U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

31–493 PDF WASHINGTON : 2018

OVERSIGHT OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT’S 

APPROACH TO LEAD-BASED PAINT AND 

MOLD REMEDIATION IN PUBLIC 

AND SUBSIDIZED HOUSING 

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 

JUNE 26, 2018 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Financial Services 

Serial No. 115–104 

( 

nshattuck on FSR297 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 

nshattuck on FSR297 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 

nshattuck on FSR297 with DISTILLER

nshattuck on FSR297 with DISTILLER

(V) 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

Hearing held on: 

June 26, 2018 .................................................................................................... 1 

Appendix: 

June 26, 2018 .................................................................................................... 29 

WITNESSES 

TUESDAY, JUNE 26, 2018 

Benfer, Emily A., Distinguished Visiting Scholar and Senior Fellow, Solomon 

Center for Health Law and Policy, Yale Law School ........................................ 11 

Brewen, Julie, Chief Executive Officer, Housing Catalyst ................................... 12 

Fee, Rachel, Executive Director, New York Housing Conference, Inc. ............... 9 

Kirkland, Jeremy, Acting Deputy Inspector General, Office of Inspector General, U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development ............................ 5 

McKeown, Karen, State Health Officer and Administrator, Division of Public 

Health, Wisconsin Department of Health Services ........................................... 6 

Patterson, Jeffery K., Chief Executive Officer, Cuyahoga Metropolitan Housing Authority on behalf of Council of Large Public Housing Authorities ........ 8 

APPENDIX 

Prepared statements: 

Benfer, Emily A. ............................................................................................... 30 

Brewen, Julie .................................................................................................... 51 

Fee, Rachel ........................................................................................................ 57 

Kirkland, Jeremy .............................................................................................. 64 

McKeown, Karen .............................................................................................. 87 

Patterson, Jeffery K. ........................................................................................ 96 

ADDITIONAL MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD

Duffy, Hon. Sean: 

Written statement from the U.S. Government Accountability Office .......... 102 

Report from the U.S. Government Accountability Office .............................. 109 

nshattuck on FSR297 with DISTILLER

nshattuck on FSR297 with DISTILLER

(1) 

OVERSIGHT OF THE FEDERAL 

GOVERNMENT’S APPROACH TO 

LEAD-BASED PAINT AND MOLD 

REMEDIATION IN PUBLIC 

AND SUBSIDIZED HOUSING 

Tuesday, June 26, 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 10:06 a.m., in room 

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

of the subcommittee] presiding. 

Present: Representatives Duffy, Posey, Luetkemeyer, Stivers, 

Hultgren, Rothfus, Trott, Budd, Cleaver, Beatty, Kildee, and Gonzalez. 

Chairman DUFFY. The Subcommittee on Housing and Insurance 

will come to order. 

Today’s hearing is entitled, ‘‘Oversight of the Federal Government’s Approach to Lead-Based Paint and Mold Remediation in 

Public and Subsidized Housing.’’ 

Without objection, the Chair is authorized to declare 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 inclusion in the record. Without objection, 

members of the full committee who are not members of the subcommittee may participate in today’s hearing for the purposes of 

making an opening statement and asking our witnesses questions. 

The Chair now recognizes himself for 5 minutes for an opening 

statement. 

First, I want to thank our panel for participating in today’s hearing, looking at the impact of lead-based paint and mold on the 

health of our children. Last year, I participated, held a hearing in 

Hayward, Wisconsin on AHASDA, and one of the issues we discussed was how mold infestation was impacting the health of Native American children that depend on HUD (U.S. Department of 

Housing and Urban Development) for their housing needs. 

Before the hearing, I toured a mold-infested house with Ms. 

Moore, who is on the committee also from Wisconsin. I have to tell 

you, it was absolutely outrageous. The fact that we had rooms in 

this small house that were shut down because they are full of mold, 

mold all over window sills, mold going 3 feet up a wall and a little 

nshattuck on FSR297 with DISTILLER

2 

baby, little kid’s bed is butted up to the mold. You went inside the 

house and you could barely breathe, the fact that kids in America 

live in these kind of houses is absolutely outrageous. And Ms. 

Moore experienced the same. 

We even invited a local doctor that treated these children to testify on the respiratory problems that can arise from living in 

unhealthy conditions such as mold-infested homes, which, again, 

you can’t breathe in this house. It was so full of mold. 

I know that some of you couldn’t make it out to the hearing, Ms. 

Moore did, but the issue of mold in our homes isn’t just a Wisconsin issue alone. Mold impacts those relying on public housing in 

every part of the country including in large urban areas like New 

York City. This has been made very clear to us from Ms. Velazquez, who is going to be here later at the hearing. And we also 

have someone here from the New York Housing Conference. 

So some of you may wonder why are we looking at lead-based 

paint remediation in addition to mold. Well, if your house was built 

before 1978 it is likely that lead-based paint was used. While the 

use of lead-based paint was banned in 1971, it took a few years for 

the Consumer Product Safety Commission to implement new regulations and for remediation programs to be started. 

I was recently in Milwaukee and was made aware of how much 

the city is struggling with increases of elevated lead levels in the 

blood of children who live in Milwaukee. There are more issues 

that have come up and the fact that we live in 2018 and again 

have kids that have these elevated levels is absolutely unacceptable. 

According to Ms. McKeown’s testimony, more than 200,000 children have been identified with lead poisoning in Wisconsin and 90 

percent of them were living in homes that were built before 1950. 

She also points out that low-income families are impacted more 

than other families in the community. In fact, without objection, I 

would like to submit for the record the 2016 Report on childhood 

Lead Poisoning in Wisconsin from the Wisconsin Department of 

Health Services. 

While Ms. Velazquez and I have mainly been talking about mold 

in New York City’s public housing units, just 2 weeks ago the city 

of New York agreed to spend over $2.2 billion to remediate leadbased paint and that the New York City Housing Authority has 

been placed under direct Federal oversight because of a potential 

cover-up. Outrageous. 

In addition to New York City’s story, both the HUD inspector 

general and the GAO issued reports on HUD’s lead grant in rental 

assistance programs this past month. It seems that the timing for 

this hearing is appropriate, as both reports call for increased reporting and oversight of HUD’s remediation programs. Between the 

Wisconsin report, the HUD IG report, and the GAO (Government 

Accountability Office) report, I think we have plenty of statistics 

and analysis on the impact of lead poisoning in America. 

I want to know from those of you who are here at the table on 

our panel that we are actually working to protect our youth from 

lead poisoning if the process in place is actually working. Is it too 

difficult to navigate? Do you agree with the assessment of the HUD 

IG and the GAO reports? What partnerships have you formed that 

nshattuck on FSR297 with DISTILLER

3 

work and what partnerships have fallen flat? What is the good, the 

bad, and the ugly, if you will? Can we do more in the private sector 

as opposed to depending on the Federal Government to fix this 

problem? 

The GAO report notes that in some cases non-Governmental 

funds have been used. Of 20 grantee applications elevated by the 

GAO report, eight indicated that they anticipated some form of 

non-Governmental contributions from non-profit organizations and 

discounts from contractors. How can we use that model to help not 

only remediate but ensure that children are being tested? 

It is an important issue. It is impacting families’ lives, kids’ lives, 

the health of our communities. And so I want to thank you for all 

being here today and sharing your wisdom and insight. We appreciate it. 

With that, my time has expired. I now recognize the Ranking 

Member, the gentleman from Missouri, Mr. Cleaver, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. CLEAVER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate you placing this issue of lead-based paint on the docket for this hearing. 

There is a serious danger in lead-based paint. Years ago, as a 

boy growing up in public housing, I can remember across the 

street, Lester Lacy’s house. His little sister would eat the paint as 

it would fall off the wall. Well, it took me a while to find out, actually I was an adult, that lead-based paint is actually sweet. And 

a lot of kids are drawn to it because it tastes good. Now, they are 

doing enormous damage to themselves and some of it is irreparable 

damage. 

We had the Nation’s first HOPE VI project, so when we built 

HOPE VI we were able to tear down our largest public housing 

complex called Wayne Manor. It was a catastrophe. It was built 

after Pruitt-Igoe and we tore it down. And then we had to bury it 

because of all of the lead-based paint and, in some cases, asbestos. 

And we have just looked at this problem for years and we have 

never seriously addressed it. This has nothing to do with which Administration has been across political lines and we have not dealt 

with this problem. There are probably thousands of people, adults 

walking around now damaged from eating that lead-based paint. 

And the CDC (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention) says 

we have over 4 million kids right now who are living in environments where there is lead-based paint and these kids have these 

high levels of micrograms of this lead in their bodies. 

And we are not able to tear down all the public housing. I wish 

we could and start all over. It is not going to happen. But we can 

do remediation and some of the remediation at least that was started, I am anxious to get your response to this. In the early days, 

they did remediation by simply painting over the lead-based paint. 

And that still creates some discomfort here with me and so I am 

interested in knowing whether that is continuing today, and I don’t 

know what kinds of studies we have had that say that that is actually a safe way of remediation. 

And I think all children deserve to live in safe homes. And we 

have a responsibility as adults and we have a responsibility in particular to deal with HUD as they try to deal with this problem. 

And at some point, Mr. Chairman, I would love to be a part of 

the process that can declare that under this committee, subnshattuck on FSR297 with DISTILLER

4 

committee we were able to eliminate that problem in the United 

States of America. And I know it is costly and I know that a lot 

of people are going to be concerned about the cost. We have no idea 

what the cost is right now of the lead-based paint having been ingested and damaging the adults that are walking around. 

And I have to say I am pleased that HUD is working to align 

its definition to lead exposure. And the more we are able to deal 

with this, I think we can get rid of these lifelong developmental 

consequences. And if there are some solutions that you have today, 

I can tell you that this committee is ready to receive them. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will yield back the rest of my time. 

I would rather deal with it in questioning later. 

Chairman DUFFY. The gentleman yields back. Well said. 

We now welcome our witnesses to today’s hearing. First, I want 

to welcome Mr. Jeffrey Kirkland, the Acting Deputy Inspector General for HUD. Next, we have Ms. Karen McKeown, the State 

Health Officer and Administrator of the Division of Public Health 

in the greatest State of Wisconsin Department of Health Services. 

Welcome. And now for the introduction of Mr. Patterson, I want 

to recognize the gentlelady from Ohio, Mrs. Beatty, for his introduction. 

Mrs. BEATTY. Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman and Ranking 

Member, for allowing me to have this honor to welcome to our committee today to testify, my good friend Mr. Jeffery K. Patterson 

who is the CEO of the Cuyahoga, which is in Cleveland County 

Metropolitan Housing Authority. Let me just say this. He comes to 

us as no stranger to working his way up from safety to development in the ranks of housing, so thank you for being here and 

making our State proud. 

Chairman DUFFY. Welcome, Mr. Patterson. 

We now recognize Mrs. Rachel Fee, Executive Director at the 

New York Housing Conference, Incorporated. And next Ms. Emily 

Benfer, the Distinguished Visiting Scholar and Senior Fellow at the 

Solomon Center for Health Law and Policy at Yale Law School. 

Welcome. And finally but not least, Ms. Julie Brewen, CEO of 

Housing Catalyst. 

All of you, welcome. Thank you for taking the time and being 

here today. 

In a moment, the witnesses will be recognized for 5 minutes to 

give an oral presentation of their written testimony. Without objection, the witnesses’ written statements 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 have 5 minutes within which to ask you all questions. 

I would note that on your table there are three lights. Green 

light, that means go; the yellow light means you have 1 minute 

left; and the red light means your time is up. Pretty self-explanatory, like stoplights at an intersection, self-explanatory. Your 

microphones are sensitive. Please make sure they are on and you 

are speaking directly into the microphone. 

With that, Mr. Kirkland, you are now recognized for 5 minutes. 

nshattuck on FSR297 with DISTILLER

5 

STATEMENT OF JEREMY KIRKLAND 

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

members of the subcommittee, thank you very much for the invitation to be here today to discuss this important topic and the critical 

work of HUD’s Inspector General. 

I am Jeremy Kirkland and I am the Acting Deputy Inspector 

General. HUD’s mission is to create strong, sustainable, inclusive 

communities and quality affordable homes for all, including utilizing housing as a platform for improving quality of life. 

HUD has primary responsibility for addressing lead hazards in 

federally assisted housing. Lead toxicity is a preventable health 

problem. And as you can see from the audit report before you, the 

department lacks adequate oversight of the reporting and remediation of lead-based paint in public housing and the voucher program. This overall inconsistency must be addressed. 

While my testimony will focus on lead-based paint, it is important to note that we have also identified lead issues from other 

sources including water and soil. HUD’s current procedures to address lead exposure are not necessarily preventative. The flag that 

triggers reporting and therefore action is a child whose blood test 

reveals certain indications of lead. 

However, even with the levels of lead being detected in the blood 

of these children, we cannot determine the full extent of the problem, as the data being shared with HUD is flawed or, in some 

cases, does not exist. 

In 2001, HUD required housing authorities to complete inspections to measure lead levels. It wasn’t until 2016 that HUD established a system to track and follow up with those housing authorities that were missing lead inspections. HUD indicated that their 

staff lacked the expertise to review the reports issued following 

these inspections. HUD did not train its staff on how to interpret 

these reports until 2017. 

Of additional concern, HUD does not require housing authorities 

to report and mitigate cases of lead exposure in housing built after 

1977. Our audit identified instances of lead-based paint exposure 

in post-1978 housing. However, current regulations target only pre1978 properties. 

Negligent, inconsistent, and, at times, nonexistent reporting by 

housing authorities sometimes hiding behind the privacy provisions 

in the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act combined with the failure of HUD to have consistent reporting standards have hindered an ability to collect meaningful data. As a result, the data that is provided can lack key information, like the 

child’s name and unit number and can make verification or follow 

up difficult if not impossible and render it useless. 

This, coupled with the process of self-reporting by housing authorities, and little verification by HUD, leaves the department 

without the ability to determine the extent of lead in HUD housing 

and has invariably resulted in exposure. 

An example of stories we have heard is the story of a mother who 

reported to the housing authority peeling and chipped paint and a 

fear of lead in her apartment. She requested that the housing authority inspect. The housing authority claimed an inspection found 

no lead paint hazard. It was later claimed that a housing authority 

nshattuck on FSR297 with DISTILLER

6 

inspector forged the mother’s signature on the inspection report. 

Several months later, this mother learned that one of her children 

registered a dangerously high blood lead level. 

In conclusion, our work finds that HUD lacked assurance that 

housing authorities properly identified and mitigated lead hazards, 

thus increasing the potential of exposing children due to unsafe living conditions. I know in our many conversations with the secretary on this topic he is seeking to address the problems highlighted and we will continue to produce products assessing their 

way forward. 

I look forward to working with the department and with Congress to ensure safe, decent and sanitary housing and also look forward to answering your questions. 

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

64 of the Appendix.] 

Chairman DUFFY. Thanks, Mr. Kirkland. 

Ms. McKeown, you’re recognized for 5 minutes. 

STATEMENT OF KAREN MCKEOWN 

Ms. MCKEOWN. Chairman Duffy, Ranking Member Cleaver, and 

distinguished subcommittee members, thank you for the opportunity to appear before the House Financial Subcommittee on 

Housing and Insurance to discuss the important role of public 

health in preparing for and responding to the consequences of lead 

poisoning. 

In this testimony, I will be highlighting three points: Lead is 

dangerous, lead poisoning is preventable, and we must take action 

to protect our children. But, first, I want to tell you a story about 

a little girl in Wisconsin. 

This little girl had normal lead levels at her 1- and 2-year checkups. Her parents then separated when she was 3. Her mom lived 

in a new apartment building and her dad moved into an older 

home. Her dad noticed that when she stayed with him she would 

play at the windows, wiping her hands along the window trough 

and then putting them in her mouth. Remembering what he had 

heard about lead poisoning, he alerted the little girl’s mom who 

asked their pediatrician to do another lead test. This time her lead 

level was almost 80 micrograms per deciliter, an extremely high 

level that required her to be hospitalized for chelation, a medical 

treatment that lowers blood lead levels. 

Lead is dangerous. There is no safe level of lead in the body. 

Lead can affect multiple organs and especially the nervous system 

and brain. Young children are the most vulnerable with the highest 

risk period being between 18 and 36 months. This is largely because at this age, children are just beginning to move around and 

explore their environments and, as you know, toddlers put everything into their mouths. 

Children who have been lead-poisoned have lower IQs and experience learning disabilities. They may also demonstrate behavioral 

issues such as difficulty controlling their impulses that persist into 

adolescence and adulthood. In other words, the consequences of 

lead poisoning are devastating and permanent. 

Lead poisoning is preventable. The most common source of lead 

poisoning in the U.S. is lead-based paints and lead-contaminated 

nshattuck on FSR297 with DISTILLER

7 

dust. Knowing this, lead hazards can be identified and addressed 

before a child ever becomes lead-poisoned. Yet, too often this does 

not happen, so it is vitally important that children be tested according to guidelines to catch elevated lead levels as quickly as possible. 

Once a child with lead poisoning is identified, the most important 

action is to remove the source of lead exposure. Yet, lead abatement or remediation requires resources which families may not 

have. The most gut-wrenching experience for those who work on 

this issue is finding a lead-poisoned child and then realizing there 

aren’t resources to help them remove the hazards. 

We must take action to protect our children. Unlike many other 

diseases which can be treated by medical professionals alone, lead 

poisoning also requires prompt action by public health, families, 

property owners, and construction trades to reduce hazards from 

lead-based paint. 

In the case of the little girl I described earlier, four local public 

health departments collaborated across jurisdictions to ensure they 

had searched for possible sources of lead in the places where she 

spent time. 

Since this work cannot be done by any single entity, it relies 

upon a system-based integrated approach. When any part of the 

system breaks down, children can fall through the cracks. 

After reading the HUD inspector general’s report, I was struck 

by the need for improved data sharing and tracking to ensure children do not get lost in the complexity of the system’s intended to 

protect them. 

Like so many other health issues, lead poisoning disproportionately affects communities that also struggle with other challenges 

such as poverty, unemployment, and housing needs. Indeed, this is 

the heart of the tragedy. We tell children that education is their 

path to a better life and yet, as a result of lead poisoning, far too 

many children find it difficult to achieve their dreams of a brighter 

future. 

In conclusion, I want to reiterate that lead is dangerous with lifelong consequences for young children. Lead poisoning is preventable, but preventing it will require resources as well as systems 

that facilitate collaboration. 

Remember the little girl in Wisconsin? One year and three chelation treatments later she is still struggling with high lead levels. 

The family has been traumatized by this experience. The parents 

are desperate for their daughter to be OK and their lives to return 

to normal. 

It is too late to prevent lead poisoning for this little girl, but we 

can take steps to prevent it for thousands of other children this 

year and every year. Indeed, we must take action. The children are 

depending on us. 

Thank you for your interest and concern. I am happy to answer 

any questions you may have. 

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

87 of the Appendix.] 

Chairman DUFFY. Thanks, Ms. McKeown. 

Mr. Patterson, you are recognized for 5 minutes. 

nshattuck on FSR297 with DISTILLER

8 

STATEMENT OF JEFFERY PATTERSON 

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

members of the subcommittee, my name is Jeffery Patterson. I am 

Chief Executive Officer of the Cuyahoga Metropolitan Housing Authority in Cleveland, Ohio and Vice President of the Council of 

Large Public Housing Authorities (CLPHA), which is a national 

non-profit membership organization that works to strengthen 

neighborhoods and improve lives. 

Providing a safe, accessible, and healthy environment is critical 

to helping our families, seniors, and persons with a disability and 

other vulnerable populations live with dignity and respect. Today, 

my testimony will focus on several areas that Congress could focus 

on to help correct the conditions and risks posed by environmental 

health hazards. 

The Capital Fund Program is the funding that most housing authorities rely on to address conditions of health hazard abatement. 

The Capital Fund appropriations have steeply declined. The capital 

needs backlog has grown. It was estimated at $26 billion by HUD 

8 years ago and now is estimated at $50 billion by industry stakeholders and continues to grow. 

This chronic underfunding of the Capital Fund contributes to the 

deteriorating housing stock, greatly diminished health and other 

life outcomes for public housing residents. Congress provided the 

Capital Fund with its largest boost in any one Fiscal Year last 

year, $800 million. While this represents a significant amount and 

was gratefully received by housing authorities, this is not nearly 

enough to cover the needs of the community. 

At our housing authority, some of our properties date back to the 

1930’s with approximately 3,000 units that contain lead-based 

paint. While we maintain the paint conditions in these units 

through a process of inspections and repair, these measures are 

temporary and deteriorate with normal activities of life leading to 

endless cycles of inspection and repair. The cost to completely remove lead-based paint from housing thereby eradicating exposure 

of infants and children to these toxins exceed the annual Capital 

Fund allocation of our PHA (public housing authority) many times. 

In your invitation to testify, you asked me to speak or comment 

on the HUD Office of Inspector General report. While I cannot 

speak specifically to what HUD did or did not do, I can say that 

housing authorities are endeavoring under often difficult circumstances and very limited resources to meet the many obligations, responsibilities, and conditions that are required when it 

comes to mitigating lead-based paint hazards in their developments. 

Things such as the Rental Demonstration Program, which offers 

the housing authorities the ability to leverage private capital 

through a variety of tools, allow us to be able to try to do things 

to remediate those issues. The Moving to Work program is another 

example of a program that allows flexibility for housing authorities 

and others to be able to take the necessary steps to address those 

concerns. 

HUD’s Healthy Homes program is a cost-effective and widely 

popular initiative that housing authorities are encouraged to work 

together with a diverse array of community health stakeholders 

nshattuck on FSR297 with DISTILLER

9 

and residents to reduce environmental hazards and improve community health. 

The ability to work collectively and in a collaborative manner 

with agencies across inter-Governmental alliance is critical in 

being able to address this matter. CLPHA is pleased that the 2019 

committee report by the Senate Appropriations Committee is recommending HUD award $95 million in grants to remediate leadbased paint hazards. The $95 million is another set-aside under the 

Housing Choice Voucher program. We would strongly encourage 

funding be authorized and allocated as new moneys rather than 

placing an additional strain on the Housing Choice Voucher program already beset with competing needs. 

In closing, with progress there are always new ways to do things: 

New programs, improved methods, better data, better materials. As 

my testimony shows, there are programs that exist, there is expertise that can exist. What housing authorities and other housing 

providers lack is resources. 

Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, we appreciate the increased attention that all of you have brought to this matter. And 

we appreciate the fact that you have elevated this discussion to a 

point where folks could really focus on it, collaborate and do any 

things that need to be done to help the youth and those that are 

exposed to lead. So I thank you for your time. Thank you for allowing me to testify today and I am prepared to address any questions. 

Thank you. 

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

96 of the Appendix.] 

Chairman DUFFY. Thank you, Mr. Patterson. 

Ms. Fee, you are recognized for 5 minutes. 

STATEMENT OF RACHEL FEE 

Ms. FEE. Thank you. Good morning. I am Rachel Fee, the Executive Director of the New York Housing Conference, a nonprofit affordable housing policy and advocacy organization. Our mission is 

to advance city, State, and Federal policies to support the development and preservation of decent and affordable housing for all New 

Yorkers. 

I would like to thank Committee Chairman Duffy, Ranking Member Cleaver, and members of the Financial Services Subcommittee 

for holding this important hearing today and the opportunity to 

testify. 

The built environment in which we live profoundly impacts our 

physical health and wellbeing. Numerous studies have demonstrated the positive impact of affordable housing on health outcomes and health savings. On the other end of the spectrum, poor 

housing quality can have serious, detrimental, and costly consequences. 

In New York City, 400,000 residents call public housing home in 

176,000 buildings managed by the New York City Housing Authority (NYCHA). The future of this housing has enormous implications 

not only for its residents, but for the surrounding neighborhoods 

and the city as a whole. 

Currently, there are over 160,000 work orders outstanding, representing deficiencies in residents’ homes. When deficiencies relate 

nshattuck on FSR297 with DISTILLER

10 

to leaks, pests, peeling paint, and mold, tenants’ health is potentially at risk. Behind these work orders are at least $25 billion of 

outstanding capital repairs in NYCHA developments. These are 

desperately needed building upgrades for systems that have outrun 

their useful life decades ago. 

Since 2001, NYCHA’s Federal capital and operating funding have 

been reduced by $1.5 billion. New York’s capital needs make up 

about half of the national capital repair backlog, estimated by industry experts at $50 billion. 

Despite a 2013 class action lawsuit relating to pervasive mold 

and despite the U.S. Attorney and the Southern District’s investigation into lead-based paint noncompliance and other health and 

safety issues, we still have nearly 200,000 families on the waiting 

list for public housing, underscoring its value. 

Our Nation knows the devastation of a public health crisis as 

witnessed by Flint, Michigan’s contaminated water supply. Without 

investment, public housing could be the Nation’s next massive 

health crisis. There is both a humanitarian and a monetary cost associated with the health impacts of aging infrastructure which include asthma, respiratory illness, and elevated lead levels. 

The total annual cost of asthma to the U.S. economy is almost 

$82 billion. A 2017 study found that eradicating lead paint hazards 

from older homes of children from low-income families would provide $3.5 billion in future benefits at a cost of $2.5 billion. But 

there is no price tag for an impacted child who can never reach his 

full potential. 

Representative Velazquez has called for Congress to commission 

a study on the health impacts of deteriorating building conditions 

for public housing residents. We concur with this recommendation. 

We also agree with the recommendations from the Office of the 

Inspector General report dated this month to improve HUD’s oversight related to lead reporting, monitoring, and abatement. In addition, we support the expansion of HUD’s lead-based paint hazard 

control and the lead hazard reduction grant programs including eligibility for all public housing authorities to apply. 

While these are important programs, they only abate for lead 

and do not address underlying building repair issues. While the 

health hazards resulting from poor quality housing are serious and 

costly, the solutions are simple. Targeted capital investment is the 

key to preserving decent, safe, and healthy living conditions. This 

can be achieved through targeted public housing capital and the 

Rental Assistance Demonstration program, which Congress recently expanded. 

Our Nation is already paying the price for substandard public 

housing conditions in our healthcare spending. Let us invest Federal dollars the right way, by restoring safe and healthy housing 

conditions and dignity to its residents to preserve our public housing infrastructure. 

Our three recommendations are as follows. Increase public housing capital to $5 billion annually with at least $300 million targeted toward health hazards; commission a study on the health impacts of deteriorating building conditions and the impact on public 

housing residents; and include public housing preservation in a national infrastructure plan. 

nshattuck on FSR297 with DISTILLER

11 

Thank you for your time today. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Fee can be found on page 57 of 

the Appendix.] 

Chairman DUFFY. Thank you, Ms. Fee. 

Ms. Benfer, you are recognized for 5 minutes. 

STATEMENT OF EMILY BENFER 

Ms. BENFER. Chairman Duffy, Ranking Member Cleaver, and 

members of the subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to testify on the critical issue of lead-based paint and mold in public and 

subsidized housing. 

I am Emily Benfer, Distinguished Visiting Scholar and Senior 

Fellow at Yale Law School. It is an honor to testify before you 

today on this urgent health and safety threat for our children. 

For the 1.6 million households that reside in federally assisted 

housing, lead hazards and mold can result in permanent and severe health impairments. Lead poisoning causes irreversible brain 

damage and affects bodily functions, growth, cognition, behavior, 

and development. 

The financial consequences of lead poisoning include upwards of 

$280 billion in public spending on healthcare cost and special education alone. According to HUD, a significant number of children 

currently reside in public and subsidized housing that contain leadbased paint. At the same time, 70 percent of Superfund sites are 

within a mile of public housing were HUD multi-family housing exposing residents to lead-soil, arsenic among other toxins. 

Similarly, housing program residents across the country suffer 

the adverse consequences of mold. A study of the 2011 U.S. Census 

found that public housing units are 4 times as likely to have roach 

infestations and 3 times as likely to have leaks than private market housing. 

These substandard housing conditions often create common asthma triggers. For children, asthma is the leading cause of school absences, accounting for 10.5 million lost school days and, in some cities, school absences are the basis for termination from public housing. Children cannot escape these hazards without greater Federal 

interventions. 

The recent OIG and GAO reports on lead-based paint in public 

and subsidized housing determined that HUD lacks both performance measures and plans to address non-compliance withdrawals 

as well as oversight of lead-based paint reporting and remediation 

in its programs. 

Based on existing regulatory authority, HUD could do much 

more to protect children from lead poisoning and mold. First, HUD 

should implement primary prevention strategies that would prevent exposure and thus prevent lead poisoning and asthma. 

As noted in the GAO report and the House report to the 2017 

Consolidated Appropriations Act, HUD’s current practice of visual 

assessments for lead is insufficient and more rigorous standards 

should be implemented to ensure that lead hazards are identified 

before children are lead-poisoned. 

In 2017, a bipartisan group of Senators including Senators Scott, 

Durbin, Young, Portman, and Donnelly introduced the Lead-Safe 

Housing for Kids Act. Based on legislation introduced in the 114th 

nshattuck on FSR297 with DISTILLER

12 

Congress by Representatives Ellison, Quigley and Kildee, the bill 

directs HUD to conduct lead risk hazard assessments prior to occupancy in all housing programs. Until HUD engages in this strategy, children will continue to function as sensing devices for lead 

hazards and will continue to have their lives permanently altered 

for the worse. 

Second, HUD should engage in oversight compliance and longterm planning necessary to ensure the health and safety of residents especially children. The OIG and GAO reports found that 

public housing authorities self-certify compliance, leaving wide 

margins for fraudulent reporting. 

HUD has no procedure for addressing non-compliance other than 

offering technical support to faltering PHAs. This has resulted in 

exposure to mold and the continued lead poisoning of children in 

numerous districts across the country. 

Third, funding should be dedicated to improving the conditions 

of federally assisted housing to prevent exposure to health hazards. 

Due to a backlog of public housing capital needs estimated as high 

as $50 billion, PHAs do not have sufficient funding for the operation or maintenance of public housing. 

Greater funding would allow PHAs to fully address the root 

causes of mold and remediate lead hazards. At the same time, despite the proven effectiveness of HUD’s community development 

block grant, home lead-based paint hazard control, and lead hazard 

reduction demonstration grant the programs remain underfunded 

and not accessible to the most at-risk communities. 

Ultimately, to end lead poisoning as a major public health threat, 

HUD would need to increase the budget for lead hazard remediation and abatement. Lead hazards and mold pose a great threat 

to the health and livelihood of residents especially children. To uphold its duty to provide safe, decent, and sanitary housing, HUD 

must eradicate this completely preventable health-harming condition in federally assisted housing. Any other approach places children’s lives at grave risk. 

Thank you for the invitation to testify on this important issue 

and I look forward to your questions. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Benfer can be found on page 30 

of the Appendix.] 

Chairman DUFFY. Thank you. 

Ms. Brewen, you are recognized for 5 minutes. 

STATEMENT OF JULIE BREWEN 

Ms. BREWEN. Good morning Subcommittee Chairman Duffy, 

Ranking Member Cleaver, and honorable subcommittee members. 

My name is Julie Brewen and I am the CEO of Housing Catalyst, 

the housing authority of the city of Fort Collins, Colorado. We own 

and operate about 1,200 units of affordable housing and administer 

about 1,200 Housing Choice Vouchers and a number of other successful properties and programs. Housing Catalyst is committed to 

creating vibrant, healthy, sustainable properties. I am also a board 

member for the National Association of Housing and Redevelopment Officials, NAHRO. 

Housing Catalyst, along with other public housing authorities 

across the country, remains steadfast in ensuring that children in 

nshattuck on FSR297 with DISTILLER

13 

HUD-assisted housing are not exposed to lead-based hazards. In 

fact, PHAs have been more than successful over the years in minimizing and eradicating lead-based hazards from their properties. 

A joint report by HUD and the CDC found that children living 

in federally supported housing have approximately 20 percent 

lower blood lead levels on average than similar children in low-income families living in homes where there is no Federal assistance. 

Although this demonstrates considerable progress, PHAs continue 

to work tirelessly to ensure that their properties remain free of 

lead-based hazards. 

One of the most important factors in ensuring that PHAs are 

able to provide safe, secure, lead- and mold-free public housing for 

their residents is full funding of the Public Housing Operating 

Fund and the Public Housing Capital Fund. 

The public housing inventory faces a mounting capital needs 

backlog, but Capital Fund appropriations continue to lag dangerously behind accruing modernization needs. In 2018, HUD provided enough subsidy for only 80 percent of the capital needs estimated to accrue during the Fiscal Year according to HUD’s 2010 

Capital Needs Assessment. At the same time, funding for operations has endured deep cuts, forcing PHAs to forego critical maintenance functions and further jeopardizing the long-term sustainability of many properties. 

In 2011, a full capital needs assessment of Housing Catalyst’s 

public housing portfolio confirmed what we knew anecdotally. The 

capital needs and expenses of operating scattered site public housing far outweighed the average $204,000 per year in capital funds 

Housing Catalyst was receiving. 

With respect to lead, in the 1990’s, we had to encapsulate some 

homes with exterior lead present, and the encapsulation has a life 

span of just 20 years. Today it would cost $50,000 to address the 

needs of just one of these houses or roughly a quarter of our annual 

average capital fund subsidy on just one of our 154 units. 

In light of these financial limitations, Housing Catalyst was accepted to participate in HUD’s rental assistance demonstration program which allowed the agency to acquire and construct properties 

that meet our high standards for health and safety. 

I believe that for many housing providers like us, RAD (Rental 

Assistance Demonstration), and the newly updated Section 18 

Demolition and Disposition Regulations provide a mechanism to 

help ensure healthy homes for communities’ most vulnerable families. It is critical that Congress and HUD take a commonsense approach toward lead and mold abatement. Mandated full abatement 

of lead in public housing properties without adequate funding is 

impossible. 

Since 2001, Housing Catalyst has experienced just over 

$1,660,000 of cuts, which is significant for the size of our public 

housing portfolio. Had RAD not been an option for us, we would 

have had to make very difficult choices. There are many housing 

authorities across the country like Housing Catalyst who are committed to working in proactive ways to focus on the health of the 

families we serve. We have adopted a comprehensive Green Operations and Maintenance Manual, which includes using only low 

VOC paints and nontoxic cleaning products. 

nshattuck on FSR297 with DISTILLER

14 

And as a developer, when we build and design new properties or 

acquire and substantially rehabilitate existing properties, we focus 

on healthy building practices that include construction design, materials, and systems for healthy indoor air quality among other 

health and sustainability focuses. 

I truly appreciate your interest and concern and I encourage you 

to continue to address this issue with a commonsense approach. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Brewen can be found on page 51 

of the Appendix.] 

Chairman DUFFY. Thank you, Ms. Brewen. I want to thank the 

panel for their testimony. The Chair now recognizes himself for 5 

minutes for questions. 

I am looking at how much money we have spent since 2009. My 

analysis is we have spent about $1.2 billion dollars on this issue. 

Mr. Kirkland, does that number sound about right to you? 

Mr. KIRKLAND. It sounds close, obviously, give or take a little bit, 

but I think that is pretty accurate. 

Chairman DUFFY. And is it the assessment of the panel that that 

is not enough money? It seems like it would do a hundred—we did 

$145 million this year in regard to lead paint mitigation. It is—that 

is not—that is not—that is not doing it? And we have been doing 

that for, what? Fifteen, 20 years, is that fair, Mr. Kirkland? 

Mr. KIRKLAND. That is fair. 

Chairman DUFFY. And so, again, over 10 years, it has been $1.2 

billion. Are we making a dent in the public stock? Are we making— 

are we making a headway? Are we seeing the number of poisoned 

children in America going down because of the money we are 

spending, is it leveling off, is it going up? What are we seeing with 

kids and in—that live in the public, in public housing? Anybody? 

Ms. MCKEOWN. I can’t speak to public housing specifically, but 

when we look at the trends in Wisconsin, we are seeing the number 

of children who are lead poisoned going down; it is still too many 

children, over 4,000 a year is still too many. And as I listened to 

the other panelists, what is not clear to me, is have the steps that 

have been taken, are those going to last, are those going to have 

to be repeated over and over? 

Chairman DUFFY. Great question. 

Ms. MCKEOWN. Which means the same money would have to be 

spent? 

Chairman DUFFY. Are we resolving the problem for the long term 

or is this a short-term solution, Ms. Fee? 

Ms. FEE. So, in New York City, we have in NYCHA’s Public 

Housing about 9,000 children that are living in apartments with 

evidence of lead-based paint. So, that is— 

Chairman DUFFY. Give me—give me that number again? 

Ms. FEE. Nine thousand according to the New York City Housing 

Authority. And that number could be higher, that is just what they 

have reported. The attorney—the U.S. Attorney from the Southern 

District thinks that that number could be substantially higher. 

So, in terms of what we are investing in abatement, I think there 

are a couple issues here. The first is, if you can abate, encapsulate, 

or remove the lead paint, you can make that a safe and habitable 

living environment. But if you have other issues going on in a 

nshattuck on FSR297 with DISTILLER

15 

building, like we do in much of New York City’s Public Housing 

Authority, if you have leaking roofs, if you have leaking pipes, if 

you have water penetration because your building envelope is not 

sealed, you have moisture coming in through the brick that needs 

to be repainted. Without fully upgrading these building systems, 

that paint is going to peel again. 

If we are looking at mold, you can replaster, you can paint, but 

we are going to see that mold return. Right now, I think the return 

rate is about 30 percent, so we are spending money abating for 

molds, and in 30 percent of the cases it is growing back, because 

we are not investing the dollars to deal with the underlying building issues. 

Chairman DUFFY. So, is that advice that you would give us, just 

try to deal with the underlying problem, so it is not a reoccurring 

theme? 

Ms. FEE. Absolutely, I think that we need to invest significant 

amounts of money in the Public Housing Capital Fund to upgrade 

building systems, and target it toward where it is really needed the 

most kept—pressing capital needs that are impacting the health of 

the residents. So we are looking at roofs, plumbing, sealing the 

building envelopes. 

Chairman DUFFY. Ms. Brewen, did you want to comment on this? 

No? 

Ms. BREWEN. Yes, thank you. For us, our only viable option was 

the RAD program, which allows us to sell these 154 public housing 

properties and replace them with newer substantially renovated 

properties. The families that we serve that are very vulnerable 

have few choices to public housing, and for us because of the backlog of capital needs, weighing roofs versus lead. It just wasn’t an 

option, we really chose to replace our units for our most vulnerable 

families. 

Chairman DUFFY. And this is the burning question for us, how 

do—how do we—how do we spend money and spend money well? 

And how much do we have to spend? Mr. Kirkland? 

Mr. KIRKLAND. Chairman Duffy, I think one of the concerns that 

obviously came out of our report is a lack of consistency in approach. And as we talked about the abatement and mitigation 

issue, HUD relies on each housing authority to address that issue 

on its own. 

I think as you look at many of the policies of HUD, 24 of the 45 

field offices that have oversight of the mitigation process where it 

comes to lead, don’t even have policies on how to deal with the intake and the processing of those issues. So, a consistent approach 

I think is necessary first and foremost. And I think that was a glaring aspect of our report. 

Chairman DUFFY. And I wish I had more time, my time is—I 

wanted to go to Ms. McKeown, I can’t, but I think the scenario that 

you brought up with the—with the kids was not a public housing 

unit, it was a private unit, is that right? And how do we now address not just the public housing facilities, but how to deal with 

private rentals as well, which is a whole other set of problems. But 

my time has expired and now I recognize the Ranking Member, the 

gentleman from Missouri, Mr. Cleaver for 5 minutes. 

nshattuck on FSR297 with DISTILLER

16 

Mr. CLEAVER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am going to follow up 

with the Chairman’s express concerns, because Mr. Kirkland, you 

are probably the natural person to raise this question, with whom 

I can raise this question. We have 2.75 in the Public Housing Capital Fund or close to that, something like that. And now the President zeroed it out in his budget, but we were able to get some significant dollars, the problem that I am—I don’t understand, if we 

are interested in solving this problem, we ought to do something 

that would demonstrate that we are interested. 

For example, if we have four million kids living in places where 

they are exposed to high levels of lead and a significant number of 

the 4 million are living in public housing, why can’t we declare war 

on lead paint and put the resources and we may, I don’t know how 

far these capital—Public Housing Capital Funds can go, are these 

funds eligible to deal with remediation? 

Mr. KIRKLAND. We can certainly look into that, I don’t have an 

immediate answer for you, but I would certainly have my staff. 

But, yes, I did get word that, yes, we can use those funds. 

Mr. CLEAVER. Can anybody tell me why we can’t just say, OK, 

2019, we are going to reduce the number of units with lead-based 

paint in it by 75 percent, and solve this problem? Because if we go 

like we have been going, my grandchildren will be still dealing 

with this issue. I know—is this weird? Am I being weird? 

Ms. BENFER. Ranking Member Cleaver, I am with you, let us 100 

percent declare war on lead poisoning, I think that we know how 

to solve this problem, we have known for years, the science is behind us, and it is a matter of really holding HUD accountable for 

oversight, for quality assurance, for no more self-reporting of 

whether or not we have complied with this. And first and foremost, 

primary prevention practices. We have to identify the hazards and 

remediate them before children are exposed. 

Otherwise, this will be a problem for our grandchildren and their 

grandchildren, because they will be dealing with the consequences 

of the cost to society. There are 450,000 units, federally assisted 

housing units that have lead-based paint, and were built before 

1978, that is the universe that we are dealing with here. 

Mr. CLEAVER. Now, do we include Section 8 Housing as well? 

Does any—does anyone disagree with me, if so, don’t raise your 

hand— 

Ms. FEE. Wait. I concur, I think that we need to fight lead paint, 

I think in terms of public housing, we have laid out a plan to restore conditions in public housing, it is $5 billion a year, you would 

want to look at that over 10 years, and reduce that capital backlog. 

We have to keep funding operating so that the buildings can be 

maintained, but we first have to address underlying building systems. 

Mr. CLEAVER. Mr. Patterson? 

Mr. PATTERSON. Yes, Ranking Member Cleaver, I agree with 

what you have been saying, I do think that it takes a lot, it will 

take funding, it will also take I think a collaborative effort across 

the board with different agencies working to support each other as 

well as share information where they are able to ascertain and understand where the problems are and then make sure that we can 

get that approach. 

nshattuck on FSR297 with DISTILLER

17 

But it will be a war, it will be—have to make a sustained effort 

over time to be able to address this. But I do believe with that collaboration, and with that emphasis and that funding we will be 

able to address it. It is the same thing in terms of using programs 

like the RAD program, the Moving to Work Program where there 

is flexibility to be able to address it, but it does need to be an overall strategy coordinated across the board in order to be able to get 

this matter addressed. 

Mr. CLEAVER. And so we need multiple agencies to sit down and 

work together, probably HUD, maybe even EPA, but certainly 

HUD, and maybe HHS, I don’t—I don’t know, all I know is that 

I am talking to myself in some of this, maybe the American public 

would love to see us solve a problem after discussing it, or are we 

going to discuss it for another couple of decades? I just think this 

is an opportunity we ought to exploit and do something so that we 

can do this, and I don’t—I am—I am going to put some time on 

it, because I am frustrated that we might be talking about this 

next year. 

I have gone over, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman DUFFY. The gentleman yields back. 

The Chair now 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. Please excuse my 

dark glasses. I had eye surgery. So, the light bothers it. 

But, Mr. Chairman, I would like to go on record so these witnesses, when they go back to their individual States that they can 

say at least one member here today said how honored I was to see 

witnesses from both sides of the aisle giving such scholarly testimony and also having the issue at heart more than playing to us 

on either side of the aisle, and it has been greatly appreciated regardless if you are the Democrat or Republican witness. 

I found it to be very informative. I found it to be very factual and 

hopeful to me, because one of the things, I grew up working in public housing and it was one of my first jobs after graduating from 

college and I had the distinct honor of going in and inspecting 

units. So, I saw many children who were affected by or actually 

gnawing on window ledges with lead-based paint. 

I am disturbed; my staff has presented me a chart and I may 

want to enter it into the record in the State of Ohio. So, Mr. Patterson, I will go to you with this question. It talks about the number 

of young children under 72 months old and when you look at the 

statistics that they have there, some 1,500 kids less than 72 

months of age who were tested and confirmed to have high blood 

levels for exposure to lead. Now, all of these are not in Cleveland. 

My city, the capital, Columbus, shares in that. What is disturbing 

is most of—well, the majority are in minority or predominantly minority communities, communities with public housing that are 

housed with predominantly African-Americans and other minorities. 

Can you or do you know what it would cost for you to completely 

mitigate the threat of lead-based paint exposure to children in your 

facilities? 

nshattuck on FSR297 with DISTILLER

18 

Mr. PATTERSON. I don’t have a number that I can specifically say, 

but I could tell you it would be a very, very large number. We have 

over 3,000 units now just within our housing authority that are affected by lead paint. That is out of our housing stock of plus–9,000. 

So, over the years, we have been able to go in through development activities and things like that to be able to address some. But 

those units that are there are still a problem. It boils down to trying to eradicate the problem or trying to just deal with the problem 

on a short-term basis. 

Mrs. BEATTY. OK. 

Mr. PATTERSON. To really eradicate the problem, that means 

going in and doing a full removal, in some instances, redevelopment of a site in order to provide these individuals with the safe 

quality housing that they deserve. 

Mrs. BEATTY. OK. And that is a good segue for me. As we certainly know, Secretary Carson, a physician, when he was sworn in 

to become the Secretary of the Department of Housing and Urban 

Development, he said he was going to renew HUD’s focus on lead 

hazards in affordable housing. 

Well, today, we heard from each one of you that the Public Housing Capital Fund is certainly a key funding mechanism for public 

housing authorities to do just that, to eradicate the lead-based 

paint. However, the Administration’s fiscal 2019 budget request 

from HUD zeroed out the Public Housing Capital Fund. 

So, I would like to ask for the record each of you to answer the 

final question with a yes or no. Will zeroing out the funding for the 

Public Housing Capital Fund assist HUD and public housing authorities around the country to eradicate lead-based paint exposure 

within affordable housing? And we will start right here. 

Ms. BREWEN. No, Congresswoman. 

Ms. BENFER. No. 

Ms. FEE. Absolutely not. 

Mr. PATTERSON. No. It will not. 

Mr. MCKEOWN. I am not familiar with the different funds. So, I 

am not able to speak to that. Sorry. 

Mrs. BEATTY. So, well, let me put it this way. If you do not have 

any money to do it and you just said you need it, will it help if you 

do not have the money? 

Mr. MCKEOWN. If other funding is not supplied, then yes or then 

it would be a problem. 

Mr. KIRKLAND. This issue will obviously take funding to be able 

to address the issue. 

Mrs. BEATTY. OK. Thank you. 

And my time is up. I yield back. 

Chairman DUFFY. The gentlelady yields back. 

Without objection, we are going to do a second round. And so, the 

Chair recognizes himself for 5 minutes. 

We spent over $1 billion in the last 10 years. Over the last 20 

years, I am sure we are kicking a couple of billion dollars. We have 

a set of units or homes or apartments that are a problem. 

Mr. Kirkland, with a couple of billion dollars, how many of these 

properties, what percent of these properties have we mitigated, remediated, fixed? 

nshattuck on FSR297 with DISTILLER

19 

Mr. KIRKLAND. One of the major concerns and obviously our 

audit identified ones that were identified and mitigated. However, 

I think the most fundamental problem is we can’t even answer that 

question. As HUD, we do not have enough data and have not collected enough data to be able to fundamentally answer the questions of which ones have. And without the consistent approach, 

without the fundamental aspect of sharing of data, I don’t know 

that even HUD can answer that question. 

Chairman DUFFY. So, we know the percent of the funds that go 

into mitigation versus the percent of the funds that go into administration? 

Mr. KIRKLAND. I do not know that. 

Chairman DUFFY. I am sensitive to the point of saying, hey, and 

Mr. Cleaver made this point, we will be dealing with this problem 

with his grandkids, right? We are not fixing the problem. But when 

we can’t actually answer fundamental questions about how well we 

are spending our money and the answer to the problem is spend 

more money, that is a really hard thing for us to process. 

So, shouldn’t we develop a plan that says maybe over 10 years 

or 15 years, we are going to resolve this problem in America. What 

does it look like? What does the legislation and the rules have to 

look like and this is how much money it is going to take to fix the 

problem. Wouldn’t that make sense? Does anyone disagree with 

that assessment? 

Does anyone say the answer is the current system and just spend 

more money? And by the way, we can’t actually even tell us how 

successful we have been. Can anybody tell us how successful we 

have been with the probably couple of billion of dollars we spent? 

We are probably making some progress, but we can’t even quantify 

it. 

And so, I am sensitive to the feedback for more money, but I 

think what we have to do in a bipartisan effort and in collaboration 

and in consultation with experts like yourselves is figure out a path 

forward. Figure out what the plan needs to look like, what we need 

to do with each of these properties and how much money it is going 

to take and how long we are going to spend that money. Does that 

seem like a fair assessment of what we should actually be doing 

to address the problem? 

And, Mr. Patterson, would you agree with that? 

Mr. PATTERSON. Yes, I would. I think that what you said has a 

lot of merit. I do think that we need to have a strategic approach 

to how we are going to go forward and how we are going to get this 

addressed. But again, I think it takes a lot of collaborating and a 

lot of folks putting in the time and rolling up their sleeves and 

being able to address this not on just a 1-year basis but on a sustained basis until we eradicate the problem. 

Chairman DUFFY. A holistic approach over time. This is what the 

plan looks like. It might take 10 years. It might take 15 years, but 

it is not going to be here when Mr. Cleaver’s grandkids are in Congress and taking a seat, right? 

Mr. PATTERSON. Yes, sir. 

Chairman DUFFY. Ms. Fee? 

Ms. FEE. Chairman Duffy, I just want to say that the attention 

on lead and mold is very important. But I do think we have to look 

nshattuck on FSR297 with DISTILLER

20 

beyond this to the total building conditions especially for public 

housing. So, we could just focus on lead, but we will have reoccurrence if we don’t address these underlying building conditions 

again. 

So, I just want to make a couple of other comments. On mold, 

we have had just last year 42,000 complaints of mold in public 

housing in New York City. That is impacting tens of thousands of 

residents. We also had 320,000 residents who experienced a heat 

or hot water outage between October 2017 and February 2018. In 

addition, we have chronic elevator failures. In 70 percent of 

NYCHA buildings, there was an experience in an elevator not 

working at some point in a time. 

Chairman DUFFY. Let me just interject. I have to tell you—on 

the mold situation, what burns me is in Hayward with the LCO 

tribe, we had sent them—I am going off the top of my head now, 

several hundreds of thousands of dollars to fix a mold problem on 

the reservation. 

They did a plan. They were going to do I think it was 14 homes 

with that money. And lo and behold, they did three—three homes 

which by the way, you could have torn the current homes down 

and build new ones and it would have been less expensive than 

what they were saying they were spending on the mitigation of the 

three homes. And so, spending money well is really important 

whether it is on the building side, on the mold side, or on the paint 

side, and we are all under pressure on dollars. But this is an important issue. 

And to get more money, we have to say, ‘‘We are spending the 

money you give us now really, really well. This is how it is used, 

but it is not enough. It is not enough to address the problem.’’ And 

until we get that feedback and drill into this, it is hard to get I 

think the Congress to spend more. And what I like is there is a 

willingness of people to work together and I think we almost have 

to have a taskforce on this issue that will work together to get a 

long-term solution to address at least this space. We can have another hearing; there are a lot of issues that we have in this space. 

Today, we are dealing on paint and mold. 

My time has expired by over a minute. So, hopefully someone 

else can get to you. But now, I am going to yield to Mr. Cleaver 

for 5 minutes. 

Mr. CLEAVER. I will take the entire period, Mr. Chairman. 

But, Mr. Kirkland, the IG report is damning. I do not know 

whether everybody here realizes some of the things that are in it 

that are just absolutely—we should not tolerate those in the Government. When you look at the fact that you found that there is 

no oversight of the reporting of remediation, how are we going to 

deal with the problem and we are not even getting accurate or— 

and probably in some instances, no reporting at all. 

And the worst part for me is that there were no goals established 

which is why I brought the issue earlier, HUD did not even establish the goals. Now, I am just following Secretary Carson. Obviously, this has been around a while. I could care less about who 

is sitting in office over there. What I want is to see the problem 

resolved. 

nshattuck on FSR297 with DISTILLER

21 

And when you read this report, it is a haphazard system we are 

running over here. Nobody is in charge. Nobody is setting—the 

question that the Chairman and I have been talking about, why 

don’t we say we are going to do this in 10 years or whatever. If 

your report is accurate and I happen to be one of these people who 

believe in Government, so, I believe that your report is accurate, 

there are no goals. They just wake up in the morning and go in 

HUD, however you HUD. But we have a problem. 

Have I misread your report? 

Mr. KIRKLAND. Ranking Member Cleaver, HUD has recently implemented a tracking system to track this information. Unfortunately, it totally relies on the housing authorities to report that information in. So, we did identify a number of flaws in the process 

and also I think there are concerns with the consistency of approach. 

Many different offices within HUD have a role where it comes to 

lead and mold and unfortunately, there is no consistency of approach as to those issues. 

Mr. CLEAVER. But your office, you don’t get into it, giving directions on how to fix the problem. You, IG, just identify the problems. 

Mr. KIRKLAND. We work to identify the problem and refer it to 

the department to find ways to fix the problem. 

Mr. CLEAVER. Well, the good news I think from this hearing is 

that the Chairman and I and I think the same with others on this 

subcommittee are interested in doing just what has not been done, 

I think are interested in trying to put together a program and I 

don’t know, we might need to—I think the Chairman and I will 

talk about it. We have been whispering to each other since this 

hearing began. 

I think we are going to try to figure out some way to do exactly 

what has not been done and let us let the voters feel good for a 

change about something that has been successfully dealt with that 

we can actually remediate this problem. And my grandchildren, 

two or three of them have not been born yet. And so, I do not even 

know—we may have to wait for my great grandchildren unless we 

set a goal. 

And the other issue is, is there anyone who can say what the difficulty is if you are actually running a public housing authority 

with providing the data? 

Mr. PATTERSON. Ranking Member Cleaver, I do not know that I 

am in a position to say yea or nay, maybe a legal requirement in 

that nature, but I am not certain. 

Mr. CLEAVER. Well, I am just wondering. If we are having difficulty getting the data, is it creating some kind of expense with 

the public housing authority? Do we have the personnel to do it? 

If we are not getting that information, there is a reason that that 

is not happening. 

Yes. Ms. Brewen? 

Ms. BREWEN. So, we took advantage of a grant opportunity in the 

1990’s to have all of our properties assessed and then we created 

a mitigation plan for all 154, not a large number, but it can be 

done. We do have all of those records, but we did it voluntarily. 

And then, we applied for what was then HUD’s comprehensive improvement assistance program and did all of the abatement. 

nshattuck on FSR297 with DISTILLER

22 

Now, as I mentioned, some of that has a lifespan of 20 years and 

now, we are looking at another $50,000 on just one unit. So, that 

gives you both sides. 

Mr. ROTHFUS [presiding]. The gentleman’s time is expired. And 

I will recognize myself for 5 minutes of questioning. 

Mr. Kirkland, I want to touch—start with you. Your report describes some of the past failures of public housing authorities to address lead-based paint contamination. What if any responses are 

you seeing today from public housing authorities in response to 

those findings? 

Mr. KIRKLAND. The findings that we identified associated with 

the public housing authorities, the ones that they reported to us do 

appear that they are addressing the ones that were reported. 

Mr. ROTHFUS. What changes do you see them making? 

Mr. KIRKLAND. The concern that we have is we are not sure that 

we are getting the full picture of the universe out there because we 

rely solely on self-certification of this process and because the process does not even—is not a proactive process. It relies on a child 

first testing at a higher level of lead. The concern is we don’t know 

the universe out there and we are not confident at all that we are 

getting the full picture. 

Mr. ROTHFUS. Can you tell us about some of the responses that 

you are seeing, actual actions that they are taking? 

Mr. KIRKLAND. We did as part of our audit reach out to 3,800 

housing authorities. I believe we received responses from 2,600 

housing authorities. Of all of those, we only had self-identified I 

think 80-somewhat cases of lead in all of those housing authorities. 

We feel that that number does not seem appropriate or adequate 

and that was those that were self-reported to us. 

Mr. ROTHFUS. Ms. McKeown, in your testimony you wrote that, 

quote, ‘‘addressing lead poisoning at the State and local level requires a multifaceted and sustained approach to protect children 

and families.’’ Can you describe how State and local agencies interact with Federal agencies? 

Mr. MCKEOWN. Sure. So, local health departments are the ones 

that see children, write orders for remediation or abatement. If the 

house were owned by HUD or by a housing authority or run by 

them, they would be interacting with them in that way. 

Communities also apply for HUD grants to be able to remediate 

housing beyond HUD-owned or run housing. CDC also plays a role. 

CDC provides the systems that allow data sharing so that when a 

lead-poisoned child is identified, they are able to track that and report that. So, there could be an opportunity there to allow greater 

access to that information and better data sharing. 

Mr. ROTHFUS. Would that be an example of—and can we make 

changes there? Again, I guess I am looking for where can we be 

improving on interaction between State and local Governments and 

the Federal agencies? 

Mr. MCKEOWN. CDC is in the process of developing a new database that local health departments will be able to access in realtime and get alerts from in real-time rather than depending on us 

to get the information and share it with them. So, there could be 

an opportunity to explore that and see if housing authorities could 

also have access to that. 

nshattuck on FSR297 with DISTILLER

23 

When we have tried to share information with housing authorities in the past, there have been challenges. When we send the information, they are not able to receive it in a way that is meaningful for them. And so, there is an opportunity to do better matching 

so that HUD and housing authorities can identify that a child in 

public housing has been identified as lead poisoned. 

Mr. ROTHFUS. What additional roles can the private sector be 

playing in addressing the lead-based paint contamination issue? 

Mr. MCKEOWN. Most frequently, the private sector is the one 

doing the actual remediation. So, working with them to make sure 

that they are able to do the best possible job is one way. It would 

be interesting also to explore ways to have job training programs 

so that people from the affected communities were also able to participate in being trained and then appropriately helping to do remediation or abatement. 

Mr. ROTHFUS. Mr. Patterson, you briefly mentioned the Moving 

to Work (MTW) program in your testimony. While I understand 

that your housing authority is not currently in the program, several other housing authorities in the region are MTW participants 

including Portage Metropolitan Housing Authority. Can you describe how MTW housing authorities have used the flexibilities afforded by the program to address lead-based paint and mold contaminations? 

Mr. PATTERSON. I think that the flexibility that the program allows in terms of regulations and things of that nature allow certain 

housing authorities to be able to reallocate funds from one area to 

another area to be able to address remediation as well as allow 

people to have the flexibility to structure their organization and be 

responsive in terms of being able to address those concerns. 

Mr. ROTHFUS. My time is expired and thank you. 

I will now recognize the gentlewoman from Ohio, Mrs. Beatty, for 

5 minutes. 

Mrs. BEATTY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you, Ranking Member and again to the witnesses. 

As I was sitting here listening to where I think Chairman Duffy 

was going with his statement as it related to finance or money or 

not just putting more money out there because we did not have the 

data, it put me on pause for a moment, because while I am for 

spending money well, where I am for strategies and agree with 

that, here is where I am in listening and reading your testimony 

and with my own experience. 

We just had—and I just read the Inspector General’s June 18, 

2018 report, which outlines everything that you would be looking 

for with the public housings to give you. So, if we are going to set 

up a study committee, we already know what you are looking for. 

So, it appears that HUD has not provided enough oversight or regulation. So, I am going to split the baby. I don’t want public housing people all upset with me when you say because simple in my 

mind, you would say, ‘‘Well, let us set up these things and have 

more oversight.’’ They will say, ‘‘We do not have enough appropriate funding to do that.’’ 

But then, we hear from people like Ms.—is it Brewen—we hear 

from her that on their own, they have something that sounds incredible and is working. What I can tell you, that there is no public 

nshattuck on FSR297 with DISTILLER

24 

housing authority that has the buildings before 1977 that likes the 

idea of having lead-based paint and they want to be rid of that just 

like we do. 

So, why wouldn’t we create something like an incentive program? 

So, if you come up with your plan as you have done or use yours 

or someone’s as a model, then, there would be an incentive to put 

the funds into it, because what we know is it is going to cost 

money. One of the reasons when we had tucked away in one of our 

recent bills, the Bill 2155, the Economic Growth Regulatory Relief 

and Consumer Protection Act, tucked away in that bill was one of 

the reasons I opposed the bill because it was a provision that would 

relax the frequency of inspections and environmental review requirements for small public housing authorities, meaning, lowering 

the standards of the visual assessment for lead standards. 

So, we know what the standards are. We know that children 

under the age of 72 months are affected by it. So, we know it is 

real. We know it exists. So, if we have that data, I don’t know why 

we cannot have a plan to eradicate it and we have to pay for it. 

So, hold on to that thought. 

Then, we have RAD. So, people are on both sides of RAD, I have 

supported it because I believe in the public-private partnerships 

and it has been one of the ways that we have been able to deal 

with the issue. So, I am not opposed to the Chairman’s more longterm strategy to put together this big task force, but I am not for 

doing that for 18 months and studying it. We already have the 

facts. We already know that it exists. We already know what buildings and where they are because we know if you look at the newer 

buildings, if you take Westerville or Hilliard, more suburban communities in my district, it is a big fat zero. 

If you go to the Columbus Metropolitan Housing or over in Cleveland and you look in those inner city neighborhoods, the buildings 

are older. There are more children housed there. Why isn’t Congress putting moneys in there to save our children? All the housing 

authorities have logos, not picking on Cleveland, but I liked yours. 

So, it is a good and a bad. Strengthening our neighborhoods, improving lives—well, you are not going to improve lives if we do not 

put more money into those facilities and into capital funds to take 

care of something that you already know exists. 

Not only you, the other directors, we know where it exists. We 

have that. We know how the children are affected. We know the 

units they are affected in. So, I do not get why we wouldn’t fund 

the Capital Fund to take care of it, and plus the Secretary of housing made that as one of his commitments. So, it is not about 

money. We should be put, not knowing where the money should go 

in my opinion. We should fund it and take care of it. 

And I yield back. 

Chairman DUFFY [presiding]. The gentlelady yields back. 

The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from North Carolina, 

Mr. Budd, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. BUDD. Thank you, Chairman Duffy, and thanks to our panelists for your time. 

Ms. Fee, I am over here to your right. Thanks. Yes. So, what are 

some steps or actions that PHAs can take to further reduce or 

nshattuck on FSR297 with DISTILLER

25 

eliminate mold and lead-based paint in subsidized housing without 

HUD or without Congressional intervention? 

Ms. FEE. So, that is a tough question. Right now, the public 

housing authorities are set up where the operating funds and capital are coming from HUD. In New York, we have a commitment 

from both New York City Mayor and New York Governor to also 

contribute capital funds to support public housing, and that is really because we are reaching a crisis in terms of the living conditions 

in public housing. 

So, outside of that, we have seen RAD be a successful model for 

bringing private investment in. I know that the New York City 

Housing Authority has also focused on involving philanthropy in all 

sorts of programs. In terms of mold and lead, I have not seen any 

solutions out there that don’t involve the Federal Government. I 

think that they have a role to play as does the city and State and 

our community partners. 

Mr. BUDD. Thank you. So, continuing on, your testimony mentions NYCHA’s failure to perform lead inspections as described in 

the complaint from the United States Attorney for Southern District of New York and this failure was inexcusable. 

So, a couple of questions related to that, what steps has NYCHA 

taken to proactively correct these failures? 

Ms. FEE. So, I understand I can’t speak for the New York City 

Housing Authority, but I understand from on some of their reporting that they have conducted visual inspections for lead-based 

paint that previously were not being performed, and they have paid 

special attention to the apartments that are housing children under 

the age of 6 years old. 

And right now, in this—we are waiting to see if this consent decree will be approved and I expect that once there is a Federal 

monitor in place, there will be a more concrete plan for how to 

move forward on some of these issues. 

Mr. BUDD. Are those best practice changes that they are making 

that they are going to continue making those changes because of 

their previous failures? 

Ms. FEE. I think so. I think that they have also established a 

new role for a compliance officer who is going to oversee these kind 

of issues. 

Mr. BUDD. Good. 

Ms. FEE. So we are glad that there is this attention being put 

on the issues and that there will be increased oversight. 

Mr. BUDD. Did the United States Attorney’s office provide any 

recommendations to NYCHA on this? And if so, were there—what 

actions has NYCHA taken to implement those changes from the 

U.S. Attorney’s office? 

Ms. FEE. So, I cannot speak to that in great detail. I know that 

there were several management deficiencies cited in the actual 

complaint and some requirements for moving forward. But again, 

I think that I would expect that we see a more concrete action plan 

once a monitor is in place and it is my understanding in the terms 

of the consent decree which has to be approved by a court that 

there will be some goal posts for substantial completion or substantial compliance with some basic standards for healthy and safe living conditions. 

nshattuck on FSR297 with DISTILLER

26 

And in addition to the compliance around lead inspections, the 

housing authority currently has a class action lawsuit that they 

have been in related to mold and there is a special mold master 

appointed by a Federal court as well. And we haven’t seen that 

problem be corrected. That is since 2014 and I think part of the 

issue is there were not sufficient resources to address underlying 

conditions. 

Mr. BUDD. OK. Well, thank you, Mrs. Fee and I have a few more 

moments. 

But, if you would, Mr. Chairman, I will yield back. 

Chairman DUFFY. The gentleman yields back. 

Mr. BUDD. Thank you. 

Chairman DUFFY. The Chair now recognizes the newly created 

position of Vice Ranking Member, the gentleman from Michigan, 

Mr. Kildee, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. KILDEE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thanks to the panelists and I apologize if anything that I raise has already been addressed. I was in another meeting. 

So, some of you may know I come from Flint, Michigan. It is my 

hometown. It is where I was born and raised. And it is a community that 4 years ago discovered unfortunately that the drinking 

water was significantly contaminated with lead and I won’t go into 

all the reasons behind it. But I wonder if any of you might comment on the risks certainly in public housing and supported housing sector, all the work we do around lead, 15 parts per billion is 

the Federal action level. But I have yet to find a serious scientist 

or health professional that can tell me that any level of lead is safe. 

And in Flint, when at the peak of the crisis, we were seeing lead 

in water testing at 13,000 parts per billion in some places. It just 

strikes me that this is an area where we have to pay much more 

attention and create much greater focus. 

And I will finish this by reiterating in a different way the point 

that my colleague, Mrs. Beatty, was making. The costs of not doing 

this right are being played out right now in my own hometown. For 

the price of a few hundred dollars a day or even for maybe $20 million or $30 million over a decade eliminating lead service lines that 

lead to not only houses but commercial facilities, to public housing, 

eliminating those lead service lines would have cost millions for 

sure. 

But right now, we are at about $500 million having been committed to remediating the problem that was a result of the failure 

to act in the first place. I wonder if any of you have thoughts on 

lead in drinking water and the impact that it has in public housing 

or in housing generally, which disproportionately unfortunately 

falls on low-income individuals. I have legislation that would actually bring that standard down to 5 parts per billion. 

But I wonder if any of you might comment on experiences you 

have had or concerns that you might have around lead in drinking 

water and how that exacerbates this problem. 

Ms. BENFER. I believe that HUD should require public housing 

authorities and property owners to determine the presence of lead 

service lines and to require a timeframe for full replacement. Based 

on the experience in Flint and across the country, we know that 

this is incredibly harmful. It violates the warranty of habitability, 

nshattuck on FSR297 with DISTILLER

27 

the public health, the nuisance code, it could in federally assisted 

housing, the Americans with Disabilities Act, Fair Housing Act, 

and so on and this can’t be considered safe, decent, and appropriate 

housing for our residents. 

In the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2017, Congress dedicated significant funding for lead contaminated water and the General Accountability Office to assess lead service lines across the 

United States and found that the country is coated with lead service lines, and in some cities, it was required until the 1980’s. So, 

this is part of the crisis and it should certainly be part of the remediation that goes on in federally assisted housing to prevent lead 

poisoning among residents. 

Ms. FEE. Mr. Kildee, I certainly see the parallels with your 

hometown of Flint, Michigan and what could be a pending health 

crisis in public and assisted housing if we are not strategically investing to keep these buildings in good repair. 

Mr. KILDEE. Yes, sir. 

Mr. KIRKLAND. I do agree that the Federal Government’s HUD 

has and should have taken a more proactive role when it comes to 

lead in water and I certainly think that there is some significant 

work to be done in that arena. 

Mr. KILDEE. Thank you. I guess the only point I would make in 

closing is that it has become fairly evident to me that the current 

standard for lead in drinking water is a standard based on convenience, not on health. Fifteen parts per billion keeps the lion’s share 

of public water systems serving everyone in compliance, whereas if 

we had a health-based standard which would be far lower, we 

would tip a lot of public water systems upside-down and put them 

in a status of noncompliance and that is an inconvenient place to 

be. I think we ought to have a health-based standard. 

And I appreciate this is not the central focus of this meeting, but 

it is really important I think to point out that there are dangerous 

levels of lead in drinking water which exacerbate the problem of 

lead exposure that comes in other forms. 

I appreciate the panel’s testimony and I yield back. 

Chairman DUFFY. The gentleman yields back. 

I want to thank our witnesses for their testimony and insight 

today. We appreciate your help and would look forward to working 

with you as we try to work in a bipartisan effort to resolve this 

issue. 

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. 

Without objection, this hearing is not adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 11:37 a.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.] 

nshattuck on FSR297 with DISTILLER

nshattuck on FSR297 with DISTILLER

(29) 

A P P E N D I X 

June 26, 2018 

nshattuck on FSR297 with DISTILLER

30 

nshattuck on FSR297 with DISTILLER

31 

nshattuck on FSR297 with DISTILLER

32 

nshattuck on FSR297 with DISTILLER

33 

nshattuck on FSR297 with DISTILLER

34 

nshattuck on FSR297 with DISTILLER

35 

nshattuck on FSR297 with DISTILLER

36 

nshattuck on FSR297 with DISTILLER

37 

nshattuck on FSR297 with DISTILLER

38 

nshattuck on FSR297 with DISTILLER

39 

nshattuck on FSR297 with DISTILLER

40 

nshattuck on FSR297 with DISTILLER

41 

nshattuck on FSR297 with DISTILLER

42 

nshattuck on FSR297 with DISTILLER

43 

nshattuck on FSR297 with DISTILLER

44 

nshattuck on FSR297 with DISTILLER

45 

nshattuck on FSR297 with DISTILLER

46 

nshattuck on FSR297 with DISTILLER

47 

nshattuck on FSR297 with DISTILLER

48 

nshattuck on FSR297 with DISTILLER

49 

nshattuck on FSR297 with DISTILLER

50 

nshattuck on FSR297 with DISTILLER

51 

nshattuck on FSR297 with DISTILLER

52 

nshattuck on FSR297 with DISTILLER

53 

nshattuck on FSR297 with DISTILLER

54 

nshattuck on FSR297 with DISTILLER

55 

nshattuck on FSR297 with DISTILLER

56 

nshattuck on FSR297 with DISTILLER

57 

nshattuck on FSR297 with DISTILLER

58 

nshattuck on FSR297 with DISTILLER

59 

nshattuck on FSR297 with DISTILLER

60 

nshattuck on FSR297 with DISTILLER

61 

nshattuck on FSR297 with DISTILLER

62 

nshattuck on FSR297 with DISTILLER

63 

nshattuck on FSR297 with DISTILLER

64 

nshattuck on FSR297 with DISTILLER

65 

nshattuck on FSR297 with DISTILLER

66 

nshattuck on FSR297 with DISTILLER

67 

nshattuck on FSR297 with DISTILLER

68 

nshattuck on FSR297 with DISTILLER

69 

nshattuck on FSR297 with DISTILLER

70 

nshattuck on FSR297 with DISTILLER

71 

nshattuck on FSR297 with DISTILLER

72 

nshattuck on FSR297 with DISTILLER

73 

nshattuck on FSR297 with DISTILLER

74 

nshattuck on FSR297 with DISTILLER

75 

nshattuck on FSR297 with DISTILLER

76 

nshattuck on FSR297 with DISTILLER

77 

nshattuck on FSR297 with DISTILLER

78 

nshattuck on FSR297 with DISTILLER

79 

nshattuck on FSR297 with DISTILLER

80 

nshattuck on FSR297 with DISTILLER

81 

nshattuck on FSR297 with DISTILLER

82 

nshattuck on FSR297 with DISTILLER

83 

nshattuck on FSR297 with DISTILLER

84 

nshattuck on FSR297 with DISTILLER

85 

nshattuck on FSR297 with DISTILLER

86 

nshattuck on FSR297 with DISTILLER

87 

nshattuck on FSR297 with DISTILLER

88 

nshattuck on FSR297 with DISTILLER

89 

nshattuck on FSR297 with DISTILLER

90 

nshattuck on FSR297 with DISTILLER

91 

nshattuck on FSR297 with DISTILLER

92 

nshattuck on FSR297 with DISTILLER

93 

nshattuck on FSR297 with DISTILLER

94 

nshattuck on FSR297 with DISTILLER

95 

nshattuck on FSR297 with DISTILLER

96 

nshattuck on FSR297 with DISTILLER

97 

nshattuck on FSR297 with DISTILLER

98 

nshattuck on FSR297 with DISTILLER

99 

nshattuck on FSR297 with DISTILLER

100 

nshattuck on FSR297 with DISTILLER

101 

nshattuck on FSR297 with DISTILLER

102 

nshattuck on FSR297 with DISTILLER

103 

nshattuck on FSR297 with DISTILLER

104 

nshattuck on FSR297 with DISTILLER

105 

nshattuck on FSR297 with DISTILLER

106 

nshattuck on FSR297 with DISTILLER

107 

nshattuck on FSR297 with DISTILLER

108 

nshattuck on FSR297 with DISTILLER

109 

nshattuck on FSR297 with DISTILLER

110 

nshattuck on FSR297 with DISTILLER

111 

nshattuck on FSR297 with DISTILLER

112 

nshattuck on FSR297 with DISTILLER

113 

nshattuck on FSR297 with DISTILLER

114 

nshattuck on FSR297 with DISTILLER

115 

nshattuck on FSR297 with DISTILLER

116 

nshattuck on FSR297 with DISTILLER

117 

nshattuck on FSR297 with DISTILLER

118 

nshattuck on FSR297 with DISTILLER

119 

nshattuck on FSR297 with DISTILLER

120 

nshattuck on FSR297 with DISTILLER

121 

nshattuck on FSR297 with DISTILLER

122 

nshattuck on FSR297 with DISTILLER

123 

nshattuck on FSR297 with DISTILLER

124 

nshattuck on FSR297 with DISTILLER

125 

nshattuck on FSR297 with DISTILLER

126 

nshattuck on FSR297 with DISTILLER

127 

nshattuck on FSR297 with DISTILLER

128 

nshattuck on FSR297 with DISTILLER

129 

nshattuck on FSR297 with DISTILLER

130 

nshattuck on FSR297 with DISTILLER

131 

nshattuck on FSR297 with DISTILLER

132 

nshattuck on FSR297 with DISTILLER

133 

nshattuck on FSR297 with DISTILLER

134 

nshattuck on FSR297 with DISTILLER

135 

nshattuck on FSR297 with DISTILLER

136 

nshattuck on FSR297 with DISTILLER

137 

nshattuck on FSR297 with DISTILLER

138 

nshattuck on FSR297 with DISTILLER

139 

nshattuck on FSR297 with DISTILLER

140 

nshattuck on FSR297 with DISTILLER

141 

nshattuck on FSR297 with DISTILLER

142 

nshattuck on FSR297 with DISTILLER

143 

nshattuck on FSR297 with DISTILLER

144 

nshattuck on FSR297 with DISTILLER

145 

nshattuck on FSR297 with DISTILLER

146 

nshattuck on FSR297 with DISTILLER

147 

nshattuck on FSR297 with DISTILLER

148 

nshattuck on FSR297 with DISTILLER

149 

nshattuck on FSR297 with DISTILLER

150 

nshattuck on FSR297 with DISTILLER

151 

nshattuck on FSR297 with DISTILLER

152 

nshattuck on FSR297 with DISTILLER

153 

nshattuck on FSR297 with DISTILLER

154 

nshattuck on FSR297 with DISTILLER

155 

nshattuck on FSR297 with DISTILLER

156 

nshattuck on FSR297 with DISTILLER

157 

nshattuck on FSR297 with DISTILLER

158 

nshattuck on FSR297 with DISTILLER

159 

nshattuck on FSR297 with DISTILLER

160 

nshattuck on FSR297 with DISTILLER

161 

nshattuck on FSR297 with DISTILLER

162 

nshattuck on FSR297 with DISTILLER

163 

nshattuck on FSR297 with DISTILLER

164 

nshattuck on FSR297 with DISTILLER

165 

nshattuck on FSR297 with DISTILLER

166 

nshattuck on FSR297 with DISTILLER

167 

nshattuck on FSR297 with DISTILLER

168 

nshattuck on FSR297 with DISTILLER

169 

nshattuck on FSR297 with DISTILLER

170 

nshattuck on FSR297 with DISTILLER

171 

nshattuck on FSR297 with DISTILLER

172 

nshattuck on FSR297 with DISTILLER

173 

nshattuck on FSR297 with DISTILLER

174 

nshattuck on FSR297 with DISTILLER

175 

nshattuck on FSR297 with DISTILLER

176 

nshattuck on FSR297 with DISTILLER

177 

nshattuck on FSR297 with DISTILLER

178 

nshattuck on FSR297 with DISTILLER

179 

nshattuck on FSR297 with DISTILLER

180 

Æ 

nshattuck on FSR297 with DISTILLER