[Senate Hearing 116-318]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 116-318
NOMINATIONS OF BRIAN D. MILLER AND DANA WADE
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
COMMITTEE ON
BANKING,HOUSING,AND URBAN AFFAIRS
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED SIXTEENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
ON
NOMINATIONS OF:
BRIAN D. MILLER, OF VIRGINIA, TO BE SPECIAL INSPECTOR GENERAL FOR
PANDEMIC RECOVERY, DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY
__________
DANA WADE, OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, TO BE ASSISTANT SECRETARY,
DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT
__________
MAY 5, 2020
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs
Available at: https: //www.govinfo.gov /
______
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
42-247 PDF WASHINGTON : 2021
COMMITTEE ON BANKING, HOUSING, AND URBAN AFFAIRS
MIKE CRAPO, Idaho, Chairman
RICHARD C. SHELBY, Alabama SHERROD BROWN, Ohio
PATRICK J. TOOMEY, Pennsylvania JACK REED, Rhode Island
TIM SCOTT, South Carolina ROBERT MENENDEZ, New Jersey
BEN SASSE, Nebraska JON TESTER, Montana
TOM COTTON, Arkansas MARK R. WARNER, Virginia
MIKE ROUNDS, South Dakota ELIZABETH WARREN, Massachusetts
DAVID PERDUE, Georgia BRIAN SCHATZ, Hawaii
THOM TILLIS, North Carolina CHRIS VAN HOLLEN, Maryland
JOHN KENNEDY, Louisiana CATHERINE CORTEZ MASTO, Nevada
MARTHA McSALLY, Arizona DOUG JONES, Alabama
JERRY MORAN, Kansas TINA SMITH, Minnesota
KEVIN CRAMER, North Dakota KYRSTEN SINEMA, Arizona
Gregg Richard, Staff Director
Laura Swanson, Democratic Staff Director
Catherine Fuchs, Chief Counsel
Brandon Beall, Professional Staff Member
Matt Jones, Chief Counsel
Elisha Tuku, Democratic Chief Counsel
Corey Frayer, Democratic Professional Staff Member
Megan Cheney, Democratic Professional Staff Member
Cameron Ricker, Chief Clerk
Shelvin Simmons, IT Director
Charles J. Moffat, Hearing Clerk
Jim Crowell, Editor
(ii)
C O N T E N T S
----------
TUESDAY, MAY 5, 2020
Page
Opening statement of Chairman Crapo.............................. 1
Prepared statement........................................... 39
Opening statements, comments, or prepared statements of:
Senator Brown................................................ 3
Prepared statement....................................... 40
NOMINEES
Brian D. Miller, of Virginia, to be Special Inspector General for
Pandemic Recovery, Department of the Treasury.................. 7
Prepared statement........................................... 42
Biographical sketch of nominee............................... 43
Responses to written questions of:
Senator Brown............................................ 58
Senator Reed............................................. 62
Senator Menendez......................................... 62
Senator Warren........................................... 63
Senator Van Hollen....................................... 70
Senator Cortez Masto..................................... 71
Senator Sinema........................................... 74
Dana Wade, of the District of Columbia, to be Assistant
Secretary, Department of Housing and Urban Development......... 7
Prepared statement........................................... 50
Biographical sketch of nominee............................... 52
Responses to written questions of:
Senator Brown............................................ 75
Senator Menendez......................................... 86
Senator Tester........................................... 88
Senator Warren........................................... 91
Senator Van Hollen....................................... 93
Senator Cortez Masto..................................... 94
Senator Sinema........................................... 95
Additional Material Supplied for the Record
Letter of regret from Senator Tom Cotton......................... 96
Letters of support for nominee Brian D. Miller................... 97
Letter of support for nominee Dana Wade.......................... 144
(iii)
NOMINATIONS OF BRIAN D. MILLER AND DANA WADE
----------
TUESDAY, MAY 5, 2020
U.S. Senate,
Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs,
Washington, DC.
The Committee met at 2:31 p.m., in room SD-106, Dirksen
Senate Office Building, Hon. Mike Crapo, Chairman of the
Committee, presiding.
OPENING STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN MIKE CRAPO
Chairman Crapo. This hearing will come to order.
Since this is our first hybrid hearing, a brief explanation
of how it will work will benefit Senators and the public.
The hearing room has been configured to maintain the
recommended 6-foot social distancing between Senators,
nominees, and other individuals in the room necessary to
operate the hearing, which we have kept to a minimum.
A number of Senators have chosen to use secure video
teleconference technology, which will allow them to remotely
participate.
For those joining by video conference, once you start
speaking, there will be a slight delay before you are displayed
on the main screen.
To minimize background noise, we ask Senators who are using
the video conference option to please click the mute button
until it is your turn to ask questions.
If there is a technology issue, we will move to the next
Senator until that issue is resolved.
I remind all Senators and the nominees that the 5-minute
clock still applies.
For Senators using the video option, you will notice a
screen labeled ``clock'' that will show how much time is
remaining.
At about 30 seconds remaining, I will gently tap the gavel
to remind Senators that their time has almost expired.
To simplify the speaking order, Senator Brown and I have
agreed to go by seniority for this first hybrid meeting.
Thank you to those of you who are here today, those
appearing before us, and those who are keeping the Capitol
complex safe and functioning while we honor our constitutional
duty.
The coronavirus, or COVID-19, pandemic has challenged our
sense of normalcy, and it has tested every institution of daily
life we know.
The crisis has had a major impact on the physical and
economic health of our country, and a major response has been
required.
Congress and the Administration have taken bold, dramatic
steps to limit the depth of economic shock the country is
currently experiencing and to provide conditions for a quick
and robust economic recovery once economic restrictions are
lifted.
The CARES Act went into effect just over 1 month ago,
putting needed cash directly into the hands of American workers
and families, providing rapid relief to small businesses,
helping to stabilize our markets and the economy, and sending a
massive new infusion of resources to the front lines of the
medical response.
Title IV of the CARES Act, which is under the Banking
Committee's jurisdiction, provides $500 billion in emergency
relief in order to provide liquidity to eligible businesses,
States, municipalities, and tribes related to losses incurred
as a result of coronavirus.
Implementing this title is an important step to supporting
the flow of credit in the economy.
On April 9, 2020, the Federal Reserve Board and the
Department of Treasury announced new and expanded set of
lending programs to provide up to $2.3 trillion in loans.
The 13(3) Federal Reserve facility--well, actually all of
them, specifically the Main Street Lending Facility--are
crucial components of the strategy to support the economy and
promote a U-shaped recovery, which reinforces the need to have
them up and operating and being as broadly available for as
many businesses as possible.
Title IV includes robust oversight requirements to ensure
the statute is followed and to protect against waste, fraud,
and abuse.
The Special Inspector General for Pandemic Recovery, or
SIGPR--another new Federal acronym--will oversee the reporting
and auditing requirements of the law, and it is critical that
we quickly confirm the nominee so that important work can
begin.
This afternoon, we will consider the nominations of the
Honorable Brian Miller, of Virginia, to be Special Inspector
General for Pandemic Recovery; and Mrs. Dana Wade, of the
District of Columbia, to be Assistant Secretary for Housing and
Federal Housing Commissioner at the U.S. Department of Housing
and Urban Development.
Welcome to both of you and congratulations on your
nominations to these important positions.
Section 4018 of the CARES Act establishes the Special
Inspector General for Pandemic Recovery.
The duty of the SIGPR is to ``conduct, supervise, and
coordinate audits and investigations of the making, purchase,
management, and sale of loans, loan guarantees and other
investments made by the Secretary of the Treasury under any
program established by the Secretary under this Act, and the
management by the Secretary of any program established under
this Act.''
Mr. Miller is highly qualified for Special Inspector
General, having served as the Inspector General for the General
Services Administration for nearly a decade.
The Senate confirmed Mr. Miller for that position in 2005
via voice vote, a position he held for nearly 10 years.
In that role, Mr. Miller led more than 300 auditors,
special agents, attorneys, and support staff in conducting
nationwide audits and investigations; and reported on fraud,
waste, and abuse.
He has been outspoken on the need for Inspectors General to
have independence and access to information, and I am confident
that he will carry out the responsibilities and mission of this
position diligently, independently, and objectively.
During a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing in 2015, Mr.
Miller noted, `` . . . in order to have effective oversight, an
IG must have independence to conduct an investigation, review,
or audit. This includes determining what information is needed.
It is the judgment of the IG conducting the investigation that
matters, not the judgment of the agency being investigated.''
I encourage my colleagues to support Mr. Miller's
nomination so that he can begin this vital oversight role.
Turning to Mrs. Dana Wade, Dana Wade is well prepared to
take over the reins at the Federal Housing Administration. She
is familiar to the task, having operated as Acting Federal
Housing Commissioner and General Deputy Assistant Secretary for
the Office of Housing.
As Acting Commissioner, she directly managed FHA's
portfolio of single-family, multifamily and health care
insurance; Section 8 project-based rental assistance; the
Office of Manufactured Housing; and over 2,400 personnel
agencywide.
Mrs. Wade's extensive record of housing policy experience
also includes service as Senior Adviser to Secretary Ben
Carson, Deputy Staff Director to this Committee and the Senate
Appropriations Committee, and as Associate Director at the
Office of Management and Budget, where she led all housing-
related issues and supervised HUD, among other agencies.
Great leadership will be required at FHA during this
unprecedented time of strain on both home ownership and rental
markets.
In the wake of COVID-19, we have already seen over 10
percent of FHA borrowers enter mortgage forbearance, FHA-
insured health care facilities feeling significant strain, and
many FHA-assisted landlords struggle to make ends meet while
countless renters are unsure where their next rent payment will
come from.
In the months ahead, FHA will be on the front lines helping
many of these families get back on their feet and providing
much-needed liquidity throughout the housing finance system.
I am confident that Mrs. Wade will provide exactly the type
of leadership that is needed during this critical time, as
Commissioner Montgomery has done.
I encourage my colleagues to support Mrs. Wade's
nomination, as well as to confirm Brian Montgomery as Deputy
Secretary, so that we can best position HUD to tackle the
challenges ahead.
Congratulations again to each of you on your nominations,
and I thank you and your families for your willingness to
serve.
Senator Brown.
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR SHERROD BROWN
Senator Brown. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to say
thank you to staff, the Sergeant at Arms, the Architect of the
Capitol, the Office of the Attending Physician, the Recording
Studio, the Senate Rules Committee. This was a team effort
working so hard over the last couple of weeks to try to make
these hearings as safe as possible, including by using
technology for Members to join these hearings remotely. Member
Senators in both parties, maybe even a majority of the
Committee, I believe, have decided to join us that way. I want
to thank the Capitol Police and all other Senate staff and
contractors who worked to make sure the Senate continues to
run.
I want to especially thank Chairman Crapo and his staff,
thanks to Laura and my office and Gregg, the Staff Director,
and Cameron for working together to coordinate this hearing and
provide that remote option for Senators to join. It is the
right thing to do, that we could all do what we think is best
to keep ourselves and people who work here safe.
I am concerned, however, Mr. Chairman, at the reckless
decision by Leader Mitch McConnell to open the Senate to
session despite ongoing emergency stay-at-home orders all over
the country, including in my State of Ohio, Governor DeWine,
including in Washington, D.C., including Senator Van Hollen's
Maryland and Senator Warner's Virginia. Leader McConnell's
actions are forcing Capitol complex workers, contract workers
like the cleaning staff who just cleaned this hearing room and
will clean again when we are done, and food service workers who
just served the Republican Caucus lunch to go--that they are
here working is going against public health authorities'
advice, and they put themselves at risk to come to work. Most
of those workers, unlike all of us who probably come to the
Capitol, either we walk from a nearby apartment or condo or we
come in cars, most of these workers come by bus and subway, and
they put themselves at risk, creating more anxiety for their
families. As I said, Senator McConnell's decision was reckless
and unfair especially to those employees.
To compound that, the Republican Leader's agenda this week
does not include assistance for the unemployed, anything that
helps people to stay in their homes. I appreciated Chairman
Crapo's comments about how many people, how many renters are
living on the edge. There is no support in this week that we
can see from Senator McConnell, no attempts to support
community health services. These are issues the Senate should
be taking on right now.
Mr. Chairman, I want to congratulate the nominees and thank
them for their willingness to serve. This is probably not the
confirmation hearing that each of you had hoped for. I want to
thank your families, who I assume are watching from home.
The Special Inspector General for Pandemic Response will
oversee the CARES Act lending and investment programs that were
designed to stabilize our economy and get help to communities
and workers and small businesses that are hurting so much
during this pandemic. This lending will be critical to
restarting our economy to begin the recovery.
The FHA Commissioner faces an affordable housing crisis
made even worse, of course, by this pandemic. The stability and
future of millions of families are on the line as Congress and
the Administration respond to this crisis. If confirmed, the
two of you will serve in positions that are crucial to
implementing the policy responses to the pandemic.
This Committee has oversight over the Treasury and Federal
Reserve loan programs under CARES. That is why I fought for
this Office of the Special Inspector General for Pandemic
Response. The American people need a strong watchdog to make
sure the $500 billion of taxpayer money provided under this act
and the $4 trillion that the Federal Reserve will lend, that it
actually goes to support workers and communities and
businesses. Because the act grants the Treasury Secretary and
the Fed broad discretion over who gets these loans and on what
terms, the Special Inspector General will need to examine the
loan terms, the transactions, the lenders involved, and the
eligibility of borrowers.
We have seen how the small business loans so far went to
big companies and important clients of Wall Street banks while
community banks and credit unions--we all have them in our
States--and their customers on Main Street and in underserved
communities waited and waited and waited. I think most of us
have heard the frustration from restaurants and barbershops and
cafes and so many other small businesses in our State that are
facing impossible decisions right now. They spend hours on the
phone trying to talk to someone about a loan. They have either
been turned down or cannot get answers while big, well-
connected franchises go to the front of the line. That is
simply unacceptable. We cannot let the same thing happen with
these loans by Treasury and the Fed. The problem with SBA loans
should be a lesson to Congress as we consider additional
recovery measures and a lesson to the Special Inspector
General.
In addition to these concerns, President Trump has shown
outright hostility toward anyone who tries to hold him
accountable to the American people whom he serves, special
hostility toward Inspectors General. I think that Mr. Miller
realizes that. The President removed the Acting IG for the
Defense Department who was set to become Chairman of the
Pandemic Response Accountability Committee. He fired the
Intelligence Committee IG last Friday. Friday he replaced the
Acting Health and Human Services IG. All of these professionals
simply were doing their jobs, and they exposed misconduct in
the Administration. That is what their jobs are.
Looking at the last 20 years, we found only one IG
candidate was nominated while serving in the White House
Counsel's Office. Another nominee served in the White House
Counsel's Office under an earlier Administration. Both of them
resigned, one for politicizing the office, the other for lack
of independence. Not a great track record when a President
appoints a lawyer in his office in the White House to be an
Inspector General that oversees and examines White House
behavior.
We passed the CARES Act to support our economy by helping
workers, mainstream businesses, State and local governments,
and nonprofits. We cannot tolerate businesses and their workers
suffering to protect the President, to protect his family, to
protect his allies because of corruption, misuse, and
favoritism.
Mr. Miller, if you are confirmed, I expect you to follow
the letter and spirit of the law and to serve the American
people, not President Trump. As Special Inspector General, you
must be willing to stand up to the Administration and any other
bad actor and uphold the goals of the law. Anything less is
totally unacceptable.
While Mr. Miller is the only nominee before us today with
``pandemic response'' in his title, make no mistake: The FHA
and the Office of Housing will be on the front lines of our
Nation's response as well. In good times, FHA provides access
to affordable home ownership for millions of families. When the
economy slows, the FHA is expected to step up to meet the needs
of more households and keep the mortgage market working, even
as others in the market retreat.
During the 2008 financial crisis, economists estimated that
FHA's action helped prevent an additional 25-percent decline in
housing prices and the loss of an additional 3 million jobs.
Quite a responsibility and quite a performance. FHA's decisions
will determine whether families can remain in their homes or
whether communities face a foreclosure crisis on top of a
public health crisis. They will help determine whether the
burden of this downturn, like the 2008 crisis, falls most
heavily on communities of color and exacerbates economic
inequality or whether we will adopt policies and do oversight
to provide an equitable recovery that keeps affordable housing
in the hands of homeowners and communities rather than Wall
Street investors.
Decisions at the Office of Housing, which Mrs. Wade would
lead if confirmed, will determine whether policies and funding
are in place to keep the lowest-income seniors, persons with
disabilities, people in HUD-financed health care facilities,
keep them safe during this pandemic.
Over the past 3 years, the Administration has tried to gut
funding to housing and community development programs. They
have rolled back fair housing protections and other civil
rights protections. They have undermined the safety of
manufactured housing residents. They have tried to make home
ownership more expensive and harder to attain. I hope the
answers Mrs. Wade provides today will make clear that she will
fight alongside us to reverse that trend.
Mr. Chairman, thank you, and thank you again for being the
first in the Senate to do a hearing like this. Thank you.
Chairman Crapo. Thank you, Senator Brown.
I will now administer the oath. Would each of our witnesses
stand and raise your right hands? Do you swear or affirm that
the testimony you are about to give is the truth, the whole
truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God?
Mr. Miller. I do.
Mrs. Wade. I do.
Chairman Crapo. And do you agree to appear and testify
before any duly constituted committee of the Senate?
Mr. Miller. I do.
Mrs. Wade. I do.
Chairman Crapo. Thank you. You may sit down.
Your written statements will be made a part of the record
in their entirety. Usually at this point we give you each a
chance to introduce your family. We will thank them on your
behalf since we are keeping the number of people in the hearing
room to a minimum. And, with that, I would like to invite you
to proceed. Mr. Miller, would you please begin?
STATEMENT OF BRIAN D. MILLER, OF VIRGINIA, TO BE SPECIAL
INSPECTOR GENERAL FOR PANDEMIC RECOVERY, DEPARTMENT OF THE
TREASURY
Mr. Miller. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to thank the
Chairman and Ranking Member for having this hearing. I would
like to thank President Trump for nominating me. Most of all, I
want to thank my wife and family for their encouragement to
continue public service, especially in such a demanding job.
Thank you.
I have been fortunate to have a long career in public
service that has prepared me well for this position. I have
close to 30 years of experience in the Federal Government--15
years in the Department of Justice and nearly 10 years as the
Senate-confirmed Inspector General of the General Services
Administration, serving across both Republican and Democrat
administrations. I have also served as an independent corporate
monitor and practiced law in the areas of ethics and
compliance, Government contracts, and internal investigations.
I am amazed and humbled by the letters of support that I
received in such a short time period during a time of a
pandemic. I am deeply grateful to those who signed from all
varieties of political stripes, from former officials in the
Obama, Bush, and Clinton administrations. I would like to thank
them and I would like them to know that I will always endeavor
to be the man they describe in their letters.
If confirmed, I will conduct every audit and investigation
with fairness and impartiality. I will be vigilant to protect
the integrity and independence of the Office of Special
Inspector General. I pledge to seek the truth in all matters
that come before me and to use my authority and resources to
uncover fraud, waste, and abuse.
I stand ready to answer any questions. Thank you, Mr.
Chairman.
Chairman Crapo. Thank you.
Mrs. Wade.
STATEMENT OF DANA WADE, OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, TO BE
ASSISTANT SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN
DEVELOPMENT
Mrs. Wade. Thank you. Chairman Crapo, Ranking Member Brown,
and Members of this Committee, thank you for inviting me here
to testify today as the nominee for Federal Housing
Commissioner and Assistant Secretary for Housing at the
Department of Housing and Urban Development. I also want to
thank President Trump for the privilege of being nominated for
this position.
It is truly an honor to be here after serving as a staff
member of this Committee and spending a good part of my career
working for Senator Shelby on both the Banking and
Appropriations Committees. I am extremely grateful to him for
such opportunities.
I am also very thankful for the love and support of my
wonderful family. I regret that both my husband, Chris, and my
daughter, Mary, as well as my niece, Ava, could be here not in
person, only in spirit, but I would, if I may, like to wish my
daughter, Mary, a happy birthday. She turns 6 years old
tomorrow.
As I look around this hearing room, I see the Senate
continuing the people's work but under very different
circumstances. If confirmed, I will commit to doing everything
I can as FHA Commissioner to help the country emerge from the
COVID-19 pandemic healthier, stronger, and with a more
prosperous economy.
Never has it been more clear than today that HUD and FHA
play critical roles in our Nation's safety net. Secretary
Carson and the dedicated staff at HUD are working tirelessly to
minimize the impact of COVID-19 to homeowners, renters, and
vulnerable populations that HUD serves each and every day. We
are grateful for the hard work and bipartisan commitment of
this Committee and Congress in passing legislation that
safeguards American families, communities, and the economy from
this terrible virus.
I joined public service in the midst of a different
crisis--the financial crisis of 2008--during which I gained
valuable experience that I believe will serve me well if
confirmed. I learned that during times like these, it is
important to make sure assistance quickly reaches those in need
and that we maximize the effectiveness of every Federal dollar.
I have been a staff committee member of the Budget, Banking,
and Appropriations Committees, as well as an Associate Director
at the Office of Management and Budget. I have also been the
acting head of FHA and HUD's Office of Housing where I
implemented reforms that better managed risk, built up capital,
and provided greater transparency to the public.
If confirmed, my priorities for FHA and the Office of
Housing would be as follows:
First, given this unprecedented situation and global
pandemic, protecting current FHA homeowners and renters. Many
FHA homeowners, I know I do not have to tell this Committee,
are low-to-moderate income, first-time and minority borrowers,
and most of these HUD-assisted homeowners and renters are
experiencing COVID-related hardships through no fault of their
own.
Second, I would ensure that FHA has the necessary staffing
and other resources, as well as continuing the IT modernization
effort, which together will allow FHA to perform its important
countercyclical role to support the housing market.
Third, I will vigilantly monitor risk to taxpayers of
losses stemming from COVID-19, and I will protect FHA's capital
reserve to the maximum extent possible.
I believe that FHA has a duty to support the Nation's
housing markets and homeowners facing economic hardship. While
the virus will pass and the economy will eventually regain its
previous strength, the road to recovery will require our
sustained effort.
If confirmed, I will do all that I can to run a strong and
sustainable FHA, one that serves homeowners, renters, and
taxpayers well. I am committed to working with this Committee
and with Congress, and I look forward to answering your
questions today.
Thank you.
Chairman Crapo. Thank you, Mrs. Wade.
I will begin my questioning with you, Mr. Miller. As you
have heard and I am sure you were aware before you even arrived
here today, one of the big criticisms of you is that you will
not be independent because you come from the White House or had
service in the White House. As you know, independence of SIGPR
is critical to the oversight of activities under Title IV in
the CARES Act. Can you talk about the importance of SIGPR
maintaining its independence, how you have demonstrated your
independence in the past, and how you expect to conduct your
actions, if confirmed to this position?
Mr. Miller. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the question. I
think independence is vital for the effective operation of any
Inspector General, and I have said that for not just now but
for many years. I served for 10 years as Inspector General of
the General Services Administration, and at every point I had
to fight for independence to perform audits and investigations
objectively, fairly, and independently. And I met with
resistance throughout my tenure as Inspector General. I
conducted investigations of major contractors, much to the
chagrin of people in leadership positions at the GSA, and I
dare say in Congress, and I received criticism for that.
Ultimately, I was proven right. The audits were correct and
accurate, and we provided effective oversight and leadership.
I believe that my tenure as Inspector General at GSA also
helped GSA to become a better agency. I think the hardworking
men and women of my office at that time provided a great
service. I think that oversight is essential for the effective
operation of all programs, and especially now with the pandemic
recovery. It is vital that this money goes to the small
businesses and hardworking Americans that need the money right
now, and we cannot afford to have it diverted to fraud, waste,
and abuse and diverted to the pockets of those that would
scheme to defraud the Government and take that money out of
their pockets. So it is vital to have an independent, effective
Inspector General.
Chairman Crapo. Thank you.
Mrs. Wade, in the months ahead, the FHA will be on the
front lines helping many families, providing much-needed
liquidity throughout the housing finance system. As a former
Acting Commissioner, you understand FHA's important role to
consumers, taxpayers, our housing finance system, and health
care financing. We are involved in the ongoing efforts with
HUD, FHFA, and others to implement the CARES Act provisions
related to housing, specifically forbearance relief for
homeowners impacted by COVID-19, as well as restrictions on
foreclosures and evictions.
Will you work with us to implement these provisions and
ensure that the options available when exiting forbearance are
clear for consumers to understand and straightforward for
servicers of FHA mortgages to administer?
Mrs. Wade. Yes, Senator, Mr. Chairman, and thank you very
much for the question. We are obviously facing an unprecedented
health crisis, and it is incredibly important to protect
homeowners and renters who, through no fault of their own, are
experiencing COVID-related hardships. It can also be a
confusing time for homeowners and assisted renters, and I think
it is important to provide as much clarity as possible and as
much certainty from FHA as possible in fulfilling its
countercyclical duty.
Chairman Crapo. Thank you. Then last, for you, Mrs. Wade,
also, many of our hospitals, health care facilities, and senior
living facilities at the front lines of the battle against
COVID-19 are financed in part through FHA's Section 232 or 242
programs. Can you speak quickly, in about 45 seconds, to FHA's
role in the health care economy and some of the challenges they
face?
Mrs. Wade. Yes, again, Mr. Chairman, that is a great
question. That is a very important part of FHA's portfolio. No
health care facility that FHA serves should be concerned with
anything except serving those who are COVID-19 patients in need
and protecting the health and safety of their employees. I
believe now in FHA's health care portfolio it is a time that we
need to provide maximum flexibility, and to that end I know FHA
has already taken action to allow these health care facilities
to access things like their reserves. And, in addition, it is
important to work each and every day with the operators of
these facilities in order to sustain their mission and make
sure that they have--and FHA is a mortgage insurer--make sure
that they can appropriately finance operations during this
time.
Chairman Crapo. Thank you.
Senator Brown.
Senator Brown. You said it is your daughter's sixth
birthday? My granddaughter just celebrated. Unfortunately, we
had to do it from afar, of course, because it was just last
month.
For about a year, Mrs. Wade, you were responsible for
overseeing HUD and other Federal agencies for OMB. That is
correct, right?
Mrs. Wade. Yes, Senator, that is correct.
Senator Brown. Under your leadership, OMB reviewed and
approved two rules that would undermine the Fair Housing Act, a
rule that HUD's own analysis said would cost the Federal
Government more money, displace more than 50,000 children, and
a rule that would compromise the religious freedom of people
seeking shelter. Given that track record, I just do not see how
we can trust you to ensure that FHA and HUD's rental assistance
programs are providing an equitable recovery for families.
Now, Mr. Miller, I would like to shift to you. First of
all, thank you for your service as a prosecutor and IG and how
you outlined your work in the past. But 2 years ago, you wrote
an article criticizing Congress for telling Inspectors General
to investigate the Trump administration. Four months later,
President Trump gave you a job in the Counsel's Office at the
White House. Now the Senate considers an appointment to an
office that will be responsible for, among other things,
investigating the Trump administration, exactly what you
criticized. And even if it did not have concerns about your
independence, I would still have concerns about how this
Administration treats IGs that simply do their job.
Here is a recent example from Friday. The President, after
unfairly smearing her, removed Christi Grimm, the Acting HHS IG
who had identified shortages, very real shortages in testing
equipment and PPE.
Mr. Miller, you can establish your independence right now
in front of this hearing. Can you tell this Committee that it
was wrong for the President of the United States to remove Ms.
Grimm for doing her job and holding the Administration
accountable?
Mr. Miller. Senator, first of all, I would like to say that
I wrote an article defending the independence of Inspectors
General. I am always concerned that Inspectors General remain
independent from any influence, whether it be from the
Executive branch or the legislative branch. And so I do not
think that you are fairly characterizing my article. And I feel
very strongly that IGs should be independent and should report
the facts as they see them, as they find them, and not to bend
them to any influence whatsoever. And so it is the duty----
Senator Brown. Well, I appreciate your response. Was it
wrong to remove--we only have 5 minutes. So what is wrong for
Ms. Grimm--for the President to remove Ms. Grimm for doing her
job?
Mr. Miller. Senator, I am not here to assess those sorts of
action. I am here to tell you about my background, my
qualifications for this position. I believe that I have
demonstrated independence.
Senator Brown. Well, we all--I understand that. I
understand that, Mr. Miller, but there is a skepticism when it
is not general practice that the President of the United States
nominates somebody for a job this important as Inspector
General who came out of the White House, and I think you have a
bar you need to get over to demonstrate your independence. I
was hoping this would be a way to do it.
Let me ask you another question. Mr. Miller, will you view
your job expansively to the fullest extent provided by law so
that you do not just go after little companies or the ``easy
cases'' but, rather, look at all misconduct, even when the
evidence of wrongdoing could either upset individuals in the
Administration or their preferred narrative?
Mr. Miller. Absolutely, Senator.
Senator Brown. OK. I appreciate that. The potential for
conflict, the concern among Members of Congress about your
independence should be obvious. So it is so important that you
look at this job expansively.
Last question. The CARES Act gives the Treasury Secretary
control of $500 billion of taxpayer monies for loans and
investments. The Federal Reserve, as you note, will lend
trillions on top of that. Do you agree that the Special IG for
Pandemic Response has the responsibility to look at how all of
those funds are distributed, whether by Treasury or the Federal
Reserve?
Mr. Miller. Senator, as the act says, the Special IG has
responsibility for the programs administered by the Secretary
of Treasury. I will do that faithfully, fairly, and
impartially, independently.
Senator Brown. All right. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Crapo. Thank you.
Senator Shelby.
Senator Shelby. Thank you, Chairman Crapo.
Mrs. Wade, welcome back to the Committee. You spent a lot
of time here working as a very important member of the Banking
staff, and then you worked on the Appropriations staff, and
then you went on to greater things, and you have been nominated
to a very serious and very important position. You have the
education--an undergraduate degree from Georgetown in economics
and an MBA from Wharton. You have got the experience. I am here
to support you.
Mr. Chairman, I would ask unanimous consent that my written
statement in support of this nominee be made part of the
record.
Chairman Crapo. Without objection.
Senator Shelby. I believe that wherever you go, but
especially over at HUD like this, to be the Deputy Director of
Housing there, you carry a lot of experience, you carry a lot
of good judgment, and they can use you over there, and you can
serve the American people well. You have in the past, and I
predict you will in the future. I believe you will be
confirmed. I believe that I am here to say that I support you
without any reservation. I know you. I have worked with you.
Most of the Members of the Committee worked with you. We have a
lot of respect for you and godspeed.
We will need to vote on her as soon as we can, Mr.
Chairman. Thank you.
Chairman Crapo. Thank you, Senator Shelby.
Senator Reed.
Senator Reed. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I will
just wait a moment to ensure I can be heard.
Chairman Crapo. We can see you.
Senator Reed. Mr. Miller, I want to follow up on the
questions that Senator Brown presented, because the
independence of the Inspector General is absolutely critical,
and the behaviors we have seen in the White House and also in
other areas suggest that there is a disregard for the
independence of the Inspector General. And while you were
there, particularly in the context of the impeachment
proceedings, the General Counsel's office completely dismissed
any requests for cooperation by the Congress in the
constitutional duty we had.
You yourself wrote a letter to the GAO General Counsel
stating that the White House does not plan to respond
separately to your letter--i.e., take a hike. That does not
signal the kind of independence--in fact, it suggests that you
will be beholden to the White House and not critical of the
White House. Would you like to respond?
Mr. Miller. Senator, I will be independent. I will be--I
will follow the facts wherever they lead. If they are critical
of the Administration, I will say so. I will have no hesitancy
to do so. I think you have unfairly characterized the letter.
In many ways, I am just answering the mail.
Senator Reed. Well, we hope as Inspector General you just
won't be answering the mail, and that is the point I think we
want to make very, very explicitly.
Let me turn to another issue, a more technical issue with
respect to the CARES Act. Title IV of the CARES Act authorizes
the Secretary of the Treasury to require warrants in some of
the lending programs under Title IV. In many respects, it
echoes some of the work I did in the Troubled Asset Relief
Program in 2008 where we did, in fact, have warrants and after
the fact realized about $10 billion for the taxpayers of the
United States by executing those warrants.
If confirmed, can you explain how you will evaluate whether
the warrants are then properly executed on behalf of taxpayers?
There are ways to write warrants so that the maximum potential
is not realized in terms of strike price, and in terms of other
things. Can you give us some indication of what you will do?
Mr. Miller. Senator, I am going to have to study that issue
more carefully, but I will tell you that I as Inspector General
want to analyze all of the ramifications of these programs. If
someone is gaming the system, taking advantage of the system,
or even self-dealing, I would like to know that and report on
that. So I will analyze those transactions very carefully,
obtain information about them, and if necessary, subpoena the
information if I cannot get it otherwise.
Senator Reed. Thank you very much.
Mrs. Wade, we are all familiar with your extensive
experience both in housing and also in budgetary policy. I
think Senator Shelby made that quite clear in his remarks. In
the last several years, the President, in fact, in the fiscal
year 2020 budget and the 2021 budget, he sent up a budget that
would zero out the Public Housing Capital Fund, the Community
Development Block Grant, and zero dollars for the HOME program.
If we had followed that advice, where would we be today in
terms of the crisis we are facing in housing?
Mrs. Wade. Senator, thank you for the question. This
Administration has provided unprecedented support to
populations who need it, vulnerable populations, American
families, I think as many have alluded to, through the CARES
Act assistance. It is incredibly important to continue to focus
and do everything that we can to keep those HUD-assisted
homeowners and renters in their homes, to provide, again,
maximum flexibility to provide tools to enable them to stay in
their home and enable FHA to mitigate risk.
I believe that this is an evolving situation. You know, I
think we are all ready to use whatever tools at our disposal in
order to help people, in order to help borrowers, in order to
help renters, and I look forward to working with Congress on
those objectives.
Senator Reed. Just a final point, though. My estimation
would be had we zeroed out those programs, the situation we see
today in which we are trying to stabilize housing for so many
people would have been much, much worse. And I hope that going
forward, not just in terms of the special appropriations bills
like the CARES Act but in the routine budgets, you will
advocate for strong funding for all these programs.
Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Crapo. Senator Toomey.
Senator Toomey. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. And
thank you to our witnesses today. Thanks for your willingness
to serve. I appreciate that. Both of you bring a wealth of
experience to your respective roles, and I am pleased with that
fact.
Mr. Miller, let me start with you. First of all, I
appreciated our conversation earlier where we discussed your
role should you be confirmed, but I would like to go back to
this issue. Several of my colleagues now have questioned your
willingness to be independent of the Administration, and it
seems to me that there is some history here that may be worth a
little bit of elaboration. You made a passing reference to it,
but in a prior role, when you were the IG at the GSA--under a
Republican administration, I believe-- you conducted what seems
like a very thorough and ended up in a way being, I suppose,
antagonistic in the sense that there was wrongdoing, and you
pursued it. So could you tell us a little bit about that?
Because I think a person's history speaks louder than anything
else.
Mr. Miller. Thank you, Senator, for the question. There
were a number of instances where I investigated individuals and
companies and met with resistance at every turn. At one point I
had to investigate the Administrator herself, a Bush appointee,
as I was. And we very aggressively investigated her and found
that she steered a contract to a friend for $20,000 a month,
and it ended up in hearings. She ended up calling me a
``terrorist,'' and I had just come off from the U.S. Attorney's
Office where I prosecuted terrorists, including Moussaoui. I
participated in that prosecution. And so she publicly called me
a ``terrorist.'' She wrote memoranda to regional administrators
asking them to help her fight the IG--me. And various Members
of Congress called on the President to fire me. Later on, the
President did ask for her resignation.
There were a number of other incidents as well that came up
that I had to investigate, and it was very difficult to do so.
I had to fight for the office's effectiveness through
maintaining an independent hiring process. At one point there
was a freeze put on my ability to hire anyone. There were
budget cuts. There were all sorts of ways to try and hinder the
independence and effectiveness of the Inspector General.
But I worked through it all. I insisted on being
independent and never compromising the facts over the truth.
And I made those reports public. Later on I investigated a
conference--that was all during the Bush administration. During
the Obama administration I investigated a conference in Las
Vegas, and during that investigation I had political appointees
asking me to stop that investigation, asking me not to publish
a report. I had political appointees call me up and say, ``Why
do you really have to make this public? Can't you just give it
to us privately and never let anyone know?'' And, of course, I
did not follow that advice. I was not moved by the pressure. I
just went ahead, reported the facts, and you all know about it.
But I do think that the agency itself is much better as a
result, and I think that every program and operation is better
as a result of oversight.
I would add that after I had left and was trying to start a
law practice, Michael Horowitz, the IG at the Department of
Justice, had some difficulty having access to information, and
there was a hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee.
Michael called me and talked to me about it and asked me to
come and testify. I did testify at that hearing, and I am
grateful to the Chairman for quoting part of my testimony at
that hearing.
Senator Toomey. Thank you. And if I could ask one last
question of Mr. Miller. As one of the two Senate designees to
the Congressional Oversight Commission, we might have some
similar responsibilities, and so I wonder if you could just
share with us your thoughts on the differences between our
respective responsibilities, that of the Commission, versus the
Inspector General, how that might be delineated. And I know
that this is going to be a work in progress, but just any
thoughts you have on that.
Mr. Miller. Yes. Thank you, Senator, and I look forward--if
the Senate confirms me, I hope that we get to work together on
that. I would like to work very cooperatively with the
Commission and with the Accountability Committee of IGs, the
so-called PRAC, and with GAO and the various IGs themselves. I
think that delineating the responsibilities so that there is
not overlap would be important. We do not want to waste
precious Federal resources, so we want to make sure we know
what each other is doing and how we can complement each other
rather than work against each other or duplicate each other's
actions.
So all that would be very important in that respect. I do
not want to presume my confirmation, but I did take the
opportunity to contact Michael Horowitz and the Vice Chair of
the PRAC, Gene Dodaro at GAO, SBA IG, the new Executive
Director of the PRAC to see how we can work together and
delineate our roles and kind of deconflict where there may be
differences, because I do not think it serves anyone to
duplicate each other's efforts. I think it would be vital to
share information, and I am trying to--I would like to have the
opportunity to work on an information-sharing program in IT so
that there is real-time access to information.
Senator Toomey. Thank you.
Chairman Crapo. Senator Menendez.
Senator Menendez. I want to take a minute to reflect on the
enormity of the situation before us. If we have learned
anything from this crisis, if we have learned anything about
how staying at home can flatten the curve and keep our families
and our communities safe, it is that housing is health care.
Americans should not have to fear being thrown out on the
street if they miss their next rent or mortgage payment. And
when the protections in the CARES Act run out, we could be
facing a foreclosure crisis even greater than the one we faced
during the Great Recession.
We can stop that if we want to. All it takes is for this
Committee to marshal the resources of the Federal Government,
and we can make sure that every American has a safe and healthy
place to call home.
In that vein, Mrs. Wade, we saw during the Great Recession
how FHA stepped into the market when private lenders were
unable or unwilling to do so. If confirmed, will you commit to
making sure FHA plays a strong countercyclical role in the
mortgage market to help finance a home for American families
now that private lenders may be less willing to do so?
Mrs. Wade. Yes, Senator, and, first of all, I would like to
thank you for commenting on the gravity of the situation. I
believe that this is integral, providing and performing
countercyclical support is integral to FHA's mission. It is
incredibly important that FHA stay open for business and do
everything that it can to promote market stability during this
time.
Senator Menendez. What specific actions would you be
looking, if confirmed, to take in the next 6 months to further
that aim?
Mrs. Wade. Yes, that is a great question, and I think, you
know, again, maintaining FHA's operation and doing things that
will allow consumers to continue to access credit such as IT
modernization, which is really streamline the process for
obtaining credit, other organizational goals in order to help
FHA to operate on a daily basis. I think implementing the CARES
Act and future assistance packages will also be incredibly
important for FHA, and I know, if confirmed, I will do
everything I can to expeditiously get any CARES Act support or
additional support to those who need it the most.
Senator Menendez. We will be looking forward to that upon
your confirmation.
Mr. Miller, would you agree that independence is among the
most important qualities for an Inspector General? Yes or no.
Mr. Miller. I do, sir. Yes, Senator.
Senator Menendez. If the President or someone from the
White House calls you to discuss the recovery, would you take
the call? Yes or no.
Mr. Miller. If someone from the press, did you say?
Senator Menendez. No. I said the President or someone from
the White House calls you to discuss the recovery, would you
take that call?
Mr. Miller. I do not think that I will receive such a call,
but it depends on what the call is about. I will not be
pressured to not perform an audit or an investigation. But it
is hard to say if I do not know what the call is about.
Senator Menendez. Let me try to refine it. If Secretary
Mnuchin wants to explain why certain companies received
assistance under the CARES Act, do you think it is appropriate
to take his call?
Mr. Miller. Well, I think it is appropriate to know why he
is making such determinations, and if he wants to explain it
himself, I would think that my office would like to listen.
Whether I sit in on that meeting or not is something I would
have to decide on, but certainly we want to know why they are
administering programs in the way that they are.
Senator Menendez. I think there is a difference when you
are generating those questions to them than when they are
trying to weigh in as to why they have acted the way they have
in ways that may or may not be within the law's context.
Let me ask you this: You were in the White House Counsel's
Office when the President decided to terminate Intelligence
Community Inspector General Atkinson. Is that correct?
Mr. Miller. Yes.
Senator Menendez. Did you play any role in that decision?
Mr. Miller. Senator, I cannot get into specifics about what
goes on in the White House Counsel's Office. I do appreciate--
--
Senator Menendez. I simply asked if you played a role. I
did not ask you what role you played.
Mr. Miller. Senator, I read about the firing of Mr.
Atkinson in the newspaper.
Senator Menendez. OK. That does not answer my question. Let
me ask you this: President Trump said of Inspector General
Atkinson, ``The man is a disgrace to IGs. He is a total
disgrace.''
Do you agree with that statement?
Mr. Miller. Senator, there are a number of reasons why I do
not want to get involved in that question. First of all, I do
not know all the facts. I do not know what went on. I do not
know what the thinking was. And, second, a lot of that is
protected by White House confidentiality. As a lawyer, I have
ethical obligations that bind all lawyers. And when Justice
Kagan was before the Senate for confirmation, she limited her
comments about her time in the White House Counsel's Office and
her time in the Clinton Domestic Policy Council in the White
House.
Senator Menendez. My time has expired, but I just want to
say I did not ask you what you specifically did, if you did
something. I asked you whether you were involved. I did not ask
you about any confidentiality when I asked the question about
the way that the President classified Inspector Atkinson. And I
think that independence of Inspectors General, as you have
stated, is incredibly important. And so trying to judge how you
view those actions independently of whether you participated or
not is very telling.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Crapo. Thank you.
Next we will go to Senator Rounds.
Senator Rounds. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I would like to begin with Mr. Miller. Earlier in testimony
here you did not get an opportunity to respond to the Ranking
Member's suggestion that there was an inappropriate activity
while you were at OMB. I would like to give you an opportunity
right now to respond and maybe share with the rest of the
Committee about your activities and perhaps a defense of what
the Ranking Member suggested was inappropriate activity.
Mr. Miller. Senator, thank you. I am assuming that you are
referring to his comments----
Senator Rounds. I apologize. That was for Mrs. Wade, not
for Mr. Miller. Excuse me.
Mrs. Wade. Yes, Senator, thank you very much for the
question, and I appreciate the opportunity to be able to
respond.
You know, I want to say, first of all, housing
discrimination is intolerable, and if confirmed, I will do
everything I can to enforce the Nation's fair housing laws.
That is my commitment. In addition, you know, related to my
role at OMB, I led a resource management organization, and to
that end it was our job and it was my job to make sure that
taxpayer money was spent efficiently and economically. It is a
very important oversight role in the Government. I am very
proud of the work that I did at OMB. So I thank you for the
opportunity to respond.
Senator Rounds. Thank you.
Mr. Miller, I do appreciate your conversations with me
earlier. I wish it was in person, but naturally we have been
doing a lot of these conversations long distance. And so I
appreciated the comments earlier today that we had.
I am just curious. I think it is really important that not
only are you in a position to talk about what might be of a
criminal nature that occur, but also in terms of making sure
the programs run as efficiently as possible and that they
accomplish the goals that Congress set out for them in the
first place. Part of that is getting immediate feedback.
Members of Congress get that feedback in a lot of cases, and I
think while Senator Menendez was talking about whether or not
you would take a phone call from the White House, I am just
curious. Would you take a phone call from a Member of the
Senate who was looking at ways of making things better or at
least asking questions as to whether or not certain parts of
the program were being operated the way they were supposed to?
Would you take that type of a phone call from a Member of the
Senate? And what would you do to make it easy so that we can
participate in our oversight activities as quickly as possible?
Mr. Miller. Senator, this is such an important program and
it is so important that this money gets to the right people
that I think we should be willing to look at how we can improve
it in real time. The Congress has an opportunity to clarify the
act and clarify how this is done. And if we find out that
things are not working well in a particular area, I think the
Senate should be willing to change it so that it can work
better. And knowing where it is working and where it is not
working in real time is vital.
And so in that respect, I would welcome a call from a
Senator, and it does make sense that I could talk to the
Secretary as well as other Treasury officials to know what they
are doing, what is working, what is not working. They could
very well say, ``Look, we cannot make this program work,'' and
that can be part of my report to the Congress.
Senator Rounds. Earlier we had discussed there should be
ways in which Members of perhaps the House or the Senate--
because we are talking with folks every single day about how
these are working. Is there a way that you could establish or a
procedure you could establish to make it so that when Members
of this Committee or other committees want to get in touch with
you, that it is seamless in nature, easier to make sure that we
are getting information to you and that you are recognizing the
fact that we are contacting you and responding back? Is there a
process that you would be interested in seeing pursued to make
it easy for information that we get to get passed down to your
team?
Mr. Miller. Senator, thank you for the question. I do
believe it is vital to share information, and I could see my
office performing the function of a clearinghouse, or the so-
called PRAC, the Accountability Committee of IGs, could perform
the function of a clearinghouse. So much of what we have to do
will rely on data analytics and IT systems. And to the extent
that we are putting those in place, I can see the benefits of
having a system where we can hear from the Congress in real
time as well and perform a clearinghouse function so that we
know the information that is coming in to all of us is getting
to the right places.
Senator Rounds. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Crapo. Thank you.
Senator Tester.
Senator Tester. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to thank
you, Senator Crapo, and Senator Brown for doing this meeting
and doing it the way you are doing it. I appreciate it.
Mr. Miller, I had a chance to visit with you last week. I
told you that I was going to ask you questions you could not
answer last week, and that was, How many employees do you need
to do this job? And do you have the resources to do that? What
is your answer?
Mr. Miller. I have the background and ability to do this
job and to do it independently. I have some resources. The act
gives me some resources. If I ever lack resources, I will be
coming back to this Committee to let you know.
Senator Tester. OK. So you do not exactly know how many
people--or you do not have any idea how many people you are
going to need to do this job?
Mr. Miller. Well, I think initially I will start with
between probably 75 to 100. It will be hard to staff up quickly
because I have to build it from scratch and get hiring
authority, go through the GS system, and so starting up will
take a lot of time. But I think that to do the job effectively,
I think I will need to start with somewhere between 50 and 100,
more like 75 to 100.
Senator Tester. All right. Thanks, Brian. This $2 trillion
package, this is the biggest package anybody has ever voted on,
I think, on this Committee. Will you commit to reporting to
Congress immediately if Treasury is not following the
transparency requirements in the CARES Act that require
Treasury to disclose loan recipients?
Mr. Miller. Yes, sir, I am required under the IG Act to
report serious problems to the Committee.
Senator Tester. ``Yes'' is good. The CARES Act, the law,
requires you to notify Congress if you request information from
agencies and it is not provided to you. Do you promise to
follow that provision of the law closely?
Mr. Miller. I do.
Senator Tester. Good. Inspectors General serve a critical
role in Government, regardless of whether that person in the
White House is a Democrat or a Republican. Do you promise to
let Congress know if you are being pressured in your position
by political appointees or others to not pursue certain
investigations or reviews?
Mr. Miller. I will. And as I said, the IG Act requires that
IGs report serious problems to Congress. I will also report if
Members of Congress exert that pressure.
Senator Tester. OK. That is good.
In a signing statement for the CARES Act, President Trump
argued that his Administration has control over reports from
SIGPR to Congress and that SIGPR cannot report to Congress
without his permission. How do you interpret the Presidential
supervision described in the President's statement accompanying
the CARES Act?
Mr. Miller. Senator, I am trying to avoid stepping in
between battles between the Executive branch and the
legislative branch. I will tell you----
Senator Tester. OK, so let me make----
Mr. Miller. ----that I will follow the law. Section 4 of
the IG Act requires me to report serious problems and to make
reports to Congress. I will do that.
Senator Tester. So if the President says that you cannot
report this information to Congress, you will not only report
that to Congress, but you will tell us that the President tried
to stop you from reporting it?
Mr. Miller. Senator, if the President himself does that, I
would think that would be a serious issue, yes.
Senator Tester. You know how this works. You were in the
White House. You know how this works. If the President does it
or has one of his minions do it with direct connection back to
the President, I think it is important that you give this
information to us.
Mr. Miller. I will report any undue influence on me from
whatever source.
Senator Tester. Perfect. So I am going to tell you, from my
perspective right now--and this is from my perspective. I have
been stonewalled every step of the way trying to get
information from this Administration on where this money is
going. Every single step of the way. So your position is
critically important if we are going to have any level of
oversight.
In your White House service, did you have any involvement,
discussions, or awareness in the removal of Glenn Fine?
Mr. Miller. Senator, as I said before, I cannot respond to
questions----
Senator Tester. Brian, Brian. A pretty simple question. Did
you have any involvement, discussions, or awareness in the
removal of Glenn Fine? Yes or no is good enough for me.
Mr. Miller. OK. Senator, my ability to respond to questions
about what goes on in the White House Counsel's Office or the
White House may be limited by my ethical obligation, ethical
obligations that bind all lawyers. And I will follow----
Senator Tester. I will tell you----
Mr. Miller. ----Justice Kagan's example of limiting
comments about her service in the White House Counsel's Office.
Senator Tester. We are in a different situation here,
Brian. First of all, this is $2.2 trillion of taxpayer money.
Second of all, I have watched the President remove Atkinson, a
question that Senator Menendez talked to you about. I have
watched him remove Rick Bright when he challenged
hydroxychloroquine. I have watched him remove Colonel Vindaman
and his brother when he testified under oath on impeachment,
and it did not happen. I have watched him remove Glenn Fine.
The question is--you worked as White House Counsel. The
fact is I have no doubt that if you go against the President,
he is going to remove you because he has done it time and time
and time again.
The question is: Were you aware of the Glenn Fine situation
or the Atkinson situation? Did you have any input on it?
Because, quite frankly, that makes you part of the problem in
the White House.
Mr. Miller. Senator, again, I will be independent. If the
President removes me, he removes me. If I am unable to do my
job, I will resign. But I will do my job faithfully and
independently. But I will not comment on White House Counsel's
operations following the example of Justice Kagan and many
others who have come from White House Counsel's Office and gone
to appointed positions, independent positions, as judges and
even in other positions.
Senator Tester. Thank you, Brian, for your willingness to
serve. You, too, Mrs. Wade. Thank you.
Mr. Miller. Thank you, Senator.
Senator Tester. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Crapo. Senator Kennedy.
Senator Kennedy. Congratulations to you both.
Mr. Miller, you were appointed Inspector General of GSA in
2005. Is that right?
Mr. Miller. That is correct, Senator.
Senator Kennedy. And who appointed you?
Mr. Miller. President Bush.
Senator Kennedy. And how long did you serve?
Mr. Miller. Nearly 10 years, through much of the Obama
administration.
Senator Kennedy. OK. And I believe you said you at one
point had to investigate the Administrator of GSA?
Mr. Miller. Yes.
Senator Kennedy. Who appointed the Administrator of GSA
that you investigated?
Mr. Miller. President Bush.
Senator Kennedy. OK. And what were the conclusions of your
investigation of the Administrator appointed by President Bush?
Mr. Miller. That she steered a contract to a friend in
violation of procurement law, and we also made a referral of a
Hatch Act violation to the Special Counsel, who made a
conclusion that she did violate the Hatch Act.
Senator Kennedy. And you wrote a report on that, did you?
Mr. Miller. We wrote a report on the steering of a contract
to a friend. The Special Counsel wrote a report on the Hatch
Act violation.
Senator Kennedy. Was the Administrator happy with your
report?
Mr. Miller. She was livid.
Senator Kennedy. Did she complain to the White House?
Mr. Miller. She did.
Senator Kennedy. Did anybody criticize you for writing that
report?
Mr. Miller. Many people.
Senator Kennedy. Give me some examples.
Mr. Miller. Representative Mica called for the President to
fire me, Representative Davis also, and criticized me at a
hearing and publicly. Probably still does. Those come to mind.
Certainly the Administrator herself, certainly many other
people, and some people in the Administration still criticize
me for that.
Senator Kennedy. In the Bush administration?
Mr. Miller. Yes.
Senator Kennedy. OK. Did you change your report?
Mr. Miller. Not at all.
Senator Kennedy. Did you change your conclusion?
Mr. Miller. Not at all.
Senator Kennedy. So you just stood firm?
Mr. Miller. I stood firm.
Senator Kennedy. OK. Did that make you feel comfortable?
Was it a pleasant experience?
Mr. Miller. Senator, no, it was not. But that goes with the
territory of being an Inspector General. You are never
comfortable, but you have to do the right thing. At the end of
the day, you have to be comfortable with your own conscience.
And it does not matter what anybody else thinks or what even
this August body thinks.
Senator Kennedy. So you were appointed by President Bush.
The Administrator of GSA was appointed by President Bush.
Mr. Miller. Yes.
Senator Kennedy. You as Inspector General of GSA
investigated. You were appointed by President Bush. You as
Inspector General of GSA investigated the Administrator, head
of your agency appointed by President Bush, and you wrote her
up.
Mr. Miller. I did.
Senator Kennedy. And some people in the White House did not
like that. Some people in Congress did not like that.
Mr. Miller. Yes, sir.
Senator Kennedy. But you did not change your report?
Mr. Miller. Not at all.
Senator Kennedy. OK. Now, I have looked through your
background, Mr. Miller. I have looked you up on the Internet. I
have googled you. I have read your resume. I have heard all the
allegations--maybe ``allegations'' is too strong a word--the
innuendo or the suggestions that you will be a puppet of the
President. I do not understand the basis for that. I have
looked everywhere. Is there anyplace in your background as an
Assistant U.S. Attorney or the Inspector General for a decade
at GSA where you have backed down because you have been told to
back down?
Mr. Miller. No, sir.
Senator Kennedy. When you were an Assistant U.S. Attorney,
did you ever back off of a case because somebody with political
influence told you to?
Mr. Miller. No, sir.
Senator Kennedy. I mean, is there anything in your
history--I cannot find it. Is there anything in your history
that would indicate that you are willing to sacrifice your
principles if somebody in political power tells you to?
Mr. Miller. No. And, Senator, one of the letters is from
some of my special agents when I was Inspector General. It
talks about how I let them continue an investigation when there
were some people in the office that thought it should be shut
down. And, ultimately, they proved the case and got a
conviction.
Senator Kennedy. OK. Thank you.
Mrs. Wade, I think you are swell. I do not have any
questions. I am with you. I think you are going to do a great
job.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Crapo. Thank you.
Senator Warner.
[No response.]
Chairman Crapo. Senator Warren. Elizabeth, Elizabeth
Warren?
Senator Kennedy. There she is.
Chairman Crapo. Go ahead, Senator Warren. You are on,
Senator Warren. Are either Senator Warner or Senator Warren----
Senator Kennedy. I saw Senator Warren.
Chairman Crapo. Senator Warren I believe is trying to get
her microphone to work.
Well, apparently, we are having some troubles there, so we
will come back to Senator Warren, but we will move at this
moment to Senator Van Hollen.
Senator Van Hollen. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. Can you
hear me OK?
Chairman Crapo. We can hear you.
Senator Van Hollen. Excellent. Well, I want to congratulate
both the witnesses on your nominations. Ms. Wade, I will be
submitting some questions for the record with respect to your
nomination.
Mr. Miller, you were, of course, nominated to be the
Special Inspector General for the Pandemic Recovery, and as
many have pointed out, that requires independence. It also
requires a determination to conduct rigorous investigations
that get to the truth, to get to the facts that uncover any
wrongdoing. So I want to ask you about your role in responding
to the investigation conducted by the nonpartisan Government
Accountability Office into the Administration's withholding of
vitally needed security assistance to Ukraine.
I asked GAO to conduct that inquiry, and GAO ultimately
concluded that the Administration's withholding of that
security assistance was illegal under the Impoundment Control
Act. The GAO also raised major concerns about the Executive
branch stonewalling their inquiry, saying in their report that
the blocking of the investigation rose to the level, and I
quote, of ``constitutional significance.''
You personally participated in that stonewalling as the
White House lawyer who signed a letter to GAO stating that the
White House would not provide a substantive reply. I must say I
was a little stunned when Senator Reed asked you about that
letter and you dismissed it as ``just answering the mail.''
If you are confirmed as the Inspector General here and you
wrote to an agency with information about one of the issues you
were investigating and they refused to respond, would that be
acceptable to you?
Mr. Miller. No, sir. I was answering the mail for GAO. I
wanted to make sure they received an answer. I respect GAO and
wanted to make sure that their inquiries were responded to. And
so I stepped in and made sure that they got a response, and the
letter does say that the General Counsel of OMB responded to
their questions.
Senator Van Hollen. Well, I have the letter you signed
dated December 20, 2019, here responding to Mr. Armstrong,
General Counsel at GAO. The last sentence of that letter is,
``The White House does not plan to respond separately to your
letter,'' and you cite an OMB letter. Can you tell us today
under oath that the White House did not have in its own
possession information that was responsive to the GAO inquiry?
Mr. Miller. Senator, there are two reasons why I cannot
respond to that. I cannot talk about confidentiality in the
White House. Second, I am not familiar with those issues. I am
familiar with the fact that the previous sentence of the letter
says the General Counsel of OMB responded to the questions of
GAO, and instead of having separate responses from Chief of
Staff Mulvaney and White House Counsel Cipollone, the White
House was relying on the General Counsel of OMB, the Budget
Office, to respond to that particular issue.
Senator Van Hollen. Right, but the letter was seeking
documents and other factual information. So is it your
testimony today under oath that the OMB letter and their
response met all the requirements that you would consider
necessary to be fully truthful and honest in their response?
Mr. Miller. Senator, I am simply saying that I sent the
letter to make sure GAO had the response of the appropriate
officials in the White House. Regarding the General Counsel's--
--
Senator Van Hollen. I understand, but----
Mr. Miller. ----letter, you should ask the General Counsel
of OMB.
Senator Van Hollen. Mr. Miller, I understand that. The last
sentence says, ``The White House does not plan to respond
separately to your letter.'' So I am asking you whether your
testimony is that the White House did not have any additional
information that was responsive to the GAO inquiry. As I
understand your statement today, you either do not know or will
not say. Is that correct?
Mr. Miller. Sir, it is probably both. But I think this is
an example of no good deed goes unpunished. I have respect for
GAO. I wanted to make sure the letter was responded to, and the
letter did get responded to, and they could stop inquiring, and
they had an answer to their inquiries.
Senator Van Hollen. But, Mr. Miller, with all respect, what
your letter says--you are saying it was great that you
responded, but the last sentence says you do not plan to
respond separately. So my final question is: If you were
confirmed in this position and you are an Inspector General and
an agency gave you the response that you got from the White
House that you signed, would you find that stonewalling
acceptable?
Mr. Miller. First of all, Senator, I think I am over time.
With the Chairman's indulgence, I would like to continue.
Chairman Crapo. Briefly, please.
Mr. Miller. You know, as far as the letter goes, the
General Counsel of the Office of Budget was answering a budget
question. And I was simply pointing out, look, you have the
response. And I am not really sure what your question is
getting at, Senator.
Senator Van Hollen. OK. Well, Mr. Chairman, I thank you. It
was not just asking for OMB's response. The reason they also
wrote to the White House was to get any documents and relevant
information that the White House may have had with respect to
their inquiry. You essentially gave them a nonresponse. You
said, ``Talk to the other agency.'' My question has been: As an
IG, would that be acceptable to you conducting investigations?
Chairman Crapo. Well, we need to move on.
Senator Van Hollen. I have to conclude from your answers
that it would not be.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Crapo. We are going to go back now and see if
Senator Warren is available. Senator Warren.
Senator Warren. Thank you. So we are in the middle of a
public health pandemic crisis that has already killed more than
60,000 people, and half a step behind this health crisis is an
economic crisis that threatens the security of tens of millions
of people across this country. The CARES Act created a $500
billion slush fund for giant corporations, and if confirmed as
the Special Inspector General, it will be Mr. Miller's job to
conduct the oversight of this money and to make sure that it is
spent to benefit workers and families, not shareholders and
corporate executives.
So, Mr. Miller, let us just start with the basics. You
would be given broad authority under the CARES Act to
investigate all of the money that Treasury hands out in the
coronavirus response, all of the funds distributed by taxpayer-
backed lending through the Federal Reserve, and what the
companies do with the loans and grants. Is that correct?
Mr. Miller. Senator, I will follow the law and make sure
that I do an investigation of those programs.
Senator Warren. These are the easy questions. Again, can we
just do yes, that is right?
Mr. Miller. Could you repeat the question, please?
Senator Warren. I am just citing what the law says. It
will----
Mr. Miller. I will follow the law, whatever it says.
Senator Warren. All right. And the law gives you the same
authority as all Inspectors General under the Inspector General
Act----
Mr. Miller. Yes.
Senator Warren. ----to conduct investigations for the
``purpose of promoting economy and efficiency'' or ``preventing
and detecting fraud and abuse in Government programs.'' Is that
right?
Mr. Miller. That is correct.
Senator Warren. OK. So the law gives you the authority and
it gives you the tools to investigate the people who are
handing out the money and who get the money. So now I just want
to ask how you plan to use your authority, and I want to get
specific on this. I want to ask about how you will investigate
how the money is used.
For example, if a giant corporation gets bailouts financed
by taxpayer dollars from CARES and then lays off or furloughs a
bunch of its workers, I think we agreed when we spoke yesterday
that this would constitute potential waste or abuse of taxpayer
bailout funds. Would you investigate in such a case?
Mr. Miller. Senator, I am not going to answer
hypotheticals, but I will tell you that I would investigate any
misuse of the monies, and the money needs to go to where----
Senator Warren. I need a general idea, though, of what
might constitute an abuse in your mind. That is how we evaluate
whether or not you are going to be an Inspector General who is
going to be looking out for taxpayer funds. So you said
yesterday when you and I spoke privately that you thought that
that would constitute a potential waste or abuse of taxpayer
bailout funds, and I just want to know: If that is the case,
would you investigate?
Mr. Miller. I will investigate any situation that I
consider an abuse of taxpayer funds.
Senator Warren. Do you consider a case where a giant
corporation gets bailouts financed by taxpayer dollars from
CARES and then lays off a bunch of its workers as at least a
potential waste or abuse that you would have to investigate and
find out more?
Mr. Miller. Yes, Senator.
Senator Warren. Good, good. So let us do another one we
talked about. If a giant corporation lobbies Congress or the
White House and then gets a bailout financed by taxpayers, is
that a potential situation for fraud or abuse that you would
investigate?
Mr. Miller. Well, Senator, I am not comfortable answering
hypotheticals, but certainly if----
Senator Warren. I am not comfortable with a person----
Mr. Miller. ----a company is----
Senator Warren. ----who will not tell me what he would
investigate----
Mr. Miller. The purpose----
Senator Warren. I am not asking for the name of a
particular company. I am just asking, in general is that the
kind of thing that would trigger your saying an investigation
is appropriate? When we spoke yesterday in private, you said
you thought it was, and I just want this in public, on the
record, when you are under oath.
Mr. Miller. Right, I just want to be careful about
hypotheticals, Senator. Certainly situations where companies
are spending the money for profits and laying off workers seems
to be a situation that I would want to investigate.
Senator Warren. Good. And how about when companies are
lobbying Congress or the White House, either one? You said you
want to look at both. How about that? Is that a potential
circumstance you would want to investigate?
Mr. Miller. Again, Senator, I am not comfortable with the
whole hypothetical----
Senator Warren. But you were comfortable in private
yesterday. In fact, when I asked about the White House, you
said you wanted to include Congress in that as well, a company
that lobbied both. I do not understand why you will not say the
same thing in public right now.
Mr. Miller. You know, Senator, I am going to investigate
any area that I think is an abuse of these monies because----
Senator Warren. And what I am trying to ask is do you think
lobbying and then getting money is a potential for abuse that
you would investigate.
Mr. Miller. It is possible, Senator.
Senator Warren. It is possible, and so if it is possible,
would you investigate?
Mr. Miller. And I would investigate it if it were lobbying
the Congress or the White House.
Senator Warren. Good. That is all I wanted. And then a
third one, and that is, even if the Treasury Department does
not put any restrictions in the loan documents or ask for
information about how the money will be used or restrict
corporate lobbying or avoid potential conflicts of interest,
will you request that information from companies that receive
loans under this program?
Mr. Miller. I will investigate all potential conflicts of
interest, and if I do not have the information through the
Department of Treasury, I will request and then subpoena the
information if I do not get it.
Senator Warren. Good. And will you make that information
public so that taxpayers can see what is going on?
Mr. Miller. My goal is to make all information public and
to inform the taxpayer. The only possible exception, Senator,
would be if it was part of a criminal referral to the
Department of Justice.
Senator Warren. Good. I am very glad to hear that because I
believe that transparency is important.
Look, I think that the CARES Act should have slapped
ironclad rules on companies getting a bailout, but the
Republicans refused. Now the primary tool that we have to stop
corporations from using this bailout to enrich themselves is
rigorous oversight.
Mr. Miller, your time working as one of President Trump's
impeachment defense attorneys should have disqualified you from
being nominated to oversee the President's management of one of
the largest corporate bailouts in American history. The demands
on you will be particularly intense because this President has
already fired multiple Inspectors General because he could not
tolerate any criticism, and he has already said that he will
muzzle you. You will, however, have the chance to defend your
independence and your integrity by your actions if you stick to
the commitments that you have made here and you are an
aggressive watchdog, and I am prepared to work with you on it.
Thank you, Mr. Miller.
Mr. Miller. Thank you, Senator. I would like to work with
you even if you do not vote for my confirmation, as you
indicated yesterday.
Chairman Crapo. We will now move to Senator Tillis.
Senator Tillis. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Miller, Ms.
Wade, thank you for being there. I regret it is under these
difficult circumstances.
Mr. Miller, in response to some of Senator Toomey's
questions and Senator Kennedy's questions, I feel like we have
got two different Millers before the Committee. On the one
hand, we have people questioning your independence,
particularly under the weight and the pressure of an
Administration, but you again investigated someone who was
appointed by President Bush; you yourself were appointed by
President Bush. That investigation did not change one bit
regardless of the pressure you got from Capitol Hill and I
would suspect others. And what was the ultimate disposition of
the person in the GSA--what was the ultimate disposition of
that person's position?
Mr. Miller. She was asked to resign, Senator.
Senator Tillis. OK. And earlier Ranking Member Brown
characterized one of your writings as something that seemed to
question your commitment to independence. In your response to
him, you said it was a mischaracterization of what you wrote.
Would you mind going back over that for me very briefly? And
then I have a question for Ms. Wade as well.
Mr. Miller. Well, my concern was that Inspectors General
are independent of both the Executive branch and the
congressional branch. And my concern with the article was that
Inspectors General need to understand that they are also
independent of undue pressure from the Congress, and that is
the gist of the entire article. In fact, I say in the article
that it is fundamental for an Inspector General to be
independent.
Senator Tillis. So just to sum it up, you investigated
someone who was put forth by President Bush, you were put forth
by President Bush; you continued in spite of pressure you were
getting from Capitol Hill and others, did not change one word
of your report, and it ultimately resulted in the removal of
that person from a position. That sounds like a pretty good
case history on independence to me, but I guess others may have
a different view.
Operationally, do you think that the 5-year period is going
to be sufficient time to audit this program?
Mr. Miller. Senator, I am going to do my best to work
myself out of a job. You know, I believe that we need effective
oversight. I do know that there are a lot of oversight
instruments, organizations that will be providing oversight. If
we can do this within 5 years, I would like to do that. But it
is too early to tell exactly whether 5 years is the right
amount of time.
Senator Tillis. Well, thank you, Mr. Miller. I have
confidence that you will go about this job in a very
independent way and you will hold anybody accountable who tries
to veer you off of what you think is right.
Just one last question for you, and then if time permits,
Ms. Wade. Is there such a thing as good fraud and bad fraud?
Mr. Miller. I would think that any fraud is bad.
Senator Tillis. I think fraud is fraud, and so what I
expect--and I appreciated the time that you spent on the phone
with me yesterday. And I asked you if you were committed to
taking a look at all the benefactors of the programs that come
under the CARES Act, and you look through the simple lens of
was any of the monies, the taxpayer dollars, that were sent out
in good faith to help us recover during this virus response
inappropriately allocated to somebody because of fraud. I want
you to go after the big businesses, the small businesses, and
everybody in between if they have taken advantage of this
program. I hope that we will not have members on the other side
of the aisle that will come up with this concept of good fraud
and justified fraud because, in my opinion, fraud is fraud.
So I look forward to supporting your nomination, Mr.
Miller.
Mr. Miller. Thank you, Senator.
Senator Tillis. Ms. Wade, we have had some time to digest
the CARES Act. There are clearly things that we need to do to
adjust it. We effectively did by appropriating the additional
more than $300 billion to the Paycheck Protection Program. But
within your lanes, can you think of anything that we should be
thinking about moving forward as we make potential changes,
expansions, refinements, maybe changing deadlines or
timeframes? Can you think of anything off the top of your head
that would be within your lanes once you are confirmed?
Mrs. Wade. Yes, Senator, that is a great question, and I
appreciate your work here. As you alluded to, the CARES Act has
already provided tremendous support to housing markets and to
borrowers. First of all, as you know, it has provided up to a
year of forbearance for borrowers. It has provided an eviction
and a foreclosure moratorium.
I think, you know, this is an evolving situation. It is one
that we are continuing to monitor on a day-to-day basis and in
real time, and we will use a data-driven approach to provide
any additional assistance and any flexibility. But I think, you
know, when it comes to what should we think of as sort of the
next phase, HUD always appreciates assistance in providing
flexibility across offices in order to get this aid and other
aid, any future assistance that Congress is considering, out as
quickly as possible. So I would be happy to work with you on
that objective.
Senator Tillis. And I can think of the forbearance issue
and other things we are going to have to take a look at, so I
look forward to getting your input. Congratulations and happy
birthday to your little girl tomorrow.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Chairman Crapo. Next is Senator Warner.
Senator Warner. [Inaudible] ----questions that have been
asked. I have been in an Intelligence Committee classified
brief for the last couple hours.
I want to start with Mr. Miller on that subject. I think
some of my colleagues may have asked the question about Michael
Atkinson, but since this was something I was intimately
involved with--and I hope I am not looking as yellow to the
rest of my colleagues as I look on this screen to me. This is
not a case of full-on jaundice yet.
Chairman Crapo. We will work on that.
Senator Warner. Right now this looks pretty god-awful.
But, Mr. Miller, you know, having been very, very familiar
with Michael Atkinson and his actions in regard to reporting
and trying to protect the whistleblower that led to the issue
around the President's engagement with the Ukrainian President,
and you having been involved as an IG and then White House
Counsel, based on any personal knowledge you may have or
anything that you have seen in the record, is there any
indication to you that Michael Atkinson was not performing his
duties appropriately as Inspector General for the intelligence
community?
Mr. Miller. Senator, Mr. Atkinson was in an IG position,
but it was a specialized IG position, and it is governed by
statutes governing national intelligence. I am just not
familiar with the facts or the law in that situation, so I am
reluctant to give an opinion where I do not have all the facts.
Senator Warner. No, it is nothing that--you are a former IG
for a decade. You were in the White House Counsel's Office. Was
there anything even based upon secondary--secondhand knowledge
that was any kind of evidence that Michael Atkinson was
inappropriately performing his duties as Inspector General for
the IC?
Mr. Miller. Senator, I do not have all the facts.
Senator Warner. If you accept--my premise was unfortunately
Mr. Atkinson was fired for doing his job, and regardless of the
President's legal authority, what kind of effect does the
President even with legal authority--what kind of chilling
effect or other effect does it have on the Inspector General
community if the President is simply firing people because the
results of their activities lead to substantive results that he
does not like, whether, obviously, in the case of the
whistleblower's complaint in the case of Ukraine or the more
recent dismissal of the Inspectors General over at HHS in terms
of doing their work on an independent investigation, what kind
of effect does the President's actions have on your previous
community's IGs?
Mr. Miller. Senator, my experience as an IG is that an IG
always faces the possibility that they may be fired. They serve
at the pleasure of the President, and they may be fired for
whatever reasons as long as the President states them in
writing to both Houses of Congress. And so you just have to do
your job and let the consequences be what they may be. But you
should never be afraid of stating the truth, and if you have to
be fired, you are fired. But you always have to be prepared at
least to walk away from your job. That goes with the territory
of being an Inspector General.
Senator Warner. So you have no concerns from kind of a
standpoint of the Inspector General community, and, clearly,
you would be taking on a position here that it appears the
President, one, does not like IGs; two, does not like oversight
generally; and, three, we are talking about an area where there
is huge distributions of funds. You know, I understand you are
trying to get through a nomination process here, but it just
seems to me that this record of firing IGs based upon the
substantive results of their work differing from the
President's positions would be something that would cause some
consternation.
I see my time is about up, but I would like to also submit,
Mr. Chairman, some questions for the record for Ms. Wade in
terms of how we are going to deal with the forbearance issues
going forward and the possible need of a liquidity facility
that I think the Fed is interested in to make sure that we do
not have more major disruptions in the housing market.
Thank you for the time.
Chairman Crapo. And you will be able to submit questions at
the end. I will put the date on that. They would be due by May
7th. I will repeat that at the end of the hearing.
Senator Cotton has also given me a letter. He was at that
Intelligence Committee hearing as well and has been unable to
get to this hearing. He, too, looks forward to submitting some
questions and does also want to have a conversation with you in
person, Mr. Miller, and so you could expect to have that
conversation.
Our next Senator will be Senator Cortez Masto.
Senator Cortez Masto. Good afternoon, everyone. I want to
congratulate both Mr. Miller and Mrs. Wade on your nominations,
and thank you for taking the time to speak with me over the
phone.
Mrs. Wade, let me start with you. We had this conversation
when I talked with you on the phone, but as you know, in Nevada
we were so hard hit by the financial crisis, and during that
time I saw where lenders who took people's homes, they took
them in foreclosure, and there was, unfortunately, a forging of
documents and lying to customers. And in September of 2017,
HUD's Office of Inspector General issued a report entitled,
``HUD did not have adequate controls to ensure that servicers
properly engaged in loss mitigation.''
Now fast forward to where we are today. Last week, the HUD
Office of Inspector General published another report on its
review of 30 FHA servicers' websites, and the report found that
the servicers' websites provided incomplete, inconsistent data
and unclear guidance to borrowers related to their forbearance
options under the CARES Act. Servicers should obviously not be
providing this type of misinformation. It is conduct that I
worked so hard as Attorney General, so many of us did, to
correct and prevent, and we are seeing it again.
So my question to you is: How do you ensure that servicers
provide clear and fair guidance on forbearance to homeowners
and prevent this type of bad conduct from occurring during this
crisis?
Mrs. Wade. Senator, I appreciate the question. This is a
very important issue to me, and I want to start by saying, you
know, first of all, fraud at any level should never be
tolerated, and I think we learned a lot of lessons following
the financial crisis.
To your point specifically about ensuring that servicers
are communicating the right policies to homeowners, that is
also a priority. You know, again, this can be a confusing time;
it is an uncertain time. And if confirmed, I would do whatever
I could do to ensure that there was as much clarity there as
possible. In particular, I know currently HUD is working with
the CFPB, with the FHFA, to provide a single source for
information to borrowers. You know, I think this is something
we have to monitor vigilantly. We want to make sure that these
programs are working as they are designed. And as you
mentioned, servicers are required to provide forbearance as
well as loss mitigation, and they are required to follow
certain policies of FHA.
So, you know, again, if confirmed, this is something that I
plan to take a look at and keep a close eye on.
Senator Cortez Masto. Well, thank you, and I am already
hearing anecdotally some stories from homeowners about what
servicers are telling them.
Let me ask you this: Are you also willing to take a look at
the oversight of servicers by appropriate sampling and review
of companies and talking with borrowers? I am hopeful that you
are engaged at that level. That is the only way we are going to
stop any type of bad conduct by servicers.
Mrs. Wade. Well, Senator, I will take a look at any data
that is presented to me, and as you know, FHA has a lot of
enforcement tools available. I believe in strong and clear
enforcement. It is another important objective. And so, again--
--
Senator Cortez Masto. Can I ask you this? And I do not mean
to cut you off, but I only have so much time. So there should
be a complaint process. You should be able to access this
information readily, and that is what I am looking for. So I am
hopeful that, working with you, we can ensure that we are
addressing this issue. I think we all know all fraud is bad. I
do not care what side of the aisle we sit on. All fraud is bad,
and we want to stop it. And so we need to make sure that we are
accessing the information to help us identify it, so then
enforcement action can be taken. So I hope that we are able to
do so.
Let me jump to Mr. Miller real quick. Mr. Miller, there is
no doubt in my mind that you have got extensive experience as
IG, and I am very impressed by your background and your resume.
But let me just say this--and you can tell from all of the
conversations that my colleagues are asking you, there is a
concern with this Administration and a lack of independence. It
is not that the President is somehow not saying this overtly
and he is covertly hiding behind the scenes and talking about
how he is not going to be held accountable. He is actually
saying in public--in fact, instead of respecting the CARES Act
and longstanding precedents supporting the independence of
Inspectors General, which you have been for so many years, the
President said, ``I will be the oversight.'' I mean, he is very
clear about it, and that is why you are getting these
questions.
So let me just ask you very quickly: If the White House or
an agency asks you to withhold information, would you notify
Congress immediately of this request?
Mr. Miller. Yes, Senator.
Senator Cortez Masto. If the White House wanted Treasury to
show preference in the CARES Act funding to States for
political gain, would you consider that a violation and report
it immediately to Congress?
Mr. Miller. Senator, I did not hear all of your question. I
am sorry.
Senator Cortez Masto. If the White House wanted Treasury to
show preference in the CARES Act funding to States for
political gain, would you consider that a violation and----
Mr. Miller. I would consider that a violation, Senator.
Senator Cortez Masto. If the White House wanted Treasury to
obtain information on corporate political donations prior to
Treasury allocating CARES Act financing, would you consider
that a violation and report it immediately to Congress?
Mr. Miller. Senator, I need more facts, but that does sound
like it could be.
Senator Cortez Masto. Do you plan to gain Presidential
approval before investigating contracts, issuing reports, or
communicating with Congress?
Mr. Miller. No, Senator.
Senator Cortez Masto. Thank you. Listen, most of the
questions have been asked, but these are serious times, and
this is such an important issue with respect to the act, and
making sure we are doing right by so many people across this
country, there are so many, and too many people are still
suffering, and we are looking for people to stand up and do the
right thing here. And so I appreciate your willingness to work,
quite honestly, in this Administration with everything that is
going on, but we are going to hold you accountable. And at the
end of the day, I am hopeful that I get to work with both of
you. But we are going to ask the tough questions, and I am not
going to let up. It is too important that we address the
suffering that is happening across this country.
So thank you again.
Mr. Miller. Thank you.
Chairman Crapo. Thank you.
Senator Jones.
Senator Jones. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I hope everybody
can hear me.
Mr. Miller, thank you for the phone call the other day. I
want to ask you three questions that just require an answer
with a number. One a scale of one to ten, with zero and one
being no respect and ten being absolute, unshakable respect,
how would you rate President Bush's respect for the
independence of Inspectors General?
Mr. Miller. Senator, I am not comfortable evaluating
Presidents' performances, whether it is past Presidents or the
current President.
Senator Jones. Well, would you at least acknowledge then
that this President has a view of the independence of
Inspectors General that is so far less than President Bush or
President Obama? Even though they have let folks go, this
President--can you at least acknowledge that this President--
because you told me the other day in our phone call that it was
a challenge, it would be a challenge working for President
Trump. Can you at least acknowledge that?
Mr. Miller. This is going to be a very challenging and
demanding position. There is no question about that. And I will
go where the facts lead, and they may be facts that the
President and the Administration do not like, but I will state
them anyway.
Senator Jones. Well, I appreciate that, but I keep hearing
so much--and, look, you have got great records. You have got
great experience. My friend Helen Fahey, who I served with as
U.S. Attorney, thinks highly of you. But I have also heard so
much about this one time when you challenged President Bush.
But the fact is this President is harder to challenge, and I
think everybody recognizes that. I would hope to see some
acknowledgment of that from you a little bit more than we have
today because that really kind of shows the independence.
You did mention that you might--there would be occasions
where you would either resign or walk away, but are there other
ways to push back on a President who is trying to influence the
independence of an Inspector General short of just walking away
from the job in frustration?
Mr. Miller. Certainly, and I will do my job to the best of
my ability, and I will do the job of an Inspector General.
Sometimes that involves working with Administration officials
to convince them that they should change the program or that
they should allow you to get information. That is part of
leadership and experience, both of which I have and would like
to use as Inspector General to avoid these conflicts. And it
has been more than one time that I have had to investigate and
make adverse reports and face tough criticism, not just with
the one Administrator that was removed but with major
contractors and even political appointees in both
Administrations.
Senator Jones. In any of those Administrations, did you
ever work as a lawyer in the White House Counsel for those
Administrations?
Mr. Miller. Did I work as a lawyer?
Senator Jones. Yeah. Were you in the White House Counsel
for those Administrations and then became an Inspector General
like you are moving to now?
Mr. Miller. I have not, but President Obama--since my
conversation with a Senator yesterday, I went back and
refreshed my recollection, but President Obama appointed Elena
Kagan to the Supreme Court, and she had been in a political
position in his Administration and had served in the Clinton
White House.
Senator Jones. OK. I appreciate that.
Mr. Miller. And there were others.
Senator Jones. And my question was--and it is OK. I mean,
look, I was hoping to get a little bit more from you, but it is
OK.
Mr. Miller. I am not sure what you want.
Senator Jones. Well, I was asking about you, not about
Elena Kagan. I know her history.
Mr. Miller. OK, and there is----
Senator Jones. I was just trying to help out a little bit,
to try to establish a little bit that when you say you are
going to be independent, your job being independent here is
going to be harder than just about any other Inspector General.
But my time is running out. I appreciate your being here and I
appreciate you are willing to serve, Mr. Miller. I really do.
And I hope you will be as tough and as independent as you say
and as to some extent your history says.
I would like to get a question to Ms. Wade, though. I
appreciate, Ms. Wade, even though I was very disappointed to
see your old boss not wearing his University of Alabama mask--I
thought that would be really good for the Committee this
morning. But I would like to ask you about the proposed rule
for disparate impact that HUD has now published. And I am very
concerned about that rule and how it is going to, in my view,
make it almost impossible to bring discrimination complaints.
Are you familiar with that rule? And do you have an opinion
about that rule?
Mrs. Wade. Well, Senator, I appreciate the question. I
understand that Secretary Carson has already addressed this. It
is my understanding that the intent of the rule is to codify
the 2015 Supreme Court decision. However, this is not a rule
that would be under my direct purview as FHA Commissioner.
Senator Jones. OK. I still do not think Secretary Carson
addressed it. I think he gave an answer, but I certainly cannot
agree that he fully addressed it, and I think it is
inconsistent with that. But be that as it may, I will leave it
there. I may have some questions for the record for both of
you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for having this hearing, and thank
you, everybody, for participating.
Chairman Crapo. Thank you.
Senator Smith.
Senator Smith. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member
Brown, and thank you to both Mr. Miller and Mrs. Wade for being
willing to serve. And thank you, Mr. Miller, for our
conversation yesterday.
I want to try to get a sense from you of how you see the
authority of the Special IG, what parts of the CARES Act you
see you have authority over, and so here is one example. I have
heard from a lot of Minnesotans about problems getting the
recovery rebate payments that most Americans were supposed to
receive. Minnesotans are calling my office and saying that the
payments went to the wrong bank or to a bank account that does
not exist or people are getting payments based on their 2018
tax information even though they filed 2019 returns. And, of
course, some payments are going to dead people, and folks do
not know how to return them.
This strikes me as exactly the kind of waste and
mismanagement that an Inspector General should be looking into.
But when I have asked the IRS about these problems, what they
have told us is that my constituents should just wait until
next year when they file their 2020 tax return, and then these
issues would be resolved by then. But, of course, these are
folks that are needing that $1,200 to pay rent or they might
get evicted, to buy groceries so they can postpone going to the
food shelves.
So my question is this: If you are confirmed, the CARES Act
would charge you with examining the management of the Secretary
of any program established under this act. Do you believe that
you would have jurisdiction over looking at how these recovery
rebate payments have been made?
Mr. Miller. If the CARES Act gives me that authority to
review how the Secretary is performing, administering the
programs, certainly I would look at that. And certainly in the
situation that you describe, I certainly would be working with
the Small Business Administration IG and with the so-called
PRAC, Accountability Committee of IGs, and making sure that
they are examining how these programs are being administered
and how these payments are being misdirected.
Senator Smith. But do you believe that the CARES Act does
give you that authority?
Mr. Miller. The CARES Act gives me authority certainly over
Title IV of the CARES Act and certainly authority to work with
the PRAC and the IGs individually. And I think one of the
lessons that I have learned from the SIGTARP is to form task
forces to obtain authority and jurisdiction in areas that need
to be explored. And so certainly I would try and obtain
authority where necessary to look into those matters. And if I
did not have that authority, I would try and make sure that the
IG that has authority is actively and aggressively going after
that.
Senator Smith. OK. Well, I think that my view is that you
would have that authority, and this is exactly the kind of
mismanagement that we need to look into. But let me ask you
another one.
There has been a real worry about how these direct recovery
payments are getting to people who are experiencing
homelessness, so I wrote a letter to Secretary Mnuchin about
this--27 of my colleagues signed on--asking the Treasury
Department how they plan to make sure that folks that are
experiencing homelessness could access their coronavirus
payments, and I have not heard back. Meanwhile, the IRS has
published some promotional materials telling people
experiencing homelessness that they can sign up online. But,
clearly, that is not going to work if you do not have access to
online solutions like countless Americans and people especially
experiencing homelessness do not.
So would you consider that a part of your role as Special
Inspector General to make sure that all Americans can get
access to these payments as the law requires?
Mr. Miller. Senator, certainly I would look into that
situation, and certainly I would like the act to get the money
to the people that it is intended to have the money. Certainly
this money is necessary to help average Americans during this
time and small businesses that are being depleted during this
time and to replace paychecks that they otherwise would have
gotten.
Senator Smith. See, I think that one of the most important
things that you can do in this Inspector General role is to
hold the Administration accountable for implementing this law
as the law was intended. And so that is why we so carefully
included this Inspector General in this job, and it is why
honestly so many of my colleagues are so concerned about this,
especially since, you know, when he signed the act, the
President said, ``Oh, by the way, you know, I can say whether
or not the Inspector General shares information with
Congress.'' And that is why we included this language in the
bill, because we wanted to make sure that that did happen.
So this is, I think, why people are feeling so concerned.
You know, we talked about this yesterday. I appreciate you
getting on the phone with me and talking about it, but I have
to say I remain concerned about this.
I also just want to say one last thing before we wrap this
up. This is focused on part of the CARES Act that is extremely
important to me. It has to do with the tribal governments and
getting the $8 billion in tribal recovery relief to America's
tribal governments, including Minnesota tribes who are
suffering greatly right now. The Navajo Nation in New Mexico is
another example as one of the worst-hit hot spots in the entire
country, and yet we are still waiting for the Treasury
Department to release the $8 billion that was appropriated and
authorized by Congress in the CARES Act. And I just want to
draw attention to this, colleagues. This is unacceptable. The
Treasury Department has said something today about how they
might get it out. The deadline for this was April 26, and
tribal governments are dealing with a catastrophic loss of
revenue and employment.
Mr. Miller, these are the kinds of challenges that you are
going to be having to cope with, I believe, if you are
confirmed to this role, holding this Administration accountable
when it is not doing what the law requires it to do. And it is
why we need such a strong Inspector General. So thank you for
your willingness to serve.
Mrs. Wade, I have a couple questions for the record for
you, and I am grateful for your willingness to serve as well.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Chairman Crapo. Thank you.
And Senator Brown, our Ranking Member, will have the final
question. Senator Brown.
Senator Brown. Thank you, and if I could, Mr. Chair, a
final question for each one of them. And thank you for the
forbearance of all of you. I think this was an unmitigated
success today, doing this hearing this way. There were probably
a lot of skeptics on the Hill about whether you could pull it
off, so thanks again to Gregg and to Laura and to Cameron, the
three real stars who put this together. And, Mike, thank you
for doing this, too.
I wanted to just echo for a moment what Senator Smith just
said about tribal governments. I was on a call this morning
with a number of community action agencies and what has
happened with health disparities in this country. Somebody said
to me, not in this meeting but in an earlier conference call
earlier in the week, that the pandemic is really the great
revealer in so much of what has happened with tribal health and
African Americans' health in terms of infant mortality,
maternal mortality, life expectancy is so glaring, and I am
hopeful that both of you as public servants, long-time public
servants in the case of both of you, will pay special attention
to what Senator Smith said, and all of us on these issues. But
I have just a comment or a question to each.
Mrs. Wade, I would like to follow up on Senator Rounds'
comments. I never suggested that you did anything
inappropriate. I did not use that word. I do not think you did
anything inappropriate. I did say that under your leadership
OMB approved rules that civil rights leaders and housing
advocates and faith leaders and many Members of this body
described as ranging from problematic to contrary to the
purpose of the law, including fair housing. You said you would
enforce vigorously the Fair Housing Act. But when most of the
participants--again, housing advocates, civil rights leaders,
faith leaders--think what you did there was compromising that,
that is concerning. These rules would undoubtedly be
devastating to millions of people, especially people of color,
especially low- and moderate-income people.
So my question is this: How do I square your work at OMB
with the comments you have made today that you now plan to help
so many of those same people?
Mrs. Wade. Well, Senator, I appreciate the question, and,
you know, I can only assure you and promise to you that I will
do everything to enforce the Nation's fair housing laws and
that I find housing discrimination abhorrent and completely
unacceptable. HUD spends a lot of time investigating fair
housing complaints. It has an entire office that is dedicated
to investigating and to enforcing the Nation's fair housing
laws. If confirmed, I will do whatever I can to support those
efforts.
Senator Brown. Well, I appreciate that. I take you at your
word. I also, though, am a bit cautious about not believing you
but thinking you will do this, because at OMB you essentially
did the opposite, at least according to people that I trust on
these issues, including civil rights and housing advocates. And
they think this is, in fact, just, you know, setting more in
concrete the kind of discrimination from Jim Crow to redlining
to what we have now. But thank you and good luck to you through
this process.
Mr. Miller, a follow-up on an earlier question. You said
you would use your authority to oversee the Secretary of the
Treasury. This was my mistake in the hearing because I should
have followed up, but you did not say anything about the
Federal Reserve. The Treasury is authorized, as you know, to
give hundreds of billions to the Federal Reserve, which will
then lend trillions of dollars to businesses. So do you believe
the law that created this Special IG that you have been
nominated for gives you the authority to oversee the Fed's
lending facilities and the companies who receive loans under
these facilities? You said Treasury. Do you mean also that you
have the authority to oversee the Fed's lending facilities?
Mr. Miller. A very good question, Senator. At this point in
time, looking at the act, it is clear that I have jurisdiction
over the actions of the Secretary of the Treasury. And right
now I consider every dollar that goes from Treasury through the
Federal Reserve to also give me jurisdiction over the Federal
Reserve.
Now, you know, if I am fortunate enough to be confirmed and
I analyze that and come up with a different view, I may be
knocking on your door to get more explicit authority.
Senator Brown. OK. I appreciate that. That is exactly what
we wanted to hear, and it is essential. I mean, it is trillions
of dollars, as you know.
A last final thing, Mr. Chairman. Again, thank you for your
forbearance.
Mr. Miller, you have been evasive on questions about your
work in the White House. Senator after Senator asked what
matters you were involved in so we can understand your
background, not the specifics of what you did. I am not a
lawyer, but I understand attorney-client privilege. I
understand those issues working in even the highest echelons of
Government. But they were not asking you specifics, again, of
what you did. They were asking you so that we understand who
you are better, what matters you were involved in. No one wants
you to violate privilege, but this is a job interview, and your
background is important to evaluate how you will do your job.
Unfortunately, you did not give us that information in this
hearing.
Mr. Chairman, thank you again for this first-of-its-kind
hearing that I think we will see more of. Thanks.
Chairman Crapo. Thank you very much, Senator Brown, and
that does conclude the questioning.
Again, I appreciate both you, Mr. Miller, and Mrs. Wade for
taking the time and coming here and presenting yourselves in
these unique new circumstances.
Senator Brown. Mr. Chairman, could I say one more thing?
Chairman Crapo. Sure.
Senator Brown. I appreciated the witnesses and the Chairman
wearing masks when they were there. All the people that called
in from their offices obviously did not need masks, but I
appreciate the Chairman and the witnesses wearing masks. I know
how strongly Governor DeWine feels about that in my State. So
thank you for that.
Chairman Crapo. Well, thank you. And I also want, in
addition to Gregg and Laura and Cameron, to extend our thanks
to the Recording Studio and the Rules Committee, who have
worked so closely with us. There was so much work that went on
behind the scenes to make this come together, and as Senator
Brown has indicated, I think it is a success just in terms of
the technological ability to put this kind of a hearing on in
these difficult circumstances and do it in a successful way.
We also want to extend our thanks to all of the workers who
prepared and cleaned this room, our law enforcement officials,
and all of the others who have come to make sure that we can
operate and do our jobs in the U.S. Senate Banking Committee.
As I said, that does conclude the questioning at today's
hearing. For Senators who want to submit questions for the
record, those questions are due to the Committee by Thursday,
May 7th. We ask that both of you nominees respond to these
questions by 9 a.m. Monday morning, May 11th.
Again, we thank you for being here, and this hearing is
adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 4:37 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.]
[Prepared statements, biographical sketches of nominees,
responses to written questions, and additional material
supplied for the record follow:]
PREPARED STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN MIKE CRAPO
Since this is our first hybrid hearing, a brief explanation of how
it will work will benefit Senators and the public.
The hearing room has been configured to maintain the recommended 6-
foot social distancing between senators, nominees, and other
individuals in the room necessary to operate the hearing, which we have
kept to a minimum.
A number of senators have chosen to use secure video teleconference
technology, which will allow them to remotely participate.
For those joining by video conference, once you start speaking,
there will be a slight delay before you are displayed on screen.
To minimize background noise, we are asking senators who are using
the video conference option to please click the mute button until it is
their turn to ask questions.
If there is a technology issue, we will move to the next senator
until it is resolved.
I would remind all senators and the nominees that the 5-minute
clock still applies.
For senators using the video option, you will notice a screen
labeled ``clock'' that will show how much time is remaining.
At about 30 seconds remaining, I will gently tap the gavel to
remind senators their time has almost expired.
To simplify the speaking order process, Senator Brown and I have
agreed to go by seniority for this first hybrid hearing.
Thank you to those of you who are here today, those appearing
before us, and those who are keeping the Capitol complex safe and
functioning while we honor our Constitutional duty.
The coronavirus, or COVID-19, pandemic has challenged our sense of
normalcy, and it has tested every institution of daily life we know.
The crisis has had a major impact on the physical and economic
health of our country, and a major response has been required.
Congress and the Administration have taken bold, dramatic steps to
limit the depth of economic shock the country is currently
experiencing, and to provide conditions for a quick and robust economic
recovery once economic restrictions are lifted.
The CARES Act went into effect just over 1 month ago, putting
needed cash directly into the hands of American workers and families,
providing rapid relief to small businesses, helping to stabilize our
markets and the economy, and sending a massive new infusion of
resources to the front lines of the medical response.
Title IV of the CARES Act, which is under the Banking Committee's
jurisdiction, provides $500 billion in emergency relief in order to
provide liquidity to eligible businesses, States, municipalities and
Tribes related to losses incurred as a result of coronavirus.
Implementing this title is an important step to supporting the flow
of credit in the economy.
On April 9, 2020, the Federal Reserve Board and Department of
Treasury announced new and expanded lending programs to provide up to
$2.3 trillion in loans.
The 13(3) Federal Reserve facilities, specifically the Main Street
Lending Facilities, are crucial components of the strategy to support
the economy and promote a U-shaped recovery, which reinforces the need
to have them up and operating, and being as broadly available for as
many businesses as possible.
Title IV includes robust oversight requirements to ensure the
statute is followed, and to protect against waste, fraud, and abuse.
The Special Inspector General for Pandemic Recovery will oversee
the reporting and auditing requirements of the law, and it is critical
that we quickly confirm the nominee so that important work can begin.
This afternoon, we will consider the nominations of The Honorable
Brian Miller, of Virginia, to be Special Inspector General for Pandemic
Recovery; and Mrs. Dana Wade, of the District of Columbia, to be
Assistant Secretary for Housing and Federal Housing Commissioner at the
U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development.
Welcome and congratulations on your nominations to these important
positions.
Section 4018 of the CARES Act establishes the Special Inspector
General for Pandemic Recovery.
The duty of the SIGPR is to ``conduct, supervise, and coordinate
audits and investigations of the making, purchase, management, and sale
of loans, loan guarantees and other investments made by the Secretary
of the Treasury under any program established by the Secretary under
this Act, and the management by the Secretary of any program
established under this Act.''
Mr. Miller is highly qualified for the Special Inspector General
position, having served as the Inspector General for the General
Services Administration for nearly a decade.
The Senate confirmed Mr. Miller for that position in 2005 via voice
vote, a position he held for nearly 10 years.
In that role, Mr. Miller led more than 300 auditors, special
agents, attorneys, and support staff in conducting nationwide audits
and investigations; and reported on fraud, waste and abuse.
He has been outspoken on the need for inspectors general to have
independence and access to information, and I am confident that he will
carry out the responsibilities and mission of this position diligently,
independently, and objectively.
During a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing in 2015, Mr. Miller
noted, `` . . . in order to have effective oversight, an IG must have
independence to conduct an investigation, review or audit. This
includes determining what information is needed. It is the judgment of
the IG conducting the investigation that matters, not the judgment of
the agency being investigated.''
I encourage my colleagues to support Mr. Miller's nomination, so
that he can begin this vital oversight role.
Turning to Mrs. Dana Wade. Dana Wade is well prepared to take over
the reins at the Federal Housing Administration (FHA).
She is familiar to the task, having operated as Acting Federal
Housing Commissioner and General Deputy Assistant Secretary for the
Office of Housing.
As Acting Commissioner, she directly managed FHA's portfolio of
single family, multifamily, and healthcare insurance; Section 8
project-based rental assistance; the Office of Manufactured Housing;
and over 2,400 personnel agencywide.
Mrs. Wade's extensive record of housing policy experience also
includes service as Senior Advisor to Secretary Ben Carson, Deputy
Staff Director to this Committee and the Senate Appropriations
Committee, and as Associate Director at the Office of Management and
Budget, where she led all housing-related issues and supervised HUD,
among other agencies.
Great leadership will be required at FHA during this unprecedented
time of strain on both home ownership and rental markets.
In the wake of COVID-19, we have already seen over 10 percent of
FHA borrowers enter mortgage forbearance, FHA-insured healthcare
facilities feeling significant strain, and many FHA-assisted landlords
struggle to make ends meet while countless renters are unsure where
their next rent payment will come from.
In the months ahead, FHA will be on the front lines helping many of
these families get back on their feet and providing much-needed
liquidity throughout the housing finance system.
I am confident that Mrs. Wade will provide exactly the type of
leadership that is needed during this critical time, as Commissioner
Montgomery has done.
I encourage my colleagues to support Mrs. Wade's nomination, as
well as to confirm Brian Montgomery as Deputy Secretary, so that we can
best position HUD to tackle the challenges ahead.
Congratulations again to each of you on your nominations, and I
thank you and your families for your willingness to serve.
______
PREPARED STATEMENT OF SENATOR SHERROD BROWN
I would like to begin by saying ``thank you'' to staff at the
Sergeant at Arms, the Architect of the Capitol, the Office of the
Attending Physician, the Recording Studio, and the Senate Rules
Committee for working very hard over the last couple of weeks to try to
make hearings as safe as possible, including by using technology for
Members to join hearings remotely. And, I want to thank all of the
Capitol Police and other Senate staff and contractors who have been
working to make sure the Senate continues to run.
I also want to thank Chairman Crapo and his staff for working with
my staff and me to coordinate this hearing and provide a remote option
for Senators to join. It's the right thing to do to keep everyone safe.
I am very concerned, however, at the reckless decision by Leader
Mitch McConnell to open the Senate to session, despite ongoing
emergency stay-at-home orders all over the country, including in
Washington, D.C., Maryland, and Virginia.
Leader McConnell's actions are forcing Capitol complex workers--
including contract workers like the cleaning staff who just cleaned
this hearing room and will clean again, and food service workers who
just served the Republican caucus lunch--to go against public health
authorities' advice, and put themselves at risk to come into work.
The Republican Leader's agenda this week doesn't include assistance
for the unemployed, anything that helps people to stay in their homes,
or support for community health services. Those are issues the Senate
should be taking on right now.
I want to congratulate the nominees and thank them for their
willingness to serve. This is probably not the confirmation hearing you
had hoped for. And, I want to thank your families watching from home.
The Special Inspector General for Pandemic Recovery will oversee
the CARES Act lending and investment programs that were designed to
stabilize our economy and get help to communities and workers and small
businesses that are hurting during this pandemic. And this lending will
be critical to restarting our economy, to begin the recovery.
The Federal Housing Administration Commissioner faces an affordable
housing crisis made even worse by the pandemic.
The stability and future of millions of families are on the line as
Congress and the Administration respond to this crisis. If confirmed,
the two of you will serve in positions that are crucial to implementing
the policy responses to the COVID-19 pandemic.
This Committee has oversight over the Treasury and Federal Reserve
loan programs under the CARES Act. That's why I fought for the Office
of the Special Inspector General for Pandemic Recovery. The American
people need a strong watchdog to make sure the 500 billion dollars of
taxpayer money provided under the Act, and the four trillion dollars
that the Federal Reserve will lend, actually goes to support workers
and communities and small businesses.
Because the Act grants the Treasury Secretary and the Federal
Reserve broad discretion over who gets these loans and on what terms,
the Special Inspector General will need to examine the loan terms, the
transactions, the lenders involved, and the eligibility of borrowers.
We've seen how the Small Business loans went to big companies and
important clients of Wall Street banks, while community banks and
credit unions and their customers on Main Street and in underserved
communities waited and waited. I think most of us have all heard the
frustration from restaurants and barber shops and cafes and so many
other small businesses in our States, that are facing impossible
decisions right now. They've spent hours on the phones trying to talk
to someone about a loan, and have either been turned down or can't get
answers, while big, well-connected franchises go to the front of the
line. It's unacceptable.
We can't let the same thing happen with these loans by Treasury and
the Fed. The problems with the SBA loans should be a lesson to
Congress, as we consider additional recovery measures, and to the
Special Inspector General.
In addition to those concerns, President Trump has shown outright
hostility toward anyone who tries to hold him accountable to the
American people he serves, including inspectors general. He removed the
acting IG for the Defense Department who was set to become the chairman
of the Pandemic Recovery Accountability Committee, he fired the
intelligence community IG, and last Friday, he replaced the acting
Health and Human Services IG. All of these professionals did their jobs
and exposed misconduct in the Administration.
Looking at the last 20 years, we found only one IG candidate was
nominated while serving in the White House Counsel's office, and
another nominee served in the White House Counsel's office under an
earlier Administration. Both of them resigned, one for politicizing the
office and the other for a lack of independence. Not a great track
record.
We passed the CARES Act to support our economy, by helping workers,
Main Street businesses, State and local governments, and nonprofits. We
cannot tolerate businesses and their workers suffering to protect the
President, his family, or their allies, because of corruption, misuse,
or favoritism.
Mr. Miller, if you are confirmed, I expect you to follow the letter
and spirit of the law, and serve the American people--not President
Trump. As Special Inspector General, you must be willing to stand up to
the Administration and any other bad actor and to uphold the goals of
the law. Anything less is unacceptable.
While Mr. Miller is the only nominee before us today with
``Pandemic Recovery'' in his title, make no mistake--the FHA and the
Office of Housing will be on the front lines of our Nation's response
as well.
In good times, FHA provides access to affordable home ownership for
millions of families. When the economy slows, as it is today, the FHA
is expected to step up to meet the needs of more households and keep
the mortgage market working, even as others in the market retreat.
During the 2008 financial crisis, economists estimated that FHA's
actions helped prevent an additional 25 percent decline in housing
prices and the loss of an additional 3 million jobs.
FHA's decisions will determine whether families can remain in their
homes, or whether communities face a foreclosure crisis on top of a
public health crisis.
They will also help determine whether the burden of this downturn,
like the 2008 crisis, falls most heavily on communities of color and
exacerbates economic inequality, or whether we will adopt policies and
do oversight to provide an equitable recovery that keeps affordable
housing in the hands of homeowners and communities, rather than Wall
Street investors.
And decisions at the Office of Housing, which Mrs. Wade would lead
if confirmed, will determine whether policies and funding are in place
to keep the lowest income seniors, persons with disabilities, and
people in HUD-financed healthcare facilities safe during this pandemic.
Over the past 3 years, this Administration has tried to gut funding
to housing and community development programs, rolled back fair housing
protections and other civil rights protections, undermined the safety
of manufactured housing residents, and tried to make home ownership
more expensive and harder to attain.
I hope the answers Mrs. Wade provides today will make clear that
she will fight to reverse that trend.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman and I look forward to hearing from the
nominees.
______
PREPARED STATEMENT OF BRIAN D. MILLER
To Be Special Inspector General for Pandemic Recovery, Department of
the Treasury
May 5, 2020
I want to thank the Chairman and Ranking Member for having this
hearing. I want to thank President Trump for nominating me. Most of
all, I want to thank my wife and family for their encouragement to
continue public service, especially in such a demanding job. Thank you.
I have been fortunate to have a long career in public service that
has prepared me well for this position. I have close to 30 years of
experience in the Federal Government. Fifteen years in the Department
of Justice and nearly 10 years as the Senate confirmed Inspector
General of the General Services Administration, serving across
Republican and Democrat administrations. I have also served as an
independent corporate monitor and practiced law in the areas of ethics
and compliance, Government contracts, and internal investigations.
I am amazed and humbled by the letters of support that I received
in such a short time period of time during a pandemic. I am deeply
grateful to those who signed from all varieties of political stripes--
from officials in the Obama, Bush, and Clinton administrations. I would
like them to know that I will always endeavor to be the man they
describe in their letters.
If confirmed, I will conduct every audit and investigation with
fairness and impartiality. I will be vigilant to protect the integrity
and independence of the Office of Special Inspector General. I pledge
to seek the truth in all matters that come before me and to use my
authority and resources to uncover fraud, waste, and abuse.
I stand ready to answer any of your questions. Thank you, Mr.
Chairman.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
PREPARED STATEMENT OF DANA WADE
To Be Assistant Secretary, Department of Housing and Urban Development
May 5, 2020
Chairman Crapo, Ranking Member Brown, and Members of this
Committee, thank you for inviting me here today to testify as the
nominee for Federal Housing Commissioner and Assistant Secretary for
Housing of the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. I want
to also thank President Trump for the privilege of being nominated for
this position.
It is truly an honor to be here after serving as a staff member of
this Committee and spending a good part of my career working for
Senator Shelby on both the Banking and Appropriations Committees. I'm
extremely grateful to him for such opportunities.
I'm also very thankful for the love and support of my wonderful
family. I regret that both my husband, Chris, and our daughter, Mary,
can only be here today in spirit, and not in person.
As I look around this hearing room, I see the Senate continuing the
people's work but under very different circumstances. If confirmed, I
will commit to do everything I can as FHA Commissioner to help the
country emerge from the COVID-19 pandemic healthier, stronger, and with
a more prosperous economy.
HUD and FHA play critical roles in our Nation's safety net. That is
more clear today than ever. Secretary Carson and the dedicated staff at
HUD are working tirelessly to minimize the impact of COVID-19 to
homeowners, renters, and the vulnerable populations HUD serves each and
every day. We are grateful for the hard work and bipartisan commitment
of Congress during this time in passing legislation that safeguards
American families, communities, and the economy from this terrible
virus.
I joined public service in the midst of a different crisis--the
financial crisis of 2008--during which I gained valuable experience
that will serve me well if confirmed. I learned that during times like
these, it is important to make sure assistance quickly reaches those in
need and that we maximize the effectiveness of every Federal dollar. As
a staff member of the Budget, Banking, and Appropriations Committees,
as well as an Associate Director at the Office of Management and
Budget, I drilled down into the details of multiple agencies and
programs, giving them much-needed scrutiny to ensure that they
fulfilled their missions and targeted support effectively. And as the
acting head of FHA and HUD's Office of Housing, I implemented reforms
that better-managed risk, built-up capital, and provided greater
transparency to the public.
If confirmed, my priorities for FHA and the Office of Housing are
as follows:
First, protecting current FHA homeowners--those who are
low-to-moderate income, including first-time and minority
borrowers--as well as assisted renters who through no fault of
their own have experienced COVID-related hardships. This
includes executing CARES Act provisions like the eviction
moratorium and forbearance for homeowners, as well as fully
deploying FHA's loss mitigation toolkit for COVID-affected
homeowners.
Second, ensuring that FHA has the necessary staffing and
other resources, as well as continuing the innovative FHA IT
Modernization effort, which together will allow FHA to perform
its important countercyclical role to support the housing
market. One of the pillars of FHA's mission is to provide
support when the economy demands it, especially if there is
tightening in conventional and private markets.
Third, vigilantly monitoring risk to taxpayers of losses
stemming from COVID-19, and protecting FHA's capital reserve to
the maximum extent possible. Losses in the current environment
are inevitable, and FHA must be transparent to Congress and the
American taxpayers when it comes to its financial position.
Future policies should allow FHA to responsibly rebuild capital
when the time is right, as this current crisis has reminded us
of the importance of having a buffer to protect taxpayers from
losses.
I believe that FHA has a duty to support the Nation's housing
markets and homeowners facing economic hardship. While the virus will
pass and the economy will eventually regain its previous strength, the
road to recovery will require our sustained effort.
If confirmed, I will do all that I can to run a strong, sustainable
FHA and Office of Housing, one that can support the needs of those we
serve and is accountable to the taxpayers who stand behind it. I look
forward to working with this Committee and with Congress on these
objectives and look forward to answering your questions.
Thank you.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
RESPONSES TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS OF SENATOR BROWN
FROM BRIAN D. MILLER
Q.1. At your nomination hearing, for clarification, I asked if
you believed the CARES Act gives the Special IG the authority
to oversee the Federal Reserve's lending facilities and the
companies who receive loans under these facilities.
You said you have jurisdiction over the actions of the
Secretary of the Treasury, and that you consider every dollar
that goes from the Treasury to the Federal Reserve gives you
jurisdiction over the Federal Reserve.
The Treasury and the Federal Reserve are establishing
complex financial arrangements to lend to businesses. Those
arrangements will use funds appropriated to Treasury under the
CARES Act and funds loaned by the Federal Reserve. Please
confirm that you consider all of those financial arrangements
to be within the jurisdiction of the Special IG.
A.1. These statements correctly summarize my preliminary
thoughts on the starting analysis of SIGPR's jurisdiction,
given the text of the CARES Act. If I am confirmed, I will
analyze these issues in much more detail. I will consider the
jurisdiction of SIGPR to be as broad as is textually
permissible under the CARES Act, and Congress is always free to
clarify or amend the jurisdiction of SIGPR.
Q.2. The CARES Act created the Paycheck Protection Program
(PPP), which is administered by the Secretary of the Treasury
and the Administrator of the Small Business Administration.
As you noted at your hearing, the Special IG has
responsibility for the programs administered by the Secretary
of the Treasury. Please confirm that you consider the PPP to be
within the jurisdiction of the Special IG.
A.2. If I am confirmed, I will analyze this issue in careful
detail. I will consider the jurisdiction of SIGPR to be as
broad as is textually permissible under the CARES Act, and
Congress is always free to clarify or amend the jurisdiction of
SIGPR. At this time, it would be inappropriate to publicly
assert a definitive legal pronouncement given the incomplete
legal analysis and the potential for this issue to be
litigated.
Additionally, if confirmed, I can and do commit that I will
work diligently with the Small Business Administration's
Inspector General, Mike Ware, as well as the PRAC. In
anticipation of possible confirmation and the need to begin the
work of the SIGPR quickly, I have already had productive
preliminary discussions with Inspector General Ware and key
members of the PRAC. In consultation with other stakeholders,
who may have more jurisdiction, we will delineate
responsibilities according to the CARES Act.
Q.3. The CARES Act obligates airlines receiving payroll
assistance from conducting involuntary furloughs or reducing
pay rates and benefits until September 30, 2020. Several
airlines have recently announced that they are reducing
workers' hours, potentially violating these provisions.
What actions will you take as Special Inspector General to
ensure that Treasury enforces these worker protections?
A.3. If confirmed, I would look into this type of conduct and
carry out thorough investigations where supported by the facts
gathered. If there is a violation of law, I would make a
referral to the Department of Justice for formal legal action.
Q.4. In your testimony, you committed to following statutory
requirements to report to Congress, as specified in section 4
of the Inspector General Act. If confirmed, as required in
Section 4018(e)(4)(B) of the CARES Act, will you report to
Congress, without delay or interference by the Administration,
when in your judgment information or assistance you have
requested has been unreasonably refused or not provided? Please
be specific as to how you will fulfill that statutory
requirement.
A.4. If confirmed, I would most likely begin by contacting this
Committee to report the situation.
Q.5. Did the Council of the Inspectors General on Integrity and
Efficiency Inspector General Candidate Recommendations Panel
evaluate you for the Special IG position, or for any other IG
position while you were serving in the White House Counsel's
office? Did you seek out the panel's recommendation, or did you
avoid its review?
A.5. As CIGIE's letter to the Committee on Homeland Security
and Governmental Affairs noted, its Panel submitted a
recommendation to the White House Counsel's Office, evaluating
me as an Inspector General candidate. Letter from Michael E.
Horowitz, Chair, Council of the Inspectors General on Integrity
and Efficiency, et al., to Ron Johnson, Chairman, Senate
Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs (April
17, 2020).
Q.6. In your testimony, you described encountering resistance
from agency officials during your tenure as GSA IG under
Presidents George W. Bush and Barack Obama. While serving as
GSA IG, did the President or any White House official ever
attempt to influence the scope or outcome of an investigation
or inquiry undertaken by your office? If so, please describe
how you responded.
A.6. Most of the pressure was from political appointees in GSA.
I did not allow investigations to be influenced by politics and
instead ensured my office followed the facts where they led and
made recommendations based on those facts alone.
Q.7. While serving as GSA IG, did you ever investigate
allegations of involving the President or other White House
official? If so, please describe the nature of the allegations
and the outcome of the investigation(s).
A.7. No.
Q.8. While serving as GSA IG, did you ever request information,
documents, or testimony from the White House or any component
of the Executive Office of the President (EOP) as part of an IG
inquiry? If so, please describe the circumstances of the
request and whether you received cooperation from the White
House and/or EOP.
A.8. No.
Q.9. Offices of Inspector General rely on whistleblowers to do
their oversight work. Do you commit to taking any and all
actions necessary to protect whistleblowers from retaliation,
including attempts to undermine their confidentiality?
A.9. Yes.
Q.10. In your testimony, you committed to ``following the law''
with respect to the authorities and obligations of the Special
Inspector General for Pandemic Recovery. If confirmed, how will
you resolve any ambiguities or disagreement over what the law
requires in practice?
A.10. I will at all times be guided by the text of the CARES
Act and the IG Act, as it is incorporated by reference into the
CARES Act. When interpreting the text of these statutes, I will
consult with my office's general counsel. I will also consult
other legal authorities as appropriate. I will interpret the
law dispassionately. Should Congress see fit to clarify certain
provisions through legislation, I will always follow those
clarifications faithfully and objectively.
Q.11. Title IV of the CARES Act provides up to $32 billion for
other financial assistance, largely intended to be grants: $25
billion to passenger air carriers; $4 billion to cargo air
carriers; and $3 billion to certain contractors. This financial
assistance must be exclusively used for the continuation of
payment of employee wages, salaries, and benefits. The funds
are subject to conditions and restrictions related to
collective bargaining agreements, stock buybacks, dividends,
executive compensation, involuntary furloughs, reduction in pay
rates and benefits, and continuation of air service.
The CARES Act obligates airlines receiving payroll
assistance from conducting involuntary furloughs or reducing
pay rates and benefits until September 30, 2020. Several
airlines have recently announced that they are reducing
workers' hours, potentially violating these provisions. What
actions will you take as Special Inspector General to ensure
that Treasury enforces these worker protections on airlines?
A.11. If confirmed, I will act pursuant to the authority given
to my office to carry out thorough investigations where
supported by the facts gathered. If there is a violation of
law, I would make a referral to the Department of Justice for
formal legal action.
Q.12. The CARES Act calls for transparency to ensure the
American people understand how the funding is being spent. To
date, the Treasury has shared little information about which
airlines received grants and loans, and what the terms of the
agreement are, citing the fact that many of the companies are
not publicly traded entities. Shouldn't the public know how
this funding is being awarded?
A.12. I am unfamiliar with the facts of this situation. But if
confirmed, my goal would be to make public information
regarding fraud, waste, and abuse of CARES Act authorities.
Q.13. Through September 30, 2021, airlines receiving payroll
assistance cannot engage in stock buybacks or pay dividends.
What measures can Treasury take, in your view, to make sure
airlines do not engage in illegal stock buybacks or pay
dividends? What actions will you take as Special Inspector
General to audit these obligations?
A.13. I am unfamiliar with the facts of this situation. But if
confirmed, I would look into illegal business practices and
conduct thorough investigations where supported by the facts
gathered. If there is a violation of law, I would make a
referral to the Department of Justice for formal legal action.
Q.14. Pursuant to Section 4113, not later than 10 days after
the CARES Act enactment, the Secretary was required by law to
make initial payments to air carriers and contractors. To date,
Treasury has failed to meet these statutory deadlines.
Contractors, for example, have yet to receive funds. How do you
plan to ensure that Treasury meets its statutory deadlines
under the CARES Act?
A.14. If confirmed, I commit to fully complying with the CARES
Act and will look further into this situation. Where there are
grounds for SIGPR taking action, I will work to ensure that the
Treasury Department complies with all statutory requirements in
the CARES Act.
Q.15. CARES Act provides specific protections for collective
bargaining agreements in regard to Treasury's implementation of
payroll assistance for aviation workers. How would you
implement your authorities to make sure that neither Treasury
nor those receiving funds under CARES do not undermine
collective bargaining agreements?
A.15. If confirmed, I would look into this type of conduct and
carry out thorough investigations where supported by the facts
gathered. If there is a violation of law, I would make a
referral to the Department of Justice for formal legal action.
Q.16. Since December 2018, you have served as Senior Associate
Counsel and Special Assistant to the President. Your nomination
questionnaire does not describe in any way your work in that
position.
So that the Committee may fully evaluate your experience,
please describe the subject matter of your work and your
overall responsibilities and duties in the White House
Counsel's Office, without discussing anything that would
qualify as privileged or confidential.
Please indicate the subject matter of your role in each of
the following: (i) the removal of Glenn Fine as acting
inspector general at the Department of Defense, (ii) aid to
Ukraine, and (iii) the impeachment trial of the President.
A.16. My title at the White House Counsel's office is Senior
Associate Counsel and Special Assistant to the President. In
this role, I report to the Deputy Counsels to the President and
the White House Counsel. I counsel Federal agencies and other
components within the Executive Office of the President on a
wide range of issues and provide legal advice to my superiors
within the White House Counsel's Office. My ability to respond
to specific questions about my role in the White House is
limited by the ethical obligations that bind all lawyers.
Accordingly, it is appropriate to follow Justice Elena Kagan's
example of limiting comments about her 4-year service in the
Clinton White House to comply with all ethical obligations.
------
RESPONSES TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS OF SENATOR REED
FROM BRIAN D. MILLER
Q.1. The following is a summary of Section 4019 of the CARES
Act:
Section 4019. Conflicts of Interest. Any company in
which the President, Vice President, an Executive
department head, member of Congress, or any of such
individual's spouse, child, son-in-law, or daughter-in-
law [who] own over 20 percent of the outstanding voting
stock shall not be eligible for loans, loan guarantees,
or other investments provided under this Title.
You currently serve as Special Assistant to the President
and Senior Associate Counsel in the Office of White House
Counsel, and yet, if confirmed, you would be charged with also
ensuring that the President and his family do not benefit from
the extraordinary taxpayer assistance being made available
under Title IV of the CARES Act.
Do you view this is as a potential conflict?
A.1. No.
Q.2. If you are confirmed and were to recuse yourself from
these matters to avoid the appearance of a conflict, can you
tell us who you would delegate these duties to and why this
person would be a suitable proxy so that we may better evaluate
your nomination?
A.2. I will apply the generally applicable standards for
conflicts of interest, consult with the relevant ethics
officials, and make any recusal decisions on a case-by-case
basis. I cannot comment on proxies and staffing because I will
not be able to staff my office unless and until I am fortunate
enough to be confirmed.
------
RESPONSES TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS
OF SENATOR MENENDEZ FROM BRIAN D. MILLER
Q.1. To repeat a question you declined to answer in the
hearing, President Trump said of Inspector General Atkinson,
``That man is a disgrace to IGs. He's a total disgrace.'' Based
on your knowledge of Inspector General Atkinson, do you agree
with that statement, yes or no?
A.1. My title at the White House Counsel's office is Senior
Associate Counsel and Special Assistant to the President. In
this role, I report to the Deputy Counsels to the President and
the White House Counsel. I counsel Federal agencies and other
components within the Executive Office of the President on a
wide range of issues and provide legal advice to my superiors
within the White House Counsel's Office. My ability to respond
to specific questions about my role in the White House is
limited by the ethical obligations that bind all lawyers.
Accordingly, it is appropriate to follow Justice Elena Kagan's
example of limiting comments about her 4-year service in the
Clinton White House to comply with all ethical obligations.
I believe it is important for IGs and nominees to be
Inspectors General to not be political. Under the IG Act and
the CARES Act, IGs are nonpartisan and are not policymakers. To
protect my independence, it would inappropriate to be comment
about political disputes.
Q.2. Do you agree that the President making disparaging
comments about inspectors general can have a chilling effect on
their work?
A.2. Please see my response to Question 1.
Q.3. Do you believe it is appropriate for a President to make
disparaging comments about an inspector general?
A.3. I believe it is appropriate for inspectors general to
investigate fraud, waste, and abuse and to follow the facts
where they lead. When I did so as an IG, I received criticism,
and even disparaging comments.
Q.4. During your time as GSA Inspector General, do you recall
President Bush making such comments, in public, about an
inspector general?
A.4. During my tenure as IG under Presidents Bush and Obama, I
recall investigating fraud, waste, and abuse and following the
facts where they led.
Q.5. If the President were to make disparaging comments about
you in the press, how would you react?
A.5. I expect to receive criticism from many quarters. I try to
learn from criticism wherever possible. I received criticism in
my previous tenure as IG of GSA, but it did not affect my
commitment to combating fraud, waste, and abuse. Were any
public figure to criticize my work as SIGPR, I would continue
investigate fraud, waste, and abuse and follow the facts where
they lead.
------
RESPONSES TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS OF SENATOR WARREN
FROM BRIAN D. MILLER
Q.1. Inspector General Independence--What were your roles and
responsibilities in the White House from 2018-2020?
A.1. My title at the White House Counsel's office is Senior
Associate Counsel and Special Assistant to the President. In
this role, I report to the Deputy Counsels to the President and
the White House Counsel. I counsel Federal agencies and other
components within the Executive Office of the President on a
wide range of issues and provide legal advice to my superiors
within the White House Counsel's Office. My ability to respond
to specific questions about my role in the White House is
limited by the ethical obligations that bind all lawyers.
Accordingly, it is appropriate to follow Justice Elena Kagan's
example of limiting comments about her 4-year service in the
Clinton White House to comply with all ethical obligations.
It is important for IGs and nominees to be Inspectors
General to not be political. Under the IG Act and the CARES
Act, IGs are nonpartisan and are not policymakers. To protect
my independence, it would inappropriate to be comment about
political disputes.
Q.2. Did you at any point, advise the President or any other
White House official to refuse to turn over documents or
materials or delay doing so in response to a congressional
request or subpoena, or in response to a request from the
Government Accountability Office? If so, what was the rationale
for this advice?
A.2. Please see my response to Question 1.
Q.3. Did you at any point, advise the President or any other
White House official to refuse to turn over documents or
materials or otherwise not fully cooperate with a request from
an Inspector General?
A.3. Please see my response to Question 1.
Q.4. As the SIGPR, you would be responsible for a $25 million
budget to conduct investigations and audits. \1\ As you hire
staff to manage and conduct these audits and investigations,
will you do so on a strictly nonpartisan basis?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ P.L. 116-136, 4018(g).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A.4. Yes.
Q.5. Do you have any financial conflicts of interest related to
your private sector experience that would raise questions about
your involvement in any matters as SIGPR?
A.5. No.
Q.6. Will you recuse yourself from any investigation involving
or affecting a former company or individual that you
represented, consulted for, or with which you otherwise had a
financial arrangement?
A.6. I will apply the generally applicable standards for
conflicts of interest, consult with any relevant ethics
officials, and make a decision on a case-by-case basis to
resolve any conflicts of interest.
Q.7. White House Efforts To Undermine Oversight--Were you
involved in any way in the CARES Act signing statement by
President Trump? If so, please describe the nature of your
involvement.
A.7. Please see my response to Question 1.
Q.8. Do you agree with the CARES Act signing statement's
assertion that the SIGPR cannot freely report information to
Congress absent Presidential approval?
A.8. Please see my response to Question 1.
Q.9. Will you commit to reporting immediately to Congress any
instance in which Administration officials or any other entity
impede or do not comply with an information request from your
office?
A.9. I will comply with the CARES Act and all applicable law
that bind Inspectors General.
Q.10. What action will you take if the President refuses to
allow you to report relevant information to Congress?
A.10. Please see my response to Question 10.
Q.11. Were you aware of the decision, announced on April 7,
2020, to remove Glenn A. Fine from his post as Acting Director
of the Department of Defense and Chair of the Pandemic Response
Accountability Commission before it was announced publicly? Did
you provide any legal advice to the President regarding this
decision? Do you agree with the President's decision to demote
Mr. Fine?
A.11. My title at the White House Counsel's office is Senior
Associate Counsel and Special Assistant to the President. In
this role, I report to the Deputy Counsels to the President and
the White House Counsel. I counsel Federal agencies and other
components within the Executive Office of the President on a
wide range of issues and provide legal advice to my superiors
within the White House Counsel's Office. My ability to respond
to specific questions about my role in the White House is
limited by the ethical obligations that bind all lawyers.
Accordingly, it is appropriate to follow Justice Elena Kagan's
example of limiting comments about her 4-year service in the
Clinton White House to comply with all ethical obligations.
It is important for IGs and nominees to be Inspectors
General to not be political. Under the IG Act and the CARES
Act, IGs are nonpartisan and are not policymakers. To protect
my independence, it would inappropriate to be comment about
political disputes.
Q.12. Were you aware of the decision to fire Michael Atkinson
as Inspector General for the Intelligence Community before it
was announced publicly? Did you provide any legal advice to the
President regarding this decision? Do you agree with the
President's decision to fire Mr. Atkinson?
A.12. Please see my response to Question 1.
Q.13. Were you aware of the decision to remove Ms. Christie
Grimm from her post as Acting Inspector General for the
Department of Health and Human Services before it was announced
publicly? Did you provide any legal advice to the President
regarding this decision? Do you agree with the President's
decision to demote Ms. Grimm from her role?
A.13. Please see my response to Question 1.
Q.14. Please describe your views on what protections IGs should
afford whistleblowers.
A.14. Offices of Inspector General rely on whistleblowers to do
their oversight work. I will take any and all actions necessary
and appropriate under the law to protect whistleblowers from
retaliation.
Q.15. If confirmed, will you commit to establishing a direct
portal for whistleblowers to securely and safely communicate
allegations of waste, fraud, or abuse with your office without
fear of reprisal, retaliation, harassment, or persecution?
A.15. I hope to establish a hotline and web portal to encourage
whistleblowers.
Q.16. If confirmed, will you commit to withholding the identity
of any anonymous whistleblowers who bring credible allegations
of waste, fraud, abuse, or misconduct to your office? If not,
under what circumstances would you disclose the identity of any
whistleblowers to the public or to the White House?
A.16. Offices of Inspector General rely on whistleblowers to do
their oversight work. I will take any and all actions necessary
and appropriate under the law to protect whistleblowers from
retaliation.
Q.17. Would you ever provide President Trump with the identity
of any anonymous whistleblowers who are officers or employees
of the Executive Branch upon request by the President or the
White House? If so, please describe the circumstances under
which you would provide this information.
A.17. Please see my response to Question 16.
Q.18. The Congressional Oversight Commission was also created
by the CARES Act to conduct oversight of the implementation of
the CARES Act's economic provisions. \2\ Will you commit to
appearing, upon request, at hearings of the Commission? Will
you provide information upon request from Commissioners?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ P.L. 116-136, 4020.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A.18. Yes, as legally appropriate.
Q.19. If confirmed, under what circumstances would you resign
your post? If President Trump asked you to take action that
conflicted with the clear intent or text of the CARES Act,
would you take such action? Would you resign?
A.19. I would resign if it was impossible for me to do my job
effectively.
Q.20. Role of Congress and Inspector General--Please explain
your views with regard to the unitary executive and the role of
the SIGPR, and the implications of these views on the proper
functions of the SIGPR. Can your views be reconciled with
congressional intent to create an IG that is independent of the
President and statutorily obligated to communicate with
Congress under certain circumstances?
A.20. Yes. I will follow the Constitution, the IG Act, and the
CARES Act.
Q.21. Please explain and elaborate on your written view that
``IGs are not tame watchdogs, and they may bite members of
Congress as well as Executive branch officials. They may also
be a danger to themselves, to the normal functioning of
Government, and to Congress.'' \3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ The Hill, Brian D. Miller, ``Independence of Inspectors
General Should not Be Compromised by Congress'', August 13, 2018,
https://thehill.com/opinion/white-house/401491-independence-of-
inspectors-general-should-not-be-compromised-by-congress.
A.21. IGs should be independent from politics, and the
political branches of the Federal Government often may not like
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
what an IG reports.
Q.22. The SIGPR was created by an Act of Congress, signed by
the President, and is provided funding on an ongoing basis by
Congress. Will you give due consideration to requests for
audits or investigations that come from members of Congress?
A.22. Yes, as legally appropriate.
Q.23. Do you continue to believe that, as you wrote in August
2018, \4\ a Member of Congress holding a press conference to
announce the findings of an Inspector General report is an
egregious example of violation of IG independence and
separation of powers?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ The Hill, Brian D. Miller, ``Independence of Inspectors
General Should not Be Compromised by Congress'', August 13, 2018,
https://thehill.com/opinion/white-house/401491-independence-of-
inspectors-general-should-not-be-compromised-by-congress.
A.23. Respectfully, I never wrote that. An issue arises when a
member of Congress designs a review for an IG and then
announces that review through a press conference. All audits
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
and investigations should be the IG's independent work.
Q.24. You also wrote in August 2018 that you deliberately
ignored or ``changed the parameter'' of Congressional requests
when you were the GSA IG. \5\ Is this accurate? Please
elaborate and provide an example from your time at GSA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ The Hill, Brian D. Miller, ``Independence of Inspectors
General Should not Be Compromised by Congress'', August 13, 2018,
https://thehill.com/opinion/white-house/401491-independence-of-
inspectors-general-should-not-be-compromised-by-congress.
A.24. Respectfully, this is a misrepresentation of my writings.
I was asked to evaluate the environmental and health risks in a
Federal building. Instead, I did a review of how GSA managed
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
environmental issues at the facility.
Q.25. If confirmed, would you deliberately ignore or ``change
the parameter'' of congressional requests if you are confirmed
as SIGPR?
A.25. I will always pay due respect to congressional requests
as I did in my decade of experience as GSA IG. I will
independently assess my office's abilities, resources, and
priorities, and conduct those investigations supported by an
independent factual predicate.
Q.26. If requested, will you commit to voluntarily testifying
before Congress on issues within the purview of the SIGPR? If
not, under what circumstances would you reject a request by a
committee to testifying before Congress on issues within the
purview of the SIGPR?
A.26. Yes, as legally appropriate.
Q.27. If requested, will you commit to voluntarily testifying
before the Congressional Oversight Commission established in
the CARES Act?
A.27. Yes, as legally appropriate.
Q.28. Transparency and Accountability Among Bailout
Recipients--If confirmed, you would have the clear authority to
conduct audits and investigations of the making, purchase,
management, and sale of loans, loan guarantees, and other
investments made by the Secretary of the Treasury under any
program established by the Secretary under the CARES Act, and
the management by the Secretary of any program established
under this Act. Please describe your understanding of the scope
of programs within this authority.
Specifically, are loans provided to small businesses under
Section 1102 of the CARES Act \6\ within your audit and
investigation jurisdiction?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ P.L. 116-136, 1102.
A.28. I will consider the jurisdiction of SIGPR to be as broad
as is textually permissible under the CARES Act, and Congress
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
is always free to clarify or amend the jurisdiction of SIGPR.
Q.29. Are the Federal Reserve's Primary and Secondary Market
Corporate Credit Facilities, the Main Street Lending Program,
and the Municipal Liquidity Facility, all created using funds
appropriated to Treasury's Exchange Stabilization Fund under
the CARES Act, within the SIGPR's jurisdiction?
A.29. I will consider the jurisdiction of SIGPR to be as broad
as is textually permissible under the CARES Act, and Congress
is always free to clarify or amend the jurisdiction of SIGPR.
Q.30. Will any future Federal Reserve facility backstopped with
CARES Act funds be under the SIGPR's jurisdiction?
A.30. I will consider the jurisdiction of SIGPR to be as broad
as is textually permissible under the CARES Act, and Congress
is always free to clarify or amend the jurisdiction of SIGPR.
Q.31. Will any existing Federal Reserve facility that was
established before the CARES Act, but is later backstopped with
CARES Act funds be under the SIGPR's jurisdiction
A.31. I will consider the jurisdiction of SIGPR to be as broad
as is textually permissible under the CARES Act, and Congress
is always free to clarify or amend the jurisdiction of SIGPR.
Q.32. Which other programs currently established by the
Treasury Secretary are under the SIGPR's jurisdiction?
A.32. I will consider the jurisdiction of SIGPR to be as broad
as is textually permissible under the CARES Act, and Congress
is always free to clarify or amend the jurisdiction of SIGPR.
Q.33. Under the CARES Act, the SIGPR is given ``the duties and
responsibilities of inspectors general under the Inspector
General Act of 1978,'' \7\ which include ``to conduct,
supervise, or coordinate other activities carried out or
financed by such establishment for the purpose of promoting
economy and efficiency in the Administration of, or preventing
and detecting fraud and abuse in, its programs and
operations.'' \8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ P.L. 116-136, 4003(c)(3).
\8\ P.L. 95-452.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Broadly, this authority grants the SIGPR the ability to
determine not only if program participants are committing
fraud, but if they are abusing taxpayer funds, and if programs
are being run with appropriate economy and efficiency for
taxpayers and the public. Using this or other authority given
to the SIGPR under the CARES Act, if confirmed, will you commit
to conducting investigations to determine if loan or grant
recipients are using funds to benefit workers, consumers, and
the economy?
A.33. As legally appropriate, I will consider all of the
factors identified below.
Q.34. Specifically, would you:
Determine if Section 4003 loans are being used by
recipients to keep workers on the job, including maintaining at
least 95 percent of payrolls?
Determine if such loan recipients provide a $15 an hour
minimum wage?
Determine if such loan recipients use taxpayer funds to
personally enrich CEOs or senior executives through any form of
executive compensation?
Determine if such loan recipients engage in stock buybacks,
dividends, or any other direct or indirect form of shareholder
distribution?
Determine if such loan recipients provide at least one seat
to workers on their board of directors?
Determine if such loan recipients engage in union-busting
efforts or seek to weaken collective bargaining agreements?
Recommend that CEOs face civil and criminal penalties for
violating loan terms of agreements with the Department of
Treasury or the Federal Reserve Board?
Hold all companies that receive such loans liable for all
assistance received if the company violates any of the terms of
their agreements with taxpayers?
Determine if program participants are engaging in otherwise
inappropriate uses of loan receipts?
Similarly, using the SIGPR's authority under the CARES Act,
if confirmed, will you commit to conducting audits and
investigations of program administration and Treasury
Department and Federal Reserve Board decisions to ensure that
they are free of conflicts of interest, including all decisions
regarding recipients of assistance and contractors?
A.34. As legally appropriate, I will consider all of the
factors identified below.
Q.35. Specifically, will you determine if:
Any Federal official, financial agent, contractor, or
adviser has any say or influence over decisions that may affect
their own portfolio, or that may affect a current or former
employer?
All contractors and companies retained by the Treasury
Department for the purposes of helping the Government
administer Section 4003 operate free of conflicts of interest
and contribute to the funds being used to benefit workers,
consumers, and the economy.
Treasury Department and the Federal Reserve Board are
establishing clear, public rules and guidelines regarding how
and why bailout recipients are chosen and how and why the terms
and conditions of any bailouts are established?
Companies receiving funding are engaging in political
spending or lobbying while receiving assistance?
Will you conduct audits and investigations to determine if
the President, his immediate family, or any personal friends,
business associates, or individuals with personal or financial
connections to the President are receiving CARES Act funds
(including, but not limited to, any violations of Section 4019
of the CARES Act), and if so, will you report to Congress on
these matters?
A.35. I will look into conflicts of interests as legally
appropriate. It is important for IGs and nominees to be
Inspectors General to not be political. Under the IG Act and
the CARES Act, IGs are nonpartisan and are not policymakers. To
protect my independence, it would inappropriate to be comment
about political disputes.
Q.36. If confirmed, will you commit to a thorough and robust
evaluation of whether the $500 billion bailout fund was an
overall benefit to workers, consumers, families, and the
economy? If so, how would you conduct this evaluation? What
would be your specific metrics for success? Would you include
rates of employment and wages compared to before the pandemic
as metrics in your evaluation?
A.36. It is important for IGs and nominees to be Inspectors
General to not be political. Under the IG Act and the CARES
Act, IGs are nonpartisan and are not policymakers. To protect
my independence, it would inappropriate to be comment about
political disputes.
Q.37. If confirmed, what other areas would you prioritize for
audits and investigations as SIGPR?
A.37. At this point in time, it is too early to outline
priorities for audits and investigations, but if confirmed I
will report these to the Committee very soon.
------
RESPONSES TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS OF
SENATOR VAN HOLLEN FROM BRIAN D. MILLER
Q.1. Do you commit to fully support whistleblower
confidentiality and all existing laws and policies to protect
whistleblowers?
A.1. Yes, as legally appropriate.
Q.2. Do you pledge not to be influenced in the conduct of the
Inspector General position by President Trump, anyone in the
Trump administration, or any Federal agency appointee
interfering with the independence and mission of the Inspector
General?
A.2. I will be independent as the SIGPR, just as I was
independent as the GSA IG.
Q.3. Do you pledge not to hire or permit the detail to the
Special Inspector General for Pandemic Recovery of any person
who is or was a political appointee of the Trump
administration, or is recommended by the White House or a
political appointee of the Trump administration?
A.3. The Hatch Act forbids taking political affiliation into
consideration in hiring. I will hire the best qualified
individuals.
Q.4. Your response on behalf of the White House to GAO's
inquiry regarding the withholding of Ukraine security
assistance funds stated that the White House would not provide
a separate response, and referred instead to the response sent
by OMB General Counsel Mark Paoletta on December 11, 2019.
Will you personally affirm that this statement in the
letter represents the full and complete truth: ``In fact, at no
point during the pause in obligations did DOD OGC indicate to
OMB that, as a matter of law, the apportionments would prevent
DOD from being able to obligate the funds before the end of the
fiscal year.''
A.4. I do not know the facts or the law regarding this issue.
Q.5. The GAO inquiry letter to the White House asked for the
reason that Ukraine security assistance funds were withheld.
Will you personally affirm that the only reason for the hold on
Ukraine security assistance funding was to engage in a policy
process regarding those funds, which is the sole reason
identified by the OMB letter: ``It was OMB's understanding that
a brief period was needed, prior to the funds expiring, to
engage in a policy process regarding those funds.''
A.5. I do not know the facts or the law regarding this issue.
Q.6. The GAO inquiry letter to the White House asked for
documentation that would substantiate the Administration's
stated reason for holding Ukraine security assistance funding.
Your response provided no such documentation or any other
information, aside from citing the response provided by OMB.
Please state whether or not the White House had documentation
or information in its possession that was not included in the
response from OMB, and that would have been relevant to GAO's
inquiry about the reason that the funds were withheld.
A.6. I do not know the facts or the law regarding this issue.
OMB is the budget office within the Executive Office of the
President. Please direct any budget inquiries to OMB.
------
RESPONSES TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS OF
SENATOR CORTEZ MASTO FROM BRIAN D. MILLER
Q.1. The Inspector General for the Department of Health and
Human Services Christi Grimm released a report detailing
shortages of testing and personal protective equipment (PPE) in
hospitals. Last week, President Trump said he would replace
her.
In your capacity as White House counsel, did you advise on
this decision, or any matters related to acting Inspector
General Grimm's role?
A.1. My title at the White House Counsel's office is Senior
Associate Counsel and Special Assistant to the President. In
this role, I report to the Deputy Counsels to the President and
the White House Counsel. I counsel Federal agencies and other
components within the Executive Office of the President on a
wide range of issues and provide legal advice to my superiors
within the White House Counsel's Office. My ability to respond
to specific questions about my role in the White House is
limited by the ethical obligations that bind all lawyers.
Accordingly, it is appropriate to follow Justice Elena Kagan's
example of limiting comments about her 4-year service in the
Clinton White House to comply with all ethical obligations. I
believe it is important for IGs and nominees to be Inspectors
General to not be political. Under the IG Act and the CARES
Act, IGs are nonpartisan and are not policymakers. To protect
my independence, it would inappropriate to be commenting about
political disputes.
Q.2. Do you believe acting Inspector General Grimm participated
in unlawful or unethical conduct to merit her replacement?
A.2. Please see my response to Question 1.
Q.3. Do you agree with the President's decision?
A.3. Please see my response to Question 1.
Q.4. Intelligence Community Inspector General Michael Atkinson,
followed the law and reported the whistleblower complaint that
the President withheld aid for Ukraine until President Zelensky
declared a scam investigation.
In your capacity as White House counsel, did you advise on
this decision, or any matters related to Inspector General
Atkinson's role?
A.4. Please see my response to Question 1.
Q.5. Do you believe Inspector General Atkinson participated in
unlawful or unethical conduct to merit his firing?
A.5. Please see my response to Question 1.
Q.6. Did you agree with President Trump's decision to fire
Inspector General Atkinson?
A.6. Please see my response to Question 1.
Q.7. Glenn Fine was acting inspector general for the Defense
Department and was set to become the chairman of a new Pandemic
Response Accountability Committee to police how the Government
carries out the $2.2 trillion coronavirus relief bill.
In your capacity as White House counsel, did you advise on
this decision, or any matters related to acting Inspector
General Fine's role?
A.7. Please see my response to Question 1.
Q.8. Do you have concerns with the President's decision to
disqualify Mr. Fine from serving on the new oversight panel?
A.8. Please see my response to Question 1.
Q.9. The President questioned the constitutionality of the
law's requirement that the Special Inspector General for
Pandemic Recovery notify Congress immediately if the
Administration ``unreasonably'' withholds information requested
by investigators.
If the White House or an agency asks you to withhold
information would you notify Congress immediately of this
request?
A.9. I will follow the statutory requirements to report to
Congress, as specified in section 4 of the Inspector General
Act and as required in Section 4018(e)(4)(B) of the CARES Act.
Q.10. Do you foresee any circumstance when you wouldn't notify
Congress of this request to withhold?
A.10. Please see my answer to Question 9.
Q.11. If the White House wanted Treasury to provide financing
to States that had elected representatives from one party first
in the allocation of CARES financing, would you consider that a
violation and report it immediately to Congress?
A.11. If confirmed, I would look into this type of conduct and
carry out thorough investigations where supported by the facts
gathered. If there is a violation of law, I would make a
referral to the Department of Justice for formal legal action.
Q.12. If the White House wanted Treasury to consult information
on corporate political donations prior to allocating CARES
financing, would you consider that a violation and report it
immediately to Congress?
A.12. If confirmed, I would look into this type of conduct and
carry out thorough investigations where supported by the facts
gathered. If there is a violation of law, I would make a
referral to the Department of Justice for formal legal action.
Q.13. If you are confirmed for the SIGPR job, what is your
worst case scenario? Where do you see the opportunities for
corruption or unfair treatment?
A.13. I believe that unscrupulous individuals and companies are
already scheming to take advantage of the programs and divert
monies to themselves. But as a former Federal prosecutor, I
believe that I should be circumspect in publicly commenting on
specific cases or aspects of the business of the office.
Accordingly, I am reluctant to directly answer hypothetical
questions posing particular factual circumstances. I also do
not want to hypothesize, or even plant ideas for, opportunities
for corruption. If confirmed, I would look into all potential
instances of fraud, waste, or abuse, and conduct thorough
investigations where supported by the facts gathered. If there
is a violation of law, I would make a referral to the
Department of Justice for formal legal action.
Q.14. Do you plan to gain presidential approval before
investigating contracts, issuing reports or communicating with
Congress?
A.14. No.
Q.15. Do you intend to comply with the CARES Act, and provide
timely reports to Congress?
A.15. Yes, as legally appropriate.
Q.16. If the President or any member of the Administration
attempts to block your reports or requests for information,
will you report these issues to Congress?
A.16. Yes, as legally appropriate.
Q.17. Do you commit to testify before Congress when requested
without gaining permission from the White House or submitting
your testimony for approval?
A.17. Yes, as legally appropriate.
Q.18. If the President denies you permission to testify before
Congress, would you still appear before Congress and answer
questions?
A.18. I would not ask for permission.
Q.19. The CARES Act appropriated $25 million for the Special
Inspector General's office. If your office needs additional
funds to continue its work, would you come back to Congress and
let us know?
A.19. Yes.
Q.20. Outside of programs established by Title IV of the CARES
Act, what other programs fall under the purview of the SIGPR?
A.20. If I am confirmed, I will analyze this issue in careful
detail. I will consider the jurisdiction of SIGPR to be as
broad as is textually permissible under the CARES Act. Congress
is always free to clarify the jurisdiction of SIGPR. At this
time, it would be inappropriate to publicly assert a definitive
legal position given incomplete legal analysis and the
potential for this issue to be litigated.
Q.21. The CARES Act prohibits members of the Administration or
Executive branch from receiving funds from the law. How will
you ensure that no officials are receiving funds from the CARES
Act?
A.21. If confirmed, I would look into this type of conduct and
carry out thorough investigations where supported by the facts
gathered. If there is a violation of law, I would make a
referral to the Department of Justice for formal legal action.
Q.22. While I understand that you don't want to duplicate the
work of the Government Accountability Office or the Council of
Inspectors General, will you commit to oversight of programs
that the law specifies you oversee, regardless of whether other
entities are conducting oversight of those programs.
A.22. Yes, I will work to find ways to complement their work.
Q.23. Early data on the SBA's Paycheck Protection Program
showed that the funds were distributed unevenly across States.
Many States in the Midwest received a disproportionate amount
of the relief while in other States, including Nevada,
businesses struggled to access the loans. Will you commit to
investigating these inequities and reporting on what the agency
could have done better to ensure a more fair distribution of
relief, including to minority owned businesses?
A.23. If confirmed, I would look into this type of conduct and
carry out thorough investigations where supported by the facts
gathered. If there is a violation of law, I would make a
referral to the Department of Justice for formal legal action.
------
RESPONSES TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS OF SENATOR SINEMA
FROM BRIAN D. MILLER
Q.1. Under the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security
(CARES) Act, Congress provided an $8 billion set-aside for
tribes from the Coronavirus Relief Fund. Arizona is home to 22
federally recognized tribes, including the Navajo Nation, that
urgently need this Federal funding. Earlier this week, Treasury
released $4.8 billion of the $8 billion from this fund. This
announcement came over a month after Congress passed the CARES
Act. Tribes need these resources now. Lives are depending on
it. If confirmed, what will you do to ensure that the last 40
percent of this set-aside will be delivered to federally
recognized tribal and Alaska Native Governments as soon as
possible and in compliance with Congress's intention of
providing funding for tribal governments to meet their most
pressing needs?
A.1. If I am confirmed, I will analyze this issue in careful
detail. I will consider the jurisdiction of SIGPR to be as
broad as is textually permissible under the CARES Act, and
Congress is always free to clarify or amend the jurisdiction of
SIGPR.
Q.2. Technology has come to play a very important role in the
administration of COVID response programs to the public and in
the functioning of our day-to-day lives during this pandemic.
It also provides opportunities for us to understand the
effectiveness of the programs authorized under the CARES Act as
well as the level of fraud associated. If confirmed, what will
your approach be to deploying technology to perform oversight?
A.2. Traditional means of investigation and analysis to protect
the interests of the American people in the proper use of money
disbursed under the CARES Act may be rendered inadequate by the
sheer scale of the appropriations at issue. We will need to
rely on technology to help analyze vast quantities of
information, and identify the most significant areas for
further investigation. If I am confirmed, I will quickly
determine how best to make use of technology to ensure the
OSIGPR can efficiently conduct its investigations and analyses.
------
RESPONSES TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS OF SENATOR BROWN
FROM DANA WADE
Q.1. During your tenure as Principal Associate Director for
General Government at the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB), the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD)
was responsible for administering billions in Community
Development Block Grant-Disaster Relief (CDBG-DR) grant funding
for Puerto Rico, the U.S. Virgin Islands, and a number of
States. Congress provided this funding in February 2018. \1\
Fifteen months later, when HUD still had not issued the notice
necessary for funding recipients to begin planning to use the
bulk of their mitigation funds or Puerto Rico's funds to
restore its electrical grid, Congress again acted to require
that HUD publish the notice on the use of mitigation funds
within 90 days. \2\ But HUD ignored this deadline and did not
publish the notice until more than 4 months after the deadline
required by law. \3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ P.L. 115-123.
\2\ P.L. 116-20.
\3\ 85 FR 4676.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
During your tenure at OMB, OMB reviewed and approved a
notice on the use of mitigation funds for all recipients except
Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands. \4\ Were you aware of
the decision not to include Puerto Rico or the U.S. Virgin
Islands in a CDBG-DR mitigation notice that set out the
eligible uses and terms for all other CDBG-DR mitigation
recipients? If so, did you participate in or agree with that
decision? If you were not aware, why not?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ 85 FR 45838.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
During your tenure at OMB, were you aware that HUD did not
meet the legal deadline to issue a notice on the uses of CDBG-
DR mitigation funds for Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin
Islands? If so, why did you allow HUD and OMB not to comply
with the legal deadline? If not, why not?
As a former staff member of the Appropriations Committee
and a current employee within the Executive branch, do you
believe it is appropriate for OMB or any Federal agency it
oversees to willfully ignore any statutory requirement or
deadline? If so, why? If not, why did you allow HUD and OMB not
to comply with the legal requirement in this case?
A.1. I am proud of this Administration's response to the
natural disasters that occurred in 2017. Puerto Rico was
provided with an unprecedented level of resources to rebuild
and mitigate against future storms, and the Administration made
sure Puerto Rico always had sufficient funds to administer its
disaster recovery programs. With respect to my participation in
specific decisions, your question seeks the substance of
communications between the White House and OMB, the disclosure
of which would reveal confidential, deliberative, and internal
Executive Branch information.
Q.2. Under your leadership, OMB reviewed and approved and HUD
published a proposed rule that would overhaul HUD's process to
ensure that grantees ``affirmatively further'' fair housing in
compliance with the Fair Housing Act, including approval of
amended information collection.
During your tenure at OMB, did you participate in the
development, review, or approval of the proposed Affirmatively
Furthering Fair Housing rule and its associated data
collection? If so, please describe your role in the review and
approval. If not, please explain why you were not involved in
the review and approval of what OMB determined to be a
significant regulatory action.
The proposed rule estimates that it will take just 10 hours
for each local respondent responsible for complying with the
obligation to ``affirmatively further'' fair housing to assess
and plan to address local barriers to fair housing. Do you
believe 10 hours is sufficient time for a jurisdiction to fully
assess all barriers to fair housing for all protected classes
under the Fair Housing Act and plan meaningful steps to address
any barriers? If so, please explain why this time is sufficient
for such a consequential review.
This proposed rule replaces a 2015 final rule and
associated data and tools that HUD provided to communities to
help them assess fair housing barriers. Why did HUD and OMB
elect not to provide data or any tools to help communities
assess their fair housing barriers?
How will reducing the amount of data that HUD provides to
communities to assess fair housing barriers facilitate
evidence-based policies to address fair housing barriers?
A.2. As you correctly noted, HUD's proposed Affirmatively
Furthering Fair Housing rule will significantly reduce the
administrative burden for thousands of communities across the
country, thereby permitting them to better engage in furthering
housing choice. With respect to my participation in specific
decisions, your question seeks the substance of communications
between the White House and OMB, the disclosure of which would
reveal confidential, deliberative, and internal Executive
Branch information.
Q.3. Under your leadership, OMB also reviewed and approved and
HUD published a disparate impact proposed rule that civil
rights, housing, and consumer advocates said is ``directly
contradictory to the Fair Housing Act and its purposes.'' \5\
The proposed rule would make it even more difficult to root out
discrimination in pricing and access in the mortgage market
that you would help oversee if confirmed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ https://ourfinancialsecurity.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/10/
Coalition-Comment-on-HUD-Disparate-Impact-10-18-19.pdf
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Did you review and approve HUD's proposed disparate impact
rule during your time at OMB? If so, why did you allow a rule
that undermine enforcement of the Fair Housing Act to move
forward? If not, why was the Policy Associate Director not
involved in the review and approval of what OMB determined was
a significant regulatory action?
If you are confirmed as FHA Commissioner, how will you
ensure that no borrower is subject to discrimination in
mortgage access or pricing, including less obvious
discrimination driven through algorithms, under this disparate
impact proposal that provides a safe harbor for algorithms?
Please be specific on the policies you will put forward.
A.3. HUD enforces the Fair Housing Act of 1968 and I will work
closely with the Department's Office of Fair Housing and Equal
Opportunity to ensure we are living up to the letter and spirit
of that landmark law. With respect to my participation in
specific decisions, your question seeks the substance of
communications between the White House and OMB, the disclosure
of which would reveal confidential, deliberative, and internal
Executive Branch information.
Q.4. During your tenure as Principal Associate Director for
General Government at the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB), OMB approved and the Department of Housing and Urban
Development (HUD) proposed a rule on ``Verification of Eligible
Status'' that reverses decades of HUD policy and contradicts
clearly communicated Congressional intent. Under current HUD
policy, if a family has some members who have an immigration
status that makes them eligible to receive HUD assistance but
others in the household do not, HUD will assist the eligible
family members while requiring those who are not eligible to
stay with their family but pay their full share of housing
costs. Under the rule OMB approved on your watch, families
where one member is not eligible for HUD assistance based on
their immigrations status will be forced to choose between
breaking up their family or making their entire family more
vulnerable to housing instability and homelessness.
HUD's own regulatory impact analysis found that this
proposed rule could result in the displacement of more than
108,000 people, including 55,000 children, and would increase
the cost or decrease the number of families served by HUD's
housing assistance programs while potentially driving up the
number of families experiencing homelessness. \6\ The increase
in need for those who become homeless could cost $20,000 to
$50,000 per family per year, by HUD's estimates, compared to
the $1,900 per year in housing subsidy these families currently
receive.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=HUD-2019-0044-0002
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Under your leadership, why did the OMB approve and HUD
propose a rule that would result in higher programmatic costs
per family served or displaced?
Under your leadership, why did the OMB approve and HUD
propose a rule that by HUD's own analysis said would likely
result in the displacement of the lowest-income families,
including 55,000 children who are eligible for HUD assistance?
While this proposed rule is within the Office of the
Secretary's jurisdiction, according to HUD's analysis it will
have a direct impact on more than 3,000 households with nearly
12,700 residents who are in Section 202 or project-based rental
assistance units under your jurisdiction. Will you commit not
to displace these families and vulnerable seniors if you are
confirmed? If not, why not?
A.4. HUD proposed this rule to ensure its programs are in legal
compliance with Section 214 of the Community Development Act of
1980, which prohibits the Department from making financial
assistance available to persons other than U.S. citizens or
certain categories of eligible noncitizens in HUD's public and
specified assisted housing programs. The proposed rule would
require the verification of the eligible immigration status of
all recipients of assistance under a covered program who are
under the age of 62. With respect to my participation in
specific decisions, your question seeks the substance of
communications between the White House and OMB, the disclosure
of which would reveal confidential, deliberative, and internal
Executive Branch information.
Q.5. While you were at OMB, OMB reviewed and approved HUD's
proposed rule on equal participation of faith-based
organizations in HUD programs and activities. While this
proposed rule takes great care to ensure that the religious
expression of any HUD grantees or partners is not hindered in
any way, it offers no such protection to the individuals and
families in need of HUD-funded services.
Did you review and approve HUD's proposed faith-based
organizations rule during your time at OMB? If so, why did you
allow a rule that would prioritize the religious rights of HUD
grantees over religious freedom of the individuals and families
those grantees are funded to serve? If not, why was the Policy
Associate Director not involved in the review and approval of
what OMB determined was a significant regulatory action?
If confirmed, how will you ensure that no individual or
family is forced to choose between compromising their religious
beliefs or identity and access to safe, affordable housing or
services?
A.5. Protecting religious liberties and ensuring access to safe
and affordable housing are not mutually exclusive goals; HUD's
proposed rule strikes an appropriate balance between these
important interests. With respect to my participation in
specific decisions, your question seeks the substance of
communications between the White House and OMB, the disclosure
of which would reveal confidential, deliberative, and internal
Executive Branch information.
Q.6. In its Manufactured Home Construction and Safety Standards
proposed rule, HUD notes that it has decided not to include
Manufactured Housing Consensus Committee (MHCC) recommendations
regarding energy efficiency in manufactured homes due to
pending regulations being prepared by the Department of Energy.
\7\ But HUD is required to act on the MHCC's proposed revisions
to standards within 1 year of the proposal being submitted.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ 85 FR 5589.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Based on your experience at HUD and at OMB, do you believe
the decision to withhold an MHCC revision is consistent with
HUD's statutory requirements?
If confirmed, will you commit to advance a rulemaking on
the energy efficiency recommendation approved by the MHCC
without waiting for action by other agencies? If not, why not?
A.6. In 2007, congressional legislation provided authority to
the Department of Energy to establish energy standards for
manufactured homes. Section 413 of the Energy Independence and
Security Act of 2007 (EISA) directs DOE to establish energy
conservation standards for manufactured housing. Therefore, HUD
must also coordinate with DOE when updating the energy standard
recommendations submitted to the Manufactured Housing Consensus
Committee (MHCC) for consideration.
By way of background, the MHCC is a statutory Federal
Advisory Committee body charged with providing recommendations
to the Secretary on the revision and interpretation of HUD's
manufactured home construction and safety standards and related
procedural and enforcement regulations. By regulation, HUD has
included the MHCC in the process of revising the Manufactured
Home Model Installation Standards, Installation Program
Regulations, and Dispute Regulation Program regulations. The
MHCC is organized and carries out its business in a manner that
guarantees a fair opportunity for the expression and
consideration of various positions and for public
participation.
HUD has great respect for the members of the MHCC who
commit to 3-year terms while maintaining their full-time
``day'' jobs, to provide substantial expertise and familiarity
with the market to the Department. Under auspices of the
Manufactured Housing Improvement Act of 2000 which established
the MHCC, recommendations are provided by the committee to the
Secretary and his delegates for consideration by the
Department. Recommendations may be accepted without change, may
initiate discussion between the MHCC and the Department for
further consideration, or may be held by the Department for
future consideration where such recommendations may intersect
more efficiently with other items recommended. HUD has a
backlog of standards which should be updated on a regular basis
and is currently working on the backlog of standards in order
to keep pace with innovation in the industry and other Code
making bodies.
If confirmed, I intend to examine this issue and make a
determination at that time as to whether to proceed with a rule
or seek more information for further consideration.
Q.7. The Manufactured Home Construction and Safety Standards
proposed rule also proposes changes to the definition of an
``attached accessory building or structure.'' \8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
If confirmed, how will you ensure that HUD can verify that
any additions are safely installed and that all parties,
including current and future owners of the home, are aware of
the structural limitations and can use the additions safely?
If confirmed, how will you work with home installers or
their representatives to ensure that any final rule will ensure
that all manufactured housing units remain safe for current and
future residents?
A.7. HUD administers the Manufactured Home Construction and
Safety Program (24 CFR 3280 and 3282) that establishes Federal
standards for the design and construction of manufactured homes
to promote the quality, durability, safety, and affordability
of the homes, as well as the implementing regulations to
monitor and enforce compliance with the standards. The quality,
durability, safety, and affordability of homes must be
considered by the MHCC, the public during the public comment
period, and HUD in its rulemakings regarding manufactured
housing.
HUD also administers the Manufactured Home Installation
Program (24 CFR 3286) that regulates installation (including
installation of attached accessory building or structure) in
all States unless a State has been accepted by HUD to
administer its own qualifying installation program. All States
must meet HUD's model installation standards, and States that
administer their own installation program may choose to exceed
HUD's minimum requirements.
HUD's model manufactured home installation program ensures
that States have in place minimum installation standards that
include ensuring the home and any attached accessory building
or structure are safe, sound, and habitable; further, States
can exceed HUD's minimum installation standards if they so
choose. HUD will continue to regulate installation in States
that have decided not to administer their own qualifying
installation program.
The quality, durability, safety, and affordability of homes
must be considered by the MHCC, the public during the public
comment period, and HUD in its rulemakings regarding
manufactured housing.
Q.8. During the financial crisis, HUD built upon existing
programs to give low- and moderate-income prospective
homeowners an opportunity to purchase homes that came into
HUD's real estate owned (REO) portfolio within their
communities. But last year HUD reported that nearly two-thirds
of FHA homes that went through foreclosure were sold through
third party sales in which there is no first look or preference
for owner-occupants, including teachers and firefighters, or
monitoring of outcomes. While there is a benefit to
transferring vacant properties quickly to avoid blight, there
is a much longer term cost if those properties go to out-of-
State investors, absentee landlords, or for-profit contract for
deed lenders who do not repair or maintain the property.
If you are confirmed, do you commit to begin collecting and
publishing data on FHA asset dispositions, including both REO
and third party sales, that includes information on the time to
sale, the ultimate purchaser, the end use (rental/home
ownership/other), whether the property went through any FHA
programs (like the Good Neighbor Next Door program) intended to
transfer the property to an owner or community partner, and the
cost of repairs? If not, why not?
If confirmed, will you prohibit the transfer of any FHA
property, whether from REO or through the third party sales
process, to a for-profit owner who intends to sell the property
through a predatory contract for deed or similar arrangement?
If not, why not?
If confirmed, will you commit to expand the requirement for
a first look for homeowners and community purchasers to
additional REO sales, as well as third party sales? If not, why
not?
A.8. If confirmed, I will evaluate and strengthen each program
to ensure fair treatment of borrowers and encourage
participation by nonprofit partners.
FHA publishes a significant amount of data on its asset
disposition currently. That data can be found at: https://
www.hud.gov/program-offices/housing/hsgrroom#Reports. The
additional data requested is not collected and I understand
that FHA would have no way to accurately and efficiently
collect many of the data points identified, even from public
records. The third-party sales are what FHA refers to as its
Claims Without Conveyance of Title program (CWCOT). The CWCOT
program is where the Mortgagee attempts to secure a third-party
purchaser for the mortgaged property at foreclosure sale so
that conveyance to HUD is not required in exchange for mortgage
insurance benefits. This process allows the property to return
to the market quickly through an auction that is open to the
public, so everyone has an equal opportunity to purchase the
property. Separate of being a blight deterrent, third-party
sales realize a significantly improved recovery rate compared
to REO dispositions, saving taxpayer funds. Overall, FHA's
asset disposition programs should be calculated to protect the
Mutual Mortgage Insurance Fund as well as to protect and
sustain communities.
Q.9. While you were the Principal Assistant Director at OMB,
HUD and the Department of Treasury proposed housing finance
reform plans.
Did you participate in the development of, offer feedback
on, review, or approve those plans?
Please describe your role in the development of these
proposals.
The HUD plan proposes to implement ``tiered pricing'' for
FHA loans, which would raise the cost of home ownership for the
borrowers who can least afford it without lower costs for
others. \9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ The plan states that tiered pricing ``would not open new
markets to already served by private mortgage providers, which FHA
would not lower premiums on its 30-year fixed rate product through this
effort.'' See p. 20.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
How does raising costs on eligible borrowers facilitate
access to home ownership?
How would raising the price of home ownership through
tiered pricing as HUD has proposed help or hinder FHA's ability
to serve a countercyclical role and stabilize the mortgage
market?
In both the HUD and Treasury housing finance reform plans,
the agencies expressed concern about ``duplicating support'' by
establishing eligibility criteria that would allow some
homeowners a choice between an FHA loan and a Fannie Mae or
Freddie Mac backed loan. But a borrower does not take out two
mortgage loans at one time on the same property. How is giving
borrowers choice ``duplicating support''?
The HUD plan proposes to make FHA its own Government
corporation, which the report says will ``provide the agency
tools and resources necessary to make appropriate risk
decisions to respond to changing markets.'' While it is
critical that FHA and all HUD programs have the tools and
resources they need, it is not clear how making FHA a
Government corporation would provide additional resources. As
part of this proposal, would FHA retain its receipts, which
currently help fund other HUD programs, to increase resources?
If FHA did not retain these receipts, how would changing FHA's
structure to a corporation structure provide additional
resources?
A.9. FHA proposes a tiered pricing approach that would roughly
mirror the current GSE pricing structure for high LTV loans
while maintaining the most important benefits of cross
subsidization. This structure would be revenue neutral at the
loan level to FHA's current pricing for all FHA borrowers and
anticipated to improve the welfare of all FHA borrowers as the
loan seasons.
A central principle of the Administration's Housing Finance
Reform plan is that Federal mortgage credit policies should be
better coordinated in order to allow qualified borrowers to
access responsible and affordable borrowing options and
choices. Coordination ensures that there is not unhealthy and
irresponsible competition between Government-supported
programs, which can lead to lower underwriting standards,
increase risk to taxpayers, and threaten the long-term
availability of credit to qualified borrowers.
With respect to my participation in specific decisions,
your question seeks the substance of communications between the
White House and OMB, the disclosure of which would reveal
confidential, deliberative, and internal Executive Branch
information.
Q.10. The HUD Budget's Congressional Justification notes that
there is a positive correlation between housing counseling and
better credit and fewer foreclosures. \10\ In recent weeks, the
Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, the Fannie Mae, Freddie
Mac, the FHA, the Department of Veterans Affairs, and the
Department of Agriculture have all recommended that homeowners
experiencing a hardship contact a HUD-certified housing
counselor, but HUD has not requested any additional resources
for counseling providers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ https://www.hud.gov/sites/dfiles/CFO/documents/
28_FY21CJ_Program_HCA.pdf
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
If confirmed, will you advocate for significant
supplemental resources to provide HUD-certified housing
counseling services to millions of struggling homeowners and
renters? If not, how will counselors be able to fund the staff
necessary to provide the counseling resources that Federal
agencies have recommended they seek?
A.10. If confirmed, I will take a fresh look at ways we can
incentivize housing counseling as a tool to provide homeowners
and potential borrowers with information to maximize the level
of success of all borrowers.
Last year, HUD-approved housing counselors provided
approximately one million families with counseling services
related to homebuying, preserving home ownership, rental
assistance, disaster relief, and with reverse mortgages.
Agencies generally raise five to six dollars for every dollar
provided by HUD. During the housing crisis, counselors were
able to provide counseling services to three times as many
clients due to the additional funding provided by Congress at
the time.
Q.11. In recent years, for-profit owners and out-of-State
investors have purchased properties providing project-based
rental assistance and allowed those properties to fall into
disrepair. Too often tenant complaints go unaddressed and
elevator outages, water leaks, mold, and infestations become
part of tenants' daily life. Neglect of existing properties
endangers the lives of current tenants and threatens the
viability of critical sources of affordable housing.
If confirmed, what steps will you take to improve
inspections and subsequent repairs of the assisted units within
the Office of Housing's jurisdiction?
If confirmed, how will you ensure that tenants have the
information they need to report unaddressed maintenance and
nonresponsive property owners and managers?
A.11. Secretary Carson has made the restructure of HUD's
inspection program, under HUD's Real Estate Assessment Center
(REAC), a priority of his administration. To that end, since
2017, HUD has been undertaking a wholesale reexamination of the
REAC physical inspection process and are working to modernize
its inspection model.
HUD is currently revising the methodology for physical
inspections to make it more accurate, consistent, and less
complex for program participants. Meeting these goals will
improve the quality of life for many residents in HUD-assisted
facilities. If confirmed, I will continue to work with HUD's
Office of Public and Indian Housing, which oversees REAC, to
ensure that any new model is implemented and Congress receives
as much transparency as possible on the process. Within the
Office of Housing, I will regularly and closely monitor the
Quarterly Report to Congress on Oversight of Property Owners
and Multifamily Properties Assessed through HUD's Real Estate
Assessment Center (Section 219), and will strive to ensure that
Multifamily staff continue to enforce owners' addressing and
correcting REAC inspection deficiencies, local code violations,
and resident complaints in a timely manner.
Q.12. Property owners and property maintenance organizations
often hold or operate across multiple HUD-financed or -
subsidized properties. In some cases, these owners and
maintenance organizations are allowed to continue to operate or
expand operations across multiple properties or States even as
some of their properties deteriorate and endanger the health
and safety of residents.
If confirmed, how will you ensure that owners or managers
that are not taking appropriate steps to address health and
safety concerns are not allowed to reduce the value of or
service at other HUD-financed or -subsidized properties?
A.12. The Office of Multifamily Housing has in place a robust
review of all applications for the transfer or assignment, of
Section 8 HAP contracts. That review process ensures that
prospective owners who do not have the requisite monetary
resources or management oversight to manage a Section 8
property will not be approved for the transfer. Also, the
review includes an examination of owner compliance with their
business agreements on existing HUD properties.
In addition, the Multifamily staff, working with HUD's
Office of General Counsel, are monitoring owners with larger,
national portfolios, and have taken actions against poorly
performing owners in an effort to enforce compliance or have
them divest of their HUD properties. I will work with the
Multifamily Housing staff to ensure they continue to
effectively implement the above procedures and will review
staff property level oversight to ensure that property
condition and resident health are in the forefront of the
monitoring regime.
Q.13. While you were at OMB you signed off on one budget and
helped develop another that would have eliminated funding for
the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) program and the
HOME Investment Partnerships (HOME) program, while making
devastating cuts to other housing and community development
funds. But in the weeks between the declaration of the COVID-19
national emergency and when communities will receive additional
CARES Act funds, HUD recommended that communities use the very
CDBG funds you would have eliminated to provide testing and
diagnostic services, provide grants and loans to small
businesses to manufacture critical medical supplies, and help
small businesses that were struggling. \11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ https://www.hud.gov/sites/dfiles/Main/documents/Quick-Guide-
CDBG-Infectious-Disease-Response-031920.pdf
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
If Congress had enacted the budget that was proposed under
your leadership, there would have been significant effects on
the communities on the front lines responding to the health
consequences of this pandemic. Do you still support the cuts in
those two budgets?
A.13. The Office of Management and Budget has an extensive role
in supporting agencies as they implement the President's
priorities and agenda, including working with them to formulate
the President's Budget. The CDBG program was proposed for
elimination because its mission can best be performed at the
State and local levels, thereby freeing up scarce taxpayer
resources for programs targeted at more vulnerable populations,
including the rental assistance programs administered by the
Office of Housing, which I would lead if confirmed. Because
grantees had unspent CDBG funds in their accounts, it is my
understanding that HUD's Office of Community Planning and
Development provided them with flexibility so they could use
these funds to respond to the current pandemic.
Q.14. In the HUD budget proposals released and developed during
your time at OMB, HUD proposed to double rents for the lowest
income HUD-assisted renters, impose arbitrary work requirements
those households, and allow disparate rent policies set by
local public housing agencies or even a private building owner.
If Congress had enacted the rent reforms HUD proposed, how
would those higher rents, disparate rent policies among
landlords administering the same HUD-assisted programs, and
work requirements have directly affected the housing and
financial stability of HUD-assisted families?
If confirmed, will you continue to support implementing the
proposed rent reforms, including doubling rents on the lowest
income households living in the 1.2 million units in the
project-based rental assistance units, low-income senior
housing, and housing for persons with disabilities that would
be within your jurisdiction? If so, why?
A.14. I support the Administration's proposed rent reforms and
want to work with Congress to strengthen the Office of
Housing's rental assistance programs. That said, if confirmed,
my top priority will be to respond to the current coronavirus
pandemic.
Q.15. A month after passage of the CARES Act, HUD's Inspector
General published a memorandum detailing its review of the
websites of the 30 largest FHA mortgage servicers. \12\ The
Inspector General found that the written material readily
available on some of these large servicers' websites had not
been updated to reflect the changes made in the CARES Act, did
not include information about the availability of forbearance
for borrowers facing a financial hardship, or gave the
impression that the borrower would be required to pay back all
missed payments in a lump sum at the end of forbearance.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ https://www.hudoig.gov/sites/default/files/2020-04/
Single%20Family%20Mortgage
%20Forbearance%20Brief.pdf
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
If confirmed, what steps will you take to ensure that all
FHA servicers are complying with all legal requirements and FHA
Mortgagee Letters, including those implementing the CARES Act?
Will you conduct reviews of servicers' written materials,
websites, and audio communications with borrowers to ensure
that all servicers comply with the law and that all borrowers
are treated equitably? If not, why not?
A.15. If confirmed, I will be committed to ensuring that
mortgage servicers meet all FHA program requirements and their
responsibilities to borrowers, including specific actions
implementing the CARES Act.
Q.16. In response to the CARES Act, FHA issued a Mortgage
Letter detailing post-forbearance options for homeowners,
including a partial claim and standard loss mitigation. But
borrowers who were struggling prior to COVID-19 or who have
faced a natural disaster in the past may not have access to the
same options to get back on track and stay in their homes.
If confirmed, will you review barriers to borrowers
accessing a partial claim, including being the victim of a
prior natural disaster, and take steps to ensure that all
borrowers who could remain in a sustainable loan with a partial
claim at the end of forbearance have access to that option?
If confirmed, will you ensure that any borrower who was in
a trial modification or performing in a modified loan
immediately prior to the national emergency is not penalized,
either by loss of the ability to access an affordable
modification or in their credit, by accessing the forbearance
provided for in the CARES Act?
A.16. If confirmed, I will commit to reviewing the FHA loss
mitigation waterfall to ensure that all options available to
borrowers are appropriately tailored to the current situation.
Q.17. If confirmed, will you commit to cooperate with all
Inspector General investigations, including providing timely
access to all requested documents and e-mails; making yourself
available for personal interviews; and allowing staff under
your supervision to participate in requested interviews without
the presence of a HUD attorney representing the interests of
the Department?
A.17. I commit to complying with all legal obligations and the
terms established through the normal accommodation process.
Q.18. During your nomination hearing, you were asked whether
there was anything within the FHA Commissioner and Assistant
Secretary for Housing's jurisdiction that Congress should be
thinking about for future legislation passed in response to
COVID-19. In response, you mentioned additional flexibility but
did not mention any need for resources to support the millions
of people who lose jobs and income, homeowners needing help
navigating the mortgage system, or housing providers,
particularly those providing housing to vulnerable seniors, who
are required to do additional cleaning.
If confirmed, what additional funding would you recommend
that Congress provide in response to COVID-19 to help low-
income seniors, low-income individuals and families, or
homeowners stay safe and navigate the system? If you would not
recommend any additional funding, why not?
A.18. The Office of Housing has utilized existing flexibilities
and those provided through the CARES Act to support homeowners
in preserving their homes and owners/sponsors to facilitate the
continued operations of properties and facilities in our
insured and/or assisted multifamily and healthcare portfolios
(nursing homes/hospitals). Fund assignments for CARES Act
dollars were executed expeditiously and directed to service
coordinators and income loss gap coverage for the extremely low
income and very low-income residents of Sec 202 Housing for the
Elderly and Section 811 Housing for Persons with Disabilities
properties.
In my testimony I was referring to the need for additional
flexibilities, not included in the CARES Act, to prevent,
prepare for, and respond to COVID-19. For example, while the
CARES Act provides flexibilities for homeowners and multifamily
property owners, there was no mention maintaining operations of
the residential care facilities (nursing homes) and hospitals
in the FHA-insured portfolio.
I agree that the nearly 33.5 million U.S. workers that have
filed for unemployment benefits will need assistance to stay in
their homes, owned or rented. While HUD traditionally targets
rental assistance to those underserved by conventional housing
markets, I would be happy to meet and discuss additional
funding strategies for providing rental assistance to people
who have lost their job and were earning more than the area
median income that HUD programs target.
------
RESPONSES TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS OF
SENATOR MENENDEZ FROM DANA WADE
Q.1. Over the past 3 years, during which when you were acting
FHA Commissioner and Program Associate Director at the Office
of Management and Budget (OMB), the President's budget included
a proposal to raise rents by an average of 44 percent in
federally assisted housing and triple rents for the lowest
income households, according to the Center for Budget and
Policy Priorities.
With the current unemployment rate at 12.4 percent and the
Congressional Budget Office estimating the unemployment rate
will remain above 9.5 percent at least until the end of 2021,
do you think families living in HUD-assisted housing will be
able to afford HUD's proposed rent increases? If you do believe
families in HUD-assisted housing can afford rent increases
during this unprecedented economic turmoil, please provide data
and analysis supporting your justification.
Will you commit to abandoning this dangerous plan if you
are confirmed? If not, why not?
A.1. I support the Administration's proposed rent reforms and
want to work with Congress to strengthen the Office of
Housing's rental assistance programs. That said, if confirmed,
my top priority will be to respond to the current coronavirus
pandemic.
Q.2. As we discussed in your hearing, when the protections in
the CARES Act run out, we could be facing a foreclosure crisis
even greater than the one we faced in the Great Recession. In
the coming months, families unable to pay their mortgage will
need to navigate the complexity of requesting and accessing
mortgage relief programs. Homeowners already in forbearance
will have to work with their mortgage servicers to repay
forborne amounts.
Given the quickly changing economic circumstances and the
complicated differences in forbearance repayment options
offered by both federally backed agencies and private lenders,
do you believe Congress should consider increasing resources
for HUD-approved housing counselors to help American families
make educated mortgage decisions as the country works through
this crisis?
A.2. Yes, housing counselors are well-positioned to assist
homeowners with understanding the loss mitigation/mortgage
relief options available through both the FHA and conventional
lenders. Last year, HUD-approved housing counselors provided
approximately one million families with counseling services
related to homebuying, preserving home ownership, rental
assistance, disaster relief, and with reverse mortgages. During
the aftermath of the financial crisis of 2008, counselors were
able to provide counseling services to three times as many
clients due to the additional funding provided by Congress at
the time.
Q.3. Over the last few years, HUD has relocated key multifamily
housing staff from its office in Newark to the New York
regional office. As a former mayor, I understand that this
presents a significant challenge for residents, landlords, and
property managers. It's critical that HUD maintains boots on
the ground that are familiar with the local conditions and
issues facing residents throughout the State, especially as the
COVID crisis places particular strain on New Jersey's
multifamily market.
If confirmed, what are you going to do to make sure the
Newark office has the staff it needs and that New Jersey
remains a priority at HUD?
A.3. I want to extend to you that same offer made by my
predecessor, Brian Montgomery. If you or your staff are aware
of specific instances in which New Jersey is receiving
inadequate multifamily coverage from HUD, please do not
hesitate to bring them to my attention. There are currently 722
active properties in the multifamily portfolio in New Jersey,
and I agree that HUD must make providing decent, safe and
affordable housing to the families who reside in them a
priority.
In addition, when it is safe for residents and communities
in light of COVID-19, I am happy to visit these properties and
view any issues or challenges firsthand. I am also always happy
to talk to your constituents regarding their concerns.
It is my understanding that earlier this year, the Office
of Housing conducted a quality control review of the Northeast
Region Multifamily Office to address your concerns regarding
customer service for New Jersey. This assessment included an
overview of staffing composition, workload management, and
challenges and opportunities for the Multifamily Northeast
Region (the Region), and more specifically New York and New
Jersey.
Properties in New Jersey are assigned to 17 different
project managers. The average portfolio size for an account
executive with New Jersey properties is 76.3 properties; the
average portfolio size for Resolution Specialists with New
Jersey properties is 30.4. These portfolio size numbers are
consistent with Office of Multifamily Housing national
averages.
The Office of Multifamily Housing utilizes a workload
tracking system that allows managers to track workload volume
and output in real time. FY19 data reflect that the Northeast
Region as a whole processed nearly 90 percent of the work items
on time. Northeast Region Managers will use this system to
monitor New Jersey work volume and timeliness of response and
take corrective action, including shifting workload or assets,
if numbers reflect the need.
The New York Regional Center anticipates hiring three (3)
additional account executives, which would decrease the average
portfolio size for all account executives serving New York and
New Jersey from 81.3 to 72.3 properties per account executive.
------
RESPONSES TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS OF SENATOR TESTER
FROM DANA WADE
Q.1. Affordable Housing--Montana, and many areas of the
country, face challenges of housing availability,
affordability, and aging housing stock. As you know, this is a
significant issue for rural as well as urban areas and is one
of the largest barriers to success nationally. In Montana, lack
of workforce housing is one of the greatest inhibitors of
economic development.
What can be done to increase workforce housing and
encourage more affordable housing to be built?
What do you see as the largest barrier to affordable
housing, particularly in rural areas?
How do you implement an effective affordable housing
strategy nationally? In rural America? In Indian Country?
How has your work at the Department of Housing and Urban
Development (HUD) and the Office of Management and Budget (OMB)
impacted housing in rural America? Where is there room for
additional efforts to support rural housing at Federal Housing
Administration (FHA) and HUD?
A.1. I believe FHA has a very important role in creating,
preserving, and increasing affordable housing opportunities
across America, including rural areas and Indian Country.
Regulatory barriers continue to be one of the largest
impediments to the construction of affordable housing. I
support this Administration's efforts to reduce overly
burdensome requirements that drive up the cost of housing
through the White House Council on Eliminating Regulatory
Barriers to Affordable Housing which is led by Secretary
Carson.
Through its single family, multifamily, and healthcare
insurance programs, FHA provides access to credit in markets,
including rural, which might otherwise be underserved. FHA
insurance products are sought by lenders and borrowers to fill
needs that other capital providers fail to support.
In Fiscal Year 2019, 63 percent of FHA's multifamily
production was affordable, and HUD brings that experience to
workforce housing. Providing mortgage insurance for workforce
housing is also an important component of FHA multifamily's
mission and I would be happy to work with you on ways to spur
production in this area. During these difficult times, the
countercyclical role of FHA is more important than ever to meet
the unmet needs of borrowers.
In addition to FHA's programs to serve homeowners, renters,
and low-income, senior, and disabled populations throughout the
country, the Office of Housing works with other HUD offices,
including the Office of Public and Indian Housing and the Rural
Housing and Economic Development program within Community
Planning and Development, to support rural and Native American
populations.
Q.2. Trump Budgets--Affordable housing is an issue across this
country yet President Trump's budgets have eliminated nearly
every affordable housing program and take an axe to others like
the housing counseling program which you would be in charge of
in your role at the FHA. These programs are critical in
Montana.
Please describe your role in these budgets during your
previous time at HUD and while at OMB.
What will you do to support affordable housing construction
and rehabilitation?
Will you advocate the importance of these programs with the
President and Secretary?
A.2. I will do my utmost to address the Nation's affordable
housing needs. Key to this is supporting innovative approaches
to preserving and constructing affordable units. Focusing on
very low income and low income affordable housing need, I will
expand on FHA's successes leveraging housing tax credit equity
(4 percent and 9 percent) with FHA mortgage insurance products,
Section 202 Housing for the Elderly and Section 811 Housing for
persons with Disabilities programs. FHA and HUD have
streamlined the processes and requirements to better utilize
housing tax credits in multifamily new construction and
preservation transactions. Additionally, I will support FHA's
continued work with the Office of Public and Indian Housing
through the successful Rental Assistance Demonstration (RAD)
Program to rehabilitate and/or reconstruct public housing,
serving extremely low income and very low-income residents.
Q.3. COVID-19--As you know, many Public Housing Authorities
(PHAs) have closed or reduced operations due to COVID-19.
How will you ensure that Section 8 and HUD-VASH vouchers
are being utilized while also ensuring the safety of rental
units?
As many States move forward with reopening, Montana being
one of them, what assistance and guidance are you providing
PHAs in regards to reopening?
A.3. The programs covered by these questions are run by HUD's
Office of Public and Indian Housing. HUD's congressional
affairs staff would be pleased to reach out to your office to
ensure we answer your questions about these important programs.
Q.4. HUD-VASH--What are your thoughts on the HUD-VASH program?
Funding for new HUD-VASH vouchers has remained the same for
several years. Do you think this funding is sufficient to
achieve the goal of ending veteran homelessness?
How will you work with the Department of Veterans Affairs
to administer the HUD-VASH program and ensure that homeless
veterans get access to affordable housing in a timely manner?
How will you work to address barriers in the Tribal HUD-
VASH program?
How will you work to ensure that we enhance this program to
make sure that it works even more efficiently in rural
America--places like Miles City, Montana?
A.4. The programs covered by these questions are run by HUD's
Office of Public and Indian Housing. HUD's congressional
affairs staff would be pleased to reach out to your office to
ensure we answer your questions about these important programs.
Q.5. Housing Finance Reform--Given this role and your previous
responsibilities, I would like to get your thoughts on an issue
that is very important to me.
What are your thoughts on our housing finance system and do
you support reforming the system?
What are your thoughts on the Administration's 2019 housing
finance reform proposal? And the FHA provisions specifically?
Do you support a Government guarantee or a fully privatized
system?
A.5. Yes, I do support reforming the housing finance system and
the Administration's recent proposal to provide liquidity,
support homeowners, and protect taxpayers. Right now, my top
priority if confirmed would be making sure that coronavirus-
related assistance reaches homeowners and renters experiencing
hardship through no fault of their own. FHA has an important
countercyclical role to play during adverse economic events;
regardless of the contours of future housing reforms, this
should always be a part of FHA's mission.
When the time is right, I would look forward to working
with Congress on housing finance reform. I support structural
changes to FHA that would provide more autonomy and enable its
sole focus to be supporting low-to-moderate income homeowners
and managing risk to taxpayers. FHA's explicit guarantee of the
Federal Government has enabled it to perform its mission of
providing access to credit for mostly first-time borrowers. I
support proposals that would expand the role of the private
sector in housing finance and believe that they can be
accomplished while preserving FHA's focus on creditworthy
borrowers who may be underserved by traditional markets.
------
RESPONSES TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS OF SENATOR WARREN
FROM DANA WADE
Q.1. What was your involvement in putting together the 2019
Department of Housing and Urban Development's Housing Finance
Reform Plan?
Are there any aspects of this plan that you disagree with
or would like to be changed?
A.1. I fully support both HUD's and the Treasury Department's
Housing Finance Reform plans. Other portions of this question
seek the disclosure of confidential, deliberative, and internal
Executive Branch information.
Q.2. At your confirmation hearing you stated, if confirmed, you
would, ``monitor vigilantly'' whether mortgage servicers were
providing fair treatment for homeowners entering into
forbearance during the COVID-19 crisis.
What specific actions would you take, if confirmed, to
monitor servicer actions and compliance with the law, and
address any unclear or unfair conduct you identify?
A.2. If confirmed, I will be committed to ensuring that
mortgages servicers meet all FHA program requirements and their
responsibilities to borrowers. FHA's servicing and loss
mitigation requirements provide specific instructions on
working with borrowers who are unable to make their payments.
If any servicer fails to comply with FHA's requirements, FHA
can take a variety of actions ranging from providing increased
technical assistance and increased monitoring to making a
formal referral to HUD's Mortgagee Review Board (MRB) in the
case of more serious violations. Sanctions imposed by the MRB
can include civil money penalties and suspension or withdrawal
from the program. I will also commit to working with other
agencies within the Federal Government, including the Consumer
Financial Protection Bureau and Federal Housing Finance Agency
to explore sharing information on mortgage servicer performance
where appropriate.
Q.3. You served as Associate Director for General Government at
the OMB when HUD issued its proposed Disparate Impact rule,
Mixed Status rule, and Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing
rule.
Are there any aspects of the disparate impact proposed rule
that you disagree with or would like to be strengthened?
Are there any aspects of the mixed status proposed rule
that you disagree with or would like to be strengthened?
Are there any aspects of the affirmatively furthering fair
housing proposed rule that you disagree with or would like to
be strengthened?
A.3. The Office of Management and Budget has an extensive role
in supporting agencies as they implement the President's
priorities and agenda, which includes reviewing legislative
proposals, regulatory proposals, notices/reports and the
availability of budgetary resources. With respect to my
participation in specific decisions, your question seeks the
substance of communications between the White House and OMB,
the disclosure of which would reveal confidential,
deliberative, and internal Executive Branch information.
Q.4. At his nomination hearing, in response to a question about
HUD Secretary Ben Carson raising the rents in federally
assisted housing, former FHA commissioner Brian D. Montgomery
stated: ``no mass evictions will occur as long as I am FHA
commissioner, Assistant Secretary for Housing.''
Will you make this same pledge if confirmed?
Will you commit to evaluating the potential impact of rent
raises on affordability and potential evictions before issuing
any proposals or taking action to raise rents in federally
assisted housing?
A.4. No mass evictions will occur as long as I am FHA
Commissioner and I will always evaluate the impact of changes
in rent on the programs run by the Office of Housing.
Q.5. HUD's requested budget for fiscal year 2021 includes no
funding for the Public Housing Capital Fund. There is currently
an estimated $70 billion backlog in critical repairs and
maintenance for existing public housing. This backlog results
in approximately 10,000 public housing units being lost every
year, and subjects tens of thousands of residents to living in
unsafe and unhealthy conditions.
If confirmed, would you advocate for funding for the Public
Housing Capital Fund?
A.5. The Public Housing Capital Fund is administered by HUD's
Office of Public and Indian Housing and therefore would be
outside my purview if I am confirmed to serve as Federal
Housing Commissioner and Assistant Secretary for Housing.
Q.6. Do you believe there is a national affordable housing
crisis?
A.6. If confirmed, I will prioritize the issue of affordable
housing. Across the country, Americans are stretching their
finances too far to be able to afford a place to live. Far too
many households are rent-burdened and housing supply does not
match demand in many areas, creating undue pressures on low-to-
moderate income workers and families. Many Americans are
finding it increasingly difficult to reside near good schools,
places of work, and access to transportation. Nurses,
firefighters, teachers, and cops often cannot afford to live in
the communities that they serve. Exacerbating this problem is
the financial strain and uncertainty caused by the COVID-19
pandemic.
I believe that FHA must help to alleviate these
affordability burdens, made more difficult by the current
health crisis. If confirmed, my goals would be to run a strong
and sustainable FHA that can play an important countercyclical
role in providing access to mortgage credit during this time. I
support recent HUD policies to expand access to condo markets
and manufactured housing, both of which are important options
for first-time homebuyers. In addition, FHA's multifamily loan
program is and will continue to step in to increase affordable
rental housing supply for low-to-moderate income families. If
confirmed, I also hope to participate in several of the
Administration's initiatives to address housing
unaffordability, including through the Councils on Opportunity
Zones and Eliminating Regulatory Barriers to Affordable
housing.
------
RESPONSES TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS OF
SENATOR VAN HOLLEN FROM DANA WADE
Q.1. As the Associate Director for General Government at OMB
what role did you have in overseeing HUD's proposed
Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH) rule? As the
nominee to be Commissioner of FHA, do you support this proposed
rule? Can you also please describe why you think it's
appropriate to give lenders a safe harbor for policies or
practices driven by algorithms?
A.1. I support HUD's proposed Affirmatively Furthering Fair
Housing (AFFH) rule, though it will be outside my purview if I
am confirmed to serve as Federal Housing Commissioner and
Assistant Secretary for Housing. With respect to my
participation in specific decisions, your question seeks the
substance of communications between the White House and OMB,
the disclosure of which would reveal confidential,
deliberative, and internal Executive Branch information.
Q.2. Last week, the Mortgage Bankers Association reported that
nearly 7 percent of the mortgage market was in forbearance. The
largest segment of borrowers in forbearance have mortgages
backed by the FHA or VA. According to the report, 9.73 percent
of the loans in Ginnie Mae's portfolio are in forbearance.
That's an increase of 1.47 percent from the previous week's
total of 8.26 percent. How do you plan to ensure servicer
compliance with the CARES Act forbearance provisions? How do
you plan to work with the FHFA, Ginnie Mae, and the Federal
Reserve to support homeowners and the mortgage market
throughout this crisis? What do you anticipate will be the
impact of the COVID crisis on the health of the Mutual Mortgage
Insurance Fund (MMIF)? Do you plan on increasing mortgage
insurance premiums? If so what impact would increasing premiums
have on FHA's countercyclical role in the mortgage market?
A.2. If confirmed, I will be committed to ensuring that
mortgage servicers meet all FHA program requirements and their
responsibilities to borrowers, including those contained in the
CARES Act. HUD is working closely with other governmental
organizations to ensure a consistent response to the current
COVID-19 crisis. HUD will continue with this collaborative
effort under my leadership.
The depth and length of the COVID-19 crisis will pose a
challenge to the health of the MMIF. It is too early to predict
the impact, although I will continue to monitor the data
closely if confirmed. Under my last tenure at FHA and continued
by Commissioner Montgomery, HUD has built up a capital reserve
that is more than twice the statutory level. This will be
important to protect taxpayers from losses moving forward.
I understand that FHA is not currently planning to increase
premiums. While the FHA Commissioner is statutorily required to
maintain capital, I agree that it is also important during this
time to provide steady access to credit to eligible borrowers
and to ensure that the housing market is well-functioning.
------
RESPONSES TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS OF
SENATOR CORTEZ MASTO FROM DANA WADE
Q.1. Please provide details on how will you ensure that
servicers provide clear and fair guidance on forbearance to
homeowners.
How will you ensure any lender seeking payment on the FHA
guarantee has provided documentation on its compliance with
loss mitigation requirements?
Will you ensure FHA conducts oversight of servicers with
appropriate sampling and review of companies and borrowers, and
if so, how?
Will you ensure FHA establishes a robust complaint and
appeals process for borrowers who believe they have been
subject to unfair treatment related to noncompliance with FHA's
servicing requirements, including its loss mitigation
requirements? If yes, how?
Will you report annually to Congress regarding the types
and volume of complaints received from borrowers who allege the
rules for loss mitigation were not followed?
A.1. If confirmed, I will be committed to ensuring that
mortgage servicers meet all FHA program requirements and their
responsibilities to borrowers. FHA's servicing and loss
mitigation requirements provide specific instructions on
working with borrowers who are unable to make their payments.
If any servicer fails to comply with FHA's requirements, FHA
can take a variety of actions ranging from providing increased
technical assistance and increased monitoring to making a
formal referral to HUD's Mortgagee Review Board (MRB) in the
case of more serious violations. Sanctions imposed by the MRB
can include civil money penalties and suspension or withdrawal
from the program. As Federal Housing Commissioner, I would
chair the MRB. I will also commit to working with other
agencies within the Federal Government, including the Consumer
Financial Protection Bureau and Federal Housing Finance Agency
to explore sharing information on mortgage servicer performance
where appropriate.
Q.2. How will you ensure that any action taken by FHA or the
Office of Housing will not have a disparate impact on
households who've historically faced discrimination? If so,
how?
A.2. If confirmed, I will be committed to ensuring that actions
taken by FHA and the Office of Housing comply with all
applicable legal requirements, including antidiscriminatory
laws.
Q.3. Will you ensure HUD continues to support living wages for
construction workers so that those workers can afford a home,
too, and continues to require environmental assessments prior
to construction? If so, how?
A.3. If confirmed, I will maintain HUD's commitment to its
mission of providing affordable housing and to ensuring that
owners and lenders comply with all applicable environmental
laws and regulations.
Q.4. How will you ensure HUD supports transit-oriented
development that is designed to reduce income inequality,
increase equity, and fight climate change?
A.4. The FHA mortgage insurance programs currently support
transit-oriented development, typically through the new
construction programs 221(d)4 and 220. These programs allow
borrowers to select sites close to transit hubs and HUD
considers the proximity to public transit to be a marketing
benefit, improving the overall strength of the transaction. In
addition, the FHA mortgage insurance programs have rigorous
environmental review standards, ensuring that all FHA insured
mortgaged properties are fully compliant with NEPA and Federal
energy standards.
Sixty-three percent of the loans HUD approved in fiscal
year 2019 were affordable. I will work with Office of Housing
staff to ensure they continue supporting borrowers seeking to
build transit-oriented development, to preserve and expand the
supply of affordable housing, and to implement the appropriate
building standards.
------
RESPONSES TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS OF SENATOR SINEMA
FROM DANA WADE
Q.1. As housing affordability challenges continue to grow, many
Arizonans are turning to manufactured homes for attainable,
high-quality homes that do not create an unsurmountable
financial burden. HUD provides financing for manufactured
housing through the Federal Housing Administration's Title I
and Title II programs, however, these programs are
underutilized and outdated. If confirmed, how will you revise
these FHA programs to improve access to financing for
manufactured homes?
A.1. Manufactured housing is an important part of our Nation's
housing stock which often provides an affordable entry point to
home ownership for American families. Secretary Carson has made
it a priority to revitalize HUD's role in facilitating the
construction and financing of manufactured housing. If
confirmed, I am committed to reviewing FHA's guidelines for its
manufactured housing financing programs to ensure that access
to sustainable mortgage credit is not unduly restricted.
Additional Material Supplied for the Record
LETTER OF REGRET FROM SENATOR TOM COTTON
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
LETTERS OF SUPPORT FORM NOMINEE BRIAN D. MILLER
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
LETTER OF SUPPORT FOR NOMINEE DANA WADE
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]