Restoring Community Oversight of Sober Living Homes Act of 2018

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Chairman, as I sat here and I listened to Congressman Hensarling, the chair of the Financial Services Committee, where I serve as ranking member, I thought to myself he was absolutely correct on many of the issues that he surfaced when he held the letter up in the air and he said that there are many Members of Congress who could tell similar stories or maybe have gotten similar letters. He is absolutely correct.

Even more than that, there are many of us who have watched the devastation of communities that we represent because of drug addiction over the years for a long time. Unfortunately, many of these stories ended in tragedy, and I am pleased that we are focusing time and attention on opioid addiction and abuse.

I am so absolutely thrilled that we are paying attention, and we are recognizing that this is literally a disease and that we can help people, that we can do rehabilitation, that we can provide resources to keep people from dying and being imprisoned and treated in ways that will not help deal with the problem in any real ways. I am pleased about all of that, and I think the intentions of many of our Members are very good, that they really want to do something because many of them are seeing this for the first time.

But let me tell you how many years I have been seeing this. Let me tell you about how many deaths I know about. Let me tell you about the imprisonment of those who were both addicted and dealing drugs. Let me tell you about those who have died not only from heroin, that you are seeing now, but crack cocaine and other kinds of drugs and the mixtures that we don't even know about that have caused so many deaths, so much devastation.

So I want to do everything that I can to share my knowledge with you, to share my experiences with you, to help in every way that I possibly can move to credible, reasonable, sensible, rehabilitation and support and assistance for those who are addicted.

We are trying, as I can see in many of the bills that are being produced, to do what we think is best, but much of it needs more consideration. It needs better understanding.

Today, we hear talking about a piece of legislation that I think the author of the legislation is absolutely sincere in what he would like to do. He is seeing drug addicted persons who have abused not only prescription drugs but all the way to heroin on the streets without jobs, laying in the alleys without support, without housing, no place to go, and that is what he is attempting to do. He is attempting to do everything that he possibly can to get them safe and secure places to live with the other resources that must go along with it, supportive resources in order to help them become the persons that they can be.

But you cannot do this on the cheap. You cannot do this without understanding that rehabilitation costs money.

So, while I absolutely applaud the attempt, I want to share with you that taking 10,000 vouchers from those who have been waiting in line for years--I am talking about single-family parents with their children who simply are praying and hoping that they can get a voucher so that they can get a decent place to live.

I am not talking about drug addicted people, necessarily. I am talking about people, some of whom work every day on minimum wages who cannot afford the first and last month's rent to get into a place. I am talking about those who, even if they could find a place, they would be paying more than 30 percent of their income to have a safe and decent place. I am talking about those who have been living in rental units that really need more than just rehabilitation. They are dangerous places that people are living.

They are places that still are not protected from wind and rain and all of those things that people should not have to experience trying to live in a decent place to live. I am talking about people who are living in apartments that the ceilings are falling in who are looking for a decent place. I am talking about people who call every day to check to see if in fact they are going to be the next person who is going to be allowed a voucher. I am talking about people who have been waiting 2 and 3 years and on and on and on.

So I support the idea that the new population of opioid abusers can have a decent place to live and resources, but let's not deny the people who have been standing in line, who have been praying, who have been hoping for a decent place. Let's not take 10,000 vouchers in a so- called demonstration project.

Really, we don't need a demonstration project. I can tell you, many folks in this House can tell you what they know and what they have experienced so that we can put together good, credible, sensible legislation. But it will cost some money.

It is not about taking from one and giving to the other. The old people call

that robbing Peter to pay Paul. We don't want to do that. We don't want to say to Ms. Jones with 3 kids out there waiting in line for 4 years, 3 years, 2 years, what have you: Sorry, we have a new population that we are going to serve. No, we are not going to vote for more money, for more resources. We are going to take from your opportunity. Sorry you have been standing in line all this long.

So, Mr. Chairman, I want to be helpful to all of the folks who need our help. I understand the shock that many are going through who are experiencing this for the first time, but I want you to know about the many nights that I have gone to bed when I have heard about another death of someone who is addicted, who has not had a place to live, who has been on somebody's doorstep, who has been in an alley. I want you to know what I know and what I understand about that mother who has begged me to help find a bed in a unit, a rehabilitative unit that could be used.

So this is not the way to do it, and this is not about creating new nonprofits with no experience, no background, to be able to implement this program. This is about understanding all the people who have struggled with these nonprofits, who begged for money, who begged for resources to deal with the populations who are basically dying from this addiction.

So whether it is about the fact that there is not enough money here, or we should not be developing new nonprofits to do this because we have experience with our public housing entities that know how to do this, this is about us saying: Yes, we have a problem, and we are going to spend the money. We are going to put the time in on it to develop the good, credible legislation. We are going to be serious about it. We don't want to just look like we are trying to do something. We are going to be positive. We are going to be committed. We are going to do what it takes in order to help these people who are waiting and looking for just another chance in life.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself as much time as I may consume.

Mr. Chairman, I think we should have a little clarity in what is being presented by my colleague about whether or not vouchers will be taken away from anybody. The fact of the matter is nobody thinks that vouchers will be taken away from anybody. They will never get the voucher.

They are standing in line waiting for years to get Section 8 vouchers to be able to have a decent place to live. That means that you take 10,000 vouchers away from the people, and the families, and the children, who have been waiting in line all of this time and you give it to a new population of people. That is what this is all about. That cannot be denied, and that is a fact.

I am sure that my colleague who is proposing this legislation will agree with me, the fact of the matter is, that person who has been waiting for so long will have to continue to wait, because the voucher that he or she could have gotten is going to go to someone else.

Let me just talk a little bit about Mr. Barr's letter that he sent to the appropriators. First of all, I want to thank him for offering to send the letter. And I want to thank him for coming to me and asking me if I would sign on to the letter. What Mr. Barr is doing is--if I may correctly describe this--is having second thoughts about the fact that you need some money, you need some resources in this program. So the gentleman from Kentucky's letter to the appropriators is basically meaningless, because his own bill directly contradicts it.

And I pointed this out to him as we had this discussion. The plain text of H.R. 5735 states, ``No additional funds are authorized to be appropriated to carry out the requirements of this act

and the amendments made by this act. Such requirements shall be carried out using amounts otherwise authorized to be appropriated.''

Mr. Chairman, you can't have it both ways. You can't support language that specifically prohibits appropriators from funding your demonstration and then turn around and ask the appropriators to provide funding. This just doesn't make good sense. That is why I had to say that I could not sign on with him on that letter, knowing what the language was in the legislation.

So, if the gentleman from Kentucky wants funding for this demonstration, he needs to be consistent in his advocacy for that funding, and that includes petitioning his own leadership for a waiver of their rules preventing bills that cost money from being considered.

I would be happy to join the gentleman from Kentucky in requesting funding for additional vouchers to support people with substance use disorders. But I cannot support this unworkable demonstration. And I cannot lend credibility to his efforts to distract us from the fact that his bill would take vouchers away from families in need, who have been standing in line begging, waiting, and praying for a decent, safe and secure place for them and their families to live.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Chairman, yes, Mr. Duffy is absolutely correct, I care about this issue very deeply, and I want to do the right thing. I want him to know that while he was talking about the 2.8 million vouchers, does he know that there are 5 million people who are in need of these vouchers?

You cannot make the argument that there is more than enough to go around with all of these people standing in line. When they opened up the waiting list recently, just in Los Angeles alone, 600,000 people attempted to get access to these vouchers.

This is about whether or not you are willing to put your money where your mouth is. Either you are willing to pay for your demonstration project, or you want to take away the opportunities of those who have been standing in line, and we are talking about families with children. You don't tell me what is going to happen to them because you won't increase the number of vouchers, and you don't want to put any money into it, so you have to show how you care.

It is one thing for us to get up on this floor and talk and debate and explain what we would like to see happen, but it is another thing when we say that we are willing to put the resources that are needed to deal with the problem.

I will just say that of the 2.8 million people waiting, 5 million people are in need, and the average waiting time is almost 2 years. So what are you going to do? You don't need a demonstration. We have enough information, we have enough research, and we have enough stories about what has happened for so many years and how so many people have died because they have not had resources available to them to deal with the problem.

And, again, I am willing to spend as many hours as it takes to help you know and understand the history of this problem. It didn't just start with opioid abuse. It didn't just start with communities who never experienced this before. This has been going on for years and years and years.

I join with Members in wanting to do something about it. But I say to Mr. Barr, it is going to cost some money, and we should not rob Peter to pay Paul. We should not take from those in need. We should not tell the people standing in line, Too bad, stand in line a little bit longer because we have a new episode that we have to deal with.

Let's take care of everybody who wants to change their lives, everybody who wants to put behind them this addiction, everybody who is begging for just a second chance.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Again, I am so pleased that Members on the opposite side of the aisle are just being introduced to this crisis. I am so pleased that they are just learning about addiction. I am so pleased that they are willing to talk about it. But I am not so pleased that they are not willing to spend any resources on it. I don't know if they understand that the average cost of a voucher annually is $9,500.

Why can't they support that amount of money to deal with credible, decent housing for the very individuals that they say they are trying to give some support to. I don't know how much they know about addiction. And I don't know how much they know about the history of the war on drugs.

Have any of them ever visited a drug rehabilitation project? Let me commend them to one that they need to know about. It is right here in Washington, D.C. It is known as N Street Village. Please go. I want them to learn about what they do, or what the costs are, and how they struggle for more and more resources to help more and more people. They cannot legislate. They cannot come up with programs without having an understanding of, and an appreciation of, what has happened in this country and the many people who have died, and the families who have suffered.

It didn't just start now. The gentleman who just spoke talked about it is now a crisis. No, it has been a crisis for a long time.

Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Velazquez), the ranking member of the Small Business Committee and a senior member of the Financial Services Committee.

Mr. Chair, I yield an additional 1 minute to the gentlewoman from New York.

Mr. Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Chair, it is interesting that my colleagues on the opposite side of the aisle can come into this Chamber and talk about homelessness and talk about rehabilitation and talk about the need for housing.

I am the ranking member on the Financial Services Committee with every wish and every hope to be able to have this committee take up a bill on homelessness. I have not been able to get that done. We have taken up over 100 bills on the Financial Services Committee, but not once have we dealt with the issue of homelessness.

The gentleman from Minnesota who talked about homelessness and the fact that veterans are homeless is absolutely correct, but what are you going to do about it?

Are you going to come to the floor to try and convince the Members of this House that somehow a demonstration project where you take 10,000 vouchers from the existing vouchers that people are standing in line for is going to make a dent in this problem? I don't think so.

This problem has been around for a long time, and I really do want the Members on the opposite side of the aisle to understand what has not been done to help those people who have needed a lot of assistance and a lot of help.

I can recall, God bless her soul, when Nancy Reagan said to drug abusers, ``Just Say No.'' This is another piece of legislation that falls in that category: 10,000 vouchers in a demonstration project.

You have been hearing how huge this problem is. We don't need a demonstration project for a few people taking 10,000 vouchers from those who have been standing in line. We need to appropriate the dollars that are necessary, number one, to help fund those organizations that have been working on this problem for years that need more money, that need more beds, that need more resources.

We need more money not only to deal with the housing issue that is attempting to be addressed in this demonstration project, but whether it is helping to equip police departments with the necessary equipment to save lives of the people on the street who are overdosed that they encounter in their daily work. Some communities have that, a few communities have that, but every community experiencing this problem needs to have that.

In addition to that, we need more beds for rehabilitation. You can't get to supportive housing until you deal with the addiction so that when people are ready to go into transitional housing, they get the support that goes along with that. That is not just a bed and a roof, but it is the social services that go along with it.

It will cost money, and unless you are willing to put up the dollars, unless you are willing to work with our appropriators to do what is necessary to honestly and forcefully deal with this issue, we are just talking about it. We are just pontificating. We are just saying things that we don't even understand.

Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

While I have this opportunity, I will refer to my bill on homelessness again. My bill is a bill that will end homelessness. It costs $13 billion, and I would dare say that we could have funded this effort when we were thinking about the tax cuts.

Some of those tax cuts benefit the richest people in this country. While we were reducing the corporate tax rate from 35 percent to 21 percent, we could have easily spent $13 billion to deal with ending homelessness.

That tax cut was worth $1.8 trillion. $13 billion from that $1.8 trillion, what would that have done for homelessness in America? We could have been on the road to ending homelessness.

So the bill number is H.R. 2076. I am hopeful that the Members of the House and the Members of the Senate will take a look at this legislation so that they know that we have something that has been given a lot of attention, that has a lot of research, that understands what it takes to get rid of homelessness. So my bill, H.R. 2076, is a bill that I would ask my colleagues to immediately support.

Mr. Chairman, we have many Members of this Congress who want to do something about providing housing opportunities for those who are the victims of opioid abuse and drugs. I join with them, and I, too, am very concerned, and I know that we can do something substantive about this issue of providing housing opportunities.

But again, I will say over and over again, it should not be done in such a way that we have a little demonstration project that will take away 10,000 vouchers from the neediest of people who have been standing in line, in order to say or think or have anyone believe that we are doing something about this crisis in America.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, may I inquire of Mr. Hensarling how many more speakers he has.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, this week, we are seeing my colleagues on the other side of the aisle advance legislation focused on individuals with opioid use disorders. We are really talking about drug addiction. These are the people they used to call drug addicts, and I don't want us to hide behind any new language. We are talking about a serious problem of addiction here.

But something very important is missing from these bills and that is new resources and funding necessary to actually make a difference for those individuals.

H.R. 5735 is a clear example of this problematic approach. Rather than providing funding for housing assistance vouchers for individuals with disorders, individuals who are addicted, this bill takes away 10,000 existing vouchers that would otherwise go to people in need, many of whom have been waiting and waiting for years.

There are millions of people on waiting lists across the country, including families with children, seniors, veterans, persons with disabilities, persons experiencing homelessness, and others in need. Redistributing these vouchers away from others who need housing is simply not a fair or reasonable step.

What we need is bold action to commit real dollars to tackling this public health crisis, and also to address the shortage of affordable housing in this country. Unfortunately, this bill falls short and commits no new funding for additional vouchers.

While H.R. 5735 has an important goal, the way it tries to get there is ultimately harmful and counterproductive.

For these reasons, I urge Members to vote ``no'' on this bill. This will not begin to make a dent in the crisis. We

don't need a demonstration project. We need to move forward with a committed project with the funding that is necessary in order to deal with drug addiction.

We have drug addicts who are in the alleys and on the streets in communities who never saw this before, who never experienced this before.

Listen to someone who has seen it, who knows about it, who understands how many lives have been lost because of it, and let's do the right thing. It is not about a demonstration project. It is not about just a few vouchers. This is about real action.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I claim the time in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. Chair, this manager's amendment is simply a last-ditch attempt to address significant administrative concerns and questions about the correct interpretation of the underlying legislation.

The fact that this amendment had to be revised three times before a final version was submitted past the deadline for consideration by the Rules Committee, is indicative of the hasty and haphazard nature in which this bill has been cobbled together.

For example, in response to a Congressional Budget Office score that interpreted the bill to create up to 50,000 new vouchers, resulting in a cost of $1.2 billion, this amendment would clarify that the intent of the gentleman from Kentucky was not to provide new funding, but, instead, to take vouchers away from people waiting in line for housing assistance.

And while this amendment resolves a few technical issues, it also creates new problems. In particular, this amendment would add broad authority for the Secretary of the Department of Housing and Urban Development to waive requirements that would otherwise apply under the Section 8 program. This includes being able to waive basic tenant protections as well as the requirement that rents are affordable to residents at 30 percent of their adjusted income, which is known as the Brooke amendment.

In sum, this amendment does nothing to address the fundamental issues with this bill, including the fact that it prohibits new funding.

Mr. Chairman, I really do need to point out that perhaps it was not clear in Mr. Barr's presentation about this amendment that this amendment additionally reinforces his point that no additional funds would be authorized.

As a matter of fact, if you look at section 5 of the amendment where it says, ``No additional funds are authorized to be appropriated to carry out the requirements of this act and the amendments made by this act. Such requirement shall be carried out using amounts otherwise authorized to be appropriated,'' which simply means taking 10,000 vouchers from people who are waiting in line, who are desperate for the need for safe and secure housing, and it makes sure that you understand that he does not want any more funds appropriated. Except, there is some kind of contradiction that can be confusing.

When he first introduced the bill--and I talked about the fact that he had not only asked me to sign on to a letter to the appropriators asking for more money, and I decided not to do that because of the fact that he still had this amendment that would say that there should be no additional funds spent on this.

What is my friend doing? What is he talking about? How can he send a letter to the appropriators asking for more money when, not only does he have in the bill, but in the amendment to the bill, very clear language that says there should be no additional funds appropriated.

Well, of course, that is confusing. And I am not so sure why the contradiction is there. But I do know this: I believe that the intent of my colleague is a good intent; that he really would like to do something about opioid addiction. I believe that most of the Members who have gotten involved in this issue and who are learning about it for the first time, and understanding that there is a crisis for the first time, want to do something about this issue.

But what they have not done is, they have not taken the time to construct legislation to truly deal with the issue, and spend the money, ask for the money, ask for the resources that are necessary to deal with what they say is a crisis.

They come here and they talk about homelessness, and they talk about the opioid abusers who are on the streets who need housing. Yes, they do. Just as all of those people who have been standing in line waiting for Section 8 housing need housing.

They talk about veterans who are homeless. They are absolutely correct. Some of those veterans have drug problems. Others don't have drug problems. They have come back from their service to their country without jobs, without a place to live, and here we are, talking about robbing the folks who have been standing in line and who are in need-- including the veterans on the street--robbing them of their opportunities because we want to take away 10,000 housing vouchers from them.

Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I don't think the amendment really does what the gentleman would like to have it do, but I am not opposed.

Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of my legislation, H.R. 5735, the Transitional Housing for Recovery in Viable Environments Act, or the THRIVE Act.

I thank Chairman Hensarling, Chairman Duffy, and my colleagues on the House Financial Services Committee for their support and feedback on this legislation. I want to thank Chairman Hensarling for sharing that very compelling story about his constituent, Joshua. Unfortunately, so many of us have constituents with similar stories, and that is what we are trying to address here today.

We all know the opioid epidemic is a major health crisis that has impacted every community in every congressional district; 116 Americans die every day from opioid overdoses. My home State of Kentucky has the third highest overdose mortality rate in the country.

This week, the House is considering several pieces of legislation to address this epidemic, and in order to achieve meaningful progress in the fight against opioids in our Nation, Congress can no longer simply focus on prevention, enforcement, and treatment. We must also begin to implement policies that focus on long-term recovery. Our Federal housing programs are an underutilized resource in these efforts.

The THRIVE Act would make supportive housing more accessible to those most in need by allocating a limited number of Section 8 housing choice vouchers to nonprofits--nonprofits that have experience in housing. Not new nonprofits--nonprofits with a record of providing housing services, workforce development, job placement, financial literacy, and continued addiction recovery support for individuals who are transitioning out of rehab or a period of medication-assisted treatment and back into the workforce.

This legislation would only allocate either 10,000 or 0.5 percent of total housing choice vouchers, whichever is less, to evidence-based nonprofits serving people who are literally dying each and every day of opioid addiction and other substance abuse disorders. And the demonstration is limited to 5 years.

No one would have a voucher taken away from them, despite what my friend, the gentlewoman from California, is saying. No one would have a voucher taken away from them to create this demonstration program.

An estimated 198,000 Section 8 vouchers are turned over every year and returned to HUD, and it is from this amount that the demonstration would set aside only 10,000 to address a deadly national public health crisis.

Additionally, we made a commitment to working with our Democratic colleagues, including Congresswoman Sinema, who has signed a joint letter with me to request additional funding from the Appropriations Committee to support this demonstration, because we understand the urgent need for greater Federal investment to save lives. So the ranking member's argument really doesn't apply.

The THRIVE Act has received endorsements from over 140 housing and recovery organizations across the country, including Addiction Policy Forum, the American Academy of Addiction Psychiatry, National Association of Social Workers, Faces & Voices of Recovery, the Association for Addiction Professionals, and more than 100 others that are on the front lines of addiction recovery.

Mr. Chairman, HUD Secretary Ben Carson visited several of these transitional nonprofits in my district in Kentucky earlier this year, and he witnessed firsthand the success of these evidence-based models of recovery.

I would like to especially recognize St. James Place, Revive LifeHouse, the Hope Center, Shepherd's House, and Chrysalis House, among others, for their critical work in the Sixth District of Kentucky that inspired this legislation.

Mr. Chairman, the THRIVE Act would save American lives, as well as taxpayer funds in the long run, by helping more individuals rise above addiction and poverty.

Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of my manager's amendment to the legislation at issue today, H.R. 5735, the THRIVE Act, which, again, would make supportive housing more accessible to those most in need by allocating a limited number of housing choice vouchers to nonprofits that provide housing, workforce development, job placement, and continued addiction recovery support for individuals who are transitioning out of rehab and back into the workforce.

This manager's amendment introduces improvements to the THRIVE Act based on feedback we have received from various stakeholders in the affordable housing and recovery communities, my colleagues on the House Financial Services Committee, as well as technical drafting assistance from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development.

Among these changes include:

Clarifying the distinction between illicit drug use and medication- assisted treatment;

Requiring nonprofits to show that they have experience administering housing programs and are in full compliance with the Fair Housing Act and Civil Rights Act of 1964;

Requiring HUD and eligible entities to coordinate with the Department of Health and Human Services, the Department of Labor, and local workforce development boards;

Eliminating time limits for individuals in the program;

Authorizing waiver authority allowing HUD greater flexibility to administer the program, while still requiring full compliance with statutes and regulations related to fair housing nondiscrimination, labor standards, and other requirements; and other technical changes.

Mr. Chair, I would like to thank my Democratic colleagues, including Congresswoman Sinema, for suggesting several of the improvements to the bill that are included in this amendment. I would also like to emphasize, once again, my commitment to working with Ms. Sinema and other colleagues to request additional funding from the Appropriations Committee to support this demonstration program.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention estimates that the total economic burden of prescription opioid misuse alone in the United States is $78.5 billion per year. Our Federal housing programs are an underutilized

source in the fight against this national public health crisis.

The THRIVE Act is a small investment of only 10,000 housing choice vouchers out of a total of over 2 million, to people who are literally dying every day. It has earned the support of over 140 recovery organizations who are on the front lines of this epidemic.

Once again, Mr. Chairman, it is not a reason to vote against this legislation because it is using existing appropriations for the Housing Choice Voucher Program.

Our friends on the other side of the aisle who are objecting to this legislation are making the wrongheaded and misguided argument that claims that this is somehow taking away from other members of the program.

There are 198,000 vouchers that come up each and every year. We are talking about not taking vouchers away from anyone, but using those vouchers that become available for new recipients. These recipients are oftentimes eligible for the Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher Program anyway, because they come out of rehab without resources. They are statutorily eligible.

So when they talk about taking away from veterans, when they talk about taking away from the disabled, or from the homeless, that is who these people are. These people typically are without homes. They are, in many cases, veterans.

Saint James Apartments, which is one of these recovery centers in my district, focuses exclusively on veterans who are addicted to opioids, and these people, obviously, are also struggling with a disability. So the THRIVE Act deserves every one of our Members' support. These organizations and these folks who are struggling with addiction are literally crying out for Congress to help, and we need to answer that call.

I urge support for my manager's amendment, and the underlying legislation so we can work together in a bipartisan manner to improve housing options for individuals recovering from opioid addiction and other substance abuse disorders.

Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, just to respond briefly to some of those claims, our efforts to work in a bipartisan way, an overture to the ranking member to actually meet her halfway, should be actually welcomed. It shouldn't be rejected.

And if she is concerned about more funding, guess what, that is not what the authorizing committees do. That is what the appropriators do, and if the ranking member were sincere, she would sign on to the letter to the appropriators with respect to providing additional funds.

But in any event, this is not hastily put together. This is the result of a lot of feedback, of hearings, of many years of actually talking and listening to not-for-profits that are in this line of work. And they are begging us, along with 144 other organizations in addiction recovery, to pass this bill.

I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the manager's amendment, and the underlying bill.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to claim time in opposition to this amendment, although I do not oppose the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I want to make an observation that, in the course of this debate, not one of the Members speaking in opposition to this legislation has made the argument that these evidence-based transitional housing models won't work. None of the arguments are that this model won't work and won't help people achieve long-term recovery. So why would anyone oppose the legislation?

I will accept my friend's, the gentlewoman from Wisconsin's amendment. I appreciate the contribution that she is making to make sure that Native American Tribal communities and their Tribal housing authorities are designated as eligible entities to receive vouchers.

This amendment will ensure that Native American communities residing in Tribal areas would have the opportunity to benefit from this demonstration, similar to urban, suburban, and other rural areas, and this amendment protects persons recovering from addiction in Native American Tribal communities by ensuring that vouchers

might still be available through Tribal housing authorities should an eligible nonprofit not be available.

Because some of the Tribal areas are located in very remote areas, the nonprofit entities envisioned under this demonstration program may not have the capacity to reach onto those reservations. This amendment provides remote Tribal communities an avenue for providing transitional housing to persons recovering from addiction when such nonprofit participation could be low. This amendment ensures that Tribal communities are not disadvantaged by a lack of nonprofit access so that they have an adequate voucher dispersion entity to community individuals in need of transitional housing as they recover from addiction.

I reserve the balance of my time, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman, in conclusion, I accept and support the gentlewoman's amendment.

I will just remind all Members, and especially Members who might be considering whether or not they want to vote for the legislation, if you are concerned about additional appropriations, the proper channel is to request that from the appropriators. Any Member of Congress considering voting on this legislation can sign this bipartisan letter to the appropriators asking for additional financial support for this demonstration project. But it is not a reason to not vote ``yes.''

Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and submit extraneous materials on the bill, H.R. 5735.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Chairman, I received a letter not long ago from a constituent, Jim, from Dallas County. The first three words were: I need help.

In the letter, he talks about his grandson, Joshua, who is a good kid. Jim became his guardian at age 6, but Joshua took a bad turn at age 16. It was at age 16 he started using opioids. His life has never been the same.

Jim writes that at first his grandson started out with pills and then, later, street drugs and ended up on heroin. No surprise here, Mr. Chairman: His usage escalated, and he ended up dropping out of school in the last semester of high school.

Along the way, he found a menial job here, a menial job there, but he

couldn't hold one down because of the drug usage. Jim tried to help him every way he could. He said that in the summer of 2014 his opioid usage brought him almost to death.

I won't say the story has a happy ending, but at least he is now trying to turn his life around. He is off of opioids, and he is on other medications: methadone, Xanax. He has actually gone back and gotten his high school diploma.

He has learned how to operate a forklift, but because of the damage that has been done, he can't hold down a job. His drug costs are expensive. He still needs help.

Mr. Chair, you know what is unusual about this story? Regrettably, nothing. Nothing is unusual about this story. Again, although it doesn't have a happy ending--and we don't know how this story is going to end--at least it doesn't have a tragic end, because far too many stories like it end in the tragedy of death.

And my guess is, Mr. Chair, that every single Member of this body could read a similar letter as I read from Jim from Dallas.

I have been in this House now for eight terms. Rarely--rarely--does a week go by that somebody doesn't use the term ``crisis.'' And most of the time I don't give it much thought. But Mr. Chair, when somebody says there is a crisis of opioid use in America, I could not agree more. How negligent this body would be if we didn't declare war on this crisis and do what is right and what is smart to address this crisis.

So today, out of the House Financial Services Committee, I am bringing up a bill by the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Barr), a member of our leadership team. I want to thank him for his leadership, because I know how heartfelt the pain he knows from his district is.

What the gentleman from Kentucky is bringing before us is that we have seen evidence that transitional housing can be a proven method to really help thousands and thousands of Americans like Joshua that I describe, to help them maintain their sobriety after completing rehab and as they are gaining skills and training and trying to get back into being independent, productive members of society.

So the gentleman from Kentucky says: It is time for a demonstration project, because we have some evidence. We have evidence already. And out of the 2.2 million Section 8 housing vouchers, the government's largest means-tested housing assistance program, let's take less than 1 percent of them--in fact, 0.5 percent of them--and on a temporary basis let's allocate some of these Section 8 housing vouchers to people who are literally dying of opioid addiction every day and need transitional housing options in a recovery evidence-based program.

I really think, Mr. Chairman, it is the least we can do today. I am sorry that this is not on the House's suspension calendar. Demonstration programs are done every single day in the government.

Again, I would hope that this is something that we could join overwhelmingly on both sides of the aisle to do. Apparently, that is not the case, but I don't think this House will be deterred. I do not think this House will be deterred. I think, very soon, people like Joshua who are getting their life turned around can at least have transitional housing options to support their recovery. When they do, we will thank the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Barr).

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Barr), the chairman of the Monetary Policy and Trade Subcommittee of the Financial Services Committee and author of the Transitional Housing for Recovery in Viable Environments Demonstration Program Act, or THRIVE Act.

Mr. Chairman, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentleman from Kentucky.

Mr. Chairman, I am very pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Duffy), the chairman of the Housing and Insurance Subcommittee.

Mr. Chairman, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentleman from Wisconsin.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Huizenga), chairman of the Capital Markets, Securities, and Investment Subcommittee.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hultgren), vice chairman of our Capital Markets, Securities, and Investments Subcommittee.

Mr. Chair, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Emmer), a valued member of the Financial Services Committee.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Budd), a very hardworking member of the Financial Services Committee.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Tenney), another hardworking member of the House Financial Services Committee.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Georgia (Mrs. Handel), a member of the Judiciary Committee and the Education and the Workforce Committee.

Mr. Chairman, I anticipate no more speakers. I am prepared to close.

Mr. Chairman, may I inquire how much time I have remaining.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, in my congressional career, I have experienced a number of surreal moments. I think perhaps I am experiencing another one, and that is, typically, within my career, next to a study, I think the least controversial provisions we take up in this body are demonstration projects.

We do it all the time, and it is good that we do it all the time so we can find out if what is happening in a small subset within our society is going to work, and so we will roll out the program throughout our country. Typically, these receive very strong bipartisan support.

I couldn't help but notice, there are only two, two Members on the other side of the aisle, who are against this opioid housing recovery program, and we had almost a dozen Republicans on our side of the aisle come to support it.

I listened very carefully to the ranking member who, on more than one occasion, said we should not rob Peter to pay Paul. Well, what happens when she or other Members on the other side of the aisle decide to submit budgets that aren't balanced?

We just had a balanced budget amendment come to this floor, and if memory serves me right, it was not supported by the ranking member. So thus, she appears to be robbing Peter to pay Paul. If that is of great concern, I will certainly be happy to go to our leadership and see if we can bring that vote to the House floor, so that we might balance the budget.

I heard it said, well, this demonstration project may take away a voucher from a veteran, somebody homeless, somebody disabled. Who do you think these people who are suffering with opioid addiction are? They are veterans. They are homeless. They are disabled, Mr. Chairman, and that is why it is so critical that we reach out and we help them.

Then I continue to hear from the ranking member, well, this doesn't make a dent. This doesn't make a dent in the problem.

So let me get this straight. If we can't help everybody, we ought to help nobody is, I think, the logic of that argument. Well, we reject that. We reject that argument, Mr. Chairman.

So, again, I just cannot believe something that should be on our suspension calendar, something that should be receiving overwhelming bipartisan support apparently has to come with what we call a rule bill.

But we know that 42,000 people have died in the last calendar year, to where we have the data, due to opioid abuse--up tremendously. So there is just an urgent need to target resources for substance use treatment services, to make effective treatment more widely available.

We have an opportunity, right here in this House, right now, today, to say that we have the evidence. Let's take some Section 8 vouchers and make sure that they are part of the solution.

And so I thank the gentleman from Kentucky. What a wonderful leader he is on our committee in trying to help--and we are not helping everybody. I admit it.--to begin to put people in transitional housing.

Mr. Chair, I urge all Members to support the THRIVE Act. We can make a difference today.

Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to claim the time in opposition, although I am not opposed.

Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman for coming and offering this very simple amendment. I thank him for his kind words for the gentleman from Kentucky, who has been an outstanding leader in this effort.

The amendment will simply allow Congress to work its will on the report from the Secretary and allow us to have our own full analysis. I think it is a helpful amendment. I would urge its adoption.

Finally, I would just echo what my friend from Kentucky, the leader of this effort, has said. We are an authorizing committee, not an appropriating committee under the rules of the House, and we authorize programs based upon priorities.

We do demonstration projects all the time, and if there were ever a worthy one that should be considered by this body in the midst of, again, a legitimate crisis on opioid addiction, it ought to be this program.

We have had several amendments that have been agreed to by the majority. I think all have probably improved the underlying legislation. But again, this is something that should have been on the suspension calendar, I don't understand why we have to take so much floor time on this. I don't understand the argument that, if you can't help everybody, then don't help anybody. I don't understand the argument that, since you are not an appropriating committee, then don't authorize the help. I simply don't understand that.

Again, we have the opportunity in this Congress, on this floor, at this moment to make a difference, a huge difference, in the road to recovery for thousands of opioid addicts who are trying to get their lives back together. If we believe in their hope and if we believe in their cause, then we should support the THRIVE Act of the gentleman from Kentucky.

Mr. Chairman, I certainly support the amendment from the gentleman from Arizona, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. Speaker, I rise again regarding the hearing held by the Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution and Civil Justice on September 28, 2018 on the issue of sober living homes. At that hearing, I had the privilege of testifying in support of my bill, H.R. 5724, to restore local oversight over sober living homes. As part of my testimony, I submitted to the Subcommittee letters from many of my constituents about problems with sober living homes caused by current federal law preventing appropriate local oversight. For the benefit of my colleagues and the American people, I include in the Record the seventh group of these constituent letters below:

I am a proud Southern California native, educated in our

fine public elementary schools, and hold degrees from the

University of Southern California. After living in and

working in most of the nation's major metropolitan cities, I

was fortunate to find my slice of paradise in Huntington

Beach 30 years ago. Living in the downtown area has been a

wonderful place full of life, activity, and best of all a

close-knit neighborhood family. In downtown, our homes, due

to the very close proximity to the Pacific Ocean, are

extremely close--it is akin to living in a sliver of land

separated giant condominium complex. My house, the oldest in

my neighborhood is unique for many reasons, one reason that

has only recently become an unbearable issue is that all of

our rooms are directly within 6-8' from the rooms of the SLH

next door. Therefore, my teenage daughter's bedroom is within

6 to 8' of the SLH kitchen, eating area and side outdoor

patio. In essence, we hear everything--conversations, fights,

fits, paramedics speaking to the hospital when there is an

overdose, slamming doors at all hours of the day and night,

sexual positions and experiences of the ``clients,'' each and

every way known to smoke, snort, inject, drink, any and all

substances and the last time used (usually within that day).

I could sum up the last 25 years of living in my neighborhood

in one sentence--a wonderful place to live. Unfortunately,

with the disaster that has been forced upon us by greed and

inaction, I can no longer sum it up as wonderful, but quite

the opposite. I will try to keep this as succinct as

possible, but the only real way to keep it succinct is for

all of you to come and live in my house for a day--it's as

far away from wonderful now as I can reasonably imagine.

So, I write this as a fed-up homeowner, parent who can no

longer feel safe for my daughter, active community member who

has no answers because our city leadership is hog-tied by

bureaucracy, and as an elected school board trustee for the

Huntington Beach City School District who sees the impact to

our district. So, I see this issue from many different

perspectives.

In summary:

Homeowner/resident/parent/human:

My house has been relegated nearly worthless. I tried to

sell and only received very low offers because no person in

their right mind wants to live in my situation. No one needs

to disclose next door is a SLH, there are throngs of men and

women loitering both front, back, across the street, all over

the street smoking, using foul language, and usually at least

monthly there is an overdose, so we often wake up to sirens

and the conversations regarding the entire incident. This has

become so bad that my daughter now is living primarily out of

the house because she is afraid to walk in the front door,

won't be home alone, cannot sleep or study from the smoke and

noise, she's been cat-called walking home from school, had

unimaginable things said to her right in front of me and when

I have confronted these people, I was told to ``be careful

bitch, we'll burn your house down with you in it.'' So now my

daughter is too afraid to sleep here at night because she has

nightmares of being burned in the house alive. I've paid

hundreds of dollars in vet bills because they toss their

cigarette butts into my side yard, and if I can't get to them

fast enough my dog has eaten them and become toxic to her

(dog is only 9 lbs). My trash bins are filled and spilled

over with the most disgusting trash--we now have rats. Our

sidewalks are littered with hundreds of cigarettes and trash

and when I have asked these people or their visitors to

please put the trash in a trash can not the street, my car

was keyed. I've had both the front and back of my car

destroyed from these folks driving out of state cars DUI and

crashing into my parked car. When

I called the owner of the house to complain (note: none of

the owners of these houses live anywhere in Huntington

Beach), he told me that he would be working on buying the

house on the other side of me to make sure to ``squeeze me

out'' and ``shut me up,'' Apparently, it appears he's going

to win. We have these houses in multitudes in my

neighborhood, all of them have multiple issues and now seeing

an OD HBPD/HBFD call is nearly a daily occurrence. I've had

so much angst and anxiety over just living here and what are

we going to have to deal with and live through today it's

taken a toll on my health, and certainly my daughter's. Why

do they have more rights than my child does?

As a school board member, we are always working to ensure

our children and community safe, clean schools, and an

excellent education. We also look forward at our demographics

and enrollment to properly prepare. We have planned for some

declining enrollment, but families in our district schools,

primarily in our largest elementary and middle school, which

serve the downtown neighborhood are losing enrollment at an

alarming rate due to families moving completely out of

Huntington Beach because of this SLH issue. There are at

least 4 SLH homes that are directly in the walking path to

both the elementary and middle school that hundreds of small

children walk through that now on a daily basis are forced to

walk through groups of SLH ``clients'' smoking, spitting,

urinating, shooting drugs on the sidewalk, using unimaginable

language, cat-calling young girls, loud foul language music.

I've had parents crying and children scared to go to school--

not of school but getting to and from school. So, our planned

attrition in those schools has more than doubled our research

and it is primarily because these families no longer feel

safe and that our city has any interest in their well-being.

So, in most cases, they take a large loss on their home value

and leave. The vandalism and theft of our schools has

increased as well.

I want to make it very clear that I am an advocate that

anyone that needs help should be able to get the help they

need. However, these SLH homes are not helping these people

who desperately need it, they are not-so-well-hidden drug

dens that are destroying our neighborhoods. They need

quality, medically-supervised help and counseling--not a

frat-house for drugs with absolutely no oversight, no

counseling, no supervision. The current SLH next door to me

is now both male and female and has at least 12 but up to 15

people. If I am being forced to pay through taxes and

increased insurance premiums to cover this care, then please

get them the help they desperately need--and what has been

going on here is certainly not help--it's a greed grab to the

detriment of both the neighborhoods and the people who are

seeking help. There is a reason all other states have curbed

this process--for as impossible as it is to do business in

California, it is inconceivable that this industry remains

without any regulations, still allow un-checked body

brokering, curbing, cross-state human commerce.

I will end with this--I am tired of hearing that we are

just complaining because of NIMBY. This is NOT a NIMBY issue.

This madness and crisis is NOT in my backyard. It is in my

backyard, my front yard, my side yard, inside my house. So, I

would like to ask that if our elected officials from

Washington to the California Legislature continue to refuse

to do anything and continue to deny allowing our elected City

officials to govern Huntington Beach as local governing

bodies were intended for, then please, I beg of you . . . buy

my house because no one else will but another SLH. If I can

be of any help to you, please do not hesitate to contact me.

I think I speak for all of us--we want help for those that

need help, but appropriate help in the appropriate

locations--because what is going on is a lose-lose for

everyone BUT the unscrupulous operators and landlords. But

the biggest losers are our neighborhood children.

Bridget Kaub,

Huntington Beach, California.

Mr. Speaker, I rise again regarding the hearing held by the Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution and Civil Justice on September 28, 2018 on the issue of sober living homes. At that hearing, I had the privilege of testifying in support of my bill, H.R. 5724, to restore local oversight over sober living homes. As part of my testimony, I submitted to the Subcommittee letters from many of my constituents about problems with sober living homes caused by current federal law preventing appropriate local oversight. For the benefit of my colleagues and the American people, I include in the Record the fifth group of these constituent letters:

Thank you for bringing our issues with Sober Living Homes

(SLH) in our neighborhoods to congress. Here is the nightmare

my husband, two young sons and I have endured over the past

1.5 years.

We live in downtown Huntington Beach that had been known

for our lovely beaches and quaint surf culture community, now

we are called Rehab Riviera. My nightmare began in April

2017, when the owner of the house across the street from me

opted turn down $3800 in rent per month to dozens of families

wanting to rent it and instead he sold out the neighborhood

for $9000 a month in rent to a business, [REDACTED].

[REDACTED] was started by two addicts, [NAME] and [NAME] 1

year and 4 months out of a recovery. They have no special

training, they are not licensed by the State of California,

DHHS does not regulate their business and they especially do

not have hand-picked doctors, per their website, taking care

of the young lives at [ADDRESS]. On February 24, 2018, a

handsome, sweet young man, [NAME], overdosed, in the care of

[REDACTED], at [ADDRESS]. His body laid in his bed for over 8

hours before it was discovered. Then his fluid-soaked

mattress laid on the sidewalk between the home and the wall

separating the houses for 2 weeks before it was finally

disposed of properly. On March 13, 2018 [NAME] co-owner of

[REDACTED] overdosed at his home in Fountain Valley.

According to the reports, [NAME] was apparently facing

pressure on several fronts. Last year, a text exchange

between [NAME]'s business partner, [NAME], and an addict,

went public in that forum, laying bare an increasingly-common

scam: Addicts demanding to be paid to get surgical implants

of opioid-blocking drugs. The idea is that the addicts know

rehab operators and doctors can bill insurance companies

thousands of dollars per procedure.

I shared the above so you have an idea of the type of so-

called Sober Living Home I am dealing with. A business opened

by two addicts just to make money while they scam the system

and allow young men to die and overdose (survive) in their

care. After [NAME] overdose at the unlicensed home I was sure

that someone on a state or federal level would have shut them

down but nothing happened. The house manager, known as [NAME]

(no idea what his real name is) has allowed 2 more young men

to overdose under his care but luckily both survived. When we

asked [NAME] about them he stated they were kicked out of the

house and if you have spent any time in Southern California

lately, that just means there are now 2 more homeless addicts

on the streets. All the clients at [REDACTED] have been flown

here from other parts of the country and a few of them have

told me that it was a one-way ticket and if they want to go

home they have to do it with their own funds. They also tell

me they get money whenever they bring in another client into

the house. . . .

In addition to the above the neighbors and I have endured

the following: drug deals going down on our street. The

clients getting blow jobs while sitting in their cars parked

in front of our homes. Constant foul language coming from the

clients and their ``friends'' who come to visit. Young men

wearing their pants down to their knees, ghetto music (music

that is loud and contains profanity) blaring from their cars

and out of the house. At times there are 14 cars on our block

from the 7 clients and their 7 girlfriends so we cannot park

in front of our homes. I have two young boys and I am

constantly bringing in groceries or lugging out sports bags,

so having to walk a block away to get to and from my car.

Trash in the street and in the alley. Hypodermic needles have

been found, one of them in the neighbor's backyard. The

neighbors to the south of [REDACTED] are elderly and they

can't have their grandkids come over and play outside anymore

in fear of a hypodermic needle impaling itself into their

little bodies when it comes flying over the wall between the

homes.

In addition, the clients toss their cigarette butts over

the fence into the same neighbor's back yard. The same

neighbors can no longer leave their windows open to get fresh

air since they are constantly bombarded with cigarette smoke.

Countless fighting going on in the house that has resulted

in countless police visits. Intimidation from the clients.

There have been many occasions when I am outside in front of

my home and one of the clients will stand across the street,

drawing on his cigarette, with his pants down to his knees,

staring me down and glaring at my every move. My kids use to

skateboard in front of our house, or toss the football, but

now they don't want to be out there. We felt compelled to put

up cameras, keep our doors shut and our window curtains

drawn.

Increase in petty thefts. If we mistakenly leave our cars

unlocked the content is stolen during the night. I watched

two addicts (not from [REDACTED]) walking down the alley a

few months ago tugging on every door handle they passed. Then

they attempted to break into a shed on a neighbor's property

while I had run home to get my phone and call the police.

When we (the neighbors) have complained to [NAME] he tells

us to stop talking to his clients, they are grown men and

there is nothing he can do about the issues. His big solution

is to kick them out after they overdose, if they are lucky

enough to survive. So, I don't understand how [REDACTED] can

run a scam business in my neighborhood. I live a residential

zoned neighborhood not in a business zone. How can they stay

in operations when the state knows they are unlicensed, their

website was criminally misleading, and they are allowing

young men to OD and die in their ``care''?

I grew up in poverty, crawled my way out of it by going to

college on Pell grants (thank you government for giving me a

hand up, not a hand out), worked very hard to be able to buy

my mother a home and then myself one in 1995. I have lived

here for 23 years and before April 2017 it has been a quiet,

peaceful neighborhood with thoughtful and kind neighbors. Now

the SLH has greatly reduced the quality of life my family and

I had once enjoyed in our home. We are no longer comfortable

in our home, nor on our street. On August 13, 2018 we found

out that a recently purchased home (at [ADDRESS]) 3 doors

down from [ADDRESS] is also going to be a sober living home.

We have two side-by-side in the [REDACTED] block of

California street. Two more in the [REDACTED] block of

Huntington street (one street over) and countless more

throughout the neighborhood. We understand that a recovery

center is building their headquarters in downtown HB.

Seriously? Do you know how expensive real estate is in

Southern California, and these guys can afford to build a

high-rise headquarters 3 blocks from the ocean and a stone

throw away from two blocks of bars. This is not about helping

these addicts find recovery, this is about money, lots of

money! They want to bring them here to this environment, so

they stayed hooked on the drugs and they can continue to scam

the America tax payers!

Catherine Young,

Huntington Beach, California.