[House Hearing, 117 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]


                        BUILDING BACK A BETTER,
                         MORE EQUITABLE HOUSING
                      INFRASTRUCTURE FOR AMERICA:
                      OVERSIGHT OF THE DEPARTMENT
                    OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT

=======================================================================

                             HYBRID HEARING

                               BEFORE THE

                    COMMITTEE ON FINANCIAL SERVICES

                     U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                    ONE HUNDRED SEVENTEENTH CONGRESS

                             FIRST SESSION

                               __________

                             JULY 20, 2021

                               __________

       Printed for the use of the Committee on Financial Services

                           Serial No. 117-40
                           
 [GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
 
                               __________

                    U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE                    
45-507 PDF                 WASHINGTON : 2021                     
          
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------  
                           

                 HOUSE COMMITTEE ON FINANCIAL SERVICES

                 MAXINE WATERS, California, Chairwoman

CAROLYN B. MALONEY, New York         PATRICK McHENRY, North Carolina, 
NYDIA M. VELAZQUEZ, New York             Ranking Member
BRAD SHERMAN, California             FRANK D. LUCAS, Oklahoma
GREGORY W. MEEKS, New York           BILL POSEY, Florida
DAVID SCOTT, Georgia                 BLAINE LUETKEMEYER, Missouri
AL GREEN, Texas                      BILL HUIZENGA, Michigan
EMANUEL CLEAVER, Missouri            ANN WAGNER, Missouri
ED PERLMUTTER, Colorado              ANDY BARR, Kentucky
JIM A. HIMES, Connecticut            ROGER WILLIAMS, Texas
BILL FOSTER, Illinois                FRENCH HILL, Arkansas
JOYCE BEATTY, Ohio                   TOM EMMER, Minnesota
JUAN VARGAS, California              LEE M. ZELDIN, New York
JOSH GOTTHEIMER, New Jersey          BARRY LOUDERMILK, Georgia
VICENTE GONZALEZ, Texas              ALEXANDER X. MOONEY, West Virginia
AL LAWSON, Florida                   WARREN DAVIDSON, Ohio
MICHAEL SAN NICOLAS, Guam            TED BUDD, North Carolina
CINDY AXNE, Iowa                     DAVID KUSTOFF, Tennessee
SEAN CASTEN, Illinois                TREY HOLLINGSWORTH, Indiana
AYANNA PRESSLEY, Massachusetts       ANTHONY GONZALEZ, Ohio
RITCHIE TORRES, New York             JOHN ROSE, Tennessee
STEPHEN F. LYNCH, Massachusetts      BRYAN STEIL, Wisconsin
ALMA ADAMS, North Carolina           LANCE GOODEN, Texas
RASHIDA TLAIB, Michigan              WILLIAM TIMMONS, South Carolina
MADELEINE DEAN, Pennsylvania         VAN TAYLOR, Texas
ALEXANDRIA OCASIO-CORTEZ, New York   PETE SESSIONS, Texas
JESUS ``CHUY'' GARCIA, Illinois
SYLVIA GARCIA, Texas
NIKEMA WILLIAMS, Georgia
JAKE AUCHINCLOSS, Massachusetts

                   Charla Ouertatani, Staff Director
                            
                            
                            C O N T E N T S

                              ----------                              
                                                                   Page
Hearing held on:
    July 20, 2021................................................     1
Appendix:
    July 20, 2021................................................    63

                               WITNESSES
                         Tuesday, July 20, 2021

Fudge, Hon. Marcia L., Secretary, U.S. Department of Housing and 
  Urban Development (HUD)........................................     5

                                APPENDIX

Prepared statements:
    Fudge, Hon. Marcia L.........................................    64

              Additional Material Submitted for the Record

Hill, Hon. French:
    Washington Post article, ``Rent prices are soaring as 
      Americans flock back to cities''...........................    68
Huizenga, Hon, Bill:
    ``Mortgage Insurance for Mortgage Transactions Involving 
      Downpayment Assistance Programs''..........................    72
Tlaib, Hon. Rashida:
    Article from The Detroit News, ``Detroit homeowners overtaxed 
      $600 million''.............................................    73
Torres, Hon. Ritchie:
    Written statement of Capital One.............................    81

 
                        BUILDING BACK A BETTER,
                         MORE EQUITABLE HOUSING
                      INFRASTRUCTURE FOR AMERICA:
                      OVERSIGHT OF THE DEPARTMENT
                    OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT

                              ----------                              


                         Tuesday, July 20, 2021

             U.S. House of Representatives,
                   Committee on Financial Services,
                                                   Washington, D.C.
    The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10 a.m. in room 
2128, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Maxine Waters 
[chairwoman of the committee] presiding.
    Members present: Representatives Waters, Velazquez, 
Sherman, Meeks, Scott, Green, Cleaver, Perlmutter, Himes, 
Foster, Beatty, Vargas, Gottheimer, Lawson, San Nicolas, Axne, 
Casten, Pressley, Torres, Lynch, Adams, Tlaib, Dean, Ocasio-
Cortez, Garcia of Texas, Williams of Georgia; McHenry, Lucas, 
Luetkemeyer, Huizenga, Wagner, Barr, Williams of Texas, Hill, 
Emmer, Zeldin, Loudermilk, Davidson, Budd, Kustoff, 
Hollingsworth, Gonzalez of Ohio, Rose, Steil, Gooden, Timmons, 
Taylor, and Sessions.
    Chairwoman Waters. The Financial Services Committee will 
come to order. Without objection, the Chair is authorized to 
declare a recess of the committee at any time. As a reminder to 
all Members, we have a hard stop at 1:30 p.m., and Members who 
are unable to ask their questions at today's hearing will be 
given priority at our next hearing with the Secretary.
    Pursuant to House rules, the committee will continue to 
provide accommodations for Members who request to participate 
in hearings virtually, but I am very happy to have the vast 
majority of our Members and our witnesses participating in 
person here today. As a reminder, those who are not fully 
vaccinated must continue to wear a mask in the hearing room and 
practice social distancing, but I would also like to encourage 
our Members to continue wearing masks if they feel more 
comfortable doing so.
    And so, Members, we have a little bit of a problem with our 
timing apparatus here this morning. We can see the timing here, 
when your 5 minutes are up. Our witness can see her 5 minutes, 
and, of course, it will be monitored by our friends on the 
opposite side of the aisle, so we will make sure that we are 
all in sync with the timing.
    Let me just say that I am going to be very strict with the 
timing. If you take all of your 5 minutes to ask a question and 
then expect the Secretary to answer for another 2 or 3 minutes, 
that will not happen today. After 5 minutes, you will be 
gaveled. So, thank you.
    Today's hearing is entitled, ``Building Back a Better, More 
Equitable Housing Infrastructure for America: Oversight of the 
Department of Housing and Urban Development.''
    I now recognize myself for 4 minutes to give an opening 
statement.
    First of all, a happy good morning, Secretary Fudge. I am 
so delighted to have you with us today to discuss the work that 
the Biden Administration is doing to build a more fair, 
equitable, and accessible housing infrastructure in this 
country.
    I want to begin by applauding you and the Biden 
Administration for treating our housing crisis with the urgency 
and seriousness it deserves. The Trump Administration made it 
crystal clear that it didn't appreciate the magnitude of our 
nation's housing crisis. By repeatedly proposing deep budget 
cuts to HUD programs, and taking action to undermine our fair 
housing laws, the Trump Administration showed a complete 
disregard for low- and moderate-income (LMI) families, people 
of color, the LGBTQ+ community, and immigrants.
    It is only because of Democrats in Congress that HUD's 
budget was not decimated during Trump's presidency. Because 
elections matter, President Biden and HUD have now begun to 
reverse Trump's anti-fair housing rules. Democrats on this 
committee also remain laser-focused on ensuring that eligible 
families receive the housing assistance available to them 
through the CARES Act, the December relief package, the 
American Rescue Plan, and other coronavirus relief legislation.
    We must remember, however, that we are not just building 
back our economy from the pandemic and Donald Trump's 
disastrous housing policies; we are building back better, and 
that is my focus for today's hearing. Key to building back 
better and more equitably is understanding that housing is 
infrastructure. For the first time in a generation, we have a 
real opportunity to fix structural problems in our housing 
system and reverse decades of disinvestment in low-income 
communities and communities of color.
    Last week I, and several members of this committee 
introduced a legislative package of three bills to do just 
that. The first is the Housing is Infrastructure Act, the 
second is the Ending Homelessness Act, and the third is the 
Downpayment Toward Equity Act, which would help address the 
racial gap in homeownership by providing $100 billion toward 
down payment and other financial assistance for first-
generation home buyers.
    We must make housing a top priority. These generational 
investments will increase homeownership, provide a permanent 
housing safety structure, and end homelessness in this country 
once and for all.
    Secretary Fudge, I know you are the right person to take 
advantage of this moment. Thank you so much for your leadership 
on this absolutely critical issue. I look forward to your 
testimony today.
    I now recognize the ranking member of the committee, the 
gentleman from North Carolina, Mr. McHenry, for 4 minutes.
    Mr. McHenry. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. Thanks for 
holding today's hearing.
    Secretary Fudge, welcome. It's nice to see you in your 
first appearance before Congress. On that side of the table, it 
has a different perspective.
    But I must begin today by asking, where is Treasury 
Secretary Yellen? I sent the Chair a letter last week asking 
for the Treasury Secretary to join us for today's hearing, but 
it looks like they could not make that happen. Maybe Secretary 
Fudge can shed some light on the most pressing issue in housing 
at the moment for the Federal Government, and that is in regard 
to the Rental Assistance Program. I know millions of renters 
across the country and across the income spectrum would like 
some answers.
    Look, Madam Chairwoman, we are on a deadline. The Biden 
Administration's eviction moratorium ends on July 31st. The CDC 
has already said, no more extensions, so what are people 
supposed to do? What is the plan? Last December, Congress 
provided $25 billion in emergency rental assistance. Democrats 
then added another $21 billion this year for the exact same 
purpose. That is $46 billion. This might not sound like a lot 
of money, considering what the Democrats are talking about in 
spending $3.5 trillion on the progressive agenda with the next 
budget. But I assure you, for the Americans who have to decide 
next month whether to buy food for their family or to pay back 
rent, it certainly is.
    This money was specifically intended to retire old rent 
debts and end the threat of eviction for millions who fell 
behind during the pandemic. So, where is that money and whom is 
it helping? The silence is deafening. The Washington Post 
reported over the weekend that little more than $1 billion has 
made it out the door. And I will remind my colleagues again, 
that we have allocated $46 billion to help with this rental 
problem.
    Republicans on this committee have put forward a solution, 
the Renter Protection Act. This bill would end the Biden 
Administration's mismanagement of the emergency rental 
assistance and get the money out the door now.
    Last week, I called for the committee to consider this 
bill, but the Chair has not scheduled it, or anything like it, 
for a markup. Okay. So, what about a hearing? We are days away 
from a preventable problem, and instead of figuring out how to 
keep families in their homes, we are going to get an update 
from HUD on all of the other stuff, on a forward-looking basis, 
that they are working on. This is government at its worst.
    It is clear that Democrats would rather talk about anything 
but the rental assistance program and resolving old rental 
debts. Not to mention with this level of mismanagement and lack 
of transparency, I can only imagine the amount of waste, fraud, 
and abuse of taxpayer dollars we will have to address. But 
lucky for us, we have no information, so hear no evil, see no 
evil, I guess is the approach right now.
    Fortunately, for this hearing, HUD has a statutory 
obligation with respect to transparency of these funds. The 
original Emergency Rental Assistance Law requires the Treasury 
Department, ``in consultation with the Secretary of Housing and 
Urban Development--whom we have before us today--to provide 
public reports on the use of the Emergency Rental Assistance 
Program.''
    So, while I would prefer to ask these questions to 
Secretary Yellen, because they are supposed to be in the 
driver's seat at Treasury, Madam Secretary, I will direct them 
to you. And my questions here regard the mismanagement of this 
program, and why less than 4 percent has gone to help renters, 
and 96 percent has been unallocated.
    So, where is the Treasury Secretary? I will ask that again. 
I look forward to the questions.
    Chairwoman Waters. I now recognize the gentleman from 
Missouri, Mr. Cleaver, for 1 minute.
    Mr. Cleaver. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman, and let me begin 
where you began in this committee earlier, and that was with 
your almost holy housing obsession, particularly on affordable 
housing. So, thank you very much. The country, I think, is 
moving in that direction.
    I would also like to thank my dear friend, Secretary Fudge, 
for not only being with us today, but for taking the time this 
past May to visit Kansas City to discuss the vital role that 
HUD has in every one of our congressional districts. Secretary 
Fudge is, in fact, listening. She is taking bold action, and 
her commitment to improving the Department and the quality of 
life for hard-working Americans is unquestionable.
    Madam Chairwoman, we know that we do not need another 
study. I hope that there is no legislation designed to study 
housing. We do not need another news article to tell us that 
the wealthiest nation on Earth has streets filled with homeless 
folks. We do not need another report to explain the American 
Dream of homeownership.
    Thank you very much.
    Chairwoman Waters. Thank you. I now recognize the gentleman 
from Arkansas, Mr. Hill, for 1 minute.
    Mr. Hill. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. I appreciate our 
friend and former colleague, Secretary Fudge, appearing before 
us today. But I have to reinforce the comments made by the 
ranking member about the noticeable lack of Secretary Yellen. I 
can't help but mention how available Secretary Mnuchin made 
himself over his 4 years in office, and particularly for this 
committee during the pandemic, and I hope we can expect that 
from the Biden Administration.
    It is imperative to have Secretary Yellen here to ensure 
accountability for the trillions of dollars the government has 
spent over the last year. Alarmingly, only 11 percent of the $9 
billion provided to HUD by the CARES Act has been spent to 
date, and none of the American Rescue Plan money has been used 
to help an actual household yet.
    Even more concerning is the gross mismanagement of the 
Eviction Rental Assistance Program. In my home State of 
Arkansas, of the $200 million allocated by Congress in 
December, a mere $1.4 million, 70 basis points, has been 
distributed.
    I look forward to discussing this more during my questions, 
and I yield back, Madam Chairwoman.
    Chairwoman Waters. Thank you very much. I want to welcome 
today's distinguished witness, and former colleague of ours, 
the Honorable Marcia Fudge, who is the Secretary of the U.S. 
Department of Housing and Urban Development. This is Secretary 
Fudge's first time appearing before this committee in her 
current capacity, and we welcome her testimony today.
    You will have 5 minutes to summarize your testimony. You 
should be able to see a timer on the table in front of you that 
will indicate how much time you have left. I would ask you to 
be mindful of the timer, and when the red light appears, to 
quickly wrap up your testimony, so that we can be respectful of 
the committee members' time. And without objection, your 
written statement will be made a part of the record.
    Secretary Fudge, you are now recognized for 5 minutes to 
present your oral testimony.

  STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE MARCIA L. FUDGE, SECRETARY, U.S. 
       DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT (HUD)

    Secretary Fudge. Thank you so very much. Good morning, 
Chairwoman Waters, Ranking Member McHenry, and distinguished 
members of this committee, many of whom are my friends, and I 
miss you. It's good to see you. Thank you for this opportunity 
to discuss the transformational investments the Biden-Harris 
Administration has proposed to advance housing opportunity in 
America.
    I know President Biden is committed, in his head and in his 
heart, to help more people find a stable, affordable, and 
dignified place to call home. He has made that commitment 
clear. The President's proposed budget for Fiscal Year 2022 
requests $68.7 billion for HUD. This represents an increase of 
$9 billion, or 15 percent, from our enacted funding from the 
previous fiscal year.
    The American people need every dollar in this budget. 
Today, it is harder to find an affordable home in America than 
at any point since the 2008 financial crisis. The high cost of 
housing keeps millions of families up every night. They wonder 
if they can afford to keep a roof over their head and still 
manage to keep their lights on, to pay for their prescriptions, 
or to put food on their tables.
    The President's budget takes bold action to address our 
affordable housing crisis and to dramatically strengthen our 
social safety net for the most vulnerable among us. The 
President's budget requests $3.5 billion to provide housing and 
supportive services to Americans experiencing homelessness, 
including young people and survivors of domestic violence. It 
contains $30.4 billion for HUD's Housing Choice Voucher Program 
which, if enacted, would deliver life-changing assistance to an 
additional 200,000 households.
    The President understands that investing in housing 
represents a major solution for advancing equity on behalf of 
underserved Americans. The President's budget requests $723 
million in Indian Housing Block Grants to create affordable 
housing and spark economic development on Tribal lands. It 
contains $3.8 billion in Community Development Block Grants, 
including $295 million in targeted funding for historically 
underserved areas and cities, small towns, and rural 
communities.
    Nearly half of our public housing stock is more than 50 
years old. Many properties face significant capital needs. This 
is not just a safety issue but an issue of racial justice, as 
Americans of color represent roughly 70 percent of people 
living in public housing. The President's budget provides $3.2 
billion in capital funds to help restore public housing and to 
improve the quality of life for the residents we serve.
    We know people of color are especially vulnerable to the 
threats posed by climate change and extreme weather. We are 3 
times as likely to live in areas which lack green 
infrastructure that helps guard against flooding. Too often, we 
find ourselves in the path of natural disasters and are denied 
the resources we need to rebuild our homes and our communities. 
That is why President Biden provides $800 million to strengthen 
climate resilience in public housing on Tribal land and across 
HUD-supported communities.
    The President's 2022 budget is just one part of his 
commitment to make generational investments into America's 
housing. In addition to the vital support contained in his 
budget, the President has called for sweeping new housing 
investments through his Build Back America agenda. These 
investments would help build or restore more than 2 million 
affordable homes. The Build Back Better agenda would help more 
families of modest means realize the dream of homeownership. It 
would expand our supply of affordable rental housing and help 
revitalize our public housing stock.
    Our nation must move with urgency to enact investments 
contained in both the President's budget and his Build Back 
Better agenda. During the COVID-19 crisis, we all came to 
appreciate just how important it is to have a safe and stable 
place to call home. Today, thanks to the leadership of 
President Biden, our country is making great strides in 
rebuilding from the pandemic. Our economy is surging, more 
Americans continue to get vaccinated, and life is beginning to 
feel closer to normal.
    Yet, America cannot return to the status quo of yesterday, 
prior to the pandemic. We must not return to an America beset 
by crumbling homes and buildings, to an America grappling with 
a crisis in affordable housing. We must build back better 
together.
    I look forward to partnering with this committee to help 
make housing for all a reality in our nation and to ensure that 
HUD acts as a responsible steward for the funding entrusted to 
us.
    And with that, Madam Chairwoman, I am happy to answer any 
questions.
    [The prepared statement of Secretary Fudge can be found on 
page 64 of the appendix.]
    Chairwoman Waters. Thank you, Madam Secretary. I now 
recognize myself for 5 minutes for questions.
    Since I joined this committee 3 decades ago, I have been 
consistently focused on homelessness, not just managing it but 
ending this national embarrassment for one of the richest 
nations in the world. As you know, homelessness is also a 
racial justice issue. Despite representing less than 30 percent 
of the total population, Black, Indigenous, and Latinx 
individuals make up well over two-thirds of the people 
experiencing homelessness in America. Once they fall into 
homelessness, they are also far less likely than their White 
counterparts to be able to access the health and mental health 
services they need to obtain and maintain housing.
    Just last week, a team at the Urban Institute, led by Mary 
Cunningham, who previously testified before this committee on 
my Ending Homelessness Act, conducted a study on the 
effectiveness of permanent supportive housing in interrupting 
the costly cycle of chronic homelessness.
    In a randomized trial, participants in a Denver supportive 
housing initiative reduced their arrests and emergency room 
visits by 40 percent relative to the comparison group, and more 
effectively addressed their health needs, including doctor's 
office visits and prescriptions.
    Secretary Fudge, you and I have talked about this 
endlessly, all during the time that we have served here, and I 
know how you feel about homelessness. And I know that we have 
had a conversation more than once about supportive services. 
And, of course, we know that with supportive services, we are 
able to help people become more independent, if we can help 
them get to the doctor, if we can help them make sure they take 
their prescriptions, and all of that.
    And so, I think it is important for us to talk about 
supportive services, and what that means as we deal with this 
homelessness issue, because as we talk about additional 
affordable units and rental assistance and all of that, we know 
that to the degree that we are able to assist people take hold 
of their daily lives, with not only taking care of doctor's 
appointments and all of that, but being able to get up every 
day and maybe do everything from exercise, to read, to go to 
the local library, or what have you, that this would go a long 
way in helping them to become independent.
    So, how do you feel about supportive services and what that 
could mean in terms of the way that we look at homelessness?
    Secretary Fudge. Thank you very much for the question. If 
we do not have supportive services, Madam Chairwoman, what we 
do is really set up people to fail. Once we get people off the 
streets--and you know as well as I do that on any night in 
America, more than 580,000 people in this country, the greatest 
nation in the world, have no place to sleep, so until we can 
start to provide those services, whether it be health services, 
whether it be educational services, access to work, access to 
transportation, and a myriad of other things, we really have 
not done much, because we have not given them the tools and the 
ability to live on their own successfully.
    Chairwoman Waters. I know we absolutely agree on that 
issue.
    Let me just say a word about this rental assistance that 
the ranking member talked about. We passed the Heroes Act in 
June, and again in October. We also passed the standalone 
version of the Emergency Rental Assistance Bill in July. It was 
not until December that Republicans came to the table to help 
us pass emergency rental assistance. So, it is very interesting 
that Republicans are now complaining about delays in 
implementation. We would have been much further along in the 
implementation if Republicans had not dragged their feet in 
acknowledging the problem from the start. And they can't be 
more worried about it than I am. That is my issue. That is the 
issue that I spend the most time on. And yes, I added 
additional money after we had done the CARES money, into the 
American Relief Plan.
    We know that we have a problem all over this country. I 
know that Secretary Yellen and you--everybody is concerned 
about that. We are doing everything we can to get the States to 
do what they should do in putting together the programs that 
they need to do to get the rental assistance out.
    I just wanted to say that as I end, and turn the time over 
to Mr. McHenry.
    The gentleman from North Carolina, Mr. McHenry, who is the 
ranking member of the committee, is now recognized for 5 
minutes.
    Mr. McHenry. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman, and thank you for 
talking about the same thing that I think we all care about. We 
have allocated $46 billion to rental assistance. The Emergency 
Rental Assistance Program was supported by both parties when 
the law finally got passed. And when Secretary Yellen was here 
in March, she pledged that she would come back before this 
committee to explain what was going on.
    According to the documents from Treasury, less than 4 
percent of the money provided by Congress has reached eligible 
households. So Secretary Fudge, can you tell us how much of the 
$46 billion in rental assistance has ended up in the hands of 
renters or their landlords at this point?
    Secretary Fudge. Certainly, I cannot speak for Secretary 
Yellen, but I will give you the facts as I know them. I would 
be happy to do it.
    What I do know is that Treasury has obligated 100 percent 
of the resources from emergency rental. It is in the hands of 
States, local communities, and some continuums of care. So, the 
resources are out. It is not a fact that Treasury did not get 
it out; 100 percent of the resources are out.
    What we are doing now to assist--
    Mr. McHenry. How much is in the hands of renters?
    Secretary Fudge. Sir, I have no idea, but I would say this 
to you--
    Mr. McHenry. So, is the Washington Post story correct 
that--
    Secretary Fudge. I am not--
    Mr. McHenry. --it is just over $1 billion? Were you 
familiar with the Washington Post story I referenced, from the 
weekend?
    Secretary Fudge. I have not read the story, sir, so I don't 
know if it is accurate or not.
    Mr. McHenry. Okay. So, you are saying the funds are 
allocated, but you are not sure if they have gotten in the 
hands of anyone?
    Secretary Fudge. I know it has gotten in the hands of some 
people. I don't know that number.
    Mr. McHenry. Is that knowable from government or is it--I 
am not trying to play a pop quiz on you in testifying, but you 
are, under law, statutorily consulted by the Treasury Secretary 
for this program, and since she is not appearing, and this is a 
very pressing issue, I think we have a right to know why only 4 
percent has actually gotten in the hands of eligible 
households. Is that a correct number?
    Secretary Fudge. As I said, sir, I don't know if it is or 
not.
    Mr. McHenry. So, we don't know--
    Secretary Fudge. What I do know--
    Mr. McHenry. --if it is $1 billion, or less or more of the 
$46 billion?
    Secretary Fudge. HUD does not track the resources, sir.
    Mr. McHenry. We will follow up with you on that comment, 
because statutorily. you are required to publish the data about 
Emergency Rental Assistance (ERA).
    Secretary Fudge. In consultation with Treasury.
    Mr. McHenry. Yes, but HUD is the one to publish the report, 
statutorily, under ERA.
    Section 501(g) of Division N of Public Law 116-260, which 
created the original ERA program--are you familiar with it? It 
reads, ``Reporting requirements. The Treasury Secretary, in 
consultation with the Secretary of Housing and Urban 
Development, shall provide public reports not less frequently 
than quarterly regarding the use of funds made available under 
this Act.''
    The last report says only 4 percent has gotten in the hands 
of renters. Do you dispute that?
    Secretary Fudge. I don't know if it is accurate or not, so 
no, I do not dispute it.
    Mr. McHenry. Are you familiar with the report that your 
Department published?
    Secretary Fudge. Yes.
    Mr. McHenry. And in that report, it says that less than 4 
percent has gotten in the hands of renters.
    Secretary Fudge. The numbers change every day, sir.
    Mr. McHenry. Okay. But you have no idea what those numbers 
are at this moment?
    Secretary Fudge. I do not.
    Mr. McHenry. Okay. So given the statutory obligation, can 
you tell us what action HUD is taking to make sure that we get 
help into the hands of these renters faster? What are you doing 
to make that faster, with Secretary Yellen?
    Secretary Fudge. We are the people who are providing the 
technical assistance. And I would say to you--
    Mr. McHenry. What technical assistance are you providing to 
get it out the door faster? Is this an urgent issue for your 
Department?
    Secretary Fudge. It is.
    Mr. McHenry. What are you doing to make it faster?
    Secretary Fudge. We are talking to the communities, the 
people who have the least capacity to use the resources, so we 
are helping small and rural communities. We are helping small 
and rural communities to get the resources from their States 
and from their counties and other local governments, through 
the Housing Trust Funds, et cetera. Because most of them do not 
have the capacity. We give them money but we do not give them 
people. We don't give them the capacity--
    Mr. McHenry. You spent $800 million on overhead for this 
program to distribute just over $1 billion.
    Secretary Fudge. But they don't go to the rural 
communities, sir.
    Mr. McHenry. But understand that what has been spent by 
this Administration is almost the same amount of overhead that 
has actually gotten in the hands of renters. That is how deeply 
flawed this program is.
    Now, this is something that requires, I think, your 
attention and Secretary Yellen's attention. This is an 
absolute--it looks like complete mismanagement at this point, 
when you only have less than 4 percent of the money getting in 
the hands of renters, for this very important program.
    Secretary Fudge. Let me just, if I may, sir, let me just 
first off--we did make a mistake. Treasury actually publishes 
the report, not HUD. We consult with them. That is number one.
    Chairwoman Waters. The gentleman's time has expired, and 
this program is overseen by Secretary Yellen and the Treasury. 
When she is before us, then these questions will be--
    Mr. McHenry. And that is why I have raised the question, to 
invite Secretary Yellen, the Secretary of the Treasury, here.
    Chairwoman Waters. The gentleman from California, Mr. 
Sherman, is now recognized for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Sherman. Secretary Fudge, I am honored to have you 
here. And I am thrilled to say the words, ``Secretary Fudge.'' 
It is so appropriate that you are our sole witness here for 
this hearing, and I can think of no better use of the 
committee's time than to hear directly and solely from you in 
this hearing.
    The first question is something I would just like you to 
respond to for the record. Our colleague, Salud Carbajal, has a 
bill, the Naomi Schwartz Safe Parking Program Act, and I want 
to thank the chairwoman for noticing that bill for this 
hearing. And it focuses on those who are sleeping in their 
cars, the vehicular homeless, and I hope that you would respond 
for the record as to whether we can do more to help people who 
are sleeping in their cars. It happens, especially in Southern 
California. And particularly, if you and your staff could take 
a look at the Naomi Schwartz Safe Parking Program Act.
    And now, I would like to focus on Section 8, which is so 
important to Southern California. People get the Section 8 
voucher but then they can't find a landlord in my district who 
will accept it. U.S. Senators Coons and Cramer have a bill, the 
Choice in Affordable Housing Act--but I hear the story all the 
time. People end up having to move 30 to 50 miles away from my 
district because they can't find a landlord, and I don't 
represent that wealthy of a district.
    So, do you think that we can and should do more to 
incentivize landlord participation in the Section 8 Program?
    Secretary Fudge. Absolutely. And let me just say, if I may, 
Mr. Sherman, that the $46 billion is needed. There has never 
been anyone who can say that people who are homeless or at risk 
of experiencing homelessness don't need the money. If there is 
a problem on the Federal side, that is not their problem. The 
resources are needed every day to get people off the street. In 
California, most people can't afford to live in California 
anymore.
    The homelessness problem is so great there because even if 
we can find a landlord who is willing to rent to someone who is 
getting a Section 8 voucher, they can get so much more money 
from someone else. So, there is such a small supply for such a 
great demand.
    Mr. Sherman. Thank you. Members of the committee know that 
I have been concerned with these Property Assessed Clean Energy 
(PACE) loans, because, first, you have a first mortgage on your 
home, and then the PACE loan comes in as, in effect, ahead of 
the first mortgage, and that can pose a threat to Federal 
programs like FHA that guarantee first mortgages.
    But I am also concerned. because as the National Consumer 
Law Center says, these products are frequently expensive loans 
that are often pushed by aggressive contractors for projects 
which provide questionable savings and pose serious risks of 
predatory lending. That is why I want to thank the chairwoman 
for noticing for this hearing my bill, the Improving Federal 
Oversight of PACE Financing Act, and to thank the National 
Consumer Law Center for endorsing that bill.
    Madam Secretary, would you agree that we need to take more 
steps to protect consumers and the Federal mortgage guarantee 
and assistance programs when it comes to these predatory PACE 
loans?
    Secretary Fudge. I don't know that I would agree to it 
being predatory, but I would say that I do believe--
    Mr. Sherman. Actually, some of them are predatory, and some 
are not predatory. I want to make that clear.
    Secretary Fudge. I agree.
    Mr. Sherman. There are some that are quite legitimate, but 
they come in above the--
    Secretary Fudge. No, I absolutely agree, we need to have 
more conversations, further discussions, and look at it to be 
sure that it truly is providing a source of affordable 
financing. Yes, I agree.
    Mr. Sherman. Thank you. I yield back.
    Chairwoman Waters. Thank you. The gentlewoman from 
Missouri, Mrs. Wagner, is now recognized for 5 minutes.
    Mrs. Wagner. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman, and I welcome our 
former colleague, now Madam Secretary Fudge.
    First, I think you are going to hear this from all of us, 
because we are just deeply, deeply disappointed and frustrated 
that Treasury Secretary Yellen is not testifying today. And I 
know you are going to take a number of questions from us based 
on the joint efforts between HUD and Treasury.
    The Treasury Department has failed to properly administer 
more than $46 billion, that's ``billion'' with a ``B,'' in 
rental assistance to struggling families, and frankly, Madam 
Secretary, the taxpayers in Missouri's 2nd Congressional 
District deserve more accountability and transparency than what 
we are seeing from the Biden Administration.
    Congress has appropriated this money for families facing 
the threat of eviction, but less than 4 percent, which you are 
going to hear over and over again, of the rental assistance 
funds have actually reached eligible households. It is 
unacceptable that Secretary Yellen is not appearing before this 
committee when time is so urgent. We have 2 weeks before 
expiration. She should be here today to answer for the 
mismanagement of the Emergency Rental Assistance Program: $46 
billion, and less than 4 percent reaching those who need it.
    Secretary Fudge, outside of Treasury's Emergency Rental 
Assistance Programs, HUD received tens of billions of dollars 
in Community Development Block Grants and Homeless Assistance 
Grants from the CARES Act, two different programs, almost a 
year-and-a-half ago, and frankly, the vast majority of which 
remains unspent. Only 12.3 percent of the $5 billion in the 
CARES Act's CDBG funds have yet been spent by grantees, while 
only 9.4 percent of Homeless Assistance Grants in the CARES Act 
have been spent.
    What is this money, that is in your jurisdiction, Madam 
Secretary--why are these funds delayed from reaching those who 
need it the most?
    Secretary Fudge. Thank you for that question. I think it is 
a great question. HUD has actually obligated, which means we 
have given to grantees, more than 93 percent of all CARES 
money. Part of the problem with the CARES money is that as 
communities receive the CARES money, and then they receive the 
COVID money, the rescue money, what they determined was the 
CARES money is the money that needed more planning, that gave 
them a longer period of time to spend. And so, what they 
basically said was, ``Let's spend the emergency money right 
away. CARES money, we want to take the time to actually plan, 
so that no one will accuse us of waste, fraud, and abuse,'' 
which we often do when people harshly and hastily spend Federal 
resources.
    So, they are in the planning phase. They have almost 4 
years left on CARES dollars, so those are the dollars they are 
using last, but they do have them.
    Mrs. Wagner. But the need is so great right now, Madam 
Secretary. Let me get to my second question here, which is, I 
think, a reflection of what we have seen with this patchwork 
quilt of different rental assistance programs. There has been a 
lot said about the ability and inability of certain 
jurisdictions to build two, three, or four different emergency 
rental assistance programs and keep track of all the money, 
with so many competing rules and timelines. And much of this, I 
think, has to do with the rules that been set out, that are so 
onerous that they are not being properly administered by our 
Federal agencies and overseen by our Federal agencies, at both 
HUD and Treasury. So, there are competing rules and timelines.
    Given the limited experience and expertise of certain 
localities, wouldn't it be easier to run it if there was only 
one consolidated program with one rule set?
    Secretary Fudge. Well, I don't know that it would be 
easier. It depends on what the rules would be. But I would 
certainly suggest to you that most communities are accustomed 
to dealing with HUD. They get most of their technical 
assistance from HUD, even though Congress decided to send this 
money through Treasury. Communities are accustomed to dealing 
with HUD.
    Mrs. Wagner. But we have sent a lot through HUD, too, Madam 
Secretary.
    Secretary Fudge. I'm sorry?
    Mrs. Wagner. We have sent a lot through HUD, also.
    Secretary Fudge. And our resources are out, Mrs. Wagner.
    Mrs. Wagner. But they are not being spent at the local 
level. Those rules, that rule set, that oversight, that 
accountability comes back up through your agency. I am not sure 
if my time is expiring. I have not been watching. How much time 
do I have?
    Well, I would just say that anything we can do to try and 
streamline this progress, to get the money to both the renters 
and the landlords who are suffering right now is what needs to 
be done, not 4 years from now, right now.
    I will yield back. I am sure I have used--
    Secretary Fudge. And I would agree with you.
    Mrs. Wagner. Thank you.
    Chairwoman Waters. Thank you very much. Let me deal, just 
for a second, with this question about Secretary Yellen, as 
opposed to Secretary Fudge and HUD. No, I did not invite 
Secretary Yellen to intrude on the first time that Secretary 
Fudge would appear before us, and I don't intend to treat women 
that way. And so, no, Secretary Yellen is not here. She will be 
here when the quarterly time is due, and that is it.
    Mrs. Wagner. And I very much look forward to that, Madam 
Chairwoman. Thank you.
    Chairwoman Waters. The gentleman from New York, Mr. Meeks, 
who is also the Chair of the House Committee on Foreign 
Affairs, is now recognized for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Meeks. Madam Secretary, I am delighted to see you, and 
even more delighted with the job that you are already doing at 
HUD. You have made increasing production and access to 
affordable housing a priority for HUD's budget, and you have 
identified our severe shortage of affordable housing as a 
barrier to the home purchasing process.
    As you know, since the financial crisis, private investors 
have focused much on real estate because of high yields. 
However, what I am concerned about is that the private 
investors can often out-compete potential first-time home 
buyers. Some cite cumbersome FHA paperwork as slowing down the 
process for traditional home buyers as well as making the rehab 
loan process expensive.
    So my question is, can you consider or look at streamlining 
the FHA loan process to put first-time home buyers in a better 
position to compete with private firms in the home purchasing 
process?
    Secretary Fudge. Absolutely, and we are doing that now, by 
looking at a number of things. One is that HUD has not given a 
lot of small-dollar loans, which are what people need to 
rehabilitate their homes. But we are changing that. HUD has 
looked at credit in a way that we think has been unfair to 
persons of color or low- or moderate-income home buyers, 
because we have weighted student debt differently than we have 
other debt.
    So, we have created an environment in which people who 
carry student debt, primarily Black people, Brown people, poor 
people, and moderate-income people, and we have decided to 
weight that differently to allow people to really be 
creditworthy at this stage. We have also, in conjunction with 
our Chair, looked at down payment assistance. So, we are doing 
a lot of the things that you are requesting, and I am just 
really happy that you brought it up. Thank you so much.
    Mr. Meeks. And I wanted to bring up the next one, 
homeownership, because it is important, in my estimation, in 
closing the wealth gap, which has been a priority of mine and a 
priority of this committee. And as you have just correctly 
stated, your key component of achieving that is helping 
individuals build up equity through homeownership. And again, 
because of the price of homes skyrocketing, student borrowers, 
especially those of color, view homeownership as unattainable. 
That is why I am so happy that you have already taken on how 
you calculate student loan debt in its underwriting process to 
better reflect what student borrowers actually pay monthly, 
which is not often the sticker price, which gives them an 
opportunity to become homeowners, build equity in their homes, 
and thereby closing the wealth gap. That is so tremendously 
important.
    Maybe I should just ask you, can you explain a little bit 
more how you are implementing that policy and your forecast of 
how impactful that change will be for student borrowers, and 
especially those of color?
    Secretary Fudge. Well, think about it this way, if I can 
just give you a very quick example. Prior to our making the 
change, a person who makes about $50,000 a year and has about 
$75,000 worth of student debt could not be approved for a house 
that costs $200,000, $225,000. They can now. That is the 
difference.
    And the other thing I think is so important is the fact 
that we make an assumption that if you have a lot of student 
debt, then for some reason you are not creditworthy. But I know 
when I went to school, my mother would have paid anything, 
every dime she had, to make sure I had a good education. And 
so, it is not a matter of not being able to pay. We know most 
people who can afford an apartment can afford a home. The good 
thing is that HUD actually secures more than 50 percent of all 
first-time home buyers' mortgages, and it is something that 
comes within our shop, so we can make a difference.
    Mr. Meeks. You are making a difference. I don't know how 
much time I have left.
    Secretary Fudge. A minute.
    Mr. Meeks. A minute? I thought it was 6 minutes.
    [laughter]
    Mr. Meeks. But I will go until they stop me. Let me also 
ask--I am a product of public housing in New York City, and 
there is a big issue with the question of repairing public 
housing. In New York City public housing, many of the buildings 
there--the one that I grew up in, for example, is now 60-years-
old. I recently went to visit, and saw that a number of the 
apartments are beyond repair
    And so, I am hoping that in looking at some of these older 
institutions, and New York City's Housing Authority is the 
largest housing authority in the country, that we are looking 
at ways in which we can make sure that we can rehabilitate the 
apartments so that individuals can live in decent apartments in 
a timely fashion, which they can afford.
    Secretary Fudge. We are looking at it.
    Chairwoman Waters. The gentleman's time has expired. The 
gentleman from Michigan, Mr. Huizenga, is now recognized for 5 
minutes.
    Mr. Huizenga. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. Madam Secretary, 
I do want to do one little piece of housekeeping here. There 
has been lots of discussion, obviously, about whether Secretary 
Yellen ought to be sitting with you today. Just to clear the 
air on that, Secretary Yellen last appeared at this committee 
at the invitation of the Chair, with Chair Powell. I think I 
called her Chair Yellen there. But former Chair Yellen, now 
Secretary Yellen, was invited to this committee with Chair 
Powell to do a joint CARES quarterly meeting. That was in 
March. They were supposed to be back in June. They have not 
been back. She has not been back. And that March meeting is 
when she had made some commitments about getting back to this 
committee.
    So, there is no intention of disrespect to anyone. I am 
sure there was no intention of disrespect to anybody back in 
March, when both Secretary Yellen and Chair Powell were invited 
to a joint hearing on this.
    Onto some of the issues that we are talking about today, 
and I have to tell you, I was a little taken aback when, I 
think in response to my colleague from California, you 
mentioned that--and I wrote this down--``People can't afford to 
live in California anymore.'' I think a lot of us see that, and 
realize that, and I think a lot of people in California are 
seeing that and realizing it, which is why they are moving out 
of California.
    What is, I think, disturbing, or certainly confusing for a 
lot of us is, then, does that simply mean because California 
has made California very expensive to live in, that it is the 
rest of the country's responsibility to then subsidize those 
rents and to subsidize that cost structure that California has 
imposed upon its own citizens? And this could go for any State, 
whether it is Michigan or New York or California.
    I want to talk a little bit about a program here in 
Michigan. You have expressed your strong support for down 
payment assistance as a means of increasing minority 
homeownership, certainly an important goal for many of us. When 
I was in the State legislature in Michigan, I chaired the 
Commerce Committee. I worked on a number of housing issues at 
that time, and I am happy to be on the subcommittee that is 
continuing to have that.
    But I have to say, I was a little surprised to see that HUD 
announced recently that it would be pursuing rulemaking that 
would restrict FHA financing for loans with this type of 
assistance. And in my home State of Michigan, the Michigan 
State Housing Development Authority runs a successful program 
that provides Michiganders with up to $10,000 towards the 
purchase of their first home.
    So, could you shed some light on what HUD hopes to 
accomplish with this particular rule, and can you assure me 
that it won't negatively impact successful programs like the 
one operated by Michigan's Housing Finance Authority?
    Secretary Fudge. Which rule are you referring to?
    Mr. Huizenga. There had been an announcement that HUD would 
be pursuing a rulemaking regarding FHA financing loans that 
have this assistance, down payment assistance.
    Secretary Fudge. I am thoroughly confused. Can you tell 
me--
    Mr. Huizenga. My understanding is that there was an 
announcement by HUD that--and I can't open the link, because I 
actually am using paper--but the link to it being cited, that 
it is going to be pursuing rulemaking on this down payment 
assistance program.
    So are you saying that there is not going to be a 
rulemaking?
    Secretary Fudge. Let me say this to you, since I am not 
sure what rule you are talking about; it is not clear to me. 
All of our work is to advance down payment assistance. We want 
homeownership. We would do nothing--
    Mr. Huizenga. Okay. Reclaiming my time here, so you can 
assure me that it won't negatively impact State programs like 
the one that we have in Michigan?
    Secretary Fudge. Yes.
    Mr. Huizenga. Wonderful. We will hold you to that. Staying 
on that issue, one of the bills we are examining today would 
create a new down payment assistance program that would be 
housed within HUD, with a price tag of $100 billion. That 
program would actually be larger than your entire annual 
budget, which this Administration has even increased. So given 
that there are approximately 2,500 national, State, and local 
programs like the one operated by Michigan's Housing Finance 
Authority, that are already providing down payment assistance 
to first-time home buyers, I might add without using taxpayer 
dollars, do you think that we need to be spending limited 
resources duplicating these efforts for the Federal program?
    Chairwoman Waters. The gentleman's time has expired.
    Mr. Huizenga. I will pursue that with a written question.
    Chairwoman Waters. Thank you. The gentleman from Georgia, 
Mr. Scott, who is also the Chair of the House Agriculture 
Committee, is now recognized for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Scott. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. I appreciate that.
    Secretary Fudge, I am so proud of you. You and I served 
together in the House for many years, and you are doing a 
wonderful job as Secretary.
    Now, I want to pick this up in a way and deal with two 
issues. I want to get to the rental one, because that has 
raised some issues as well. But I think it is very important, 
because we have the nation watching this. And while I am on 
that, Chairwoman Waters, you are absolutely right. It was very 
important. This was her first chance to come before this 
committee, and she deserves to have this opportunity on her 
own. And I respect you and thank you for doing that.
    Now, I want to set the record straight. First of all, the 
White House's initial infrastructure proposal included a $213 
billion investment to create and retrofit over 2 million 
affordable housing units that were, and still are badly needed. 
But in the bipartisan infrastructure agreement that provision 
did not make the cut.
    So here we are, working our way through the infrastructure 
situation, and I think it is fair for us to hear from you. What 
do you see? What do you want? It is your job to deal with this. 
Tell us what we must do, how much money we need to make sure is 
here to get the job done.
    Secretary Fudge. Thank you very, very much. Just a couple 
of things to frame this for you. There is no place in America 
today where a person making minimum wage can afford a two-
bedroom apartment. Nowhere. Not just California. Nowhere. So, 
we know that we need affordable housing.
    And so, Mr. Scott, I would say to you that we are 
anticipating, and very hopeful, that in the reconciliation in 
the Build Back Better Plan, the resources will be there to 
build at least 2 million, but we need far more. There are 11 
million people in this country today who are spending more than 
half of their money on rent. It cannot continue. It cannot 
support itself.
    So, we know that we need more, but we are hopeful that we 
will at least get the resources to match what the President is 
asking for in the Build Back Better Plan.
    Mr. Scott. Thank you. And now, let's go to this rental 
issue, because we worked hard, and we did get nearly $47 
billion there. But I want you to, and I think the nation needs 
to know that you can execute the program, but much of these 
funds go down to the States to implement. How has that been 
handled, and do you see difficulties in the States fulfilling 
their obligation, because in so much of this--I have been 
involved in this for quite a while. You were with us when we go 
all the way back to the hardest hit program, when we sent 
billions of dollars down to our States and Territories so that 
we could help homeowners stay in their homes. We are doing the 
same thing with the renters. We even have moratoriums going on.
    But tell us how this works, and also tell us, does this 
money go to the renter? Does it go to the landlord? How does it 
work? America may need to know.
    Secretary Fudge. Let me start at the back end. The money 
goes to the landlords, so the landlords can be made whole, so 
that we can get people current with their rent. But most 
importantly, part of the problem has been that when we sent the 
money to the States, and to anything other than CDBG or a 
formula city or community, the money was held up because they 
didn't have the assistance or the capacity to get it out fast 
enough.
    So what we have been doing--personally, I have been calling 
mayors and governors and others to say that we have to get the 
money through the system. What we are seeing today is that the 
numbers of resources that are getting out is increasing 
exponentially every month.
    Mr. Scott. Thank you.
    Chairwoman Waters. The gentleman's time has expired. The 
gentleman from Kentucky, Mr. Barr, is now recognized for 5 
minutes.
    Mr. Barr. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman, and to our former 
colleague, congratulations on your appointment and 
confirmation.
    I do want to echo the comments of the ranking member and my 
colleagues about the Emergency Rental Assistance (ERA) program. 
Perhaps it is right that you are here all by yourself in your 
first appearance, but it is also right that Secretary Yellen 
should be here to testify, not just about the mismanagement of 
this programc, but also her statutorily-mandated quarterly 
CARES oversight hearing. I don't know why she hasn't yet 
appeared.
    But let's talk about the $46 billion appropriated by 
Congress and only 4 percent of it that has actually reached 
renters. With vaccines distributed and available and many 
lockdowns ended, taxpayers, I think, are asking the question, 
either this is too late because people now are working again, 
or it is not in time, because the moratorium on evictions is 
about ready to expire.
    I just think that this is the poster child for why 
hardworking taxpayers are so critical of big government, 
bureaucratic programs like that. I just want to ask you, Madam 
Secretary, given the fact that you do have an obligation under 
Section 501(g) of the law to make a report regarding the use of 
these ERA funds, what would you say to the taxpayer out there 
who is frustrated that only 4 percent of the $46 billion has 
actually been deployed? And many of these folks are now back at 
work.
    Secretary Fudge. What I would say to the taxpayers is that 
both Treasury and HUD have done exactly what we were directed 
to do by this Congress. We have issued the resources. We are 
providing the assistance. And I would further say that we are 
required to make reports. There is a quarterly report coming. 
We don't give daily reports. But there is a quarterly report 
coming, and I think that it will be more reflective of where we 
stand.
    Mr. Barr. Can you see why taxpayers would be frustrated 
that 96 percent of the funds that Congress appropriated, back 
at the height of the pandemic, have still not reached renters? 
Can you understand why taxpayers would be skeptical of future 
spending blowouts like this, going forward?
    Secretary Fudge. I can understand why taxpayers would be 
concerned if they are at risk of being evicted. There is no 
question about that. I agree with you.
    Mr. Barr. Well, yes. So to my point, for many of these 
renters it is either too late, the money is too late getting to 
them, or if it is not too late, then time is of the essence to 
deal with the arrears.
    Secretary Fudge. I agree.
    Mr. Barr. I know you are working on it. I appreciate that. 
Just understand, taxpayers are always going to be skeptical 
about big government programs, precisely because of the 
mismanagement we have seen here.
    Housing First: I was encouraged by your exchange with 
Chairwoman Waters earlier, when you discussed the need for 
services in addition to just a roof over the head of a person 
struggling with housing insecurity. I remain concerned that 
many transitional housing facilities in my district and around 
the country, Madam Secretary, are barred from receiving Federal 
Homelessness Assistance Grant funding because they mandate 
wraparound services, such as addiction treatment or job 
training, as a condition for continued residence. In many 
instances, these requirements are beneficial for specific 
communities. Facilities like the Franklin County Women and 
Family Shelter in my district, in central Kentucky, are left 
behind, because their business model, which is demonstrably 
effective in our community in getting homeless women into 
permanent housing and addiction-free lifestyles, doesn't comply 
with a one-size-fits-all qualification for funding 
availability.
    For the sake of clarity, I am not proposing to end Housing 
First, but I am proposing that we end the government's 
exclusive reliance on Housing First. HUD's current policies 
create a situation like I just described, where providers who 
have an excellent record of successfully transitioning people 
out of homelessness are excluded from government assistance.
    Secretary Fudge, are you willing to work with Congress to 
explore innovative options to expand the universe of successful 
transitional housing programs that received Federal support?
    Secretary Fudge. I am certainly willing to, and I would 
really love to talk to whomever you think we are being unfair 
to.
    Mr. Barr. I would love to have you--the previous Secretary 
came to my district. There are a lot of faith-based 
organizations in my district and around the country that are 
not Housing First, but have an excellent track record, and they 
are being systematically denied Federal assistance, and 
discriminated against, because they do not have this one-size-
fits-all model of Housing First. But they deliver results, and 
they don't get your help.
    And I do want to invite you to the 6th District of 
Kentucky, and other districts around the country, in both blue 
and red districts, where we have non-Housing First models that 
deliver for the homeless population of this country.
    Chairwoman Waters. The gentleman's time has expired.
    Mr. Barr. Yes, I yield back.
    Chairwoman Waters. The gentleman said that the Secretary of 
the Treasury should be here. The Secretary of the Treasury is 
not here because the Chair did not invite her to be here, 
because she should not be here.
    With that, the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Green, who is also 
the Chair of our Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations, 
is now recognized for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Green. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman.
    And I would add to your commentary that if we had the 
Secretary of the Treasury here, we would be asking for the 
Secretary of HUD. This is all about a major distraction. My 
colleagues on the other side--many of them, not all--oppose a 
minimum wage. Many of them fight against a living wage. They 
oppose subsidies for housing.
    Yet, they are willing to spend billions on nuclear arms, 
Nimitz-class aircraft carriers, bombers. But they oppose the 
things that give people decent living conditions. Housing 
infrastructure has become a bridge in my district for many 
people. The infrastructure has become a tent, a lean-to, in my 
district.
    Too many people are suffering, and Madam Chairwoman, I want 
you to know that I totally, completely, and absolutely support 
the Housing is Infrastructure Act of 2021 that you have 
proposed.
    I support it, because nearly 50 percent of all U.S. renters 
are cost-burdened and pay 30 percent or more of their income in 
housing. Seventy-one percent of the nation's extremely low-
income rental households spend more than half of their incomes 
on rent and utilities.
    And as the Secretary has mentioned, there is no State where 
a full-time minimum wage worker can afford a two-bedroom unit. 
As a result of the lack of investment into affordable housing 
infrastructure, many families pay unaffordable rents or live in 
substandard conditions.
    Madam Secretary, do we need to proclaim housing as 
infrastructure?
    Secretary Fudge. Yes, absolutely. I think that the best way 
to describe it, if I may, Mr. Green--when COVID began, the 
first thing they said to us was to stay home. What happened if 
you didn't have a home?
    They said, don't send your children to school. Teach them 
virtually. What happened if you didn't have a home and you 
didn't have high-speed internet or broadband?
    They said if you get sick, stay home. What do you do 
without a home?
    Mr. Green. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman, and I will yield 
back the balance of my time.
    Chairwoman Waters. Thank you.
    The gentleman from Oklahoma, Mr. Lucas, is now recognized 
for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Lucas. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman, and it is wonderful 
to see my old friend, Secretary Fudge, here.
    And before we begin much more discussion, I would just note 
that I think some of the concern--the Secretary knows the way 
my mind works--some of the concern on my side of the room is 
that when the eviction moratorium ends on July 31st, if we 
don't have those resources flowing, there are going to be a 
bunch of folks who are going to be in a terrible jam at sunrise 
on August 1st.
    So, it is a legitimate concern that I think is shared by 
both sides. How do we make sure that doesn't happen on the 
first day of August?
    That said, thank you for being here. For those of you who 
have not served on another committee that the Secretary and I 
served on for a long time, you wouldn't know that we worked 
together on a variety of conservation-related issues and rural 
development, and from the Secretary, I learned more about algae 
bloom in the Great Lakes than I might have otherwise ever have 
known. So, I appreciate that relationship that we have had.
    And you are in a unique position. Typically--not always, 
but typically--House Members don't become Cabinet Secretaries 
and step up to that level of responsibility in the Executive 
Branch. So, you have a vantage point, a view that most of us 
will never have.
    If you don't mind sharing for just a moment or two the 
things that have caused you frustration but, by the same token, 
the things that have been a positive surprise to you in your 
new role, things you would not have had knowledge of sitting on 
this side of the dais.
    Secretary Fudge. Thank you. It is good to see you, my 
friend, as well.
    The thing that I think has probably disappointed me the 
most is that I find that as I come here or to other places, 
there is an assumption that we don't work hard to do the work 
to serve the American people. We do. I inherited an agency that 
is overworked, understaffed, and yet they still do everything 
they can to take care of the people we serve. I think sometimes 
we forget about the people. That has disappointed me.
    I think the thing that has encouraged me the most is that 
whenever I travel around the country and talk to people, they 
know we care enough to fight to make it right. That is what has 
encouraged me. People have hope that we are going to make it 
right, and I feel really good about that.
    Mr. Lucas. In our time working together on the Agriculture 
Committee, I think we were old-time legislators and we worked 
to achieve consensus.
    In your role as CBC Chair, you were critically important in 
helping put the 2014 Farm Bill together, a comprehensive 
document that addresses everything from producing food to 
people's ability to have enough to eat.
    That seems to be out of style these days and has been for 
some time. I hope, in your role as the Secretary, that you will 
continue that spirit as you work with us.
    And as I allude for a moment back to the concern about July 
31st, there are some real challenges that are coming up that 
face real people back home.
    Sometimes, we all get a little excited and we pump a lot of 
adrenaline here on both sides of the room and on both sides of 
the building. But the bottom line is that we are here to 
represent those citizens back home, to make sure they all have 
the ability to put that foot on the first rung of the ladder to 
carry themselves on up, and that we make things happen.
    So as you address this issue about what happens after July 
31st, understand that it is a sincere concern by many people 
that we don't come up on what will be another catastrophe for 
good folks.
    And along with that, if you don't mind, I am a big 
proponent of bringing the COVID-19 pandemic to an end, and that 
is using science and technology to its very best. We now have a 
variety of vaccines that are making a real difference out 
there. Can you discuss in your final moments how HUD has worked 
to leverage the available resources to make sure that there is 
access to those COVID-19 vaccines?
    Secretary Fudge. Yes, two things. Let me just say I am 
concerned as well. There is no way that I want to see people 
put on the street or evicted from their apartments or removed 
from their homes. I am also concerned, and so we are doing 
everything we can to prevent it. We have a short timeframe, but 
we know that every single month, we are getting to more and 
more people and that additional 30 days is going to make a 
significant difference.
    As it relates to making sure that people are vaccinated, we 
are at a point now where we have to take extraordinary steps. 
We are already doing vaccination clinics in public housing 
facilities. We are already doing them in almost any pop-up 
situation we can find, working along with HHS.
    Mr. Lucas. Thank you, my friend. I yield back.
    And thank you, Madam Chairwoman.
    Chairwoman Waters. Thank you. The gentleman's time has 
expired.
    The gentleman from Missouri, Mr. Cleaver, who is also the 
Chair of our Subcommittee on Housing, Community Development, 
and Insurance, is now recognized for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Cleaver. Thank you, Madam Chairewoman.
    Secretary Fudge, I want to know a couple of things that I 
think my colleague just raised, and that is the whole issue of 
the vaccine. As you may know, Missouri has been on fire with 
COVID for the last week or so, leading the nation in new cases 
and hospitalizations.
    I don't know how many individuals who are living in public 
housing or some form of HUD housing are involved in this 
crisis. But is there a plan that is being implemented in HUD 
housing that is in some way trying to guide residents into 
accessing the COVID vaccine?
    Secretary Fudge. There are a couple of things happening. 
First, we are working with HHS to be sure that the vaccine is 
in the places where we believe it is needed most. There still 
are some minor access issues.
    But the bigger issue is the educational portion of it. 
Because you talk about Missouri on--it is on fire, but it is a 
fire that is caused by unvaccinated people, most of whom choose 
to be unvaccinated, and there is really not a whole lot we can 
do about that other than to continue to tell them why they 
should be vaccinated and to continue to make available the 
vaccine.
    It is in every single pharmacy. We have pharmacies that are 
staying open now every Friday, 24 hours a day, to be sure that 
people don't have a problem with getting off work. Twenty-four 
hours every single Friday, every single week.
    If you want to drop your kids off at daycare, we have a 
place that will do that for you. Everything that we can think 
of to do, we are doing, to make sure the vaccine is available.
    Mr. Cleaver. Thank you.
    The other issue, and I am sure you are getting a lot of 
inquiries about this, is manufactured housing and tiny housing.
    Like many other places, we are having difficulty finding 
places in our community, in the urban part of my district, and 
so we are struggling. Some areas are rejecting tiny homes, and 
some are rejecting manufactured housing. Almost all of them 
rejected--no matter what the housing is, if it is related to 
housing those who are without any shelter.
    There is nothing HUD can do to remove this, ``Not in My 
Backyard (NIMBY)'' philosophy. But are there any success 
stories in the tiny home process or manufactured homes?
    Secretary Fudge. Manufactured homes is something, of 
course, we interact with all the time. You can build a 
manufactured home for something very reasonable, someplace in 
the $100,000 range. They are fast to put up. They are easily 
installed, and they are an alternative, I believe.
    But the problem we have, and you know yourself as a former 
mayor, is that zoning and planning create lots of problems for 
us. And so, what we are trying to do now is engage communities 
to talk about the zoning such that it increases the cost of 
housing, it keeps people out, and that is even in addition to 
NIMBY. So, there are issues that we are working on, and we do 
believe that until we start to address it, we are going to 
continue to always perpetually be in this kind of a situation.
    Mr. Cleaver. You hit on something, I think, that I want to 
address with the U.S. Conference of Mayors, and that is--and 
maybe we need a conference with the mayors to talk about this 
whole issue of zoning.
    I was on a call with people involved in housing from around 
the country last week and everybody was talking about the same 
issue that you just raised, and that is zoning, and I think we 
need to have a revolution in how we do zoning, because we are 
zoning poverty, and it needs to change.
    At some point, I think maybe HUD should consider some kind 
of program with mayors to just get mayors to understand the 
problem that is going to continue until we begin to address the 
issue of zoning.
    Secretary Fudge. And let me just say, I was in Denver last 
week, and in Denver, the average price of a home is $700,000. 
In Boulder, it is over $800,000.
    The thing that they were complaining about was not 
necessarily more housing, but that they can't get workers, and 
why? Because workers can't afford to live there. They can't 
live close enough to be there. So not only do they have a 
housing crisis, they have a worker shortage.
    And these are things we have to address.
    Mr. Cleaver. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman.
    Chairwoman Waters. Thank you very much.
    The gentleman from Texas, Mr. Williams, is now recognized.
    Mr. Huizenga. Madam Chairwoman, a point of order?
    Chairwoman Waters. Yes. The gentleman is recognized.
    Mr. Huizenga. Thank you. I would like to request unanimous 
consent--during my questioning about the rulemaking with the 
Secretary, we either miscommunicated, or Secretary Fudge is 
unaware of a rule that was proposed in the spring of 2021. It 
is titled, ``Mortgage Insurance for Mortgage Transactions 
Involving Downpayment Assistance Programs.'' Alissa Saunders is 
the contact. This is through OMB, the website, reginfo.gov. And 
I ask unanimous consent to submit it for the record.
    Chairwoman Waters. Without objection, it is so ordered.
    Mr. Huizenga. Thank you very much.
    Chairwoman Waters. The gentleman from Texas, Mr. Williams, 
is now recognized for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Williams of Texas. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman.
    And I want to join my colleagues in expressing my 
disappointment also with how emergency rental assistance aid is 
still sitting idle while renters and landlords are waiting for 
help.
    Secretary Fudge, it's good to have you here today. As you 
are aware, bank participation in the FHA program has dropped 
dramatically in the last several years, and in speaking with 
some of my friends back home in Texas, the Texas bankers, they 
say this is because of two main factors: first, the high cost 
of servicing FHA loans; and second, enforcement actions taken 
under the False Claims Act.
    Several major FHA lenders were hit with unreasonable fines 
for what amounted to nonmaterial underwriting errors under this 
Act, which has caused many to simply stop participating in the 
program rather than run the risk of being fined for minor 
errors.
    And in response, the FHA made some changes to the quality 
control process, and the Department of Justice put in place a 
memorandum of understanding (MOU) to try to create some more 
certainty within the industry.
    I am sure that we all agree that banks need to be held 
accountable for major violations of this Act if they were 
intentionally trying to defraud the government.
    However, I also don't think we should expose lenders to 
high penalties for minor violations, and the housing market 
might be stronger if we had more competition, which I am a big 
supporter of, and competing banks participated in this program.
    So my question is, can you provide us with some assurances 
that the Department of Justice MOU will remain in place, and 
then go into detail, any detail you want, on additional steps 
that the FHA is taking to attract more banks back to the FHA 
lending program?
    Secretary Fudge. Certainly. We are always willing to take a 
look at things. But I would suggest to you that FHA is probably 
in a better position than it has been in a very, very long 
time.
    And I think that as it relates to the false claims, I know 
that is being worked on, and so I am happy to have a 
conversation with anybody on your staff about it.
    Mr. Williams of Texas. Okay.
    My last question is about the FHA, again, its multifamily 
department. I have been told there are massive wait times for 
some apartment deals to go through with people having to wait 
between 6 months to a year before even being assigned an 
underwriter.
    And I have seen this a lot. These delays are making it less 
attractive for private developers to come in and invest their 
money to increase the supply of affordable housing that we need 
across the country. And I saw that the FHA contracted out some 
of the underwriting work to the private sector, but so far it 
has not had any impact on reducing these wait times.
    So, Secretary Fudge, what are you doing to work through 
this backlog of multifamily deals so we can increase our 
housing supply and ensure developers are able to deploy capital 
in a timely manner and get people in homes?
    Secretary Fudge. You are absolutely right. In the past, 
that has been what has happened. We are on top of it. We are 
changing the process. We are streamlining the process. I think, 
going forward, they will see a much shorter period of time.
    Mr. Williams of Texas. Well, in the end, it helps those 
looking for homes to live in.
    Secretary Fudge. Absolutely.
    Mr. Williams of Texas. Thank you for being here.
    I yield back.
    Chairwoman Waters. The gentlewoman from Ohio, Mrs. Beatty, 
who is also the Chair of our Subcommittee on Diversity and 
Inclusion, is now recognized for 5 minutes.
    Mrs. Beatty. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman, and thank you to 
Secretary Fudge.
    Let me start by simply saying the title of this hearing is, 
``Oversight on HUD.'' I will just cut it short. ``HUD.'' It is 
not, ``Oversight of HUD and the United States Treasury.''
    And for the record, Madam Chairwoman, I wanted to note that 
I do not expect Secretary Fudge to be accountable for Secretary 
Yellen. I do not expect her to answer or speak for her, nor did 
I expect Secretary Carson to speak for Secretary Mnuchin. And I 
know he couldn't. He could barely defend why he took 16.4 
percent of HUD's budget before he got started.
    I would like to remind my colleagues that Secretary Fudge 
has only been in this position for about 6 months. So, let me 
educate my colleagues and those listening. She has crisscrossed 
the United States for housing. She came to the State of Ohio 
and met with a bipartisan team of housing experts.
    Let me also say, to allocate 100 percent of the rental 
housing funds to State and local governments, we should be 
saying, thank you.
    In my district alone, having them receive the money--that 
part, my colleagues got correct. We should be applauding her 
for getting all the dollars there for rental assistance.
    Now, it went to the State and local governments to do that. 
Let me share with you and paraphrase what she said to State and 
local governments in the capital city of Ohio with--including 
our mayor sitting there.
    She said, ``Allocate the funds and help these individuals 
who are in need.''
    Thank you for the investments in the nation's housing 
infrastructure as part of the Biden Build Back Better plan, 
rolling back actions of the Trump Administration which set us 
back and undermined the Fair Housing Act. So, thank you.
    Now, I do have a question, if I have enough time, but I 
want to say thank you to your entire team. They have been 
amazing in responding and reaching out earlier this year.
    I have a bill, the Housing Financial Literacy Act, that 
passed the House with overwhelming bipartisan support. This 
bill would give FHA borrowers a 0.25 basis point discount 
upfront on their mortgage insurance for first-time home buyers 
in exchange for taking a HUD-approved prepurchase housing 
course.
    And this bill lowered the down payment rate for first-time 
home buyers by more than $500 on average, and likely lowered 
the default rate within the FHA's portfolio.
    Under the current law, the FHA has the authority to 
implement this program, which it did between 1996 and 2000. So 
would you consider asking your team to reimplement this 
discount program for first-time home buyers?
    Secretary Fudge. Yes, we are really pushing that towards 
the front of the line. We are having discussions about it.
    Mrs. Beatty. Thank you. And in my last minute, that I would 
be honored to yield to you, is there anything you would like to 
say to this committee?
    Secretary Fudge. Thank you so much.
    I would say to this committee that I have not been gone 
from here that long, so I understand your concerns. I am doing 
everything that I possibly can do to make sure that we are good 
stewards of the resources we have been given.
    Just give me time to make it happen. I have been there for 
4 months. When I was sitting on your side of the table, I would 
probably have been asking the same questions. So, I am good 
with that.
    But know that I know how to do it, we have the people to do 
it, and we will do it.
    Mrs. Beatty. Madam Chairwoman, I yield back.
    Chairwoman Waters. Thank you very much.
    The gentleman from Arkansas, Mr. Hill, is now recognized 
for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Hill. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman.
    And once again, Secretary Fudge, it's great to have you 
before the committee and, again, let me add to all of my 
colleagues' congratulations for your service to our country as 
our HUD Secretary.
    I listened to the chairwoman talk what might have been last 
summer in terms of getting the rental assistance money started 
sooner. But last summer, the Congress was faced with sort of an 
all-or-nothing play.
    We were going to pass the HEROES Act or have no discretion 
to target money that we really felt, on a bipartisan basis, 
needed to be targeted, and so we went for days and days without 
starting the Paycheck Protection Program back up.
    It expired on August 5th last year, and we could have 
gotten a targeted bipartisan relief on rental assistance, but 
we didn't. So, it passed in December, and $25 billion of that 
money in the Appropriations bill has been 100-percent allocated 
to the States.
    And of the $21 billion that was in the American Rescue 
package, only 50 percent of that money has been allocated. So, 
it hasn't all been allocated. I wanted to correct the record 
that, in fact, it has not been all allocated. I think that is 
an important point.
    And the ranking member noted the Washington Post story by 
Rachel Siegel, ``Five-Alarm Fire: Slow Trickle of Rental Aid 
Heightens Concern About Evictions Crisis.''
    Madam Chairwoman, I ask unanimous consent to submit this 
article for the record.
    Chairwoman Waters. Without objection, it is so ordered.
    Mr. Hill. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman.
    And in this article, there is a quote from Diane Yentel, 
president and CEO of the National Low Income Housing Coalition.
    She says, ``Setting up rental assistance programs from 
scratch is a major and time-consuming undertaking, true. But by 
now--repeat by now--that is no excuse for the abysmally slow 
pace of spending in some communities.''
    I think that lays the stage, and so I ask you, Madam 
Secretary, who should be held accountable for getting this 
money out? Just within the Administration, who is the point 
person, in your view, to get this money out to our tenants and 
our landlords who need it?
    Secretary Fudge. The people who now have it, which is the 
cities and the States. Diane Yentel is absolutely right. It 
took some time to stand up the new program. The resources are 
there.
    That is why I am constantly calling mayors and governors 
and other people to say, ``You are the cog in this. Get it 
out.'' They know they have the resources. They will say to me, 
especially smaller communities, ``Well, we didn't have the 
people to do it. We don't know how to do it.''
    So, we provide that assistance to them. But it is their 
responsibility because they have the resources. It is no 
different than if it is CDBG money or any other kind of formula 
money or competitive money.
    Once they receive it, they are responsible for it. We are 
responsible for the oversight, but they are responsible for the 
program.
    Mr. Hill. But it is a challenge when some of these States 
have never done that before, and that was the decision by 
Congress.
    I think the Treasury Secretary and you have, really, the 
disproportionate responsibility to try to set those parameters 
and get that out, because the money was distributed in January, 
and it is almost the 1st of August, and as I said in my opening 
comments, a tiny portion, just seven tenths of 1 percent of 
that money in Arkansas has been spent, and just 4 percent, 
overall.
    Let me switch subjects, if I may. You referenced 50-year-
old housing unit stock and made that a point, and HUD, over the 
years, starting with the Obama Administration, has had the 
Rental Assistance Demonstration (RAD) program, which was 
started in 2011 to preserve and maintain affordable housing by 
allowing public housing authorities to convert public housing 
units into Section 8 Project-Based Rental Assistance.
    HUD Secretary for President Obama, Shaun Donovan, created 
that program and he said, ``The administration created RAD as a 
comprehensive and innovative strategy that offers long-term 
solution to preserve and enhance the country's vital affordable 
housing stock by finding ways to get private capital off the 
sidelines and back into communities.''
    Donovan goes on to say, ``RAD is a model of smart 
government.''
    So my question to you is, do you agree with Secretary 
Donovan that RAD is smart government?
    Secretary Fudge. I think it is a great program, because the 
thing about it is it still is maintained as public housing. 
They don't own it. The private industries don't own it. They 
have leveraged the resources.
    But it is a problem we are looking at, because the one 
thing we have to be very, very careful about, and I know that 
Members of Congress are, is that we don't start to go down a 
road of privatizing public housing.
    Mr. Hill. Okay. Let me ask you one follow-up quickly. Do 
you support lifting the statutory cap that currently limits RAD 
participation to a maximum of 455,000 units?
    Secretary Fudge. I don't know that I--we are still looking 
at it. But I would suggest to you that I think that we should 
consider raising it, yes.
    Mr. Hill. Thank you. I yield back, Madam Chairwoman.
    Chairwoman Waters. The gentleman yields back.
    The gentlewoman from Pennsylvania, Ms. Dean, is now 
recognized for 5 minutes.
    Ms. Dean. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman.
    Secretary Fudge, welcome. Welcome back. It is a delight to 
be here with you and we are delighted that you are here alone 
speaking about homelessness, affordable housing, repairs to our 
housing stock, and increases to our housing stock.
    When you talk about how we were all told to stay home when 
COVID hit, it is very poignant that hundreds of thousands of 
people in this country had no place to call home, and that 
continues to this day.
    I represent suburban Philadelphia, Montgomery County and 
Berks County. We have the Montgomery County public housing 
authority, which serves a large portion of Montgomery County, 
Pennsylvania.
    It has a portfolio of 625 units and a waiting list of over 
20,000 applicants. Simply put, and you have said it over and 
over, there is not enough affordable housing for those who need 
it.
    Could you tell us from the American Jobs Plan with some 
specificity how that proposal, this transformational American 
jobs plan, will make an impact on that tremendous need that is 
in my district, and, I imagine, is mirrored throughout this 
country?
    Secretary Fudge. Thank you very much for the question.
    As a nation, we have not at any time in recent history, for 
decades, invested in public housing or new moderate- and low-
income housing. We just have not done it.
    And so, time has finally caught up with us. That is where 
we find ourselves today. So, the President, in the American 
Jobs Plan, recognized the fact that millions and millions of 
people need housing.
    In that plan originally, if you recall, there was $300 
billion set aside just to do housing. There is a new housing 
tax credit to incentivize persons to build new housing. That is 
in addition to the low-income housing tax credits.
    The plan right now looks like it is about $200 billion, but 
neither the amount of money--it is the housing, 2 million new 
units, and up to 500,000 renovated and rehabilitated units, 
units that are energy-efficient, units that are resilient, and 
units that will keep the costs down for the people who live in 
them.
    It is the most significant piece of housing legislation in 
my lifetime.
    Ms. Dean. It is very exciting, and I do hope we will get it 
across the finish line with really broad bipartisan support.
    You referenced another problem in my district, which is 
that many of our housing units are 40 years or more old. We 
have had the opportunity through some investment to renovate 
some and reconstruct others.
    But, really, the capital needs are very, very great. Just 
outside my district in Philadelphia, more than 60 percent of 
the housing stock was built more than 50 years ago.
    Do you believe that the American Jobs Plan funds will be 
able to cover the full scope of what is needed? If you had a 
magic wand, what would be needed to make the repairs so that 
these are decent, as you say, energy-efficient, safe, warm, dry 
places?
    Secretary Fudge. Forty billion dollars is really a down 
payment. We know that we need so much more. It is estimated 
anywhere between $70 billion and $100 billion or more. But what 
we do know is that $40 billion is a great down payment to start 
to make the change we need to make.
    And it is a commitment that I believe that housing 
authorities and others are welcoming because they know we have 
never, ever given them these kinds of resources.
    Do I think it is enough? No.
    Do I think it is a great start? Yes.
    Ms. Dean. Terrific. Thank you.
    I want to switch now to something else I care passionately 
about, which is ensuring proper housing for those who suffer 
from the disease of substance use disorder, addiction, or those 
with mental health ailments.
    We know, oftentimes, these people are unable to find 
affordable proper housing when that is precisely what they need 
to stabilize their lives, receive treatment, and begin to heal.
    What efforts is HUD leading for these populations of people 
who either are struggling with the disease of addiction or 
mental health issues? What is HUD doing about housing for them?
    Secretary Fudge. There is a carve-out in the Jobs Plan that 
asks for billions of dollars for housing for the disabled, 
which would include the population that you are referencing.
    Ms. Dean. Thank you very much, and I hope we make sure it 
is a robust carve-out for those. And offline, because I see my 
time is up, we did signal over to your team that we want to 
talk about the problem of the definition of group homes for 
those who are in recovery, and unlicensed group homes that are 
sometimes taking great advantage of people who are in the 
greatest of need.
    Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. I yield back.
    Chairwoman Waters. Thank you very much.
    The gentleman from Tennessee, Mr. Kustoff, is now 
recognized for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Kustoff. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman, and thank you, 
Madam Secretary, for appearing today. Let us see if you would 
welcome the opportunity to talk about something other than what 
we have talked about here before, and that is Opportunity 
Zones, if I could.
    We know that the Opportunity Zones were created in the Tax 
Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017. In my State of Tennessee, at last 
count I saw we had 176 Opportunity Zones, 32 in Shelby County, 
which is the Memphis area, an area that I represent with 
Congressman Steve Cohen.
    And in 2019, I had the opportunity to tour one of those 
zones, an area called Union Row. It is now called the Walk. 
That is actually in Congressman Steve Cohen's district. I 
toured that with your predecessor, Secretary Carson.
    Madam Secretary, could you talk about the Biden 
Administration's position right now? Is the Biden 
Administration, in fact, open to expanding Opportunity Zones?
    Secretary Fudge. I don't think they have taken a position 
at all at this point. But certainly, we are going to be talking 
about it, because not only have Senate Members mentioned it as 
well, but it is something that some people feel very, very good 
about. So, we will be having further conversations.
    Mr. Kustoff. And to that point, Madam Secretary, can you 
talk about what specific changes, if any, or reforms that the 
Administration would look at to the existing Opportunity Zones 
or to further Opportunity Zones, if you would, please?
    Secretary Fudge. I don't know, because we have not had the 
discussions.
    Mr. Kustoff. Thank you. Could you also, Madam Secretary, 
talk about where the Biden Administration stands right now as 
to the Biden appraisal task force that HUD was guarded with the 
leadership of?
    Secretary Fudge. Yes. As a matter of fact, I am the Chair 
of the task force, and what we are talking about is what we 
know to be true, that we have throughout this nation's history 
looked at property in certain communities, primarily those that 
are Black and Brown, and undervalued those homes.
    I live in an all-Black community by choice. My home is 
undervalued compared to the community right next door to me, 
literally within walking distance. But my home is valued as 
much as $20,000 less than a comparable home in another 
community.
    We want to level the playing field.
    Mr. Kustoff. I hear from a number of FHA borrowers that 
they say they can't compete in today's market, that sellers are 
refusing to entertain offers using FHA financing due to 
concerns with certain minimum property requirements, maybe with 
appraisal issues, or concerns over the quality of the loan 
itself.
    Can you talk about what FHA is doing to combat the 
narrative and, hopefully, try to address these issues?
    Secretary Fudge. The first thing is they can't be using 
appraisals at this point. We just started the committee. So if 
they have been having problems in the past, it certainly wasn't 
that.
    And I don't think that there is anything that I see, no 
basis--if they are concerned, they need to raise what those 
exact concerns are. But there is nothing that has been changed 
to this point that would create a problem for them.
    Mr. Kustoff. If I could, one last area, and I appreciate 
you allowing me to jump to different issues.
    This involves the Community Development Block Grant 
program, and I think we can all agree that it has served a 
vital role.
    My question is about Formula B, which uses a pre-1940 
housing units variable in determining grant sizes. My position 
would be that that essentially allows cities which had large 
populations 80 or 90 years ago to receive larger grants today.
    And I will use, again, my City of Memphis as an example. In 
the year 2020, the City of Baltimore received 3 times as much 
funding as Memphis, despite Baltimore having a lower population 
and poverty rate than Memphis in current times.
    Can you address, if you can address, whether you think that 
CDBG, whether the formula is outdated and in fact does need to 
be modernized?
    Secretary Fudge. I certainly think we need to take a look 
at it just like we do so many other formulas in HUD. We are in 
the process of evaluating where we stand. Absolutely, I think 
we should look at it.
    Mr. Kustoff. And I do appreciate that answer. I would 
appreciate it if your staff could follow up with my staff on 
any thoughts and any proposals, and maybe we could share ideas.
    Secretary Fudge. I would be happy to.
    Mr. Kustoff. Thank you, Madam Secretary.
    With that, Madam Chairwoman, I yield back.
    Chairwoman Waters. Thank you. The gentleman's time has 
expired.
    The gentlewoman from Texas, Ms. Garcia, is now recognized 
for 5 minutes.
    Ms. Garcia of Texas. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman, and thank 
you so much for this very important hearing, and for our 
invitation to Secretary Fudge.
    And, Madam Secretary, it just sounds so great to say that. 
In fact, I am going to say it again. ``Madam Secretary.''
    Welcome to your first hearing before the Financial Services 
Committee. I know many of us join you and stand with you in 
your success, and if there is anything that I or my office can 
do, please do not hesitate to call.
    I want to focus on housing, of course, particularly access 
to housing. Research shows that access to housing equals a 
healthy productive society. Access to housing means access to 
building generational wealth. It also means closing the racial 
wealth gap.
    It is estimated that between 2020 and 2040, 70 percent of 
new homeowners will be Latino. And Freddie Mac found that in 
2019, there were 8.3 million mortgage-ready Latinos aged 45 and 
under.
    The National Association of Hispanic Real Estate 
Professionals found that the top-producing real estate firms 
are the ones that offer bilingual services throughout all 
stages of the home-buying process.
    In light of this, it is important that we think about how 
we can use language access to expand access to housing. It is 
great to see that HUD's housing counseling agencies provide 
multilingual services, and as you said about the homeless, if 
we don't provide services, we set them up for failure, and we 
want our home buyers to succeed.
    This is a critical service. It is important to home buyers 
struggling to navigate such a cumbersome financial decision. 
The American Rescue Plan provided $100 million for housing 
counseling to help struggling families stay in their homes. But 
housing counselors do not always have the ability to assist 
homeowners with legal help when they need it.
    Is HUD reviewing how they can connect housing counseling 
with legal aid services in the future? And if so, how is HUD 
working with counseling agencies and legal aid services to 
ensure access for homeowners who do not primarily speak 
English?
    Secretary Fudge. Yes. We right now have about $20 million 
from, actually, funds that were allocated by Congress to assist 
with legal issues, especially.
    It was designed, of course, for those who are facing 
eviction, but it can be used for other things. So, we do have 
$20 million now that came from the Rescue Plan.
    In addition to which, we do know as well that the wealth 
gap or the gap between homeownership for Black and White 
Americans is as wide today as it was in 1968, and so we 
understand very clearly the need to be sure that we can bring 
in Black and Brown people in a way that is comfortable to them.
    So, we do have resources and we are working on it daily to 
make sure that we do--
    Ms. Garcia of Texas. And they will also address services 
for those who cannot speak English or have language barriers?
    Secretary Fudge. Absolutely. Language, yes.
    Ms. Garcia of Texas. Well, thank you so much. And there is 
much being said about how many dollars have actually been 
spent, and I think it is clear that you have said that 100 
percent of the dollars have been obligated that were received.
    And we all know, as you have also stated, that the problem 
becomes, you send it to the States, and then the States do not 
put it out there quickly enough, or sometimes they sort of play 
with the money and don't do quite what we asked them to do.
    And as you know, you and I have visited about the situation 
with the CDBG dollars for disaster mitigation in Houston and as 
they were handled in Texas. We had a hearing about that last 
week.
    And it is just another example of how the dollars are sent 
but the governors--sometimes, governors from the other side of 
the aisle, in our case, just decide to either delay or do their 
own formulas, or do whatever they want to with the dollars.
    What can we do as lawmakers to prevent those situations 
from happening? What other guardrails, what other procedures 
can we do?
    And is it possible that some of these dollars go directly 
to cities like Houston who can probably handle the dollars and 
have the resources and staff to quickly get those dollars out 
the door?
    Secretary Fudge. The good thing is that cities like Houston 
do get it directly because they are entitlement cities, which 
is anything over 50,000 people.
    But I would say that I was in this body long enough to have 
heard many, many times that States have their rights. They 
should be able to do what they want to do. And cities have 
their rights, and they should be able to do what they want to 
do.
    Now, they want me to control it. There is only so much we 
can do based upon the way that the law is written, but but we 
are enforcing it as best we can.
    Ms. Garcia of Texas. Thank you. I yield back.
    Thank you, Madam Chairwoman.
    Chairwoman Waters. Thank you.
    The gentleman from Georgia, Mr. Loudermilk, is now 
recognized for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Loudermilk. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman.
    Madam Secretary, it is good to see you again, and 
congratulations on your new role.
    As you know, the primary funding source for many housing 
authorities is this monthly drawdown from HUD. However, 
guidance from the Office of the Chief Financial Officer states 
that HUD auditors do not recognize interim directors. Only 
permanent officials can obtain drawdowns. What that means is 
when a housing authority has an interim director as a 
transition period, it may not be able to access HUD funds.
    Interim directors were able to do drawdowns in the past. I 
am not sure why the policy changed. But this is becoming a 
problem and it is a problem with small cities, especially with 
small staffs.
    It recently happened in my district. The City of Canton had 
an interim director, and they were unable to draw down the 
money that they needed. They were able to come to a one-time 
resolution with HUD.
    But there are thousands of State and local housing 
authorities in the country that frequently have executive 
directors leave their position and an interim director is 
appointed.
    I understand the intent of the policy is to potentially 
prevent fraud, but there needs to be some kind of process for 
interim directors to access the downloads.
    So my question would be, is this something that you can 
look into and find a permanent solution, so that housing 
authorities, especially during this time period we are in right 
now, don't have to go through so many hoops to--if they have an 
interim director in the middle of the change to where they can 
actually access the funds for their folks?
    Secretary Fudge. Absolutely, because if that is the case, 
we do need to look into it. That should not be an impediment to 
a drawdown.
    Mr. Loudermilk. I appreciate that, and like I said, with 
the City of Canton, Georgia, recently they had to go through 
this.
    They were able to work through a one-time solution. But if 
they don't have an executive director by the time the next 
month comes in, they are going to have to go through that 
again.
    On another issue, I would like to echo some of the concerns 
that have been raised regarding mismanagement of emergency 
rental assistance funds.
    The bipartisan December Omnibus provided a structure for a 
$25 billion rental assistance program, but instead of 
continuing with that program, Democrats established an entirely 
new partisan program from scratch. This has created two 
different sets of rules for State and local governments to 
follow, and has resulted in less than 4 percent of the funds 
being distributed so far.
    This has created some of, potentially, the worst 
legislating that I have seen, with two different programs, with 
two different sets of rules, that cities and States are trying 
to work through.
    So the question is, if Congress consolidated the two 
programs into one, would that help get the funds out to renters 
more quickly?
    Secretary Fudge. I think that Congress should do what they 
believe is best. I can't make a decision adjustment based on 
what Congress will do. But I would say that the more 
streamlined, the better. What HUD does is follow the rules. 
When Congress tells us how to do something, that is what we do.
    Mr. Loudermilk. Well, I understand that, but with two sets 
of rules for two different types of programs that want to 
accomplish the same thing, it gets very convoluted, and State 
and local governments already have enough trouble dealing with 
the Federal Government.
    But with only 4 percent of the funds making it down there, 
it seems to me that if we could get a functioning rental 
assistance program into place, would there be a need for an 
eviction moratorium?
    Secretary Fudge. Well, I think that the one thing that we 
don't talk about is that the fact that these funds were put in 
place because of an emergency situation.
    I think coming out of COVID--either way, we would have 
needed it because of COVID. I don't know that as a general rule 
we would, but certainly because of COVID, I would say yes.
    Mr. Loudermilk. Okay. But even with COVID, only 4 percent 
being distributed--it seems to me that if we could just get the 
money to the people who need it, we wouldn't have to have the 
eviction moratorium.
    With that, Madam Chairwoman, I yield back.
    Chairwoman Waters. Thank you.
    The gentlewoman from Iowa, Mrs. Axne, is now recognized for 
5 minutes.
    Mrs. Axne. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman, and thank you, 
Secretary Fudge, for being here. It is great to have you here 
today.
    I want to start with a question on rental assistance. I 
know this has been run out of the Treasury. But I also know 
that HUD has been helping State and local groups trying to run 
those programs.
    Iowa's State program has not done well in getting this aid 
out. I believe at the end of June, they had given out just 
about 2 percent of the funding they had received.
    However, I don't quite understand why my Republican 
colleagues here on the other side of the aisle are so hung up 
on the Treasury here.
    I have a local program in Polk County that has now given 
out more than two-thirds of the funding. It is the largest, 
most populated county in the State. So, we can get it out there 
and to the folks who need it, but, apparently, our State 
Government can't.
    Clearly, this is not a question of the rules preventing it. 
It is about, really, communities who have the will and the 
knowledge to get the funding out and support the people 
properly.
    Secretary Fudge, my question is, can you share some of what 
HUD sees as best practices here so we can encourage our States 
to adopt those?
    Secretary Fudge. The easiest thing is for communities, 
whether it be the State or the county or whomever, to work with 
people who do this every day.
    Most people who are at risk of eviction either have worked 
with social workers or we know who their landlords are. We need 
to do the work. They need to do the work. They want it to be 
easy.
    But they have to start to talk with people on the ground 
who are doing this every day. It is not hard to find out who 
they are and to get them the resources. But we also have made 
it somewhat cumbersome for the renters.
    We assume a certain amount of sophistication for renters to 
get the resources because we are putting the onus on renters, 
really, to come and ask for the resources. So, we have to find 
another way to reach those renters and to get them the kind of 
information they need to get those resources out.
    Mrs. Axne. I look forward to continuing to work with you on 
those opportunities, and I will make sure to talk with the 
State about that.
    They sound like good ideas and I, certainly, know that as 
you mentioned, in Polk County, they actually are working with 
those local groups. So, you are right, it works.
    I did want to also point out another thing I am wondering 
about. Our governor decided not to give people the 3 months of 
forward rent that they could, and to me, it seems like a pretty 
clear way to provide help to people without making the same 
person apply every single month, and it is also going to make 
administering of this easier as well.
    Is that something that you have seen elsewhere and do you 
agree that this would raise costs if people have to apply 
repeatedly?
    Secretary Fudge. There is no question, and one of the 
complaints we get is that it is too much paperwork. So, why 
create additional paperwork?
    Mrs. Axne. Okay. So it would be a good thing for us to 
continue to move forward with that? It would ease up the 
pressures on the application process?
    Secretary Fudge. Absolutely.
    Mrs. Axne. Thank you. I do hope that our State Government 
can put this in place as it reconsiders passing up the 
opportunity to help more renters in the second round.
    I would like to move on now to something that I think could 
help with affordable housing across this country, and that is 
manufactured housing, which I think can be part of our solution 
to helping get a good solid roof over folks' heads.
    However, for those who own the home itself but rent the 
land, they don't get that benefit if the rent gets jacked up to 
levels that they can't afford, or if the landlord kicks them 
out for no reason, forcing them to sell their home, sometimes 
at a major loss.
    I actually had a constituent who had to sell their home for 
a 40-percent loss of what she paid for it just 3 years earlier, 
because of these predatory tactics.
    Secretary Fudge, do you think there is more that we can do 
to make manufactured housing communities work as affordable 
housing that truly prioritizes the tenants rather than solely 
focusing on extracting profit?
    Secretary Fudge. Yes, we can, and I have spoken with the 
manufactured housing group. I have also spoken with tenants of 
not just public housing, but manufactured housing as well.
    And we are trying to work through some issues that we think 
are going to be helpful. But they know that there is a problem, 
and we know that there is a problem, so I do believe it can 
work.
    Mrs. Axne. And are you pulling together best practices from 
some of those landlords who are doing the right thing?
    Secretary Fudge. Oh, absolutely.
    Mrs. Axne. Okay. I would love to see some of those if we 
get a chance. Thank you so much for doing that.
    It is why I introduced a couple of bills to get these 
protections in place so things like this don't happen. Just so 
you know, I have the Manufactured Housing Tenant's Bill of 
Rights that would increase protections for renters in 
federally-backed properties, and the Manufactured Housing 
Community Preservation Act that provides grants to resident-
owned groups and others who might want to step up and own the 
places themselves and give those benefits to the residents.
    So, I hope we can work together on those to get people more 
protected and safe in their homes that they currently live in, 
and also give other folks more opportunity for affordable 
housing.
    Thank you so much, Madam Secretary, for all that you are 
doing, and thank you for helping us move this agenda forward 
with the American people.
    I yield back.
    Chairwoman Waters. Thank you.
    The gentleman from Ohio, Mr. Gonzalez, is now recognized 
for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Gonzalez of Ohio. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman, and 
welcome, Secretary Fudge, my friend. It is good to see you. We 
miss you in Cleveland, but Cleveland is so very proud of you 
and we are grateful for your continued service to the country.
    I want to start off by talking about something we have 
spoken about in private, which is veterans' homelessness. That 
is something that is a big issue in our country, and it's 
certainly a big priority of mine here in Congress.
    In your written statement, you noted that HUD's mission is 
to create strong, sustainable, inclusive communities and 
quality affordable homes for all.
    As you know, this certainly means ensuring that our 
veterans have access to affordable housing after serving our 
country. I believe no veteran should have to worry about having 
a roof over his or her head. Currently, throughout the United 
States, there are still far too many veterans who are homeless, 
and countless more who are at risk of losing their homes.
    What more do you think we can be doing through HUD in 
collaboration with the VA and those who serve our veterans to 
extend more housing opportunities?
    Secretary Fudge. That is a really great question, and I 
tell you, it is something that I wrestle with every day, and I 
have had the opportunity to speak with Secretary McDonough.
    There is no reason, first off, in this nation that anyone 
should be homeless, but especially those people who have served 
their nation with such distinction.
    And so, we are trying to find more ways. We have right now 
in our system, unused at HUD, more than 20,000 vouchers for 
veterans. We have in this budget, the President's budget, when 
we reauthorize them, almost 100,000 vouchers. We are just 
trying to make sure that we can find a way to get them to the 
veterans who are homeless, and we are doing better, certainly.
    But it takes a concerted effort, because the one thing 
about veterans is that they are resilient. So, when they get 
into these communities they become in charge of these 
communities. It becomes a culture.
    We are breaking down the barriers every day.
    Mr. Gonzalez of Ohio. That is great, and I look forward to 
working with your office more on figuring out how we can get 
those unused vouchers out. If we already have them out there, 
let us make sure our veterans are using them and they are 
getting into their hands.
    As far as the emergency rental assistance dollars, I know 
that reports are being produced and that has been a big topic 
of conversation. In those reports, will there be special--not 
special call outs, but will we be reporting on the status of 
veteran homelessness in there or will that be in separate 
reports?
    Secretary Fudge. It is really separate. They will come 
through the VA, but I will make sure that we get you that 
information so that you can have it.
    Mr. Gonzalez of Ohio. Fantastic. Thank you.
    And then another issue I know you care passionately about, 
and that impacts northeast Ohio disproportionately compared to 
the rest of the country, is the issue of lead paint in older 
housing.
    Ohio has the third-most Housing Choice Voucher units in the 
country which were built prior to 1978, only behind California 
and New York. This can have serious impacts on the health and 
development of children, as we know, who are exposed, and it is 
something I believe we need to address head on.
    What more can we do on the preventative side to identify 
housing that has lead-based paint and make sure that northeast 
Ohio families are kept safe?
    Secretary Fudge. It is a passion of mine, and it almost 
brings me to tears to talk about it. In Cuyahoga County alone, 
1,000 children annually--annually--are poisoned to the extent 
that they cannot function in the county I live in. Just about 
all of the children in the public schools have elevated levels 
of lead. We must find a way to do something with lead paint in 
public housing.
    The resources have been requested in the President's 
budget, and I just need for people like you, Mr. Gonzalez, to 
help me fight for it.
    Mr. Gonzalez of Ohio. Well, I will continue to do just 
that, and I look forward to working with you on the lead paint 
issue, veterans' homelessness, and the priorities of this 
committee.
    And with that, I yield back.
    Chairwoman Waters. The gentlewoman from Massachusetts, Ms. 
Pressley, is now recognized for 5 minutes.
    Ms. Pressley. Thank you, Chairwoman Waters, for convening 
this important hearing, and thank you to Secretary Fudge for 
being here today. What a welcome change. I am overjoyed to see 
that we have someone dedicated to exacting housing justice back 
at the helm of the Department of Housing and Urban Development.
    In May 2019, former Secretary Carson came before this 
committee and refused to answer any of my questions. I asked if 
he thought safe housing was a social determinant of health. He 
refused to answer. I asked if he thought substandard housing 
conditions posed a threat, a risk to tenants' health. He 
refused to answer. I asked if my constituents deserved to live 
in housing filled with life-threatening mold. He refused to 
answer. And then, to no one's surprise, he repeatedly tried to 
cut funding for long-overdue repairs.
    Unlike the prior Administration, Secretary Fudge, which 
simply avoided the problem and slashed much-needed resources, 
President Biden, as you alluded to in your opening statement, 
has proposed a budget and a Build Back Better Plan which 
increases such efforts and includes billions in funding to 
address the public housing repair backlog and millions to 
remove lead-based paint and other health hazards.
    Here in Congress, we are working urgently to make good on 
those proposals, and I appreciate having good partners in this 
fight. But there is also work that HUD can do on its own, 
without Congress, to improve inspections and repairs to HUD-
subsidized units, work that your Administration undoubtedly has 
inherited but now has an opportunity to address, once and for 
all.
    With HUD Real Estate Assessment Center (REAC) inspections 
cautiously resuming following the unprecedented pause during 
the pandemic, we have a responsibility not just to return, 
again as you alluded to in your opening statement, to an unjust 
status quo normal, but to build a new normal, one which ensures 
that everyone has a safe, clean, and healthy place to call 
home.
    Secretary Fudge, how long, on average, does it take for a 
property that failed its REAC inspection to make the repairs 
and then to receive a passing score? Is this data that is 
currently tracked?
    Secretary Fudge. I don't know that we track the exact 
length because every situation is a little different in terms 
of the agreements that they have. What they try to do is make 
an agreement with the landlord, if it is Section 8 or some 
other. But let me just say this. The reason that I demanded 
that we start inspections again, to the concern of many people, 
is because I believe in the dignity of people who live in these 
places. And so, we are trying to speed up the process.
    What I have asked them to do is give me a list of the worst 
properties in their areas, and when they are going to get in 
them and look at them. I don't want to hear about concerns they 
may have. People are depending on us. And so, I have asked for 
the list of the top 10 worst properties in every single 
community we serve, and it is my expectation that within a 30-
day period, they will look at every single one.
    Ms. Pressley. Thank you, Madam Secretary. Certainly, that 
transparency is so critical. I am a believer that that which 
gets measured, gets done, so that transparency is very 
important.
    Would you be open to working with our office to perhaps 
explore ways that this data could be collected and reported in 
order to ensure that HUD is meeting those oversight 
responsibilities?
    Secretary Fudge. I would be happy to, because we should 
have already been collecting that data.
    Ms. Pressley. Thank you. I certainly, throughout my 
district, the Massachusetts 7th, continue to hear complaints 
from constituents that some housing providers take years to 
make those improvements, after having a failing REAC score. 
Some have shared, in fact, that in past year they have been 
skeptical about whether HUD followed up promptly after the 
provider claim to make repairs. So again, I appreciate your due 
diligence on this front.
    Just a couple more questions in that vein. When properties 
fail inspections are there any strategies currently under HUD 
to bring properties back into compliance quickly and 
efficiently? Is there a prompt?
    Secretary Fudge. There are procedures in place. I just 
think that for so long, we have been somewhat lax in following 
up. I think also we go overboard because we know that people 
need the housing. I think that prior Administrations have been 
more lenient than I would be. If they are not going to let 
people live decently, I don't want them to have taxpayer 
dollars, period.
    Ms. Pressley. Agreed. Simply because someone could not 
afford more doesn't mean they don't deserve better. So, I thank 
you for your partnership and your commitment to ensure that the 
time between a failing REAC score and a completed repair is as 
short as possible.
    Chairwoman Waters. The gentlewoman's time has expired. The 
gentleman from Texas, Mr. Taylor, is now recognized for 5 
minutes.
    Mr. Taylor. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. Madam Secretary, 
thank you for being here. I was gratified in your opening 
comments that you said the United States of America is the 
greatest nation on Earth. I just wanted to give you a chance to 
say why you thought that. And yes, that is a slow pitch.
    Secretary Fudge. I think one of the things that makes us a 
great nation is that we, as a people, have always been able to 
see our problems and to repair our faults. We want to be the 
leaders of the world. We are the people who lead the world in 
so many things.
    Are we a perfect nation? No. Are we a great nation? Yes. We 
are a great nation because our people are good people.
    Mr. Taylor. Thank you. That was a great answer and I 
appreciate that.
    In the vein of trying to correct faults, I am sure you are 
aware, under current law, 18 USC Sec. 1001 that it is a crime 
to knowingly make material, false, fictitious, or fraudulent 
statements or representations to the Federal Government. So in 
the vein of finding fraud, what are your thoughts on using new 
technology or artificial intelligence to find fraud, to stop, 
whether it is a real estate developer, like what Ms. Pressley 
was talking about earlier, that is not coming through the way 
they should, or whether it is a pretend tenant who is taking 
advantage of our programs? I know you have finite resources. 
Have you thought about artificial intelligence as a way to find 
fraud?
    Secretary Fudge. I really haven't, because it has not been 
proven to work all the time. And so, I would rather err on the 
side of a person who needs help than not.
    Mr. Taylor. What would you think about looking at different 
programs--I will let you think about this--to use artificial 
intelligence (AI) on a test basis, on a pilot basis, to try. 
Because as we know, many financial institutions are using AI in 
underwriting, to eliminate fraud and to be more effective in 
the way that they allocate credit. And so if we think about 
that, reapplying it in this case, trying to make sure that we 
are giving help to where help is needed.
    Secretary Fudge. I am certainly willing to give it some 
thought. It is not something that I have given any thought to 
prior to your question. But we are always trying to make sure 
that people are treated better, that the Federal Government 
operates better. I am certainly willing to think about it.
    Mr. Taylor. Sure. And obviously, I think we can both agree 
that your resources are limited and your needs are great. So, I 
think we can agree we want to focus resources where they are 
indeed needed.
    And in that vein, what are the limits of helping people at 
HUD, the financial limits? You can perhaps educate me on what 
those limits are. And do you think they are perhaps too high?
    Secretary Fudge. Which limits? I am not sure.
    Mr. Taylor. Income limits.
    Secretary Fudge. Oh. No, I don't think so. I don't think 
that the income limits are too high at all. I think that as we 
look at where this nation is evolving as it relates to housing, 
as it relates to what a dollar can buy you, as it relates to 
what it costs to buy food or to build housing, I don't think we 
are too high at all.
    Mr. Taylor. Is there a point where you would say that 
person is making too much money--hey, you're at 700 percent--
    Secretary Fudge. Yes. We have rules, of course. We have 
guidelines. We don't just say any person making any amount of 
money can be serviced by HUD. We obviously have guidelines. And 
most of those are generally 80 percent of the average median 
income, or less.
    Mr. Taylor. Okay. So, 80 percent is the general standard 
that HUD uses to determine when someone can no longer receive 
aid?
    Secretary Fudge. Correct.
    Mr. Taylor. Okay.
    Secretary Fudge. Of the average median income, because 
every community is different, so the dollar amount is different 
in every community.
    Mr. Taylor. Sure. And I just--
    Chairwoman Waters. The gentleman's time has expired. No, 
there are another few seconds.
    Mr. Taylor. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. I was really glad 
to hear your comments on zoning. I think that zoning can make 
housing extremely expensive, and in some places unlivable. And 
I just want to say that I appreciated your comments. I identify 
with those. I think zoning can be very hurtful to people in 
terms of making housing very expensive, by putting requirements 
on housing that just isn't practical. And certainly, I happen 
to live in a place in Plano, Texas, where we are pretty good 
about zoning, I think, and so we have relatively affordable 
housing. It is causing a lot of demand for people coming from 
other parts of the country, which is driving up our housing 
prices.
    I yield back.
    Chairwoman Waters. Thank you very much. The gentlewoman 
from Michigan, Ms. Tlaib, is now recognized for 5 minutes.
    Ms. Tlaib. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. And thank you, 
Madam Secretary. It is so incredibly good to see you, and thank 
you for being accessible right from the beginning, and meeting 
with me and Congresswoman Kaptur.
    As many of the folks on your team know firsthand, the Great 
Recession devastated many places like Wayne County, and many of 
these communities have yet to fully recover. In my district, we 
faced a tax foreclosure crisis that is still ongoing. So, I 
just want to thank you so much for including the Restoring 
Communities Left Behind Act that Congresswoman Kaptur and I are 
championing in addressing tax foreclosure but also home 
improvement in neighborhoods, true grassroots neighborhood 
revitalization. And again, thank you for that partnership.
    As you probably know, since 2011, the Wayne County 
Treasurer has foreclosed on more than 100,000 families for 
delinquent property taxes, and that is nearly 1 in 4 properties 
in the entire county. Madam Secretary, in Wayne County, we used 
to have one of the highest Black homeownership rates in the 
country. People would envy us, and wonder what we were doing. 
And it was something that we always bragged about. And in 2000, 
it went from 53 percent to now close to 40 percent in Black 
homeownership.
    So again, I applaud you for including tax foreclosure 
relief in the implementation of the Homeowner Assistance Fund, 
and I can't thank you enough for including the Restoring 
Communities Left Behind Act.
    I also know, in the City of Detroit specifically, that more 
than 92 percent of our homes were overtaxed. And if I may, 
Madam Chairwoman, I would like to insert into the record an 
article from The Detroit News entitled, ``Detroit homeowners 
overtaxed $600 million.'' I think it is important to know that 
is nearly 96,000 homes that were taxed twice as much as they 
should have been, and I think that continues to contribute so 
much to some of the tax foreclosure issues that we continue to 
see.
    Chairwoman Waters. Without objection, it is so ordered.
    Ms. Tlaib. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. I know that we 
don't want you to take on this role about telling localities 
what to do. However, to advise or at least make a statement 
that this is really something that could be violating the Fair 
Housing Act.
    Is there anything that HUD can do to end this? Can HUD 
consider withholding CDBG funds to localities that over-assess 
property tax at such a high rate, in violation of the Fair 
Housing Act?
    Secretary Fudge. I think there are a couple of things that 
can be done. First, we follow the law, so if there is a Fair 
Housing violation, we want to know about it, we will 
investigate it, and we will do whatever is necessary to make 
sure we get it correct. So, the first thing I would hope that 
you would do is to contact our office, or just tell me, and I 
will make sure that our Fair Housing people take a look at it. 
And there are conversations we can have about resources coming 
to communities.
    Ms. Tlaib. Yes, I will be more than willing to make sure--
there was a study by the University of Chicago and many others 
which shows that the overassessment continues.
    Again, one of the things that I know the Department can 
take steps, and I enjoyed the fact that you say, ``follow the 
law,'' because one of the things is to codify, really identify 
which localities are over-assessing homeowners right now and 
how that is contributing to the tax foreclosure. Have there 
been any discussions, in the previous Administration or now, 
about some sort of database or recording of over-assessment 
around the country, that you might know of?
    Secretary Fudge. Not that I am aware of, but I will check.
    Ms. Tlaib. Okay. Wayne County property taxes account for 60 
percent of the County's general fund revenue, and you know what 
means. That is why I am hoping to have your partnership and 
leadership, Madam Secretary, at the Federal level, at least to 
call out when it is wrong to do it, to at least show some sort 
of alignment with property owners, and many of them, again, are 
Black property owners, that this crisis needs to be addressed 
and that HUD will definitely be able to, or in some way show 
that this is wrong and that we need to do something about it 
and push back against many of those efforts.
    Secretary Fudge. I just want to say, just rest assured, I 
was the mayor of a small city that was predominantly Black, and 
I am a lawyer by training. So we are going to follow the law, 
and we are going to do what we can to make sure it is done 
properly.
    Ms. Tlaib. I appreciate that, Madam Secretary. I am also 
extremely grateful, Madam Secretary, for the conversation 
earlier this year on our bill, and I am so incredibly happy to 
see Chairwoman Water's $10 billion towards the program, the 
Housing is Infrastructure Act. Does the Administration support 
this funding? I know you talked a little bit about it, but can 
you talk about next steps and maybe, again, you have this 
committee, many of us are very much in support of that, of any 
actions by the Administration in pushing that forward?
    Secretary Fudge. At this point--
    Chairwoman Waters. The gentlewoman's time has expired. The 
gentleman from Tennessee, Mr. Rose, is now recognized for 5 
minutes.
    Mr. Rose. Thank you, Chairwoman Waters and Ranking Member 
McHenry, for convening the hearing today, and welcome, 
Secretary Fudge, back to the House and to your first time 
before our committee. I am a recovering lawyer as well, so I 
feel like I have some appreciation for your plight.
    I think this hearing is long overdue. HUD was tasked with a 
significant role in response to COVID-19, but in my opinion, 
unfortunately, it has failed to live up to the 
responsibilities. Specifically, I have been extremely 
disappointed with the slow rollout of the rental assistance 
programs as well as HUD's development and implementation of 
confusing guidelines. Congress appropriated $46 billion in 
rental assistance, and as we have heard repeatedly today, 
almost 7 months after that initial funding, data shows that 
less than 4 percent of that money has actually been used to 
help eligible households. This is putting millions of families 
at risk of eviction and severely hurting landlords across the 
country.
    Under the previous Administration, Treasury issued binding 
Emergency Rental Assistance (ERA) program rules and FAQ 
guidance to accompany those funds on January 19th. The Biden 
Administration then opted to rescind that guidance and publish 
new ERA rules in February. It then revised rules again in 
March, then added new rules in May, and then revised and added 
new rules again in June.
    Secretary Fudge, how has this constant revision of rules 
and added red tape slowed ERA funds from helping eligible 
families and households who are in need?
    Secretary Fudge. Well, it really hasn't slowed it, because 
you remember that the money actually came out of Treasury, and 
it went immediately. The rulemaking, I agree, has probably been 
somewhat cumbersome. I don't disagree with you on that. But it 
has not been the problem with getting the resources out.
    Mr. Rose. I am concerned that housing policies coming out 
of the White House and HUD are simply throwing money at old, 
outdated programs that will not build or incentivize the 
creation of new housing units. Several modern, innovative 
programs do exist, and they are working well in States like 
mine. My friend from Arkansas, Mr. Hill, emphasized how the RAD 
program is a proven solution that allows residents greater 
choices and flexibility.
    Secretary Fudge, could you expand on some of the benefits 
that the RAD program has created for public housing authorities 
and residents of public housing?
    Secretary Fudge. Well, obviously, the advantage is that 
they leverage the resources that the public housing authorities 
already have, and it gives them the opportunity to do more 
things, especially as it relates to capital improvements, than 
they could have just through the resources that this Congress, 
in its wisdom, gives them.
    Mr. Rose. Since the Biden Administration's prior proposals 
included putting tens of billions into retrofitting public 
housing, is that a step away from successful programs like the 
Rental Assistance Demonstration (RAD) program?
    Secretary Fudge. Oh, absolutely not.
    Mr. Rose. What do you think the Administration should do to 
seize the opportunity that RAD creates?
    Secretary Fudge. RAD is expanding all over the country. No 
one is trying to do away with RAD. I don't know if that is what 
you are thinking. But what we want to do is to take care of the 
people in public housing. We want to be sure that they live in 
safe, decent housing. We want to be sure that we can fix 
leaking roofs and take mold off of walls. We want to be sure 
that we don't have rodent infestation. We want to be sure that 
they are living in a decent environment. And if RAD helps to do 
that, that is great. We are all for whatever it is that we can 
do within, obviously, our responsibilities and our authority to 
make sure that people live in decent housing.
    Mr. Rose. Thank you. In Tennessee's 6th Congressional 
District, which I represent, 12.9 percent of total occupied 
housing units are manufactured homes. Manufactured housing is 
the most affordable homeownership option available nationwide 
for minorities, underserved, and low-income borrowers. 
According to U.S. Census data, 90 percent of new homes under 
$75,000 are manufactured housing, yet increasingly, we are 
seeing scenarios where localities use zoning ordinances to 
exclude affordable manufactured homes in their communities. HUD 
has the authority to prevent localities from excluding 
manufactured homes, yet they have not utilized it.
    How can HUD encourage communities to expand their 
affordable housing options like manufactured homes?
    Secretary Fudge. I would disagree that HUD has the ability 
to change local zoning. We do not.
    Mr. Rose. So, you don't see a way that HUD can help to 
encourage communities?
    Secretary Fudge. We are working on it, but we do not have 
the authority to change local zoning.
    Mr. Rose. Okay. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman, and I yield 
back the balance of my time.
    Mr. Green. [presiding]. The gentleman's time has expired. 
The Chair now recognizes the gentlewoman from Georgia, Ms. 
Williams, for 5 minutes.
    Ms. Williams of Georgia. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank 
you, Secretary Fudge, for joining us today. Today's hearing 
builds an important foundation for our shared work to ensure 
that low-income families and those most marginalized are well-
served by HUD's programs.
    As we move forward with this work, we need to focus on 
breaking down barriers that folks face getting a decent home, 
but we also need to be thinking about how we can maximize 
opportunity and minimize disparity through the housing system. 
I have legislation, the Voters on the Move Registration Act, 
included as a part of this hearing today, and it helps ensure 
that as we get individuals housed, we also break down any 
barriers they face in getting registered to vote at their new 
residence.
    My bill would task the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau 
(CFPB) to work with the Election Assistance Commission to issue 
information on how individuals who are moving can register to 
vote and what their voting rights are under the law. This will 
ensure that public housing agencies and owners of federally-
assisted housing can provide this information and make moving a 
little bit easier for their tenant. This bill is based on a 
simple idea: It shouldn't matter how often you have to move or 
what ZIP code you are moving to. People should have the tools 
they need to exercise their voice in our representative 
government.
    Secretary Fudge, how can empowering tenants in HUD's 
programs with more information as they move, whether it is 
about their rights or services that they can access, help to 
reduce socioeconomic disparities for the populations that those 
programs serve?
    Secretary Fudge. Well, I would say that people 
underestimate people who live in public housing. Most people 
who live in public housing do want to know what their rights 
are. They do want to understand how they can become more 
involved in their communities. That is why we have more and 
more tenants' associations. That is why they are asking for 
more information. They want computers in their community rooms. 
They want to be able to be a contributing member of society 
like everybody else. And I think that it is great.
    Ms. Williams of Georgia. Thank you so much, and I have no 
additional questions. I am looking forward to working with you 
on implementing this program and getting everyone the access 
and information that they need to continue to voice their 
concerns and be a part of our representative government.
    And, Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
    Mr. Green. The gentlelady yields back. The gentleman from 
Missouri, Mr. Luetkemeyer, is now recognized for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Luetkemeyer. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Congressional 
Democrats are falling woefully short on their responsibility to 
conduct oversight of the Biden Administration, and the American 
people need to know about it. Currently at the CFPB, we have an 
acting Director who has not been confirmed by the Senate, 
making major policy decisions. He has taken nine enforcement 
actions, rescinded Administration guidelines on CFPB's policy 
for combatting abusive industry practices that delay the 
implementation of the debt collection rule, and is moving full 
speed ahead on a rule to implement Section 1071 of Dodd-Frank.
    Furthermore, there have been reports that the CFPB has used 
incentive packages and started investigations into senior 
career staff in order to remove them from the Bureau due to 
their political affiliation. This could potentially violate the 
Civil Service Reform Act.
    And while the acting Director has been busy leaving his 
mark at the CFPB, the chairwoman can't find the time to have 
him testify before this committee. In fact, at the end of this 
month it will have been a full year since someone from the CFPB 
testified in this committee. Conversely, when Director 
Kraninger was the head of the CFPB, and Chairwoman Waters took 
over the chairmanship of this committee, it took only 2 months 
for her to call up the former Director.
    As far as this committee hearing goes today, the single-
most pressing housing issue that this country is facing is the 
eviction moratorium, which is set to expire July 31st. While 
multiple courts have ruled the eviction moratorium is 
unconstitutional, Congress responded to the crisis facing 
renters by passing $46 billion in renter assistance.
    The idea is simple. If Congress provides you the money, you 
pay your rent, you pay your back rent, and you will not be 
evicted. However, to date, Treasury has reported only $1.5 
billion of the $46 billion given to the program has actually 
reached renters.
    Why the ineptitude by Treasury? Could it be that the 
Treasury Secretary has completely abandoned any sense of 
ownership or oversight of these programs or refuses to appear 
in front of Congress to discuss them? Secretary Yellen is 
statutorily required to appear in front of this Financial 
Services Committee on a quarterly basis to discuss the pandemic 
and the economic recovery. It was agreed to, on a bipartisan 
basis, in the CARES Act, and was even maintained in the 
partisan Democratic bill passed this March.
    But where was the Secretary last quarter? The answer is, 
absolutely nowhere near this committee. Unless she plans on 
appearing in September, it will mark two consecutive quarters 
where she has broken the law by failing to appear before us.
    I also serve as ranking member of the House Small Business 
Committee. Secretary Yellen was statutorily required to testify 
in front of the Small Business Committee before April 26th of 
this year on the Paycheck Protection Program (PPP), but to no 
one's surprise, she has yet to appear there. I am aware of her 
schedule, and she has attended at least two political events 
and made an overseas trip. Now, I am not complaining about her 
doing those things, but I am making the point that if she has 
time for that, she has time to do her statutory duty, which is 
to appear here.
    What's worse is that I think our colleagues across the 
aisle don't seem to want to hold Biden appointees accountable, 
and I think it is this woeful neglect of the law that is at the 
expense of the American people's view of it that is going to 
take its toll.
    With that, let me begin my questioning. Secretary Fudge, 
welcome, by the way. One of the largest drivers of housing 
affordability is the lack of affordable housing. Specifically, 
during the pandemic, we have seen the impact of low housing 
stock on home prices. According to the National Association of 
Home Builders, and the National Multifamily Housing Council, 
regulations imposed by all levels of government account for an 
average of 32 percent of multifamily development costs. In 
fact, on a quarterly basis, that number is at least 42 percent.
    What is HUD doing to eliminate or minimize these kinds of 
costs to multifamily developments?
    Secretary Fudge. I have had an opportunity to meet with the 
Home Buyers, and certainly, HUD is not responsible for the cost 
of lumber or plastic or anything else. But what we are trying 
to do is to assist Commerce and other agencies who look at the 
supply chain.
    My colleagues, for many, many years when I was here, talked 
about the free market. It is a free market. That is what we are 
dealing with. And so, there is nothing that HUD specifically 
can do to bring down the cost of housing--
    Mr. Luetkemeyer. Is there something--
    Secretary Fudge. --other than through the programs you all 
have approved to get funding, whether it be the Housing Trust 
Fund, whether it be CDBG, whether it be HOME--
    Mr. Luetkemeyer. Okay. My time is running short here. I 
apologize. My question is, 32 percent of the multifamily 
housing costs are development costs, and 42 percent in other 
cases. So, the number is huge on rules and regulations. Is 
there something that you think you can do to help minimize 
that?
    Secretary Fudge. Well, that is what I was saying. We are 
trying to provide gap financing. Let's just say that a cost of 
a home now is $32,000 more than it was a year ago. Through 
things like HOME, things that Congress has approved--HOME, 
through low-income housing tax credits, through all of the 
other things, the tools you have given us, we can at least 
bring down the cost for the end user. We can't bring down the 
cost of the unit itself.
    Mr. Luetkemeyer. Well, that is problem. The building 
costs--
    Mr. Green. The gentleman's time has expired.
    Mr. Luetkemeyer. --on the front end are where the costs 
are, and we have to minimize that somehow--
    Mr. Green. The Chair--
    Mr. Luetkemeyer. --and we should--
    Mr. Green. --will now recognize the gentleman from 
Massachusetts, Mr. Auchincloss, for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Auchincloss. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and welcome, 
Madam Secretary. I did not have the pleasure of working with 
you in Congress, but I am looking forward to working with you 
in your new position, especially as housing is probably the 
single-biggest issue in the district I represent, the 
Massachusetts 4th. I represent a socioeconomically-diverse 
district where, in the inner suburbs of Boston, housing prices 
can be well above $1 million, and in the southeastern part of 
Massachusetts, less than a fifth of that. But north and south 
of the district, housing is always at the top of people's 
minds, and we have seen double-digit increases in the price of 
housing over the last several years.
    And I am pleased that Massachusetts has started to step up 
in this area. Late last year, the State legislature passed the 
Housing Choice Bill, which reduced from a supermajority to a 
simple majority the vote count required for zoning boards to 
approve special permits, to make it easier to build housing at 
the local level. It is not exhaustive but it is a good first 
step to alleviate the pressure in the housing market, 
especially in the parts of the district where demand greatly 
outpaces supply and zoning has become really exclusionary.
    Understanding that HUD cannot directly change zoning laws, 
are there other steps that you would like to see Massachusetts 
and the other States of the union, in your experience working 
on housing for so long, do to encourage more housing through 
statutory changes?
    Secretary Fudge. Yes. We know we can't change it but we are 
having discussions. We are trying to find ways to even just 
bring to their attention some of the ordinances that they may 
have that are detrimental. As a mayor, I didn't go back and 
look at things we did 30, 40, or 50 years ago. But when someone 
brings to my attention, ``You know what? If you just change 
this one small thing, that may bring down the cost of 
housing.'' So, we are having those discussions.
    But we are also trying to say to them that we have, through 
Congress, increased funding in our Housing Trust Fund, which is 
designed to assist with building or providing housing for low- 
and moderate-income people. Use those resources to help you 
make that housing affordable.
    We have CDBG and HOME money--HOME money is very, very 
flexible--that can provide some resources to assist the end 
user. Let's say that it costs them--and I am using a small 
number, obviously--$50,000 to build a home, but the average 
person, the low- or moderate-income person, can only afford 
$40,000. We can make up that $10,000 difference.
    So, there are tools that Congress has given us that we can 
use. It is just that we need the local communities to help us 
do it.
    Mr. Auchincloss. And Madam Secretary, can we work with your 
office on that, as we explore housing issues?
    Secretary Fudge. Absolutely.
    Mr. Auchincloss. Thank you. Now in the southern part of my 
district, the City of Fall River is registering abandoned 
housing and working with the State to bring that housing up to 
code. And there are many communities that are working hard to 
return these kinds of abandoned properties to clean and 
habitable places to live. Are there programs that HUD is 
pursuing that make it easier for cities like Fall River to 
upgrade abandoned properties and turn them into habitable 
places to live?
    Secretary Fudge. Yes, we have all kinds of low-income 
housing, if that is what you are asking me. And if you just 
call our office, we can give you all the information that you 
need, because a lot of times, small communities don't even know 
what is available. We would be happy to do it.
    Mr. Auchincloss. I appreciate that, Madam Secretary. And 
then the final question I want to build off of is what the 
gentlewoman from Michigan was asking before her time expired, 
that the chairwoman has proposed a transformative series of 
bills, including Housing as Infrastructure, and I want to give 
you the opportunity, Madam Secretary, to just tell this 
committee what you think this funding and this policy put 
forward by the chairwoman could do for housing stability and 
housing access in the country?
    Secretary Fudge. Well, if you would allow me, I won't 
discuss the various parts of the legislation, but I will say to 
you that housing is probably the number-one crisis in this 
country today. And whatever it takes for us to start to address 
it, I don't know if it is that piece or a lot of pieces of 
legislation. But if we do not address this crisis now, it is 
just going to continue to get worse.
    Housing was a crisis before COVID; all COVID did was to lay 
bare how big of a crisis it was. And if we do not take this 
opportunity to invest in housing, as we have not done in 
generations, we will never be able to catch up.
    Mr. Auchincloss. Thank you, Madam Secretary, and I yield 
back the balance of my time, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Green. The gentleman yields back. The gentleman from 
South Carolina, Mr. Timmons, is recognized for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Timmons. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Secretary Fudge, 
congratulations on your new position, and thank you for being 
with us today.
    I want to begin by associating myself with my colleague, 
Representative Beatty, when she said that you are not 
accountable for the actions of Secretary Yellen. She is right. 
You are not directly responsible for the administration of the 
emergency rental assistance dollars. But I think we can all 
agree that this is a critically important issue, and since 
Secretary Yellen is not here and will not appear before this 
committee before the eviction moratorium expires at the end of 
the month, it is our responsibility to do whatever we can to 
push this issue to the forefront.
    I also think that we can all agree that there remains a 
great need to get these dollars not just in the hands of State 
and local governments. but actually to the intended targets: 
renters and their landlords. We can all surely agree that is 
the goal.
    Mr. Hill said earlier that the legislation was drafted in a 
way that does really put the onus on State and local 
governments to run this program, and we can see that they are 
just not doing a very good job. You also said earlier that our 
job is to provide oversight, and we are trying to do that but 
it is just not working. The dollars are not getting where they 
need to go. And obviously, we know time is running out.
    You also said earlier that you don't even know how much 
money has actually made its way to the tenants who are in need, 
and you have only been on the job for a few months so that is 
not your fault. But we need to find out, and we need to get 
this done quickly.
    So my question is, can you help us find out just how much 
of the $40-plus billion we appropriated has reached its 
intended target, and can you please help get these resources 
where they need to go?
    Secretary Fudge. Yes, I will do everything I can to make 
sure you have it. I will get in touch with Treasury to see if I 
can get those numbers for you, as well as yes, we are 
continuing to talk. We do have oversight but we just can't 
demand.
    Mr. Timmons. I have only been here for 2\1/2\ years. You 
have spent more time in this body than I have. So, what else 
can we do that we are not doing?
    Secretary Fudge. One of the things that I did when I was a 
Member of Congress was, I would go and talk to my State and 
local people, and tell them what needed to be done. I was 
proactive in making sure that they knew what was happening, so 
I didn't sit back. I really went and took the initiative to say 
to them, ``If you don't do this, you are failing your own 
constituents.'' As Members of Congress, you all have 
constituents. I have them too. They are people who live in 
housing that we support. And so, we do the best we can to make 
sure we can be helpful.
    Mr. Timmons. Maybe if there are any resources that you 
could provide to give us best practices on how to actually 
achieve these objectives, I would really appreciate that. And I 
just want to say thank you for your help in achieving this very 
important objective.
    I want to switch gears to vaccine hesitancy. During your 
exchange with Mr. Cleaver, you ran through the Biden 
Administration's efforts to vaccinate Americans living in 
public housing against COVID-19, and I appreciate those 
efforts. I have been telling everyone in my district who wants 
to get a vaccine, that they need to get one, because we have to 
get back to work and we have to get on with our lives.
    So, I want to go to some of the words that we heard during 
the election. I guess Vice President Harris, then candidate 
Harris, said, ``If past is prologue, the scientists and health 
officials will not be able to weigh in on the efficacy of the 
vaccine. They will be muzzled. They will be suppressed. They 
will be sidelined.''
    So when we look at the vaccine hesitancy amongst 
demographic groups, we see that rates, particularly in African-
American communities, are not where they should be. My question 
is, what can we do to help fix this problem? What can we do to 
help repair the trust in government?
    Secretary Fudge. Well, there are a couple of things. One, 
obviously, is there is a justified distrust by African 
Americans of the government, because even today, more Black 
women die in childbirth than any other color. More doctors 
ignore problems that Black people have than ever before. And 
so, there is a justified distrust, especially in medicine.
    But I think that what we have to do is go to the people, 
which is something that we historically do not do. It does not 
bother me to go into a public housing facility and talk with 
them about getting the shot. Because I think that when people 
they trust talk with them, whether it be their pastor, the 
college coach, the high school coach, people like me, people 
like you, I think that they have a different outcome. And so, I 
am hopeful that all of us will realize how important it is to 
have one-on-one conversations. I think that can turn the tide.
    Mr. Timmons. Well, I hope that everyone who wants a vaccine 
can get one as quickly as possible, because we do need to get 
back to work. That is the only thing that is going to help get 
our economy back on track. So thank you, Madam Secretary, and 
Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
    Mr. Green. The gentleman yields back. The gentlewoman from 
North Carolina, Ms. Adams, is now recognized for 5 minutes.
    Ms. Adams. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. ``Madam Secretary,'' 
what a wonderful sound that is. First of all, I want to say 
what a pleasure it is to have you here today. I was honored to 
serve with you in this body, and I am grateful for your 
excellent leadership at HUD, and I thank you for showing up in 
my district when we asked you to speak.
    Secretary Fudge, you touched on Section 8 vouchers and 
source-of-income discrimination. Currently, in my district, 
there is an 11-year waitlist to receive a voucher, and what's 
worse, 21 percent of the families in my district who received 
the voucher were unable to find housing by the time the voucher 
expired, which is 180 days.
    Can you describe why it is so important that we move 
swiftly to end source-of-income discrimination nationwide, and 
what is the possibility of expanding that 180 days and also 
issuing more vouchers?
    Secretary Fudge. Well, three things, and thank you so much. 
It is nice to see you as well.
    Source-of-income discrimination has been around a long 
time, even just Social Security. We have people who--and it has 
always been a little crazy to me because they know they are 
going to get a check every month, so I have never been able to 
understand why there were these issues.
    But what we are finding more and more is that because of 
the lack of supply, people are not accepting these vouchers, 
because they know they can make so much more. So, we need to 
expand the base of rental properties. You can have thousands 
and thousands of vouchers, but if there is no place for them to 
use them, because people are upset because they get Social 
Security or they get some kind of disability check or some 
other kind, we do need to find a way to legally prevent source-
of-income discrimination. We have been talking about it within 
Fair Housing. We are trying to find a way to do it. And as we 
get further in our discussions, I would be happy to talk to you 
about where we are.
    Ms. Adams. Okay. Great. Your 2020 budget calls for $100 
million to support public housing conversions to a Section 8 
platform under the rental assistance. So, can you explain a 
little bit how HUD, under your stewardship, will administer the 
rental assistance in such a way that long-term affordability 
and public oversight is maintained and the residents are not at 
risk of losing stable housing that they can afford?
    Secretary Fudge. There is no circumstance by which RAD or 
any other program would be totally privately-controlled. 
Generally, it is a 40/60 split, for the most part. There is a 
RAD project right here in Maryland that I would love for you to 
take a look at, at some point, and we will get you the 
information. But trust me very, very clearly on this, I will 
never, ever allow the privatization of public housing.
    Ms. Adams. Thank you, ma'am. I would also like to take this 
time to say that my bill, the Promoting Resident Opportunities 
and Self-Sufficiency Act would help ensure that residents who 
live in housing units that are converted by RAD would still 
receive critical congregant housing services.
    As you know, Black borrowers rely on and obtain FHA and VA 
mortgage loans at much higher rates than conventional loans 
guaranteed by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. In 2019, about 37 
percent of Black home buyers bought homes using the FHA 
mortgage insurance program. Despite the fact that FHA is 
overwhelmingly serving Black borrowers, the overall 
homeownership gap is still wider than it was in 1968. So, do 
you think that the conventional market, including Fannie Mae 
and Freddie Mac, could do a better job of serving more 
borrowers of color, to help narrow that overall gap, and do you 
have any ideas on how that might be done and what role HUD 
could play?
    Secretary Fudge. We absolutely can do a better job, and we 
will do a better job. We are right now looking at how FHA 
determines creditworthiness. We are looking at how FHA 
determines which mortgages they want to do. We are looking at 
small-dollar loans. We are taking every single thing out of the 
box, because HUD has been as much a problem through FHA and 
GSEs as anyone.
    Ms. Adams. Great. Thank you, Madam Secretary, for being 
here, and Chairwoman Waters, I want to thank you for inviting 
the Secretary to come and address this body. And certainly, if 
there is anything my office can do to assist you, please reach 
out to us.
    Madam Chairwoman, I yield back.
    Chairwoman Waters. Thank you very much. The gentleman from 
North Carolina, Mr. Budd, is now recognized for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Budd. I thank the Chair, and Madam Secretary, 
congratulations on your new role.
    Secretary Fudge, this is a bit of a follow-up from a prior 
colleague. It seems like funds that are spent on infrastructure 
development would go a lot further if they were paired with 
regulatory reforms that reduced the cost of construction. Fair 
enough.
    Secretary Fudge. Fair enough.
    Mr. Budd. According to the National Association of Home 
Builders, and also the National Multifamily Housing Council, up 
to 30 percent of the cost of new construction, so the cost of 
development of housing, is due to regulations at the Federal, 
State, and local levels.
    When you weighed in earlier, it is my understanding that 
you said that HUD can't really help with State and local 
regulations.
    Secretary Fudge. Zoning.
    Mr. Budd. HUD cannot, right?
    Secretary Fudge. I said, zoning.
    Mr. Budd. It was zoning. Okay. Just a small part of the 
regulations.
    Here is what is going on in my district, and I imagine in 
many of our districts. People are having a hard time affording 
housing. There is no ability to help. You are sending money for 
bike paths, and pools, and tree planting. Now in some world, 
that is actually a fine idea, but not now.
    I am concerned that you have a tremendous ability to make 
housing more affordable. You could make funding conditional on 
lower regulations at a State and local level. But is there 
anything you can do to reduce a single regulatory hurdle that 
would lower the cost of housing for regular Americans?
    Secretary Fudge. Let me just first say that I don't send 
out money to pools. Communities do that. Secondly, I would say 
to you that, as I have said earlier, we do not control States. 
We control what we control based on the law. We are always 
going to follow the law. But tomorrow, somebody will be asking 
me why we are trying to control what their States do. What we 
do is what you have authorized us to do. That is what--
    Mr. Budd. Thank you. I am going to reclaim my time. And 
what I see is that we have a tremendous influence here in how 
the Federal Government works with States. Of course, we want to 
preserve the rights of States and the strength of States and 
regulations, but we want to make sure to properly steer people 
to properly use Federal taxpayer dollars. I think we all could 
agree with that. Thank you. And we certainly want to lower the 
cost of housing for average, every day, sometimes they feel 
like they are the forgotten Americans out there.
    Well, I want to continue on. It is no secret that America 
has a housing supply shortage. President Biden's plan is to 
build, preserve, and retrofit more than 2 million homes and 
commercial buildings to address the affordable housing crisis. 
However, that initiative attempts to merge the building of new 
units with existing units, sort of an upfit. Preserving or 
retrofitting a unit might be good for its current occupant, but 
that is no substitute for creating a new housing unit that 
meets an unmet need.
    And this is an easy math question here: How many new units 
of housing are created when an existing home or housing is 
retrofitted?
    Secretary Fudge. Well, obviously none, but that is not what 
the President did. The President asked for 2 million new units 
and retrofitting 500,000.
    Mr. Budd. So, we are spending a lot of that $213 billion on 
retrofitting, thus not creating new units, or creating less 
than otherwise could have been. So of the $213 billion the 
Biden infrastructure proposal wants to spend, what sort of 
percentage should be devoted exclusively to the building of new 
housing units? You can give that to me in a dollar sign or a 
percentage, either one, of the $213 billion.
    Secretary Fudge. It is not broken down at all. It is just a 
top-line number, which I think all of us know.
    Mr. Budd. So do you think that some should be devoted 
exclusively to the building of new housing units?
    Secretary Fudge. Absolutely.
    Mr. Budd. Thank you. Slightly different question before I 
yield back, and just getting details on this and still awaiting 
more information, I understand that three HUD nominees are on 
the record supporting Defund the Police efforts. Is that 
something that you would support nominees to support, defunding 
the police?
    Secretary Fudge. First off, I don't know if that is 
accurate, because I don't know.
    Mr. Budd. And we are still getting details on that. But if 
that were to come up and they were on the record for supporting 
Defund the Police, is that something that you would support?
    Secretary Fudge. That is not my decision, sir. That is the 
decision of the U.S. Senate.
    Mr. Budd. So you would not weigh in on that, if that was 
something they were supporting?
    Secretary Fudge. I would not weigh in.
    Mr. Budd. Okay. Thank you. I yield back to the Chair.
    Chairwoman Waters. The gentlewoman from New York, Ms. 
Ocasio-Cortez, is now recognized for 5 minutes.
    Ms. Ocasio-Cortez. Thank you so much, Chairwoman Waters, 
for convening this important hearing, and thank you, Secretary 
Fudge, for coming before us today and sharing your expertise 
and knowledge.
    And I think hearing a lot of these question lines from the 
other side of the aisle, it kind of feels like Groundhog Day, 
right? The same two or three things that we are hearing over 
and over and over again. And I think that there is some 
confusion, or perhaps some of this information that you are 
trying to communicate isn't quite getting across.
    So, I want us to talk about the Emergency Rental Assistance 
Program. For folks who are just tuning in at home, this was 
developed in response to the crisis that we had due to the 
pandemic. We had massive spikes in unemployment due to 
shutdowns, and people were at risk of losing their homes and 
being evicted. So, Congress authorized a total, in two sums, of 
about $46 billion in emergency rental assistance to get to 
tenants and landlords to help cover the rent during this time.
    The issue that we have is that the CDC's eviction 
moratorium is set to expire in 11 days, and out of this $46 
billion that we have authorized, and that has been provided in 
emergency rental assistance, very little of that has gone out. 
Now again, as you have communicated throughout this hearing, 
this is not under the domain and not due to any bottlenecks at 
HUD, but you would say that this is due to State and local 
municipal governments, correct?
    Secretary Fudge. Correct.
    Ms. Ocasio-Cortez. The checks have gone out. That money has 
been disbursed. And the reason for the holdup is because 
governors, mayors, municipal governments are not getting it out 
to people, correct?
    Secretary Fudge. Correct.
    Ms. Ocasio-Cortez. So all of this hubbub about wanting to 
talk to the Treasury Secretary, and you being right before us 
with your expertise, I think they are trying to address the 
wrong folks in this bottleneck. Would that be a fair assessment 
to make?
    Secretary Fudge. Yes.
    Ms. Ocasio-Cortez. Thank you. And so, respectfully, if my 
colleagues are concerned about these bottlenecks, they need to 
get their governors on the phone, they need to get their mayors 
on the phone. Would you say that is correct?
    Secretary Fudge. Yes.
    Ms. Ocasio-Cortez. And I would beseech my colleagues, if 
they represent a State where their governor is of their same 
party, to be unafraid to hold your own party governors 
accountable. I say this as a person who does that within my own 
party.
    Now, what I will say, that I would like to engage with you 
on today, is that I am concerned about some of the 
communications happening with the Biden Administration 
regarding the eviction moratorium date. The eviction moratorium 
is set to expire within 11 days, and whether it is in Federal 
control or not, the money to help people has not gone out.
    So my question to you is, in your view, should this 
eviction moratorium be extended?
    Secretary Fudge. If I may say this, Congresswoman, I think 
you are going to see significantly higher numbers of usage by 
the end of this month. I can't speak for the CDC, and the only 
reason it is being extended is because the CDC has said that 
there is a health crisis. So, I don't know that really it is 
something that can be done, if, in fact, we believe that we are 
coming out of COVID.
    So I would just suggest that, as you said, all hands on 
deck.
    Ms. Ocasio-Cortez. Okay. Thank you. And while I know that 
this isn't quite under HUD, we do know, and this has come up 
during the course of this hearing, that housing is a profound 
social indicator of health, correct?
    Secretary Fudge. Yes.
    Ms. Ocasio-Cortez. And would it be fair to say that if, for 
whatever reasons due to the emergency rental assistance not 
coming out in time, if this resulted in a large population of 
people being evicted due to this mismatch in timing and fund 
distribution, could that precipitate almost a secondary public 
health crisis and concern due to displacement and homelessness?
    Secretary Fudge. Certainly, it could.
    Ms. Ocasio-Cortez. And do you believe that the CDC should 
potentially consider housing status as an indicator in health 
and public health?
    Secretary Fudge. No, I think that every single person in 
America should be trying to figure out how we keep people in 
their homes. Those are discussions that I know will come up 
with the CDC, but I am certainly hopeful that we will not have 
to face that.
    Ms. Ocasio-Cortez. Of course. Thank you very much.
    Chairwoman Waters. Thank you. The gentleman from Wisconsin, 
Mr. Steil, is now recognized for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Steil. Secretary Fudge, thank you for being here with 
us today. I think it is important to note that one thing was 
left off in our most recent conversation, and that is that the 
CDC's moratorium on evictions has been found to be 
unconstitutional by two courts. So we are heading down the 
railroad tracks here, and the bridge is out. And my concern is 
that by saying that HUD has done its job but the States have 
been slow, that is not a lot of solace to an individual in 
Racine, Wisconsin, in my district, or in a city across the 
United States who finds themselves out of their home because 
the funds haven't made it all the way from HUD through the 
States to that individual or to their respective landlord.
    And one of my real concerns is that the Biden 
Administration has rewritten the guidance and the rules on this 
4 times. They rewrote it in February, they rewrote it in March, 
they rewrote it in May, and they rewrote it in June. And so, I 
have real concerns that we are heading down this railroad track 
with the bridge out, the moratorium has been ruled 
unconstitutional. And although HUD has, as you, I think, 
correctly noted, made those funds available to the States, the 
States haven't acted. I would note that the rewriting of that 
guidance by the Biden Administration gives me great pause for 
concern.
    But let me shift gears and dive into an issue that I have 
great concern with, which is the impact of rising costs on 
American families. It is hard to ignore the fact that prices 
have continued to increase, and they are increasing at a rate 
faster than we have really seen since 2008. I think we know why 
this is happening. Washington has dramatically increased 
spending, and the Fed continues to push an aggressive monetary 
policy. And as a result of these misguided government schemes, 
like paying people not to work, supply chain and labor force 
problems are taking even longer to resolve.
    And as I discussed with Fed Chairman Powell last week, this 
might lead to a reset of our inflation expectations, creating a 
self-fulfilling prophecy driving higher inflation, which means 
more uncertainty and higher prices for American families. And 
these price increases flow directly into housing costs. Rising 
material costs have added $36,000 to the price of a new home. 
Nationwide, home prices are up 14 percent in the past year. And 
it is not just economists they are talking about. The American 
public is feeling it. I talk to people on a regular basis who 
stop me in the grocery store and talk to me about the impact of 
the rising cost of groceries, but also the rising costs for 
them to live their lives.
    And so, as I read your testimony today, the word, 
``climate,'' appears in your testimony 5 times, ``equity'' 
appears twice, but I find it a little bit interesting as I read 
that you failed to mention the word, ``inflation'' once out of 
1,300 words in your written opening statement. And I worry 
about this Administration's misplaced priorities, which I think 
are out of step with American families.
    To be direct for a question here, have you or HUD done 
analysis on the impact of rising costs on working-class 
Americans and their ability to purchase a home?
    Secretary Fudge. Let me first say that every reputable 
economist in this country has said that inflation will be 
temporary only, and that it is not something to be concerned 
about. And secondly, let me say that two courts have found the 
CDC's moratorium unconstitutional, but two have found it 
constitutional, and the Supreme Court of the United States let 
it proceed.
    Now as it relates to the cost, yes, we are looking at the 
cost. That is what we do.
    Mr. Steil. What is that showing? As costs have gone up--for 
a new home, it has increased $36,000. What have your studies 
said about that?
    Secretary Fudge. The Home Builders told me it was going up 
because of the cost of goods and services. I believe them.
    Mr. Steil. Let me then shift gears into how the policies of 
demand-side subsidies, I think, will also increase prices. I 
think one is the Biden Administration's policies and the 
aggressive spending we are seeing in D.C. is increasing the 
prices. It is showing up--the economists that you are speaking 
with--it is making homes more difficult and more out of reach 
for the average American.
    But also, as we look at the policies being put in place, 
increasing demand-side prices--you mentioned in your testimony 
your support for more vouchers and other subsidies to challenge 
renters. I know Chairwoman Waters has also proposed expanding 
the voucher program to make it an entitlement. And I am 
concerned that broad demand side subsidies fail to address one 
of the underlying problems in our housing market, which could 
be the fact of a lack of supply. And it seems like we should be 
working to encourage developers to build more homes.
    What is, in your opinion, is getting in the way of 
increasing the supply?
    Secretary Fudge. There are so many it would take me an hour 
to have that conversation with you. And I think, sir, just to 
be honest, that your assessment is really very unfair. You know 
that there are many issues as to the cost of housing as well.
    Chairwoman Waters. The gentleman's time has expired. The 
gentleman from Illinois, Mr. Casten, is now recognized for 5 
minutes.
    Mr. Casten. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. Secretary Fudge, 
so nice to see you here. Congratulations. We are fortunate to 
have you at the helm of HUD.
    This won't surprise you: I would like to talk about climate 
change, and specifically that the 2022 budget proposes $800 
million for targeted investments in energy efficiency and 
resiliency in the housing sector. And this is through the Biden 
whole-of-government approach to climate. And I am so excited to 
finally have a White House that is taking a whole-of-government 
approach. It is maddening to me that we subsidize energy 
extraction in this country and we also subsidize energy 
conservation. It is amazing that we get anything done when we 
are driving in the same direction.
    My first question, and this could be very long but I want 
to get to two more questions, so if you could just--I am just 
curious if you are satisfied that within the silos within HUD, 
you are coordinating and rowing in the same direction, and 
across the other various government agencies? Because we have 
never really had a whole-of-government approach to climate 
change before. And are you satisfied that you have the tools 
you need to coordinate and make sure that we are rowing in the 
same direction? Is there anything we can do to help, if not?
    Secretary Fudge. We just hired one person whose sole 
responsibility is climate and working across agencies. So, I am 
feeling good about the fact that we recognize that we have 
elevated it and are giving that person the staff that they 
need, to make sure that we can do this right.
    Mr. Casten. Terrific. Well, let us know if we can help.
    Second question. When I was with the President when he was 
out in Illinois 2 weeks ago, we had a brief conversation about 
the fact that there is that which is necessary, scientifically, 
for us to leave a better planet to our children than the one we 
inherited, and there is that which is politically possible. And 
over the course of my lifetime and my brief tenure in this job, 
I think we have twisted our arm an awful lot congratulating 
ourselves for doing what is politically possible. And if you 
are comfortable answering the question, I am curious whether 
$800 million of investment in our housing stock for resiliency 
and efficiency meets all of your needs, or is that just the 
limit of what is possible?
    Secretary Fudge. It certainly doesn't meet all of the 
needs. I don't think that any of us believe that it does. But 
what we do know is that it is a great place to begin. It is 
more than we have ever put in it. It is more than we have ever 
done as a nation, especially when we have Members of this 
Congress who don't even believe in climate change.
    So we are doing the very best we can to really make a mark, 
and to set the example for what we can do if we put the kind of 
resources in it that it really needs.
    Mr. Casten. Okay. My last question ties into a number of 
issues. My colleagues have heard me say before that the CFTC, 
in the Trump White House, issued this report managing climate 
change in the financial sector, which pointed out, among other 
things, that there is a huge concentration of exposure in the 
collateralized mortgage-backed securities market. I think it is 
something like 25 percent of all of that portfolio is in 
Houston, New York, and Miami, that are exposed to massive 
losses, and how should we be thinking about that.
    Now, that is obviously a bit outside of your agency, but as 
the frequency of these natural disasters increases, the CDBG 
Disaster Recovery Program has become an increasingly important 
portion. In 2017, natural disasters caused $306 billion, with a 
``B,'' in damages in the United States. But as I don't need to 
tell you, that program has never been authorized. So you have 
to come back for a Federal Register notice for each one-off 
appropriation.
    How would permanent authorization of that program better 
help you do your job and better help communities recover after 
a disaster?
    Secretary Fudge. It would help significantly. It would 
allow us to move quicker. It would allow us to assess faster. 
Because right now, we do have to come back for authorization. 
It would be tremendous.
    Mr. Casten. Thank you. I have no further questions. I 
appreciate your time, and I yield back.
    Chairwoman Waters. Thank you. The gentleman from Texas, Mr. 
Gooden, is now recognized for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Gooden. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman, and welcome, Madam 
Secretary.
    An overwhelming amount of HUD funding to address 
homelessness goes to continuum of care boards, and those boards 
are responsible, as you know, for providing a holistic approach 
to end homelessness, including housing, soup kitchens, mental 
health, job placement, et cetera.
    It is my belief, based on conversations I have had with 
some in my local area, that many of them--not all, but many--
operate as homeless cartels, if you will, with little 
oversight. The White House and HUD requested roughly $3.12 
billion for continuum of care programs next fiscal year, and as 
an example of what I just stated, recently a grand jury in 
Fresno, California, criticized the COC model because it lacks 
transparency and is rife with conflicts of interest. 
Additionally, a report from the California State Auditor 
confirmed the lack of oversight and effectiveness of continuum 
of care boards. The grand jury also mentioned the same people 
who control these board funding allocations are the same people 
in charge of the organizations receiving the funding.
    Do you feel, Madam Secretary, that there are adequate 
measures in place to provide effective oversight of these 
boards and prevent waste, fraud, and abuse?
    Secretary Fudge. I do, but I also do believe, as well, that 
we could do better.
    Mr. Gooden. Does HUD have any plans to improve these? Is 
there a plan of action in place? I would also ask, would you 
agree that allocating funding by some of these board members 
who may also sit on the boards of a nonprofit could be a 
conflict of interest?
    Secretary Fudge. If there are conflicts of interests, of 
course it would not be appropriate.
    Mr. Gooden. Wonderful. Would you commit to perhaps working 
with my staff on this?
    Secretary Fudge. Absolutely. I would be happy to do it.
    Mr. Gooden. That would be great, and I appreciate that.
    Moving on, one I constantly hear from local leaders in the 
rural parts of my district is they often feel left out or 
forgotten when working with Federal agents to address housing 
issues, and by some estimates, writing a single Federal grant 
application takes a nonprofit an average of between 80 and 200 
hours, and many jurisdictions do not have the staff or 
resources to even apply, let alone compete. Would you care to 
comment, or would you comment specifically on plans that your 
organization may have to reduce that burden and make it easier 
for small, rural localities, like those in my district, to 
receive grants?
    Secretary Fudge. That is a major problem. That is also one 
of the reasons we don't have the emergency rental money out as 
fast either, because smaller communities don't even know how to 
get it. They don't have the capacity, once they receive it, to 
figure out how to quickly move it through the system.
    So we are working with rural and small communities, 
particularly through technical assistance. I even met yesterday 
with the League of Cities. We are doing all we can to be sure 
that we get to those communities, because they get left out. I 
agree with you, 100 percent.
    Mr. Gooden. Thank you. And before I close, I would like to 
congratulate you and welcome you. My friend, Congresswoman 
Jahana Hayes, was sitting behind you, supporting you, so I 
think you are missed by many of your colleagues. Welcome. Thank 
you.
    Secretary Fudge. Thank you.
    Mr. Gooden. I yield back.
    Chairwoman Waters. Thank you. The gentleman from New York, 
Mr. Torres, is now recognized for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Torres. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. And it is always a 
pleasure to see you, Madam Secretary. I hope that your nephew, 
who cares as deeply about the New York City Housing Authority 
(NYCHA) as I do, is doing well.
    As you know, the state of public housing has been plagued 
by decades of disinvestment at the hands of the Federal 
Government. I would characterize the state of public housing in 
New York City as demolition by neglect. And the fate of the New 
York City Housing Authority, the fate of America's largest 
public housing stock in America's largest city will depend on 
what we do collectively in the upcoming reconciliation bill.
    NYCHA needs enough funding not only to address a capital 
need of $40 billion, and counting, but also to transition to 
clean energy building systems.
    A central figure in the future of NYCHA is the HUD Regional 
Administrator, a position that remains vacant. What is the 
timeline for appointing a new HUD Regional Administrator 
specifically for Region 2?
    Secretary Fudge. I know that it is in the process that is 
done by the White House Personnel Office, but I don't know the 
timeframe.
    Mr. Torres. Fair enough. On January 1, 2022, a new mayor of 
New York City will assume office. The mayor historically has 
been in charge of the New York City Housing Authority, by 
virtue of appointing both the CEO and the COO, the chair and 
the general manager. But as you might know, the relationship 
between the mayor and the Housing Authority was fundamentally 
altered by the administrative agreement among HUD, the U.S. 
Attorney for the Southern District, and the City of New York.
    Given the certainty of a new mayor in January of 2022, does 
HUD have any plans to restore mayoral control of the New York 
City Housing Authority?
    Secretary Fudge. I would really need to look into it. I do 
know that there is Federal oversight. I do know, as well, in my 
conversations with the Tenants Association there that they have 
some concerns as well that we need to take into consideration. 
I don't have a problem with it personally, but I need to know 
if we can do it legally.
    Mr. Torres. Fair enough. The President has proposed over 
$200 billion for affordable housing. When the subject of 
affordable housing is brought up, the question that often comes 
to mind is affordable for whom? And a concern that I have 
expressed is that if we expand housing supply without expanding 
housing subsidy then we run the risk of creating housing that 
is unaffordable to the lowest-income Americans. In my view, the 
best path to affordability for all Americans is the Ending 
Homelessness Act, which would universalize Section 8 vouchers.
    Of the $200 billion that the President has proposed for 
affordable housing, how much do you envision going towards 
Section 8?
    Secretary Fudge. None of that, but there are set-asides, 
and he is requesting 200,000 vouchers, in addition to the $200 
billion for new housing.
    Mr. Torres. So, that is in addition?
    Secretary Fudge. Correct.
    Mr. Torres. The Fair Housing Act--we often speak about 
systemic racism, and I would argue nowhere is systemic racism 
more manifest than in the area of housing, segregated housing, 
segregated schools. Do you think that exclusionary zoning laws 
are arguably a violation of the Fair Housing Act?
    Secretary Fudge. I am not sure, but I would suggest this: 
It is a violation of everything we stand for.
    Mr. Torres. The Administration recommends grants incentives 
for States to adopt land use reforms. Are you concerned that 
incentives can only take us so far, and that there might need 
to be enforcement of the Fair Housing Act?
    Secretary Fudge. I would say, as a former mayor, I know how 
touchy that subject is with local communities, because they 
don't believe that the Federal Government should come and tell 
them how they should zone. But I really do believe, Mr. Torres, 
that it is a problem, and we have to address it. And I am going 
to look at it from the law, and see if there is something that 
we could do with Fair Housing. I think that it is a good way to 
approach it. We will take a look.
    Mr. Torres. No, I know that there is resistance, but keep 
in mind that historically, there has been resistance to Federal 
intervention when it comes to voting rights. States and 
localities would prefer to enact voting laws without any 
accountability to the Federal Government. But the reason for a 
Federal role is to crack down on the complicity of States and 
localities in systemic racism. So, I hope that is something you 
would explore in greater detail.
    Secretary Fudge. We are looking at systemic racism all 
throughout HUD. Historically, systemic racism is in every 
single agency of the Federal Government, and we are no 
different. So, we are trying to address it.
    Mr. Torres. And obviously, public housing has been 
chronically underfunded. Have you thought about how to bring 
greater accountability to the operation and management of 
public housing? Is that a subject you have thought about?
    Secretary Fudge. Well, I have given it great thought, 
because of what I have found in my own travels, in talking with 
tenants, and I talk to tenants every place I go. So absolutely, 
I have given it a lot of thought.
    Mr. Torres. And what are your thoughts on the New York City 
Housing Authority?
    Secretary Fudge. Well, one thing that I think that we have 
to do is to be honest, to be transparent, and to do our part. 
We can't change it all, but certainly there are some things we 
can change, and we should.
    Mr. Torres. I see my time is about to expire, but it's 
always a pleasure.
    Secretary Fudge. My pleasure, indeed.
    Chairwoman Waters. Thank you very much. The gentleman from 
Florida, Mr. Lawson, is now recognized for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Lawson. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. And Madam 
Secretary, welcome to the committee. It certainly is a pleasure 
to see you. I want to thank you, first of all, for the 
immediate action that you were able to take on some of the 
housing problems that I have in my district.
    My question will probably come at the end, but what I want 
to say is that during my tenure as a coach at Florida State 
University, I spent a lot of time--because that is where the 
athletes were located--in New York, in Chicago, in Ohio, in 
Atlanta, and in many of those areas where they came out of 
major housing complexes. And there have been very little 
changes in some of the things that I noticed then.
    I am more concerned about--and I know that we face a 
housing shortage here, but I am more concerned about the safety 
and the problems that I have been experiencing with some of the 
management companies. And those management companies, I know, 
are getting Federal dollars to keep up the upkeep and 
everything else.
    Could you elaborate on what condition--because I did with 
the last HUD Secretary and nothing much happened--what is a way 
that we can improve the relationship with management companies 
so they help keep up the properties, as so many, especially 
women, have to depend on with a kid, to be in very safe 
conditions?
    Secretary Fudge. Let me just say, first off, it is nice to 
see you, Mr. Lawson. That is our responsibility. We have 64 
offices across this country. We have a staff of about 7,000 
people, not nearly enough to do the work we do, but a big 
enough staff to do the work that we should do. We have to do 
our part. We have to make sure that our inspectors are doing 
their jobs, that our local people are doing their jobs, and we 
are doing our jobs.
    And we also have to hold these management companies and 
landlords accountable, and let them know that we are not 
playing about this. We are going to make them keep up their end 
of the bargain, and we are going to keep up ours. It is all 
about leadership, and it is all about demanding that we do the 
work that the people are paying us to do, that we do the work 
that we have been charged to do by this Congress.
    Mr. Lawson. That is very good to hear. And I know this 
might have been addressed earlier, but I guess the key question 
in my last 2 minutes is, and I know you have elaborated on it 
some, what can we do in Congress? I have heard a lot of the 
other Members say that we need this, or we need that. And I 
know you are more familiar with what has happened in Congress 
over the years. But what can we do now, in Congress, to 
alleviate a lot of problems that would help you all do your 
jobs better?
    Secretary Fudge. I didn't hear the last part, Mr. Lawson.
    Mr. Lawson. To help you all, what can we do in Congress--
    Secretary Fudge. Oh, what can you do to help us? One thing 
is, of course, to give us the flexibility to do our jobs. I 
think it is important for people to understand, they don't like 
the word, ``flexibility,'' but if you allow us to do the work 
we know needs to be done--we talk about regulations and 
restrictions, but some of those are on us too. So, we need the 
flexibility to do the work that we know that we should do. That 
is what we need you to do, is just be supportive.
    The other thing, I think, the biggest thing to do is to 
fund us properly. At one point, HUD made up 7 percent of the 
entire discretional Federal budget. Today, it is less than 1 
percent, and the problem is just as great.
    Mr. Lawson. I think one of the things that happened, before 
my time runs out, that I noticed in the 4\1/2\ years that I 
have been in Congress, is that these issues come up about HUD, 
and there has been a reluctance to provide the resources it 
really needs. But when Members, myself and everybody, go back 
to their districts, they see the hardships. But at the same 
time, they don't realize that a lot of that has to do with what 
we do here, and why we are in Congress.
    And with that, Madam Chairwoman, I yield back.
    Chairwoman Waters. Thank you very much, Mr. Lawson.
    I would like to now thank our distinguished witness, 
Secretary Fudge, for her testimony today.
    The Chair notes that some Members may have additional 
questions for this witness, which they may wish to submit in 
writing. Without objection, the hearing record will remain open 
for 5 legislative days for Members to submit written questions 
to this witness and to place her responses in the record. Also, 
without objection, Members will have 5 legislative days to 
submit extraneous materials to the Chair for inclusion in the 
record.
    And with that, I want to thank you so very much again, 
Secretary Fudge, and the hearing is now adjourned. Thank you.
    [Whereupon, at 1:19 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.]

                            A P P E N D I X

                             July 20, 2021
                             
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                             [all]