighborhoods in New York. It would also be important for the city to join with surrounding housing authorities to 

widen the potential areas where housing vouchers could be used. 

I think it is vital if we are going to help achieve the effectiveness 

and efficiency goals of the demonstration, in addition to the choice 

goals. That it not be a single housing authority that is participating 

but a set of agencies in a region. 

Ms. VELAZQUEZ. My last question. The discussion draft called for 

a 3-year-evaluation cycle. Do you think that is enough? The last— 

this direct bill is modeled after the Obama Administration’s one 

that lasted for 5 years or even 10 years. 

What input do you think a 3-year-evaluation cycle will have on 

the results? 

Ms. SARD. I think it is reasonable to do a 3-year demonstration. 

But to have a sound report to Congress on the effectiveness of that 

evaluation, you have to add in some extra time. You have to have 

the full 3 years to implement and that takes some time after enactment. 

Then, you have to have time to analyze your data and write a 

report. 

Ms. VELAZQUEZ. In conclusion, do you think that a 3-year cycle 

is enough? 

Ms. SARD. No, we recommend that it be 5 years. 

Ms. VELAZQUEZ. OK, thank you. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman DUFFY. The gentlelady yields back. 

mcarroll on FSR431 with DISTILLER

17 

The Chair now recognizes the Chair of the Financial Institutions 

Subcommittee, the gentleman from Missouri, Mr. Luetkemeyer, for 

5 minutes. 

Mr. LUETKEMEYER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Ms. White, I was interested in your conversation a while ago in 

your testimony. In the last Congress, Ranking Member Cleaver and 

I introduced the Housing Opportunity Through Modernization Act 

that you referenced. That legislation provided new options for use 

of family unification for—of the Family Unification Program, or 

FUP vouchers that you talked about. I think you indicated that it 

was funded about $20 million, if I am not mistaken. 

Mr. Turner’s legislation appears to extend the FUP model to all 

transition-age foster youth at risk of homelessness. Even those jurisdictions without an accurate FUP portfolio or where FUP is used 

primarily for the family population—subpopulation it serves. 

I guess the first question I want to ask is, do you think that the 

Fostering Stable Housing Opportunities Act is precisely the type of 

education we should use in supporting this activity? 

Ms. WHITE. I do because it fixes a significant synchronization 

problem that, again, I wasn’t qualified to—it was invisible to me. 

But as you talk to young people who are coming out of the system, 

they understand that there is a situation where they have to live 

in the right housing jurisdiction. They have to live at a housing authority that has the vouchers. 

Then, their emancipation has to be timed perfectly with when 

one of those vouchers becomes available. Sometimes that works 

which is why I am such a major proponent of the Family Unification Program. 

But when it doesn’t, it is a tragic public policy fail. To build the 

sophisticated answer to that problem, it creates a situation where 

a young person could get on the waiting list at age 16 or older and 

remain there until they are close to emancipation which, I want to 

point out to the committee, isn’t age 18. Age—it should be about 

age 21 and there is a number of ways to extend that using the Title 

IV-A, Ann Chasey Act funding. 

At that point, when they are close to age 21, they would then be 

bumped as a priority on the waiting list, and then they would get 

the voucher when it becomes available. I think there is probably 

a year-long window where they would wait for that voucher to become available. 

Mr. LUETKEMEYER. OK, we had an interesting discussion. You 

mentioned in your testimony and then we had a discussion going 

from the Chairman and Ms. Sard with regards to preferences. 

I don’t know how you solve the problem and how you list preferences. How do you prefer somebody who has—what of the other 

bills we are talking about that has opioid abuse. You have veterans. You have disabled. 

There is all these—there are a lot of folks that need some help. 

The foster children is a group that, obviously, we don’t want to forget about either. 

You made, in your testimony, a great point with regards to this, 

maybe one way to keep them from being in this program forever. 

If you can get them into immediate housing once they get—or allow 

mcarroll on FSR431 with DISTILLER

18 

them to stay in the housing for a period of time until they get on 

their feet. 

I guess the question is, would you like to discuss for a free few 

moments, your view of the preference program, how you see it impacting foster youth? 

Ms. WHITE. Sure. A couple things. First and foremost, I want to 

mention the fact that young people, aging out of foster care, would 

not bump veterans off of the list. They are eligible for a similar 

program that is actually modeled after the Family Unification Program. 

The Veterans Affairs Port of Housing Program used to be a transitional housing program. I made the recommendation in 2006 that 

they should run it like the Family Unification Program. Where it 

is—instead of transitional house through the V.A., they partner 

with HUD. 

It is modeled after the Family Unification Program. But no one 

else is eligible for that except for veterans, so I want to mention 

that from the outset. 

The other thing is we do have a Federal preference system now. 

It is called Special Purpose Voucher. As Congress only awards new 

incremental vouchers to public housing authorities in the form of 

a Special Purpose Voucher, those housing authorities have no local 

control over the population they serve. We are, essentially, running 

a default Federal preference system, at this time. 

But the other thing is, and Chairman Duffy referenced it, and 

Mr. Turner actually coined a phrase, he said this is Governmentcreated homelessness. We remove them from their parents. We become their parents. Then, we actually manage to do a worse job 

than their parents we removed them from. 

But I want to mention that, currently, the length of stay in assisted housing in HUD’s portfolio is increasing significantly, because we are bringing in very worthy populations of people that are 

elderly and disabled, without children I might add. 

Families are the fastest declining group of people in assisted 

housing. That is a problem, too. 

But these young people would have the length of stay that would 

average about 2.5 years. The voucher would go back into the pool 

for the next available household. It actually creates— 

Mr. LUETKEMEYER. Do you mind, I don’t want to interrupt you 

but time is just about up. I have one more quick question with regard to that very subject here. 

What do—what do the youth do if they—or where are they going 

to go if they don’t get this voucher? 

Ms. WHITE. That is very— 

Mr. LUETKEMEYER. What will happen? 

Ms. WHITE. OK. The reality is we are now giving child welfare 

and the young people anywhere from 2.5 to 12 to 15 years to plan 

for their future. 

If it became abundantly clear to a public housing authority and 

all the other partners involved that the person wasn’t going to be 

self-sufficient 2.5 years later, they could work with the permanent 

supportive housing provider to secure a unit. But it wouldn’t be 

this frantic last-minute planning. There is no planning process. 

mcarroll on FSR431 with DISTILLER

19 

I think if we all work together, as community partners, if we had 

a young person. But I want to point out that the young people that 

came to Ohio are all working and all in school, yet they struggle, 

unlike our own children, because they don’t have parents to support them. They are going to be ready to launch. 

Mr. LUETKEMEYER. I yield back. I appreciate the Chairman’s indulgence. Thank you. 

Chairman DUFFY. The gentleman yields back. 

The Chairman recognizes the gentlelady from Ohio, Mrs. Beatty, 

for 5 minutes. 

Mrs. BEATTY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you Ranking 

Member and thank you to our witnesses for their testimony here 

today. 

As you could see, we could probably spend all day talking about 

and debating this because of the need. Sometimes, it is a little difficult and, certainly, I appreciate my colleague from Missouri’s 

questions in how do we rank and how do we prioritize because 

there is so much in the bill. 

But, first, I would like to start off by looking at the discussion 

draft of the Fostering Stable Housing Opportunities Act of 2018 

which, I believe, is a very well-intended bill. I think, with some 

amending, it could make a real difference in what we are doing 

here today. 

I have focused on housing for most of my career, whether it was 

adults or veterans or human—those who are engaged in human 

trafficking or foster children. Most recently, looking at the problem 

of housing for aged-out foster youth. 

This time, Congressman Stivers and I toured the homeless youth 

facility in my district in Columbus, Ohio. The Huckleberry House. 

As a result of this experience, we wrote a letter and, Mr. Chairman, I would like to introduce it into the records. 

Chairman DUFFY. Yes, without objection. 

Mrs. BEATTY. I need about 10 more seconds. 

As a result of that, I am really pleased to say that when we submitted it to the Transportation, Housing, and Urban Development 

Subcommittee of the Appropriations Committee, we were requesting $20 million for the Family Unification Program in Fiscal Year 

2018. 

I am proud to say that those dollars were just awarded in the 

recent omnibus bill that passed Congress and was signed into law 

this month. 

With these funds, the Department of Housing and Urban Development will be able to provide a child welfare system with the resources necessary to prevent family separation, due to homelessness, and to prevent homelessness among aging-out foster youth. 

Ms. Sard, to you. Can you explain the changes you recommended 

in your testimony to the Family Unification Program, and why you 

believe this would be a more effective approach to ending foster 

youth homelessness than a nationwide Federal program? Do you 

think it could lead to more children entering the foster care system? 

Ms. SARD. I think the recommendation the Congresswoman is 

discussing is the one we made about making sure that the nearly 

50,000 vouchers that Congress has funded over the last 20, almost 

mcarroll on FSR431 with DISTILLER

20 

30 years, for the Family Unification Program actually get used for 

that purpose. 

From the data we found, which we are not sure is correct but it 

is what HUD has posted, it would appear that more than 30,000 

of these vouchers are actually not being used for the Family Unification Program. 

Even if the reality is half that amount, if we could require agencies that applied for and receive these vouchers on the condition 

that they go to families tied up in the child welfare system or to 

foster youth, we would have accomplished an enormous amount. 

If those agencies no longer want to do that, then HUD should be 

able to reallocate those vouchers to agencies that are willing to. 

As Ms. White said, there are hundreds of agencies that want additional resources for this purpose. An important thing about using 

the FUP program, rather than regular turnover vouchers, is you 

are not just taking away from another potentially equally needy 

family. But, also, it is a voucher that is connected to services provided through agencies that are tasked with knowing how to deliver them and have funds to do so. 

I think that combination of housing plus services is the key to 

success here. 

Mrs. BEATTY. Thank you. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back. 

Chairman DUFFY. The gentlelady yields back. 

The Chair now recognizes the Ranking Member of the full committee, the gentlelady from California, Ms. Waters, for 5 minutes. 

Ms. WATERS. Thank you very much. But I would like to yield to 

Mr. Green and then I will speak after Mr. Green, if you don’t mind. 

Chairman DUFFY. Do you want me to recognize Mr. Green before 

you yield? 

Ms. WATERS. Yes. 

Chairman DUFFY. Oh, yes. 

Ms. WATERS. Thank you. 

Chairman DUFFY. The Chair now recognizes the Governor from 

Texas, Mr. Green, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. GREEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I greatly appreciate your 

extending the courtesy to me. I thank the Ranking Member as well. 

I think that there are many places that I could be today, but I 

thought that it most appropriate that I be here. 

I had the honor of serving as the judge of a small claims justice 

court some 26 years, commonly known as the people’s court. I had 

the opportunity to deal with people and their everyday problems. 

Through those years, I had the opportunity to ask questions that 

were very important then and some are important now. 

For example, I can recall asking a person, why don’t you just 

simply move? We had these cases called forcible entry and detainers, commonly known as evictions. Why won’t you just move to another area? You can pay less in rent and you can probably find a 

better job. I thought that was a pretty fair question. 

A person gave me what I thought was a pretty fair answer. My 

support system is in the area where I live. My cousin who keeps 

my baby is in the area where I live. Uncle Charlie who can give 

me a ride lives down the street. 

mcarroll on FSR431 with DISTILLER

21 

For this person and for many others, it is just not as simple as 

saying, move to the other side of town, pay less rent and there are 

greater opportunities. 

I take what you said, a number of you, about resources to mean 

that we should probably help people with some degree of job training. I take it to mean that some people will need to have some additional support available to them. Support systems so that their 

children may be properly taken care of while they are out getting 

these great opportunities. 

I take it also to mean that education, preparing them for these 

jobs, is important. I take additional resources to mean these things. 

Now, if these are not the additional resources of which you 

speak, kindly let me know because I want the record to reflect 

what additional resources really means to you. 

Anyone differ with me on additional resources? If so, it is OK. 

I just need to know what they are. 

Yes, ma’am, if you please identify yourself by name and speak. 

Ms. SARD. Thank you, Mr. Green. 

I think we can’t forget the need for additional housing resources. 

Everything you listed is very important. But, today, about three 

out of every four households eligible for Federal rental assistance 

get no help at all, despite rising rents throughout the country. 

Mr. GREEN. In addition to these things, you would add additional 

housing resources? 

Ms. SARD. Yes. 

Mr. GREEN. I think you are eminently correct and I am quite 

proud that you have mentioned these things. 

Anyone else? 

Housing resources and these. Anything other resources? Yes, 

ma’am? Would you identify yourself for the record, please? 

Ms. KOVICH. Lynn Kovich. 

In addition to that, what we have found is the access to affordable health care, we tend to silo people, in terms of you go here 

for your behavioral health services and here for your physical 

health. 

Folks need to be—have access to care coordination or case management so that we are looking at the whole person and not siloing 

them, in terms of their services. 

Mr. GREEN. Thank you. 

There has been an indication that housing should be permanent. 

I think all of you have concurred but I am not entirely sure. If you 

are of the opinion that housing should not be permanent, would 

you kindly extend a hand. 

All right, if you could be terse, I would appreciate it because I 

have one more area to visit. 

Mr. HAMMOND. Yes, sir. The only reason I am saying that is that 

the program with service-intensive transitional housing is more of 

a closed-circuit operation and when you are looking at 12 to 24 

months to incorporate that program and to get the person through 

it. Especially in these opioid treatment situations after they have 

gotten out of rehab. You have to get them down that track. 

But that is the only time. I agree with permanent housing when 

possible. 

mcarroll on FSR431 with DISTILLER

22 

Mr. GREEN. Now, quickly, that means that the 9 million that 

would be on the list—currently 3 million, that is what is called to 

our attention. That means that these other persons, what will we 

do to help them, if we make these permanent and there are others 

who are on the list? 

Hold your point on that. Let me go to the next thing. 

I have to say this. Thank you for acknowledging substance abuse 

as a problem. I don’t quarrel with the opioid crisis. But there are 

other substances that are being abused. I believe you have all indicated that you think that this should be open to people with substance abuse problems, not just opioid problems? 

If I am incorrect, would you kindly extend a hand into there. 

OK, let the record reflect that everyone agrees. Thank you, Mr. 

Chairman, for the extra time. 

I hope that someone will answer the question about permanent 

housing and how it impacts those who are on the waiting list. 

Thank you very much. 

Chairman DUFFY. Thank you. The gentleman’s time has expired. 

The Chair now recognizes the Ranking Member of the full committee, the distinguished gentlelady from California, for 5 minutes. 

Ms. WATERS. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman and members. 

Let me apologize for not being able to be here to hear all of the 

witnesses. I am sure that I missed part of the conversation that I 

needed to hear. But I can only now try and respond to what I know 

and understand about these legislative proposals. Hopefully, I will 

get the opportunity to talk with some of our preventers individually. 

We are here today to talk about three discussion draft proposals 

related to certain HUD and USDA rental assistance programs. 

While it seems all of the draft proposals have potentially laudable goals, in some respects, the goals are in tension with each 

other, it seems to me, in light of the fact that none of the discussion drafts are authorizing any new funding for their respective initiatives. Federal housing assistance programs in every community 

have very long waiting lists for assistance. 

What these bills do, absent any new resources, is just pick winners and losers in the competition for already scarce resources, 

rather than providing the sorely needed additional funding to help 

solve the problems. 

There is no question that we, as a country, need to promote 

choice and mobility options for individuals and families receiving 

rental assistance. We need to support youth aging out of foster 

care. The substance abuse crisis needs new solutions. 

However, these growing problems cannot be solved by constantly 

robbing from one population to pay for the needs of another. Trying 

to address these serious social challenges, without spending additional money, just creates more inequities and problems to solve. 

I am very interested to hear from all of the witnesses today, at 

some point in time, on whether they agree about the acute needs 

for increased resources to meet our Nation’s most pressing housing 

challenges. 

I think that we have embarked upon a point in time where most 

of our members on both sides of the aisle understand we have a 

mcarroll on FSR431 with DISTILLER

23 

housing crisis in the country. It is huge. That we need to talk about 

dedicating resources to deal with this housing crisis. I have a bill that I introduced for $13.8 billion just for homelessness. I knew that it was not going to receive a lot of attention. But 

I wanted to point out the tremendous need that there is and how 

we just have to come to some realities about what is going on in 

this country. 

We have gentrification going on. We have this conflict between 

economic development and the creation of affordable housing. 

Of course, we support economic development. It is happening in 

some of the parts of my district. But guess what? With economic 

development comes the need for landlords who have rental housing 

to get more money because it becomes very competitive. Because 

with economic development, the communities become more desirable. 

I have a 90-year-old woman on fixed income that was just evicted 

from her unit. It goes on and on and on. 

I am really interested that the Congress of the United States of 

America make a decision about what we are going to do about 

housing in this country. What we are going to do about public 

housing. What we are going to do about Section 8. What we are 

going to do about homelessness and commit ourselves to spending 

the money. 

Now, I know that we don’t mind deficits. Thanks to my friends 

on the opposite side of the aisle that have shown us that, really, 

deficits may not matter in the way that they had always said they 

would. 

We have created deficits recently with the leadership from the 

opposite side of the aisle. If we have to do that, in order to house 

people, and to provide safe and secure and decent housing for people in this country for our constituents, I want us to do that. I want 

us to say, we have to bite the bullet on housing, and we have to 

put up the money and the resources to do it. 

With that, I yield back the balance of my time. 

Chairman DUFFY. The gentlelady yields back. 

The Chair now recognizes the Ranking Member of the subcommittee, Mr. Cleaver, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. CLEAVER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Actually, most of the questions I was going to raise have already 

been raised by others. 

Obviously, during my opening statement, I spoke about the separation between opioid addiction and other addictions. My wife has 

a mental health clinic. She tells me that if you have a substance 

abuse, you just have a substance abuse. That would—I appreciate 

that going on. 

But when the Obama Administration put this mobility housing 

proposal out, they also laid out, as the Ranking Member mentioned, funding, $11 million which is not a lot of money. 

My only—one of my concerns with this program has to do with 

whether or not we are going to really try to run a demonstration 

program or will we—will it languish on the shelf someplace? 

I am—we do a lot of things that don’t ever get implemented. 

But let me find out one other program—I have one other concern 

that may not have been raised. It is that the whole issue, as it remcarroll on FSR431 with DISTILLER

24 

lates to moving from one area that is in poverty to another. I think 

you, Ms. Sard, you quoted that in your opening statement to us. 

Can you just speak to that a little bit more about your other findings, that are in that report, that will present data showing that 

life improves as you move to a more substantial and stabilized 

neighborhood? 

Ms. SARD. Thank you, Congressman. 

The study by Raj Chetty and others, that the Chairman and you 

also refer to, is, really, the latest in a series of studies, that have 

shown the impact on kids and adults from moving out of very highpoverty communities, particularly out of communities that are 

plagued by violence and moving to safer communities with a mix 

of incomes and also, importantly, with good schools. We cite research that pulls that together. 

The geography of the voucher program today means that there 

are too many communities where there are a lot of people living 

in high-poverty areas. But there are not a lot of rental housing opportunities in low-poverty areas with good schools within the 

boundaries of the jurisdiction. 

That means that it becomes vital to have the agencies within a 

region, that serve a mix of communities, collaborate together for 

the well being of the families that live in that region. 

The rest of us, who are not dependent on the Government for 

housing assistance, think of housing as a regional market. We 

think about where is a good school for our kids? Where is transportation? Where is my job? Where are there parks? 

Unfortunately, the way the administration of the voucher program is divided up in most places, which is city by city, really limits the choices of low-income people. 

Mr. CLEAVER. Of course, gentrification—if the study were going 

to be done today, I would tell them to try to factor in gentrification. 

When I was first elected 14 years ago, my wife and I went down 

by the stadium looking for a place to maybe buy a house. Capitol 

Hill police happened to be coming by. He was on horseback. He 

saw my pin and he said, Congressman, are you looking for a house 

down here? I said, sure. He said, look, I have a gun and I wouldn’t 

move down here. 

Now, I am not going to move down there now because I can’t afford it. I don’t know many people in Congress who can. What is 

happening there is happening all over the country. 

I think the Ranking Member hit it earlier. Low-income housing— 

we have—we are in a crisis. Where do those people live who used 

to live down there and where are they now? Where are they in 

Kansas City, Missouri? 

My wife grew up on a street, Lake Street. Now—the house they lived in cost $8,000. Two blocks away today is a house selling for 

$660,000. The study provides us, I think, some great data. 

But, my goodness, this gentrification issue has to be dealt with. 

Mr. Chairman, I yield back. 

Chairman DUFFY. The gentleman yields back. 

The Chair now recognizes the subcommittee chairman on monetary policy, the gentleman from Kentucky, Mr. Barr, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. BARR. Thank you, Chairman Duffy and Ranking Member 

Cleaver, for holding this important hearing. 

mcarroll on FSR431 with DISTILLER

25 

Again, a welcome to my constituents, Dean Hammond and Phil 

Gray, and for your leadership and showing us the way with a program that works. That leads to sobriety, that leads to self-sufficiency and long-term nonsubsidized housing and work for many of 

the veterans that go through your program. 

I have been very impressed. I know Secretary Carson, when he 

came and visited with you in Lexington, was very impressed with 

the model that you have shared with us today. 

As you all know, Congress has passed several key pieces of legislation to address the opioid epidemic, including the 21st Century 

Cures Act, the Comprehensive Addiction Recovery Act, and the recently enacted appropriations bill which includes several billion 

dollars in funding for opioid treatment and prevention. 

Despite these important investments, what has been frustrating 

for me and my staff is that when—as we look at some if the programs that are funded, it is really oriented toward treatment and 

medication-assisted treatment and law enforcement resources. But 

there is not that long-term recovery piece. 

When we are trying to help groups like St. James Place and the 

Foundation for Affordable Housing in Kentucky, those resources for 

that next phase after treatment, post-rehab, for long-term sober living, that is not there. There needs to be that longer term. 

I think Secretary Kovich, you made this point in arguing against 

time limits. We need longer-term help. I agree with you. Totally 

agree with you. 

To Mr. Hammond. Do you believe this demonstration program 

would fill a gap in Federal resources to address the addiction crisis? 

Mr. HAMMOND. Yes, sir. As I said, with a couple of variances on 

the Section 8 voucher program and coupled with the full funding 

to take care of the rest of the sober living part of learning how to 

live in society and then going on to unsubsidized housing. 

Mr. BARR. Let me address Secretary Kovich’s point about time 

limits and also this should cover all SUDs, all substance-use disorders, not just the opioid crisis. 

This is a draft bill for a reason. We want feedback from people 

on the front lines like you. Ms. Kovich, my condolences on your personal connection to this crisis. Unfortunately, I have met a lot of 

families whose lives have been upended by this in my Congressional district. 

One of the reasons why we propose the bill as—and focus on 

opioids. One is to respond to the President’s declaration and focus 

on this particularly acute problem. 

But the other is actually to address the other point that you 

made which is that we don’t want to displace the existing voucher 

allotment in a more profound way. 

It is a resource question. But your point is well taken. 

On the time-limit question. While I agree that 90 days is not 

enough to get someone to that long-term recovery, would—my 

question is, do you believe that pairing the work training, the job 

placement, the recovery services with the Section 8 Housing Choice 

Voucher Program could help recipients rise above addiction, lift 

themselves out of poverty through the blessing of work? Then, ultimcarroll on FSR431 with DISTILLER

26 

mately, graduate from the subsidized housing piece. Graduate from 

the dependence on the voucher piece. 

That is to Mr. Hammond. 

Mr. HAMMOND. Yes, sir, absolutely. We have shown that and you 

can see the statistics on our veteran program with our graduations. 

Just one of them here in 2017. We had 68 percent going into permanent housing. And 44 percent of those were in unsubsidized permanent housing. Certainly that has been our goal all along. 

Mr. BARR. I think that is the point as well. We don’t want a time 

limit that is too truncated and unrealistic. 

We do believe that you can realistically graduate from the voucher program, freeing up space for others, in the—in the—these lines, 

these waiting lines. By having a voucher that is, say, limited to 18 

months or 2 years. 

Mr. HAMMOND. Yes, sir. In that particular statistic I just gave 

you, the average length of stay was 281 days. 

Mr. BARR. One other piece of feedback that we heard from Ms. 

Sard was that it would be extremely inefficient and error prone if 

we did not bring in the public housing agencies. 

Mr. Hammond, is it your experience that you have—you need a 

public housing authority to actually implement your program? 

Mr. HAMMOND. We need—in Kentucky, they are the ones that 

administer the Section 8 program. 

Mr. BARR. Right. But do you think nonprofits are incapable of actually implementing the program? 

Mr. HAMMOND. No, sir. Because what we are having now with 

our veterans, the V.A. grant per diem program, we administer that 

whole thing and turn in our reports for bed days and are funded 

through the Veterans Administration. We are actually running a 

bachelor program based on bed days. 

Mr. BARR. My time is expired but I will just conclude with one 

final point. That is that I believe that an increased Federal investment in this transitional housing will actually save taxpayers 

money. 

Because, in the long run, if we help people—assist people to escape poverty and move them into permanent, non-subsidized housing where they have a job and they are addiction free, where we 

end the cycle of addiction, that is a taxpayer. That is a taxpayer. 

That is not someone who is incarcerated. That is not some whose 

life has been destroyed. That is a taxpayer, a productive person 

through the blessing of work and sobriety. That person is a contributor. 

Once again, we appreciate you showing the way. 

I yield back. 

Chairman DUFFY. The gentleman yields back. 

The Chair now recognizes the Ranking Member for points and 

personal privilege. 

Mr. CLEAVER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

You had mentioned Theresa Dumais. I just wanted to give an expression of appreciation. I have worked with her over the last few 

years and she is quite the professional. She is extremely knowledgeable. Not nerdy. She is extremely knowledgeable about all 

matters housing. I wanted to express appreciation, as you did earlier, for having the opportunity to work with her. 

mcarroll on FSR431 with DISTILLER

27 

Ms. WATERS. Do you have more time? 

Mr. CLEAVER. I yield to you. 

Ms. WATERS. Thank you. Thank you very much. I appreciate 

that. 

I have to, perhaps talk about this for the first time. There are 

some things that I wish I had done, as it relates to substance 

abuse. 

We had an epidemic of crack cocaine in some communities in this 

country. We had babies who were born to parents who were addicted. We never knew and we don’t know what happened to those 

children. There was never any research done. 

We do know that we have increased numbers in some of our public schools for children who have learning disabilities and problems 

that they put into special education. We don’t know whether or not 

the crack babies survived in a way that they will ever be productive citizens. 

I guess what I am thinking now, as I listen to what we are talking about with the opioid epidemic, is we have to make sure that 

we go for resources to deal with all of the substance abuse problems that have created problems in our communities all over. 

I think this can be a bipartisan effort because we all have these 

problems in our communities. I would love to be able to support 

something that is comprehensive and really puts the resources into 

dealing with these epidemics that we are confronted with. 

I yield back to the Ranking Member. 

Thank you. 

Chairman DUFFY. I just, to Theresa, would say, that could be 

your plaque, knowledgeable but not nerdy. There you go. If wanted 

to be nerdy, too, you could. 

But I think the Ranking Member brings up a good point. We 

want to look at all substance abuse, and its impacts it has and not 

just on housing but impacts it has on our children in our society 

as a whole. 

So, I think we might be shocked that a committee, with such diversity of opinion, can be so bipartisan. It is that work that is going 

to bring us to real solutions that can truly affect people’s lives. 

I want to thank all the members who participated today. 

I would just make a note for our panel. We did have a few Republicans leave. There was a briefing on Syria that was going on 

today which was why you saw an exit for that briefing. It doesn’t 

mean there was not an interest in the topic of the day. 

With that, thank you, panel, for your testimony. 

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 5 legislative days for Members to submit written questions to these witnesses and to place their responses in the record. Also, without objection, Members will have 5 legislative days to submit extraneous 

materials to the Chair for inclusion in the record. 

But, again, thank you for your testimony. 

And, without objection, this hearing is now adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 3:32 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.] 

mcarroll on FSR431 with DISTILLER

mcarroll on FSR431 with DISTILLER

(29) 

A P P E N D I X 

April 17, 2018 

mcarroll on FSR431 with DISTILLER

30 

mcarroll on FSR431 with DISTILLER

31 

mcarroll on FSR431 with DISTILLER

32 

mcarroll on FSR431 with DISTILLER

33 

mcarroll on FSR431 with DISTILLER

34 

mcarroll on FSR431 with DISTILLER

35 

mcarroll on FSR431 with DISTILLER

36 

mcarroll on FSR431 with DISTILLER

37 

mcarroll on FSR431 with DISTILLER

38 

mcarroll on FSR431 with DISTILLER

39 

mcarroll on FSR431 with DISTILLER

40 

mcarroll on FSR431 with DISTILLER

41 

mcarroll on FSR431 with DISTILLER

42 

mcarroll on FSR431 with DISTILLER

43 

mcarroll on FSR431 with DISTILLER

44 

mcarroll on FSR431 with DISTILLER

45 

mcarroll on FSR431 with DISTILLER

46 

mcarroll on FSR431 with DISTILLER

47 

mcarroll on FSR431 with DISTILLER

48 

mcarroll on FSR431 with DISTILLER

49 

mcarroll on FSR431 with DISTILLER

50 

mcarroll on FSR431 with DISTILLER

51 

mcarroll on FSR431 with DISTILLER

52 

mcarroll on FSR431 with DISTILLER

53 

mcarroll on FSR431 with DISTILLER

54 

mcarroll on FSR431 with DISTILLER

55 

mcarroll on FSR431 with DISTILLER

56 

mcarroll on FSR431 with DISTILLER

57 

mcarroll on FSR431 with DISTILLER

58 

mcarroll on FSR431 with DISTILLER

59 

mcarroll on FSR431 with DISTILLER

60 

mcarroll on FSR431 with DISTILLER

61 

mcarroll on FSR431 with DISTILLER

62 

mcarroll on FSR431 with DISTILLER

63 

mcarroll on FSR431 with DISTILLER

64 

mcarroll on FSR431 with DISTILLER

65 

mcarroll on FSR431 with DISTILLER

66 

mcarroll on FSR431 with DISTILLER

67 

mcarroll on FSR431 with DISTILLER

68 

mcarroll on FSR431 with DISTILLER

69 

mcarroll on FSR431 with DISTILLER

70 

mcarroll on FSR431 with DISTILLER

71 

mcarroll on FSR431 with DISTILLER

72 

mcarroll on FSR431 with DISTILLER

73 

mcarroll on FSR431 with DISTILLER

74 

mcarroll on FSR431 with DISTILLER

75 

mcarroll on FSR431 with DISTILLER

76 

mcarroll on FSR431 with DISTILLER

77 

mcarroll on FSR431 with DISTILLER

78 

mcarroll on FSR431 with DISTILLER

79 

mcarroll on FSR431 with DISTILLER

80 

mcarroll on FSR431 with DISTILLER

81 

mcarroll on FSR431 with DISTILLER

82 

mcarroll on FSR431 with DISTILLER

83 

mcarroll on FSR431 with DISTILLER

84 

mcarroll on FSR431 with DISTILLER

85 

mcarroll on FSR431 with DISTILLER

86 

mcarroll on FSR431 with DISTILLER

87 

mcarroll on FSR431 with DISTILLER

88 

mcarroll on FSR431 with DISTILLER

89 

mcarroll on FSR431 with DISTILLER

90 

mcarroll on FSR431 with DISTILLER

91 

mcarroll on FSR431 with DISTILLER

92 

mcarroll on FSR431 with DISTILLER

93 

mcarroll on FSR431 with DISTILLER

94 

mcarroll on FSR431 with DISTILLER

95 

mcarroll on FSR431 with DISTILLER

96 

mcarroll on FSR431 with DISTILLER

97 

mcarroll on FSR431 with DISTILLER

98 

mcarroll on FSR431 with DISTILLER

99 

mcarroll on FSR431 with DISTILLER

100 

mcarroll on FSR431 with DISTILLER

101 

mcarroll on FSR431 with DISTILLER

102 

mcarroll on FSR431 with DISTILLER

103 

mcarroll on FSR431 with DISTILLER

104 

Æ 

mcarroll on FSR431 with DISTILLER