[House Hearing, 115 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
EXAMINING SOBER LIVING HOMES
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE CONSTITUTION
AND CIVIL JUSTICE
of the
COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED FIFTEENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
SEPTEMBER 28, 2018
__________
Serial No. 115-70
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Available via the World Wide Web: http://judiciary.house.gov
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
33-123 WASHINGTON : 2018
COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY
BOB GOODLATTE, Virginia, Chairman
F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, Jr., JERROLD NADLER, New York
Wisconsin ZOE LOFGREN, California
LAMAR SMITH, Texas SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas
STEVE CHABOT, Ohio STEVE COHEN, Tennessee
DARRELL E. ISSA, California HENRY C. ``HANK'' JOHNSON, Jr.,
STEVE KING, Iowa Georgia
LOUIE GOHMERT, Texas THEODORE E. DEUTCH, Florida
JIM JORDAN, Ohio LUIS V. GUTIRREZ, Illinois
TED POE, Texas KAREN BASS, California
TOM MARINO, Pennsylvania CEDRIC L. RICHMOND, Louisiana
TREY GOWDY, South Carolina HAKEEM S. JEFFRIES, New York
RAUL LABRADOR, Idaho DAVID CICILLINE, Rhode Island
BLAKE FARENTHOLD, Texas ERIC SWALWELL, California
DOUG COLLINS, Georgia TED LIEU, California
KEN BUCK, Colorado JAMIE RASKIN, Maryland
JOHN RATCLIFFE, Texas PRAMILA JAYAPAL, Washington
MARTHA ROBY, Alabama BRAD SCHNEIDER, Illinois
MATT GAETZ, Florida VALDEZ VENITA ``VAL'' DEMINGS,
MIKE JOHNSON, Louisiana Florida
ANDY BIGGS, Arizona
JOHN RUTHERFORD, Florida
KAREN HANDEL, Florida
KEITH ROTHFUS, Pennsylvania
Shelley Husband, Chief of Staff and General Counsel
Perry Apelbaum, Minority Staff Director and Chief Counsel
Subcommittee on the Constitution and Civil Justice
STEVE KING, Iowa, Chairman
LOUIE GOHMERT, Texas STEVE COHEN, Tennessee
KAREN HANDEL, Florida JAMIE RASKIN, Maryland
THEODORE E. DEUTCH, Florida
C O N T E N T S
----------
SEPTEMBER 28, 2018
OPENING STATEMENTS
Page
The Honorable Steve King, Iowa, Chairman, Subcommittee on the
Constitution and Civil Justice................................. 1
The Honorable Steve Cohen, Tennessee, Ranking Member,
Subcommittee on the Constitution and Civil Justice.............
The Honorable Bob Goodlatte, Virginia, Chairman, Committee on the
Judiciary......................................................
WITNESSES
The Honorable Judy Chu, 27th District of California, U.S. House
of Representatives
Oral Statement............................................... 2
The Honorable Dana Rohrabacher, 48th District of California, U.S.
House of Representatives
Oral Statement............................................... 4
Erik Peterson, Mayor Pro Tempore, Huntington Beach, CA
Oral Statement............................................... 8
Todd Leishman, Attorney, Best, Best & Krieger
Oral Statement............................................... 9
Sara Pratt, Counsel, Relman, Dane & Colfax, PLLC
Oral Statement............................................... 11
Dave Aronberg, State Attorney, 15th Judicial Circuit, FL
Oral Statement............................................... 12
QUESTIONS FOR THE RECORD
The Honorable Steve King, Iowa, Chairman, Subcommittee on the
Constitution and Civil Justice, Questions for the Record. This
material is available at the Committee and can be accessed on
the committee repository at:
https://docs.house.gov/meetings/JU/JU10/20180928/108684/HHRG-
15-JU10-20180928-SD005.pdf
ADDITIONAL MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD
Letters Submitted by the Honorable Steve King, Iowa, Chairman,
Subcommittee on the Constitution and Civil Justice. This
material is available at the Committee and can be accessed on
the committee repository at:
https://docs.house.gov/meetings/JU/JU10/20180928/108684/HHRG-
115-JU10-20180928-SD003.pdf https://docs.house.gov/
meetings/JU/JU10/20180928/108684/HHRG-115-JU10-20180928-
SD004.pdf
Letters submitted by the Honorable Steve Cohen, Tennessee,
Ranking Member, Subcommittee on the Constitution and Civil
Justice. This material is available at the Committee and can be
accessed on the committee repository at:
https://docs.house.gov/meetings/JU/JU10/20180928/108684/HHRG-
115-JU10-20180928-SD006.pdf
Letters Submitted by the Honorable Ted Deutch, 21st District of
Florida, U.S. House of Representatives. This material is
available at the Committee and can be accessed on the committee
repository at:
https://docs.house.gov/meetings/JU/JU10/20180928/108684/HHRG-
115-JU10-20180928-SD007.pdf
EXAMINING SOBER LIVING HOMES
----------
FRIDAY, SEPTEMBER 28, 2018
House of Representatives
Subcommittee on the Constitution and Civil Justice
Committee on the Judiciary
Washington, DC.
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 9:07 a.m., in
Room 2141, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Steve King
[Chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding.
Present: Representatives King, Handel, Cohen, and Deutch.
Staff present: John Coleman, Counsel; Jake Glancy, Clerk;
James Park, Minority Chief Counsel; Matthew Morgan, Minority
Professional Staff Member; and Veronica Eligan, Minority
Professional Staff Member.
Mr. King. The Subcommittee on the Constitution and Civil
Justice will come to order.
Without objection, the chair is authorized to declare
recess of the committee at any time.
We welcome everyone to today's hearing on examining Sober
Living Homes, and I now recognize myself for an opening
statement.
According to the Centers for Disease Control, more than 115
people in the U.S. die after overdosing on opioids every day.
In 2017, more than 72,000 Americans died from drug overdoses,
overall. In addition to the vast number of families who are
suffering the loss of a loved one, these numbers are staggering
for us, as a Nation. It is clear that we need safe and
effective recovery options to combat this epidemic to ensure
that people have the opportunity to get the help they need.
One popular option is known as a sober living home. Sober
Living Homes are group homes for recovering addicts or
alcoholics in the later stages of treatment that provide a
place from them--a place for them to live, while they receive
outpatient care.
While sober living houses are modeled in different ways,
one common feature is that these homes are located in single-
family, generally middle class residential neighborhoods. While
a well-run sober living home may provide a suitable environment
for recovering individuals to integrate back into the
community, some Sober Living Homes, according to testimony
submitted to this committee, are either poorly managed, or are
run by operators who dangerously exploit their residents, and
that is for profit.
For example, Advocates for Responsible Treatment, which
submitted a testimony to today's hearing, compiled a list of
news articles from across the country. I would like to read a
few of these headlines: ``Milwaukee Addict Recovery Home Facing
Questions After Five Overdose Deaths Since 2017''; ``Owner of
Drug Recovery Home Caught Selling Heroine and Fentanyl to
Residents''; another is ``Heroine Bust at Sober Home: Police
Find Trove of Stolen Items and Drugs''; another one is
``Pennsylvania Heroine Recovery Houses Often are `Drug Dealer's
Dream' ''--and that is in quotes.
They are just a few of the many headlines provided by--to
this committee. But all of them indicate that there is a very
real problem that needs to be addressed. Indeed, many local
governments have answered the call to regulate Sober Living
Homes, but many have been sued under the Fair Housing Act and
the Americans With Disabilities Act for doing so.
Today's hearing will examine these laws, the concerns with
their application, and proposed legislation that they are
seeking to remedy the problem.
I look forward to all of our witness testimony, and I want
to thank you in advance for that testimony.
And now I recognize the--I want to say acting--ranking
member for today, the gentleman, Mr. Deutch, for his opening
statement.
Mr. Deutch. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate it. But
it is a vitally important topic. I have some comments, but out
of respect for our members who are here, I will defer.
Mr. King. Okay, I thank the gentleman. And now I would like
to introduce the witnesses. I would like to introduce our first
witness, which is Representative Judy Chu from California. And
also our second witness is Representative Dana Rohrabacher,
also of California.
And you know the rules in this place, I am really
confident. And so I would ask you, first, to stand to be sworn
in, each of you.
Would you raise your right hand, please?
Do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and
nothing but the truth, so help you, God?
Thank you, and let the record reflect that they have
responded in the affirmative.
And I now recognize Ms. Chu for her opening statement. Ms.
Chu--for her testimony, excuse me.
TESTIMONY OF THE HON. JUDY CHU, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS
FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA; AND THE HON. DANA ROHRABACHER, A
REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
TESTIMONY OF JUDY CHU
Ms. Chu. Chairman King and Acting Ranking Member Deutch, I
want to start by thanking you for inviting me to testify on
this important issue which has impacted all of our districts.
I appreciate that this subcommittee is examining the role
of Sober Living Homes in our communities and how they
contribute to the recovery process for those suffering from
addiction.
Sober Living Homes, also known as recovery residences,
offer a place to stay for those who have completed treatment
and are trying to rebuild their lives. However, the lack of
regulation around the operation of these homes is of serious
concern, which means that these facilities may be unequipped to
handle patients at risk of overdose, or do not employ staff
with specialty training.
In the worst cases, some bad actors do not encourage
recovery at all, but exploit vulnerable individuals in order to
collect insurance payments. This can mean life or death for
people like Tyler from my district of Pasadena, California.
Tyler died from an overdose after a sober home didn't recognize
the symptoms of his overdose, nor did they have Naloxone, the
medication that can reverse an overdose on hand. Tyler was only
23 years old.
Unfortunately, this is not an isolated incident. I have
heard from advocates in Arizona, Pennsylvania, Missouri,
Florida, and Ohio who are concerned for their friends and
family members living in unregulated sober living facilities.
I would like to submit for the record a New York Times
article from 2015 and a recent report from the Department of
Justice outlining abuse and fraud at Sober Living Homes in New
York and Florida. These reports describe sober living
facilities that lacked access to Naloxone, ordered unnecessary
tests on residents to exhaust their insurance benefits, and
required residents to relapse and re-enter treatment so
resident directors could claim some of the Medicaid benefits.
Licensing for recovery residences, or sober living
facilities, varies substantially from state to state, and there
are facilities in every state that operate without the
necessary licenses. Further, oversight of these licenses is
minimal.
And so patients and their families struggle to distinguish
good actors from bad ones. For some of these individuals, they
may not discover that a facility is negligent until it is too
late.
And that is why, after hearing about Tyler's death from his
friend, Ryan Hampton, a recovery advocate in my district, I
worked with the National Alliance for Recovery Residences to
craft legislation that would help address this problem without
further victimizing the people we are trying to help. As a
result, I introduced H.R. 4684, the Ensuring Access to Quality
Sober Living Act.
My bill directs the Department of Health and Human Services
to develop a set of best practices for residential recovery
facilities so that patients, families, and states can
distinguish quality sober living facilities from sites that are
fraudulent or unequipped to offer appropriate assistance to
their residences.
H.R. 4684 requires HHS to disseminate these best practices
to each state, and authorizes the agency to provide technical
assistance and support to states that wish to adopt or
implement these best practices.
In addition, the bill allows states who are struggling to
address the opioid crisis and all of its consequences to work
with HHS to help set up criteria to designate quality sober
living facilities. These benchmarks include common-sense
measures like requiring that all fees and charges be explained
to residences before they enter a binding agreement; that paid
work performed at the facility by the residences be completely
voluntary, and not impede the recovery process; and to avoid
deaths like Tyler's, the bill requires Naloxone to be available
and accessible, and that staff and residences are trained to
use it in emergencies.
H.R. 4684 also ensures that individuals looking for a place
to stay will not be turned away because they have been
prescribed medication-assisted treatment, or MAT, by their
physician to help them recovery [sic].
H.R. 4684 provides an alternative to undermining existing
civil rights laws by creating a new set of standards so that
these facilities are biding by best practices and are not
presenting a harm to the surrounding communities.
H.R. 4684 is a bipartisan bill with cosponsors including
Congressmembers Mimi Walters, John Lewis, and Greg Walden. It
has been endorsed by the National Alliance for Recovery
Residences, the American Psychological Association, and the
Orange County Board of Supervisors.
Thank you again for taking the time to hear from us on ways
to address this growing crisis.
Mr. King. We thank the gentlelady from California, and the
chair now recognizes the gentleman from California, Mr.
Rohrabacher.
Mr. Rohrabacher. Yes, thank you much, Chairman King,
Ranking Member Cohen, and other members of the subcommittee.
Thank you for holding this hearing. And before I begin I will
note that I have received testimony from dozens of my
constituents about this issue and how it affects their lives,
and I ask that these statements be included in the hearing
record.
Mr. King. Without objection.
[The information follows:]
This material is available at the Committee and can be accessed
on the committee repository at:
https://docs.house.gov/meetings/JU/JU10/20180928/108684/HHRG-
115-JU10-20180928-SD003.pdf https://docs.house.gov/meetings/JU/
JU10/20180928/108684/HHRG-115-JU10-20180928-SD004.pdf
Mr. Rohrabacher. I also have letters from several city
governments in my district on how they are affected by this
problem, and I ask that they too be included in the record.
Mr. King. Without objection, so ordered.
[The information follows:]
This material is available at the Committee and can be accessed
on the committee repository at: https://docs.house.gov/
meetings/JU/JU10/20180928/108684/HHRG-115-JU10-20180928-
SD003.pdf https://docs.house.gov/meetings/JU/JU10/20180928/
108684/HHRG-115-JU10-20180928-SD004.pdf
TESTIMONY OF DANA ROHRABACHER
Mr. Rohrabacher. As we are all aware, our country is
enduring a crippling opioid epidemic. Many of our fellow
citizens of all ages and social statutes are painfully
struggling to seek ways to end their dependence on pills that
have all too often been legally flooded into our towns and
cities and rural communities. I come before you today to
discuss the impact that this challenge has had on many suburban
communities, including those in my district in Orange County,
California.
Our challenge is different than just salvaging the lives of
addicts. It seems alcoholics and drug addicts are being
recruited throughout our country to seek recovery in the
wonderful environment of our Southern California residential
neighborhoods. Residential recovery facilities, more commonly
known as Sober Living Homes, have proliferated to the point
that, in my home town in Costa Mesa, it has been labeled Rehab
Riviera. Something is fundamentally wrong with this scenario.
Our Sober Living Homes are not actually homes, but
businesses that operate out of single-family homes in
residential neighborhoods zoned for families. There are no
standards or criminal background checks on those who can
operate such a business. A significant number are run by
unscrupulous owners and operators who willfully disregard the
well-being of the addicts they are supposedly saving, while
simultaneously reducing the quality of life in communities
where these homes are located.
Under normal circumstances this problem would be addressed
by local government. But in this case, federal law shields the
bad actors with the protections meant for their clients.
Federal law designates recovering addicts and alcoholics as
disabled. The Fair Housing Act protects them from
discrimination in housing, and its protections have then been
extended to the business servicing them. This has an unintended
effect: states and local governments have been consistently
rebuked by the courts that say laws and ordinances that target
these facilities discriminate against the people who are living
in the facilities.
Meantime and meanwhile, crooked owners and operators laugh
all the way to the bank. They operate for-profit businesses
posing as housing providers for the disabled--meaning drug
addicts and alcoholics--who are being located in residential
neighborhoods. All of this is happening without accountability
or oversight.
Indeed, the Government Accountability Office issued a
report showing that insurance fraud is rampant among these
facilities in these states across the country. Tracking these
recovery houses and the problems associated with them is
impossible because unlicensed facilities are not registered,
nor are they systematically inspected.
In short, there is a distinct lack of local oversight and
authority. The situation has proven harmful to local
residential communities. And, yes, those who are trying to free
themselves from drug and alcohol addiction have also been
mistreated by this. They are victims in more ways than one.
Furthermore, the neighborhood impact is alarming. My
constituents report increases in criminal activity,
disturbances, emergencies, visits--emergency visits at all
hours of the night and day, noise, and filth, and trash, and
other issues around these particular homes, but not at the
other homes in their neighborhood. The occupants are transient,
and they are sheltered for only weeks, if not days. And in
fact, there is no time--there is no commitment from these
people at all about their community or their neighborhood.
Too many addicts relapse--and sometimes repeatedly they
relapse--and illegally obtain drugs. After relapse, the
individual often--and after they relapse from their treatment,
they have no place else to go, and they end up homeless on our
streets. This system, as is designed, to exploit people who
desperately need help. And it is unfair to require residential
neighborhoods to bear the burden of shoddy, unregulated
recovery by reducing the quality of life and decreasing the
home values of the people who live in that neighborhood.
Let's do the right thing and balance the needs of
communities and recovering addicts. This hearing is a good
start.
I will note that I have introduced legislation that I
believe would help fix the problem, not by furthering more
government regulation at the federal level, but empowering
local and state governments. H.R. 5724, the Restoring Community
Oversight of Sober Living Homes Act, would be the first good
step.
I would clarify that nothing in the federal law is
protecting--and my bill would clarify that nothing in federal
law protecting those with disabilities would prohibit local
government from regulating or banning these facilities in
residential neighborhoods. For that to work, the bill defines
recovery facility in the federal code. And then those
residential--those in residential zones are exempt from the
definition of ``dwelling'' for the purpose of protecting under
the Fair Housing Act.
Furthermore, my bill would bar federal money from being
given to homes that are not licensed by local communities.
Lastly, it would remove the treatment of substance use
disorder from the list of essential health benefits for the
purpose of insurance. Now, that is a very difficult position
for many of my colleagues to take. I understand that. But it
would remove the unintended incentive for operators of these
treatment centers to encourage patients to relapse and gravely
endanger their lives in order to obtain more, and a lucrative
insurance coverage.
I would appreciate the opportunity to work with this
subcommittee on moving this bill forward so we can provide
local government with the tools to help communities and to help
addicts who are so poorly served by the status quo.
I thank you again for conducting this hearing. It is a
complicated problem. It deserves our attention. And I
appreciate your willingness to give this an honest look.
Mr. King. The chair thanks the gentleman from California
for his testimony and the gentlelady from California for her
testimony, as well. And, as is the practice of this committee,
we appreciate you being here, and you will be dismissed without
questions, as standard. And I would invite the other witnesses
to be seated. I thank both of you.
[Pause.]
Mr. King. I see that our witnesses are comfortably seated
and familiar with the terrain around you.
First I would say that you recognize that when you speak
you turn the light on on your microphone. That will give you--
the light will be five minutes. That is four minutes of green
light, one minute of amber light, and we will give you a little
latitude to conclude your thoughts. We want to hear what those
thoughts actually are.
And so, I would like to introduce our witnesses.
And then our first witness is Erik Peterson. He is the
mayor pro tem of Huntington Beach, California.
The second witness is Todd Leishman, an attorney with the
Best, Best and Krieger--Todd.
And our third witness, Sara Pratt, and--counsel with
Relman, Dane and Colfax, PLLC.
And the fourth witness I am going to have to have a little
help from Florida.
Mr. Deutch.
Mr. Deutch. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It is my pleasure to
welcome my constituent and friend, Palm Beach County State
Attorney Dave Aronberg, to Washington this morning. Dave was
born in Miami, attended public schools before going on to
graduate with honors from Harvard College and Harvard Law
School. He was an assistant attorney general, White House
fellow, and we were colleagues together in the Florida State
Senate.
In 2010 Mr. Aronberg joined the Florida Attorney General's
office as special prosecutor for prescription drug trafficking.
As the Attorney General's drug czar, he led an anti-pill mill
initiative that helped clean up the pain clinic industry and
reduce the record number of people dying every day from
Oxycodone abuse. His work to save lives from drug overdoses
continues as a top priority today.
He was elected state attorney for the 15th Judicial Circuit
in November 2012, re-elected in 2016, where he has led a group
of 120 prosecutors and 220 professional staff in 5 offices
throughout Palm Beach County. His leadership has led to a
significant increase in conviction rates for both felonies and
misdemeanors.
I have a lot to say, and I intend to finish.
A decrease in the number of juveniles direct-filed into the
court, and greatly improved his working relationship with
local, state, and federal law enforcement agencies.
And finally, Mr. Chairman, in July 2016 Mr. Aronberg
created a sober homes task force that has made more than 55
arrests for patient brokering and insurance fraud in the rehab
industry, has led to new Florida laws and regulations that have
become the model for other states.
Aronberg's efforts convinced Google to restrict
advertisements and improve screening for addiction treatment.
And as opioid deaths continue to rise nationally, Palm Beach
County experienced a 62 percent decrease in opioid overdose
deaths in the first 4 months of 2018, compared to the same
period last year.
This committee thanks you for being here with us this
morning, Mr. Aronberg, and we look forward to your testimony.
And I thank the chairman for indulging me with that
introduction.
Mr. King. I was expecting a superlative introduction, but
it exceeded my expectations. [Laughter.]
Mr. Deutch. I thought it might.
Mr. King. And I now ask the witnesses if you would stand to
be sworn in, please, and raise your right hands.
Do you swear that the testimony you are about to give
before this committee is the truth, the whole truth, and
nothing but the truth, so help you, God?
Thank you, you may be seated--let the record reflect that
the witnesses all responded with an affirmative.
And I now, for the beginning testimony, I would like to
recognize Mayor Peterson.
Mayor Peterson, for your initial five minutes. Is your
microphone on?
TESTIMONY OF ERIK PETERSON, MAYOR PRO TEMPORE, HUNTINGTON
BEACH, CALIFORNIA; TODD LEISHMAN, ATTORNEY, BEST, BEST, AND
KRIEGER; SARA PRATT, COUNSEL, RELMAN, DANE AND COLFAX, PLLC;
AND DAVE ARONBERG, STATE ATTORNEY, 15TH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT,
FLORIDA
TESTIMONY OF ERIK PETERSON
Mr. Peterson. Good morning, esteemed members of the
committee and staff. My name is Erik Peterson. I am the mayor
pro tem of the great city of Huntington Beach, California. I am
here today to attempt to shine a light on the ever-increasing
difficulties our city and many other jurisdictions have with
addiction recovery housing, sometimes referred to as Sober
Living Homes. I would like to start my testimony by reading a
statement from a testimony you should have received from a
California-based organization called Advocates for Responsible
Treatment.
Addiction recovery housing takes many forms, one of which
is businesses that provide commercial services to short-term,
transient occupants, in permanent residential neighborhoods,
where such uses are often prohibited by zonings. A myriad of
overlapping federal and state law and case law unintentionally
grants excess privileges to these businesses.
Essentially, businesses obtain rights superior to those of
other households in the same neighborhoods. Local limits on
operations of such businesses are interpreted by the court and
the state to be discriminatory, regardless of whether the
operations exceed reasonable accommodation or grant more than
equal rights of neighboring homeowners. By granting these
privileges to operate without distinction or restriction, the
courts have failed to note that the houses do not even meet the
spirit of ADA, which is to de-institutionalize the disabled and
integrate the protected class into the community.
In just the last two years, recovery houses have been
identified as a concern in municipalities in over 100
congressional districts. Citizens executing their right of free
speech on the issue have been sued by businesses in an attempt
to freeze public dialogue. Many municipalities have lost
millions fighting lawsuits claiming housing discrimination, to
which no disabled individual is party.
Unnecessary litigation drives investigations by the
Department of Justice, Housing, and Urban Development. To meet
requests of Members of Congress for clarification in 2016, the
DOJ and HUD produced a 20-page document which reinstated the
issue, but gave no clear guidance.
Congressman Rohrabacher's H.R. 5724, Restoring Community
Oversight of Sober Living Homes Act of 2018 is the second bill
in two years attempting to clarify local control to come to the
Judiciary Committee. The first was proposed by Congressman Issa
in September of 2016. We are grateful for the Judiciary
Committee moving forward to review this legislation, because
this issue will not go away until it is finally addressed by
Congress.
Ignoring the issue results in disastrous effects on long-
term residential neighborhoods, and fuels an increase of abuse
in--of the protected class. Better local and state regulations
of recovery housing is very much a matter of life and death.
Ladies and Gentlemen, when I was asked to testify in front
of this community [sic], I reached out to my constituents and
asked them to submit their stories. I believe you have received
many of them. What got me were the stories of the parents of
the victims of some of these facilities.
In our city we have houses with multiple overdoses and
deaths, and all we can do is send our firefighters in to pick
up the pieces. A few Sundays ago, someone forwarded me a
program from a funeral they were attending of a 21-year-old
lady who died in a recovery home. She was dead for 12 hours
before it was reported to the authorities.
The opioid crisis in our country is destroying the basis of
our society, which is our families and communities. In an
attempt to help or be companionate, we have further placed the
burden on our communities and left thousands of people who need
help at risk.
The City of Huntington Beach has found that many of our
homeless have come from these facilities. Through what is
referred to as body brokering, addicts are recruited from
around the country and sent to places like Southern California,
Florida, and Arizona. After the individual is placed in a home,
many recovery companies sign them up for as much public
assistance and insurance as possible, and offer bed vouchers
for local resident homes. When the money runs out, they curb
them. In other words, they kick them to the street, and many
have not even received proper recovery.
Over the last year our city has had to help 65 people get
home that were stuck.
I thank you again for letting us--for reviewing this
legislation.
Mr. King. Thank you, Mayor Pro Tem Peterson. I appreciate
your testimony, and the chair now recognizes Mr. Leishman for
his testimony.
Mr. Leishman, you are recognized.
TESTIMONY OF TODD LEISHMAN
Mr. Leishman. Thank you. Good morning, Mr. Chairman and
members of the committee. My name is Todd Leishman. I am an
attorney with Best, Best and Krieger. We advise cities
throughout the country on issues they face, including questions
about Sober Living Homes. But these comments today are my own.
If I can only convey one message to you this morning, it is
this: Congress must clarify federal law to make clear that
local government may regulate recovery businesses to protect
people in recovery.
People in recovery benefit most from living in residential
facilities that are small, spread out, and well run. The least
intrusive and most effective way to ensure this is through
local regulation. If Congress fails to clear the way for local
government to protect them, then more people will relapse in
the very facilities that are supposed to help them. More
residents will be trafficked, abused, and raped. More will
overdose, and more will die.
I wish this were hyperbole, but it is not. All of these
things are happening in recovery facilities in communities in
every congressional district in our Nation, and they are
happening in large part because federal law leaves open a
radical and, I think, perverse interpretation that insists that
local government may not regulate recovery operators at all,
even when it is to protect people in recovery.
Some operators argue that anti-discrimination laws prevent
any regulation of their business because they serve disabled
people. Recovering addicts are disabled under federal law. So,
they say, their recovery business use must be treated for all
purposes as if it were a single-family household. Congress
needs to close this loophole to allow local government to
protect the very social model that recovering addicts need.
You see, before the 1970s, care for recovering addicts was
primarily provided in institutional medical settings. In this
medical model, people were sent to hospitals to dry out and get
clean. Many people ended up in these institutional settings,
even though with just basic care they could function well in
our community. That fact gave rise to a better alternative: a
non-medical social model.
At the heart of the social model is this: we are trying to
turn patients into neighbors. But for that to work, they have
to be in a neighborhood that is actually residential. They need
to live in a setting that closely approximates a residential
household in scale and function. They need to be surrounded by
neighborhood residents with whom they have opportunities to
interact in normal, neighborly ways. And, of course, facilities
need to be run responsibly.
In other words, recovering addicts need facilities that are
small, spread out, and well run.
The social model does not work when recovering addicts live
in large, institutionally-sized dorms, nor does it work when
they are surrounded by other recovery facilities, effectively
stuck in a recovery cul de sac or campus. Yet, to make more
money, many operators increase occupancy, concentrate
facilities together, and cut corners to the detriment of
recovering residents.
When operators shield themselves from reasonable local
regulation, claiming that size, separation, and operational
standards don't apply to them because they serve recovering
addicts, it is the people in recovery who suffer. With my
written testimony I have included scores of examples of what
happens when operators evade local regulation. The examples
turn the stomach. We heard some of those headlines earlier:
operators selling drugs to residents; house managers trading
drugs to residents for sex; rapes; resident and house manager
overdoses. And that doesn't even get into the human trafficking
and fraud problems that are so common.
Local government is in the best position to prevent these
abuses.
In sum, Congress needs to confirm that local government may
reasonably regulate recovery businesses to protect the people
they serve. Please make it plain that permissible regulation
includes maximum occupancy limits, so that residents get the
benefit of living somewhere that is comparable to a typical
residential household; minimum separation requirements, so that
residents get the benefit of living in an actual residential
neighborhood, not in a recovery cul de sac or campus, and can
have meaningful, normal interactions with neighbors; and
minimum operational standards, so that those who care for
recovering residents are qualified and accountable, and
facilities are safe and well-run.
The social model is--of recovery is good. I think it is
vital. And we need to protect it at the local level. Federal
law needs to expressly allow that to happen. Thank you.
Mr. King. Thank you, Mr. Leishman. And the chair now
recognizes the gentlelady, Ms. Pratt, for her testimony.
Ms. Pratt, you are recognized.
Ms. Pratt. My apologies. Hear me now?
TESTIMONY OF SARA PRATT
Ms. Pratt. I am counsel at the law firm of Relman, Dane and
Colfax, here in Washington. I previously served as deputy
assistant secretary for enforcement and programs at the
Department of Housing and Urban Development's office of fair
housing. I retired in 2015 from that position.
My career spans 41 years in fair housing work. I have also
worked to enforce state licensing and regulation requirements
applied to nursing homes, day cares, and group homes in the
State of Kentucky, as well as closing down illegal and
unlicensed operations.
I have submitted written testimony for a more detailed
discussion of the fair housing issues around sober home
operations, and several attachments for the committee's
consideration.
As the committee already knows, there is a large body of
Fair Housing and Americans With Disabilities Act case law that
constrains localities from completely excluding, or from
limiting the location of sober homes, and also requires that,
in general, they be treated as ordinary residential uses. This
is well-established case law--all circuits, all district
courts.
But the fact that there are Fair Housing and ADA
protections for these group homes that house people with
disabilities, including Sober Living Homes does not mean that
there cannot be reasonable and legitimate regulation of group
homes or sober living environments.
Local governments continue to say we can't--that the Fair
Housing Act somehow protects or prevents operations of
seriously concerning situations, that the Fair Housing Act
protects local governments--sorry, prevents local governments
from pursuing bad operators, essentially. And that is just not
the case.
Scoundrels often say that they deserve the protection of
the law. I have seen it throughout my entire career in fair
housing. But there is no reason why a local government should
be concerned about liability if it uses legitimate and
reasonable regulations to operate, to constrain the operation
of Sober Living Homes.
Now, I imagine, even amongst this panel, we might have some
discussion about what exactly those criteria might look like to
ensure effective operation, to protect residents, to protect
neighborhoods. But it is not, in and of itself, a violation of
the law to consider a regulation or certification process for
Sober Living Homes.
And both the Fair Housing Act and the ADA, I think, are
behind those two bedrock civil rights laws that protect the
rights of people with disabilities--are also intended to
protect them from abuse or neglect, not just from
discrimination. But they also recognize that, without these
Sober Living Homes, people with addictions, people with heroine
addictions, opioid addictions, alcoholism will be out on the
streets.
And so the recognition of the process is the balancing
between providing protection for residences occupied by people
with disabilities, and ensuring that those--the operations that
are provided are safe and protected by the police power of
state and local jurisdictions.
State and local jurisdictions can use any number of tools
to protect the residents of Sober Living Homes and protect
their neighbors without amending the Fair Housing Act or the
Americans With Disabilities Act.
For example, Congress could encourage development of a
national best practices for Sober Living Homes, using input
from municipalities, from local organizations, from municipal
groups, from disability organizations, and from the Department
of Health and Human Services to look for criteria. They even
could establish and make recommendations to this joint effort
to prepare a local ordinance that would pass scrutiny under the
Fair Housing Act and the ADA, but would also meet the needs of
local communities. There are models for this approach,
including an effort that took place in the 1990s that I saw
when I was at HUD then.
It is acceptable under the Fair Housing Act to establish
registration or certification programs based on the protection
of health and safety, as long as they do not inappropriately
burden sober homes or require unreasonable spacing burdens or
unreasonable occupancy burdens.
Local law enforcement actions can, obviously, be taken to
address criminal activity, and code enforcement can be used to
address matters like littering and loud noise and alcohol and
drug abuses in the community.
Thanks to the committee for considering these issues.
Mr. King. Thanks for your testimony, Ms. Pratt. The chair
now recognizes Mr. Aronberg for his testimony. And we do not
expect it will live up to your introduction. [Laughter.]
Mr. Aronberg. I just hope he didn't take any of my five
minutes. [Laughter.]
TESTIMONY OF DAVE ARONBERG
Mr. Aronberg. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, members
of the committee. And Congressman Deutch, thank you very much
for your very kind and unnecessary introduction. My name is
Dave Aronberg. I am the state attorney for Florida's 15th
judicial circuit, which covers all of Palm Beach County.
Because of our tropical climate and long-established drug
treatment centers, Palm Beach County has been a destination for
individuals with substance use disorder.
[Slide]
Mr. Aronberg. As you see from the first slide up there,
this is the Florida model of drug treatment, where you have
someone with substance use disorder--usually it is heroine
these days--they will come down to Florida for detox. Insurance
will pay for about five days of detox and then about three
weeks of inpatient treatment, followed by about four weeks of
outpatient care. Three-quarters of the people who come down to
Florida--excuse me, three-quarters of the people in recovery in
Florida come from elsewhere.
So, since we have so many people from elsewhere, they need
a place to stay. And so they live, very often, in a sober home.
A sober home is just a house. As you said, Mr. Chairman, there
is no treatment there, there is no insurance reimbursement. It
is just a group home of people, hopefully in a drug-free,
mutually supportive environment.
After the insurance benefits run out from outpatient care,
then the hope is that the individuals are sober and can return
home.
The charge is about $300 a week, on average, to live in a
sober home, paid out of pocket.
In recent years, however, we have had a surge of
unscrupulous individuals enrich themselves by exploiting well-
intended federal laws to prey on opioid addicts, who are often
human-trafficked by marketers, sober homes, and facilities in
exchange for illicit benefits such as cash, free rent,
transportation, and even drugs themselves. This is the Florida
Shuffle, the next slide that will come up here.
[Slide]
Mr. Aronberg. And you see from that that you have someone
with substance use disorder who gets brought down to Florida
through a marketer, usually through a free plane ticket, and
deceptive marketing. And, by the way, the free plane ticket is
illegal. It is a felony in Florida.
Then they go to detox and patient treatment, outpatient
care. The money exchanges hands. There is lots of kickbacks.
There is patient brokering. This is the corrupted model that
you see, from the corrupted providers. And everyone is making
money off of this corrupted model, including the rogue labs.
The only bubble there that is not profitable is sobriety.
And you have individuals in sober homes, even living for free
in some cases, because the sober home doesn't need to charge
when they are getting a kickback from an outpatient treatment
center, a market, or a lab to send their residents their way.
It is hard enough to remain sober as it is, let alone
knowing that your sobriety is going to cost you your free
housing and your transportation and your friends, and now you
have got to move back home to a snowy climate, live with your
parents, and find a job.
Good sober homes can improve treatment outcomes. But
flophouses masquerading as sober homes only encourage relapse
and failure.
Together, the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Fair
Housing Act largely prevent the regulation or inspection of
these residences. And so it is sadly ironic that the very laws
intended to help people with addiction are being misused to
shield them--excuse me, are being misused to shield those who
would do them harm.
In July 2016 our office formed a sober homes task force--
and led by my chief assistant, behind me, Al Johnson--to crack
down on this fraud and abuse. We have made 55 arrests with 23
convictions so far. We also empaneled a grand jury and created
two additional citizens task forces, including members of the
recovery industry to recommend legislative changes leading to
the 2017 passage of the state law that tightened enforcement
and oversight of the drug recovery industry.
The Florida legislature, however, largely avoided the
subject of sober homes because of concerns over federal law.
Meanwhile, our successful crackdown on rogue sober homes--and
we are only talking about the rogue sober homes here--have
scattered some of the bad actors to other locations, especially
California.
We can't fix this problem alone at the state and local
levels. We need the Federal Government to act.
First, my recommendation is to reissue the 2016 joint
statement from DOJ and HUD with the proposed question and
answer that I provided in my written submission to this
committee. This would clarify that local and state governments
can set reasonable sober home standards under the ADA and FHA
for the protection of the residents in recovery.
Second, there are significant proposals pending before
Congress that can make a real difference. There is legislation
that would establish model criteria for sober homes and award
grants to states that utilize them. There is the CARA 2.0 Act
that directs HHS to develop best practices for sober homes. And
there is important language that would extend DOJ's
jurisdiction to prosecute unlawful kickbacks in the drug
treatment and sober home industries.
These measures will save lives with minimal or no financial
costs. They will finally address a part of the opioid crisis
that has been fueled by a corrupt recycling of addiction.
Thank you for your time here today.
[The statement of Mr. Aronberg follows:]
Mr. King. I thank you, Mr. Aronberg. I appreciate your
testimony and all the testimony. The chair will now recognize
himself for five minutes of questions.
First I would turn to--I would like to go to Mr. Leishman,
primarily, so I could pronounce your name correctly for the
first time. And I wanted to explore your thought process on
this.
I am hearing some solutions be offered and a different
combination of them. And part of our job is to sort those
solutions out and maybe come up with some new ideas of our
own--which I don't quite expect. But it is just that something
has happened within our culture, and this is more or less a
fairly recent intensity of this crisis that has gone on for
some time. And I never hear anyone talk about how we actually
fix that problem that is endemic within our culture. We talk
about addressing it when it shows up.
Do you have any recommendations to this committee on how we
might look at this big picture for the long term to try to get
to where the cultural circumstances that enable the abuse, the
drug abuse that we have, how we could address that so that one
day we may see our children or grandchildren live in a society
that gets it right?
Mr. Leishman. Is your question how can we get at the cause
of the opioid crisis?
Mr. King. Yes.
Mr. Leishman. Well, I usually spend my days dealing with
the back end of that problem. But on a personal level, yes, I
do. I think that strong families and communities are a bedrock
to that.
I also think that over-prescription of opioids in the first
place is--lies at the heart of the problem. And I think that is
being addressed more now, thankfully.
A number of our city clients were approached by a group
that is putting together a class action, or has put together a
class action suit against opioid-producing pharmaceutical
companies, much like the big tobacco litigation. I don't know
if that is going to be effective. I think the culture among the
medical profession is starting to change. They are starting to
wise up to the danger that they create when they over-
prescribe.
Other than that----
Mr. King. Okay. Let me suggest that, first--I know you
didn't expect that question, didn't come here to testify to
that depth, but I know you have thought about it, and I
appreciate that.
I would pose a follow-up question on this--and I think a
very important part of that, when you mentioned the families
and our neighborhoods--aside from that, which I agree with,
then we have employment testing, for example, in many of the
states. In Iowa we have employment testing that has been in law
for over 20 years and it has never been litigated. It allows
the private-sector employer to guarantee a drug-free workplace,
and it has worked very, very well. That model works. We never
transitioned that into testing in the workforce.
But when I am asked that question, here is my answer, that
if I really--going to be the drug czar that had to solve this
problem and had to lay out a plan to do that, there is a lot of
personal privacy rights that would be in question, and it is
delicate to approach that. But I put that little caveat out
there and suggest this, that if we tested in the workplace, if
we tested in welfare, and if we tested in education, the people
left that would be using and abusing drugs would be dealers and
stealers whom the law enforcement could address, and we would
have a lot smaller universe of people that needed to go into
sober homes.
How does that fit with your analysis?
Mr. Leishman. Certainly, if it is proven to be effective in
Iowa, I think it could have wider application.
Mr. King. I thank you. And I would turn to the mayor pro
tem, Mr. Peterson. And you have talked about the community, and
how the community is developing. Are you comfortable, then,
that if Congress enables it so that local government can
regulate city, county, state, what levels would that be? How
would that emerge in California, in your vision?
Mr. Peterson. Well, our biggest thing is the bad actors
hiding under a good program. So we can't get out there and
inspect. And if we had the ability to get into--just know where
they are--most of the time we know when the police are called,
or the fire, but if we had that ability to regulate them--I
mean even foster care is regulated, you can't have so many
foster care in a certain neighborhood, but these people can buy
three houses in a row and fill them.
So having our ability to get out there, we don't have to
have code enforcement peeking through windows, we don't have to
be, you know, late to the party with the police coming or the
fire coming. But we can be a little proactive, and make sure
that, one, the facility is doing what they are supposed to do,
and----
Mr. King. Just from--I will interpret this that in that--
you would have in California, likely, a layer of regulations--
if we went to Mr. Rohrabacher's bill--that would have some
state regulations, some county, and some city regulations
working in some type of coordination?
Mr. Peterson. Correct, correct.
Mr. King. That is how I envision----
Mr. Peterson. Yes, and I am sure we would be working with
the county, because they are basically in charge of health and
human services, not the municipality. So work out something
where that is distributed more around the county in any type--
--
Mr. King. And I would like to quickly turn to Mr. Aronberg
and ask you if you had an opportunity to review the two bills
that were testified to here by the two Members. And do you
endorse either one of them? You have got some other
alternatives here that you have offered today.
Mr. Aronberg. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Representative--
Congresswoman Chu's bill, I think, is very promising. I like
the setting of guidelines. And I haven't read the entire bill,
but from what I have seen in the synopses, it was very
promising.
I had some issues with Congressman Rohrabacher's bill,
because I thought that it goes too far. I don't think you need
to eliminate substance treatment disorder treatment entirely
from the health care laws. I think that would probably lead to
more harm than good.
Plus, I think if you eliminate the--if you allow local
governments to just ban sober homes, I don't think you are ever
going to fix this problem. We are in an unprecedented opioid
epidemic and, you know, you can't arrest your way out of it.
You need to have legitimate rehab. And there are legitimate
sober homes out there that are doing good work. We are trying
to get at the part of the industry that has been corrupted. And
I think that his bill, in due respect, goes too far.
Mr. King. We have got some work we can do. I thank you, and
each of you witnesses, and the chair now recognizes the ranking
member from Tennessee, Mr. Cohen.
Mr. Cohen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. First I want to follow
up on your questions about the bills. Mr. Aronberg said he
thought Ms. Chu's bill was the better of the two.
And Ms. Pratt and Mr. Leishman, if I could--saw your heads
nodding in a firm agreement. Would you state if I was correct
in saying that you agree that the Chu bill would be preferable?
Please don't nod.
Ms. Pratt. So I--this is Ms. Pratt, and I do agree that
the--Representative Chu's bill heads in the right direction.
And I would add to that my comment that I think a group
representing a variety of different perspectives, including the
perspectives represented here at this table would be useful to
inform a process.
Mr. Cohen. Thank you.
Mr. Leishman.
Mr. Leishman. I agree. Congresswoman Chu's bill is great.
Congressman Rohrabacher's bill goes several steps too far, in
my opinion. It is similar to, but not as good as, Congressman
Issa's bill--I believe it was 472--and I highly endorse that
bill.
Mr. Cohen. Thank you. And I am not going to put Mr.
Peterson on the spot, because Dana is my friend, and I suspect
Dana is your friend.
Mr. Peterson. Yes, sir.
Mr. Cohen. Good, thank you.
I want to introduce on the record Mr. Nadler's statement,
and a statement--a letter from the Consortium for Citizens with
Disabilities. And I would like to----
Mr. King. Without objection, so ordered.
[The information follows:]
This material is available at the Committee and can be accessed
on the committee repository at:
https://docs.house.gov/meetings/JU/JU10/20180928/108684/HHRG-
115-JU10-20180928-SD006.pdf
Mr. Cohen. And I would like to read my opening statement,
and I am going to try to do that within the 3 minutes and 28
seconds.
Today's hearing focused on Sober Living Homes, which are
group homes for persons who are recovering from alcohol or
substance addiction. In particular, it focused on whether the
Fair Housing Act and Americans With Disabilities Act, and
potentially other federal civil rights statutes need to be
amended to allow state and localities to regulate sober homes.
I take no position on the question of whether sober homes
are the best means of integrating those recovering from
addiction in society, nor do I have a view as to what might
constitute best practices regarding the operation of sober
homes. Those questions are beyond the jurisdiction and
expertise of this subcommittee.
As the subcommittee with jurisdiction over our Nation's
civil rights laws, however, we must be very wary of attempts to
create exemptions to such laws or otherwise weaken their
enforcement mechanisms.
Both the Fair Housing Act and the ADA prohibit
discrimination against persons with disabilities with respect
to housing and persons recovering from alcohol or substance
addiction are considered to be disabled, and therefore,
entitled to protections under those statutes. Congress passed
these laws in order to counteract the effects of generations of
stigma, negative stereotypes, social societal prejudice to keep
persons with disabilities segregated and isolated from
mainstream society.
As a person with a disability, I am sensitive to any
attempt to weaken these protections for these laws. I share the
goal of ensuring that persons with disabilities are able to
integrate and participate fully in the important aspect of
American life: namely, the chance to live in a residential area
among members of the broader society.
Some municipalities claim they are too afraid to regulate
Sober Living Homes because they fear being sued for violating
the Fair Housing Act or the ADA. And indeed, cities have been
sued successfully for violating those laws using zoning or land
use regulations to restrict Sober Living Homes. Therefore, they
seek an exemption to these statutes with respect to the
regulation of Sober Living Homes.
The fact is, however, that Sober Living Homes can be
regulated without creating carve-outs to the civil rights laws.
Indeed, group homes that serve persons with other types of
disabilities are already regulated by states and localities
without any need for a special exemption from the Fair Housing
Act or the ADA. There is no reason Sober Living Homes cannot
similarly be regulated within the existing confines of those
statutes.
Towards the end of the Obama Administration the Department
of Justice and Department of Housing and Urban Development
issued updated guidance answering specific questions commonly
asked by states and localities about how to apply zoning and
land use laws in ways that do not violate the Fair Housing Act.
This guidance, in turn, updated previous long-standing guidance
issued in the 1999--governing group homes and the Fair Housing
Act.
Moreover, the Fair Housing Act itself allows considerable
flexibility for cities to address some of the very real abuses
that sometimes occur with respect to the operation of for-
profit Sober Living Homes. For instance, it would not violate
the statute to deny housing to someone who would constitute a
direct threat to the health or safety of others, or would
result in substantial property damage. Also, it does not permit
discrimination complaints by those who currently use a
controlled substance.
I recognize there are legitimate concerns with the conduct
of some Sober Living Home operators. Those who engage in fraud
and abuse of residents can and should be punished, and
reasonable regulation can and should be adopted.
And I didn't know about the Florida Triangle, but that is
shocking, that people do that.
Doing so, however, does not require exemptions to civil
rights law. The prior legislative proposals to do so dating
back to the 1990s have all died in committee, and rightly so.
I appreciate the witnesses for coming here, I apologize for
being late. I am a big fan of Judy's, and I am a big fan of
Dana's. So I appreciate them being here, and may God save the
United States of America.
Mr. Cohen. I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. King. The chair thanks the gentleman, the ranking
member from Tennessee.
And now I will recognize the gentleman from Florida, Mr.
Deutch.
Mr. Deutch. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thanks to all of
our witnesses for being here today.
Mr. Chairman, we have, as Mr. Aronberg pointed out, a lot
of experience with sober homes in Florida. And to that end I
ask unanimous consent to enter three letters that convey that
experience from the City of Delray Beach, Florida; the City of
Coconut Creek, Florida; and the Florida Association of Recovery
Residences. I ask that they be entered into the record this
morning.
Mr. King. Without objection, so ordered.
[The information follows:]
This material is available at the Committee and can be accessed
on the committee repository at:
https://docs.house.gov/meetings/JU/JU10/20180928/108684/HHRG-
115-JU10-20180928-SD007.pdf
Mr. Deutch. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. In Florida, an average
day means that 15 people die from an overdose. It is tragic, it
is unacceptable, and we have got to do everything we can to
stop it. We have to help Americans find sobriety and maintain
recovery. We have to try to save lives.
Addiction is not about weak families, it is about a
disease. And I would just point out that, because it is a
disease, it is in our best interests to ensure that we do
everything we can to help people get care, which is why the
idea of repealing the Affordable Care Act and costing 2.8
million people with substance use disorders their access to
health care, and 220,000 with opioid disorders losing their
access would be an enormous step backward.
There is a battle and a war on overdose, and we have to end
the stigma of addiction. Ending the federal housing protections
won't win that battle. It is not theoretical. People with
mental illness and substance abuse disorder suffer
discrimination every day.
A 2017 study by the Department of Housing and Urban
Development found that people with mental illnesses face
serious barriers in their search for a home. Improper requests
to disclose personal and disability-related information
steering toward specific housing, based on the individual's
disabilities [sic].
The Fair Housing Act was not, however, intended to protect
businesses who take advantage of people struggling with
substance use disorders to line their own pockets. So we can
stop bad actors who encourage relapse and overdose and protect
our communities, while maintaining discrimination protections
at the same time. We can do both. Ms. Pratt talked about that,
Mr. Aronberg talked about that.
Mr. Aronberg, I am proud to have you here today to share
your work with the committee. And I would note that you
appeared before the Energy and Commerce Committee of this House
last December. Your testimony and the testimony of Assistant
State Attorney Al Johnson was instrumental in the creation of
legislation that supported information--legislation that was
included in the final opioids legislation that this House will
vote on in about an hour. That bill will make it illegal to pay
kickbacks for getting people in the door at sober homes and
clinics. So you have already helped advance federal efforts to
stop these abuses, and we are grateful for that.
What I would like to know--you started touching on this--
you talked about reissuing--the joint statement, you talked
about reasonable standards and model criteria. Tell us how that
can be helpful. Tell us how what we are doing today, together
with those efforts, can help to stop the schemes that you
described and showed on the slides.
Mr. Aronberg. Thank you, Congressman Deutch, and thank you
for your nice words. I really appreciate it.
As you can see from this panel, we come from different
communities and different backgrounds. You could say different
perspectives on this. But we seem to agree that you can work
within the existing laws by clarifying them to really help fix
a lot of these problems. And we may differ as to degree, but
there--I think there is a consensus on that. And one way to do
it is through the joint clarification.
There was a joint statement issued by HUD and DOJ in
December of 2016 that, in talking to local governments in
Florida, wasn't very clarifying. It wasn't very helpful. And I
can tell you from our law enforcement perspective, it has not
been very helpful.
And I think that you may not even have to rewrite it, you
can just add a 17th question. There were 16 questions and
answers, and the 17th--and I have provided a sample in my
written remarks, which allow local governments to implement
licensing and reasonable regulations that are narrowly tailored
to meet the actual needs of the occupants in recovery. And I
think that would be consistent with the ADA and the FHA.
And you asked about what other communities are doing. In
Delray Beach, which is in your district, or used to be in your
district, actually, before the reapportionment, in order--they
have a new ordinance there that, in order to obtain a
reasonable accommodation, which is for more than three
unrelated adults in Delray Beach, that the house, the sober
home, needs to be certified or otherwise demonstrate adherence
to recognize national standards. And there is two ways to do
that: through NARR, National Association of Recovery Residences
and its affiliate, FARR, which have nationally recognized
standards; or through an Oxford House model. And so this is the
way that Delray Beach is doing it.
Now, one reason why I am here, and I think others are here,
is because local governments such as Huntington Beach are
afraid to do what Delray Beach did because they could get sued.
Delray Beach is doing it. They haven't been sued yet. But that
is why the Federal Government needs to give more clarification
to local governments, to let them know.
Can they do what Delray Beach did? Can they act in this
way? I think they can, but right now local governments are
going out there on their own, and we need to give them a little
more protection and clarification.
Mr. Deutch. Mr. Chairman, this is a really important topic,
and I appreciate your holding this hearing. And it means a
great deal that the witnesses made time to be here, as----
Mr. King. The gentleman is granted unanimous consent for an
additional minute.
Mr. Deutch. No, I am through, Mr. Chairman. Thank you. It
was just to express my thanks to you for holding this hearing.
Mr. King. Okay, I appreciate that. And I want to express my
gratitude to all the witnesses here this morning. And this
concludes today's hearing.
And without objection, all members will have five
legislative days to submit additional written questions for the
witnesses or additional materials for the record.
I thank each of you, and this hearing is now adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 10:07 a.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]