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





 
  U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT'S FISCAL YEAR 2022 
                                 BUDGET

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

                                HEARING

                               before the

                        COMMITTEE ON THE BUDGET
                        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                    ONE HUNDRED SEVENTEENTH CONGRESS

                             FIRST SESSION

                               __________

            HEARING HELD IN WASHINGTON, D.C., JUNE 23, 2021

                               __________

                            Serial No. 117-3

                               __________

           Printed for the use of the Committee on the Budget
           
           
           
           
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]            
           
           


                       Available on the Internet:
                            www.govinfo.gov
                            
                            
                            
                          ______

             U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE 
 45-546              WASHINGTON : 2021                             
                            
                            
                            
                        COMMITTEE ON THE BUDGET

                  JOHN A. YARMUTH, Kentucky, Chairman
HAKEEM S. JEFFRIES, New York         JASON SMITH, Missouri,
BRIAN HIGGINS, New York                Ranking Member
BRENDAN F. BOYLE, Pennsylvania,      TRENT KELLY, Mississippi
  Vice Chairman                      TOM McCLINTOCK, California
LLOYD DOGGETT, Texas                 GLENN GROTHMAN, Wisconsin
DAVID E. PRICE, North Carolina       LLOYD SMUCKER, Pennsylvania
JANICE D. SCHAKOWSKY, Illinois       CHRIS JACOBS, New York
DANIEL T. KILDEE, Michigan           MICHAEL BURGESS, Texas
JOSEPH D. MORELLE, New York          BUDDY CARTER, Georgia
STEVEN HORSFORD, Nevada              BEN CLINE, Virginia
BARBARA LEE, California              LAUREN BOEBERT, Colorado
JUDY CHU, California                 BYRON DONALDS, Florida
STACEY E. PLASKETT, Virgin Islands   RANDY FEENSTRA, Iowa
JENNIFER WEXTON, Virginia            BOB GOOD, Virginia
ROBERT C. ``BOBBY'' SCOTT, Virginia  ASHLEY HINSON, Iowa
SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas            JAY OBERNOLTE, California
JIM COOPER, Tennessee
ALBIO SIRES, New Jersey
SCOTT H. PETERS, California
SETH MOULTON, Massachusetts
PRAMILA JAYAPAL, Washington

                           Professional Staff

                     Diana Meredith, Staff Director
                  Mark Roman, Minority Staff Director
                  
                                CONTENTS

                                                                   Page
Hearing held in Washington, D.C., June 23, 2021..................     1

    Hon. John A. Yarmuth, Chairman, Committee on the Budget......     1
        Prepared statement of....................................     4
    Hon. Jason Smith, Ranking Member, Committee on the Budget....     6
        Prepared statement of....................................     8
        Letter submitted for the record..........................    19
    The Honorable Marcia Fudge, Secretary, U.S. Department of 
      Housing and Urban Development..............................    11
        Prepared statement of....................................    13
    Hon. Sheila Jackson Lee, Member, Committee on the Budget, 
      letter submitted for the record............................    50
        Statement submitted for the record.......................    61
    Questions submitted for the record...........................    66
    Answers submitted for the record.............................    70


  U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT'S FISCAL YEAR 2022 
                                 BUDGET

                              ----------                              


                        WEDNESDAY, JUNE 23, 2021

                           House of Representatives
                                    Committee on the Budget
                                                   Washington, D.C.
    The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10 a.m., in room 
210, Cannon House Office Building, Hon. John A. Yarmuth 
[Chairman of the Committee] presiding.
    Present: Representatives Yarmuth, Higgins, Price, 
Schakowsky, Kildee, Horsford, Lee, Chu, Plaskett, Wexton, 
Jackson Lee, Sires, Moulton; Smith, Grothman, Smucker, Jacobs, 
Burgess, Carter, Cline, Boebert, Donalds, Feenstra, Good, 
Hinson, and Obernolte.
    Chairman Yarmuth. This hearing will come to order. Good 
morning and welcome to the Budget Committee's hearing on the 
U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development's Fiscal Year 
2022 Budget. At the outset, I ask unanimous consent that the 
Chair be authorized to declare a recess at any time. Without 
objection, so ordered.
    We are holding this hybrid hearing in compliance with the 
regulations for Committee proceedings pursuant to House 
Resolution 965 carried over to the 117th Congress via House 
Resolution 8. Members and witnesses may participate remotely or 
in person.
    I would like to remind Members that we have established an 
email box for submitting documents before and during Committee 
proceedings and we have distributed that email address to your 
staff. For individuals who are participating remotely 
consistent with regulators, the Chair or staff designated by 
the Chair may mute a participants microphone when the 
participant is not under recognition for the purposes of 
eliminating inadvertent background noise.
    Members participating remotely are responsible for unmuting 
themselves when they seek recognition. We are not permitted to 
unmute Members unless they explicitly request assistance. If I 
notice that you have not unmuted yourself, I will ask you if 
you would like staff to unmute you. If you indicate approval by 
nodding, staff will unmute your microphone. They will not 
unmute your microphone under any other conditions.
    Members participating remotely must have their cameras on 
and be visible on screen in order to be recognized. Members may 
not participate in more than one committee proceeding 
simultaneously.
    Finally, in light of the Attending Physician's new 
guidance, individuals physically present in the hearing room 
who are fully vaccinated do not need to wear a mask or socially 
distance though they may choose to do so. Individuals who are 
not fully vaccinated must continue to wear a mask unless they 
are speaking under recognition and must continue to socially 
distance.
    Now I will introduce our witness. This morning, we will be 
hearing from the Honorable Marcia Fudge, Secretary U.S. 
Department of Housing and Urban Development. I will now yield 
myself five minutes for an opening statement.
    I would like to start by welcoming our former colleague 
back to the House, the distinguished gentlewoman from Ohio, 
Secretary Marcia Fudge. Congratulations on your confirmation 
and thank you for being with us in person today. Madam 
Secretary, as you well know, having a place to call home is the 
bedrock of success. It is not just where you lay your head at 
night and where you start your day, it is where you start your 
family and begin to plan for the rest of your life.
    Ensuring that every American has access to decent housing, 
to homes that are stable, secure, sanitary and safe should be a 
national priority. Instead, it has become a national failure. 
Millions of struggling Americans are currently living in 
dilapidated, outdated and unsafe homes and nearly 600,000 
Americans experience homelessness on any given night in our 
country.
    More than a generation ago, our government invested in 
safeguards to ensure housing affordability, including public 
housing. Now, 50 percent of public housing in America is more 
than 50 years old. And even with these units, waiting lists are 
tragically long and families are turned away.
    The unmet needs go beyond public housing. Even before the 
pandemic, rent increases were outpacing renter's real income. 
In the last two decades, renters have seen their income rise 
less than 4 percent while their rent rose at least 15 percent. 
Today, 11 million families pay more than half their income on 
rent. If you add in rising housing costs, it is not difficult 
to see how the idea of working hard enough to one day buy a 
home has become more of a pipedream than the American Dream.
    Without federal investments to restore safeguards and 
address systemic failures, this crisis will only get worse. 
That is why President Biden's 2022 budget includes historic 
investments in America's housing infrastructure to build and 
modernize housing across the country, increase sustainability 
and affordability and expand opportunities for lower income 
families and in previously excluded communities.
    The Low-Income Housing Tax Credit is one of the federal 
government's most powerful tools for building and 
rehabilitating affordable housing, producing an estimated 
100,000 affordable rental units per year. The President's 
budget invests an additional $55 billion in this proven 
initiative and pairs it with investments and other successful 
housing subsidy programs. This includes a $40 billion increase 
for the Public Housing Fund to build, maintain and retrofit 
more than one million affordable rental housing units across 
the country.
    Increased capacity must also come with a commitment to 
increase accessibility, sustainability and safety. That is why 
the President's budget provides resources to support and 
sustain homeownership and renting opportunities. To upgrade and 
build schools and childcare facilities, restore vacant 
buildings and reverse the effects of disinvestment in our 
communities.
    It makes investments to remove lead-based paint and address 
residents critical health and safety concerns. It also includes 
incentives for zoning reform to remove exclusionary zoning laws 
and harmful policies that have not only inflated housing costs 
but also segregated communities and often barred low-income 
families of color from high opportunity neighborhoods.
    It prioritizes the housing needs of communities that have 
been historically left behind or ignored like Indian country 
and rural America as well as our veterans. These resources will 
not only transform cities and communities, they will transform 
lives and fuel our recovery by creating hundreds of thousands 
of good paying jobs across the country.
    I have seen it work firsthand. My hometown of Louisville, 
Kentucky is a national model of the power of federal housing 
investment. We are home to four highly successful Hope 6 
projects. And just two weeks ago, we held a grand opening for a 
fifth project, this one funded through the newer Choice 
Neighborhood program.
    I cannot overstate the impact of these federal investments. 
Entire neighborhoods transformed. Entire families set up for 
success and new areas of economic growth for our entire city. 
That is what can happen when the federal government invests in 
affordable housing.
    Yes, the American Rescue Plan provided emergency rental and 
homelessness assistance as at-risk families struggled to keep a 
roof over their head during the pandemic. While this critical 
support continues to save households from eviction, ending the 
pandemic will not end our nation's housing crisis. That is why 
we need the historic investments and comprehensive plans 
outlined in the President's budget.
    Secretary Fudge, I look forward to hearing more about this 
today and I thank you again for being here. With that, I would 
like to yield to the Ranking Member Mr. Smith, five minutes for 
his opening statement.
    [The prepared statement of Chairman Yarmuth follows:]
    
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]       
 
    
    Mr. Smith. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and welcome Secretary 
Fudge. It is great to have you with us. The first Cabinet 
Secretary and so it is nice to have a former colleague. The 
President's budget is a massive spending and tax plan. $17 
trillion dollars in new debt over the next 10 years. It taxes 
Americans to the tune of $55 trillion dollars. The President 
breaks his promise not to raise taxes on American families who 
make less than $400,000 dollars.
    Under this budget, in 10 years, America will pay more to 
settle the interest on our national debt than it costs today to 
take care of our seniors on Medicare. It will also cost more 
than our entire national defense budget and 15 times more than 
the HUD budget.
    But it's not just this explosion in federal spending and 
debt that concerns America's working class. It is the increased 
command and control over their lives and livelihoods by 
Washington Democrats. People who have never appeared on a 
single ballot but which the Biden Administration wants to give 
undue influence over some of the most personal decisions in our 
lives. Like where and how we choose to live. Already we are 
seeing the effects of the President's policies, the high prices 
Americans are facing at the pump and in the checkout line due 
to rising inflation.
    For your Department, Madam Secretary, the Biden 
Administration has requested more than $68 billion. Over the 
last six months, Congress already provided $46 billion in 
rental assistance funding which is more than 70 percent of your 
Department's annual budget. And yet the Administration cannot 
show how much of that money was actually used to repay rent 
during the pandemic. This is a startling lack of accountability 
for such an immense sum of money.
    The budget gives HUD a 15 percent raise. I would note at 
the same time, it flatlines Homeland Security funding during a 
crisis at our southern border. Since January, we have had over 
700,000 migrants attempt to illegally enter the United States. 
More than the number of people in the entire state of Wyoming 
or Vermont.
    America is a generous nation, but we must ensure that 
public resources go to Americans in need before illegal 
immigrants. That is why it is alarming to hear that HUD is not 
requiring applicants to provide Social Security numbers for 
emergency housing vouchers. With thousands of homeless veterans 
struggling for help in our country, it is unacceptable to think 
that this Administration would put illegal immigrants over the 
men and women who served our country.
    Congress has some work to do as well. Right now, almost 
every program at HUD is operating under long, expired 
congressional authorizations. Democrats have been in the 
majority for over 900 days and during that time, Congress has 
failed to reauthorize a single program at HUD. In fact, the 
Financial Services Committee has conducted 17 full hearings 
this Congress and none of them have addressed reauthorizing any 
of these programs.
    We cannot identify waste, fraud, and abuse in our federal 
programs if Congress fails to do its most basic job. These 
failures also contribute to making the web of programs that HUD 
administers more complex and costly over time. After reading 
this budget, one thing is clear: President Biden is not focused 
on the concerns of the working class. Even when it comes to 
housing policy while gas and food prices are going up as a 
result of the President's policies. This budget has an $800 
million dollar subsidy for Green New Deal Projects.
    The working class cannot afford to wait while President 
Biden puts solar panels on their houses. The cost of living is 
going up right now. They want a budget that helps them support 
their families, drives up wages and restores economic security. 
I'm sorry to say this budget for HUD falls short for the 
American people. I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
    [The prepared statement of Jason Smith follows:]
    
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]    
        
    Chairman Yarmuth. Thank you, Mr. Smith for your opening 
statement. In the interest of time, I ask that any other 
Members who wish to make a statement submit their written 
statements for the record to the email inbox we established for 
receiving documents before and during Committee proceedings. We 
have distributed that email address to your staff. I will hold 
the record open to the end of the day to accommodate those 
Members who may not yet have prepared written statements.
    Once again, I would like to thank Secretary Fudge for being 
here this morning. The Committee has received your written 
statement and it will be made part of the formal hearing 
record. You will have five minutes to give your oral remarks 
and you may begin when you are ready.

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

    Secretary Fudge. Thank you very, very much, Mr. Chairman, 
Ranking Member Smith, and the distinguished Members of this 
Committee. Certainly I miss being here with you but I have 
other work to do so thank you so much for having me here today.
    I just want to say that the Biden/Harris Administration has 
put forth transformational investments which the public very 
much support. Even before the onset of COVID-19, nearly 11 
million families spent more than half of their incomes on rent. 
The pandemic has only made that situation worse. Especially for 
communities of color and people of modest means.
    The President understands we must take bold action to 
America's affordable housing crisis. That is why President 
Biden has proposed a budget for Fiscal Year 2022 that requests 
$68.7 billion on behalf of the Department of Housing and Urban 
Development. This amount represents an increase of $9 billion 
or 15 percent from HUD's enacted funding level for Fiscal Year 
2021.
    The President's budget would greatly strengthen the social 
safety net for the most vulnerable among us. It contains $3.5 
billion to provide housing and supportive services to Americans 
experiencing homelessness including young people and survivors 
of domestic violence.
    The President's budget requests $30.4 billion for HUD's 
housing choice voucher program. And if enacted, it would 
deliver potentially life changing assistance to an additional 
200,000 households. The President's budget takes strong steps 
to preserve America's public housing stock. Nearly half of our 
public housing is more than 50 years old. Many properties face 
major capital needs. This is not just a safety issue but an 
issue of racial justice as people of color represent more than 
70 percent of Americans who live in public housing.
    That is why President Biden's budget invests $3.2 billion 
toward public housing capital funds to help dramatically 
improve the quality of life of those residents.
    And to further advance equity for underserved communities, 
the President's budget requests $723 million in Indian Housing 
Block Grants. This funding would help create affordable 
housing, improve water conservation, and build climate 
resilient infrastructure on tribal lands. In addition, the 
President's budget contains major investments to strengthen 
HUD's capacity to serve the American people.
    Between 2012 and 2019, the number of full-time employees at 
our Agency declined by roughly 20 percent. HUD's dedicated team 
of outstanding civil servants is overworked and understaffed, 
and they need help. The President's budget would provide $1.7 
billion for HUD's internal operations. This would allow our 
Department to hire the employees we need to deliver critical 
services. From disaster relief to fair housing enforcement with 
urgency and with efficiency.
    To build upon the vital funding contained in this budget 
and to dramatically expand our supply of affordable housing, 
the President has proposed the American Jobs Plan. It 
represents a once in a generation investment in our nation's 
infrastructure including our housing infrastructure. All told, 
the Jobs Plan provides $318 billion to construct, restore and 
modernize more than 2 million affordable places to live.
    It would significantly expand HUD's housing trust fund 
which helps create homes for renters with limited incomes. It 
would help produce as many as 600,000 affordable homes by 
increasing support for initiative such as the low-income 
housing tax credit. In addition, the Jobs Plan includes a new 
tax credit based on the proposed Neighborhood Homes Investment 
Act that can help build and renovate 500,000 homes for buyers 
of more modest means.
    Taken together, the investments found in the American Jobs 
Plan and the President's budget underscore this 
Administration's commitment to address our affordable housing 
crisis head on. The American Jobs Plan and the President's 2022 
budget tell the American people we view housing as a 
foundational platform to help solve our most urgent challenges, 
to expand security for those who live on the outskirts of hope, 
to advance opportunity and equity on behalf of marginalized 
communities, and to help provide every person with a dignified 
place to call home.
    As a Member of Congress for nearly 13 years, I have the 
highest regard for this institution and thank each of you for 
the work you do on behalf of the American people. I look 
forward to working with this Committee to ensure HUD acts as a 
responsible steward of the funding entrusted to our Department. 
And to help making housing for all a reality in America. And 
with that, I am happy to answer your questions, Mr. Chairman.
    [The prepared statement of Marcia Fudge follows:]
    
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]    
      
    Chairman Yarmuth. Thank you very much for that statement. I 
will now begin our question and answer session. As a reminder, 
Members can submit written questions to be answered later in 
writing. Those questions and responses will be made part of the 
formal hearing record. Any Members who wish to submit questions 
for the record may do so by sending them to the Clerk 
electronically within seven days. And now, I recognize the 
gentleman from New York, Mr. Higgins for five minutes.
    Mr. Higgins. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, thank you, Secretary 
for being here. Just for context, the United States spent $6.5 
trillion in three wars in the Middle East. None of it was paid 
for and there was no economic growth that came to the American 
economy because of that so-called investment. But we did pay a 
price. 7,036 United States soldiers were killed in those wars 
in Iraq. Today the Taliban is growing their influence in 
Afghanistan. 20 years ago, we took the Taliban out after 9/11. 
Iran and the Shiite militias own Iraq today.
    So the reason why this is relevant is for context and the 
contrast between what the President's budget offers in the 
renewal of America as a powerful force for good in urban and 
city renewal. You represented Ohio's 11th District proudly for 
many, many years. I represent Buffalo and western New York.
    This pandemic exposed a lot of the fragility, the 
vulnerability of the American economy and American society, 
particularly for people of color. And this bill, your budget, 
$68.7 billion, a $9 billion increase is what we need. The 
Neighborhood Homes Investment Act is a 35 percent tax credit 
for the construction and renovation of over 500,000 homes in 
this country over the next five years.
    Too many times in Washington, we are confronted with a 
false choice. People will make the distinction between Wall 
Street and Main Street. What this bill does, it addresses the 
thing that has been forgotten for the past 50 years and that 
has the neighborhood streets where the homes are, where people 
live and struggle every single day.
    So I just want you to continue to advocate for your budget 
and commit to helping me rebuild my community of Buffalo and 
western New York and Niagara Falls much like you were committed 
to Ohio's 11th District and the many, many years that you 
served there.
    Secretary Fudge. Thank you very, very much, Mr. Higgins. 
And let me just say that the thing that is so outstanding about 
this budget and the Jobs Plan is that finally as a nation we 
are investing in people. We invest in many, many things. We 
invest in brick and mortar. But today and going forward, we are 
investing in America's people.
    The Ranking Member talked about working class people. I 
come from a working-class family. I talk to working-class 
people every day and they are finally feeling some hope about 
what we, the people who represent them every day, me at HUD and 
you here will do to change their lives. And so, I thank you sir 
and you have my commitment that I will work with you in any way 
I possibly can.
    Chairman Yarmuth. The gentleman yields back the balance of 
his time. I now recognize the Ranking Member Mr. Smith for 10 
minutes.
    Mr. Smith. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Madam Secretary, I will 
start with an issue back home in Missouri with College of the 
Ozarks disputing a recent HUD directive which would force 
schools to violate their religious beliefs by obligating them 
to open their dorm rooms and shower spaces to members of the 
opposite sex. The directive based on President Biden's 
reinterpretation of the word sex in an Executive Order signed 
in January requires entities subjected to the Fair Housing Act 
not to discriminate based on gender identity.
    As such, and since dorms are considered multifamily housing 
under HUD's purview, HUD could bring enforcement actions 
against faith-based colleges like the College of the Ozarks in 
Branson. Madam Secretary, do you believe the College of the 
Ozarks dorm and bathroom policies based on strongly held 
religious beliefs place them in violation of HUD's directive?
    Secretary Fudge. Thank you for the question, Mr. Ranking 
Member. What I do believe is that it is the law. The Bostock 
rule from the Supreme Court says it is the law and I am sworn 
to uphold the law.
    Mr. Smith. So you are also sworn to uphold the Constitution 
of free speech.
    Secretary Fudge. Correct.
    Mr. Smith. And so can you commit to me here today that HUD 
will not violate the First Amendment rights of faith-based 
private institutions by enforcing this directive?
    Secretary Fudge. What I will commit to you, sir, is that we 
will not violate anyone's Constitutional rights.
    Mr. Smith. That is good to hear, Madam Secretary. So it 
looks like College of the Ozarks is good. As I am sure you are 
aware, over 700,000 migrants have illegally crossed our border 
since January. More people than the entire population of Kansas 
City, Missouri. However, despite talk from the White House, 
there has been little action to address the overwhelming border 
crisis. In fact, some would argue the President and Vice 
President have, in fact, encouraged it.
    Your Department recently put out guidance describing the 
process to allocate emergency housing vouchers. It disturbed me 
to read that despite, despite federal law stating the contrary, 
the Biden Administration reversed prior guidance and is no 
longer requiring applicants to provide Social Security numbers 
in order to assess these vouchers and taxpayer dollars. In 
fact, on June 11th, four U.S. Senators sent you a letter 
calling on you to reverse this policy. I ask unanimous consent 
to submit this letter into the record.
    [Letter submitted for the record follows:]
    
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]    
       
    Chairman Yarmuth. Without objection.
    Mr. Smith. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. You have basically 
rolled out the welcome mat to 700,000 illegal immigrants 
looking for a taxpayer funded tax paid funding place to stay. 
First off, can you confirm that this is true?
    Secretary Fudge. No, I cannot.
    Mr. Smith. So you did not have a directive that you no 
longer have to use Social Security numbers to apply?
    Secretary Fudge. No. What it says is that we have time to 
do it. What we are doing, sir, so that it is characterized 
properly, is when we find homeless people, we do give them 
vouchers but we then do check. So it is not that we are not 
checking.
    Mr. Smith. And how long does it take for you to check if 
they have a valid Social Security number?
    Secretary Fudge. We work with our partners on the ground. I 
do not know the date but I can tell you how long it takes and I 
will get back to you with that answer.
    Mr. Smith. And can you also explain what HUD is doing to 
make sure we are prioritizing American citizens and not illegal 
immigrants and ensure American citizens are the first to 
receive the assistance for these federal government vouchers?
    Secretary Fudge. First off, only American citizens 
technically or those who are here legally can receive it.
    Mr. Smith. There are no illegals that is receiving any 
vouchers?
    Secretary Fudge. As far as I know, there are not.
    Mr. Smith. That's great news and I would love to see if 
there is anyone that would argue that. On the other hand, there 
are over 37,000 homeless veterans in the United States and 
nearly 500 in my home state of Missouri. Yet your budget zeros 
out a program specifically designed to help homeless veterans. 
Can you please explain the reasoning for zeroing out this 
program in your budget while asking for more money for 
virtually every other program?
    Secretary Fudge. We already have resources between us and 
VA. We have those resources for homeless veterans and those 
numbers, quite frankly, up until COVID were going down, not up. 
And so, we have a focus, a very definitive focus on getting 
veterans off the street and I think that you will find if you 
look at this budget, the President's budget, and the VA budget, 
you will see that those resources are there.
    Mr. Smith. So Madam Secretary, based on your response to 
that question and since the funding for homeless veterans was 
zeroed out, that wasn't an increase, it was zeroed out. And you 
said there was already resources for that. Your budget under 
the bail out bills have received an incredible amount of money. 
Are you saying all of those had zero money left over?
    Secretary Fudge. No what I am saying to you is that between 
HUD's--200,000 vouchers that you have already talked--that we 
have talked about from the Jobs Plan, the resources that you 
have given us, graciously given us from the COVID package in 
December and the rescue package in March, do account for 
vouchers for veterans.
    Mr. Smith. And you just zeroed it out, did not need any 
more additional dollars for veterans.
    Secretary Fudge. We zeroed it out in our budget.
    Mr. Smith. OK. That is unfortunate.
    Secretary Fudge. What I am saying to you, sir, is that the 
resources are there in the VA. We work together. It is one 
government and one interagency process to make sure that 
veterans are treated fairly.
    Mr. Smith. It is just amazing to me, Mr. Chairman, that the 
one item that deals with homeless veterans is zeroed out when 
this Agency as a whole has a 15 percent increase across the 
board and that there is plenty of money left over from the 
prior COVID packages. But Biden and Pelosi have said that a 
budget is a statement of your values and a statement of your 
priorities. And clearly this budget by zeroing out funding for 
homeless veterans clearly shows the American people that this 
Administration's budget and their values is zero for our 
homeless veterans, which I think is absolutely horrendous and 
not a priority of the House Republicans or the American people 
for that matter.
    Actions speak louder than words, Madam Secretary. This 
Administration is failing to uphold its promise to the men and 
women who served this nation proudly. Some of who are sleeping 
on the streets in Missouri and I think it is disgraceful that 
it was zeroed out.
    Now President Biden has pledged to spend over $2 trillion 
dollars on climate initiatives over the next four years, 
including $213 billion budget requests to produce and retrofit 
more than 2 million energy efficient homes. Madam Secretary, 
how long will it take to produce and/or retrofit these green 
units?
    Secretary Fudge. Well every unit that we build today should 
be a green unit. We want climate efficiency. We want 
weatherization. We want people to live in places where their 
utility bills are not putting them out of their homes because 
they are too much. We want to be sure that we can have people 
live in efficient, energy efficient properties. I mean that is 
the process going forward that I think every single person----
    Mr. Smith. So how long will it take? That's my question.
    Secretary Fudge. How long will it take to do what?
    Mr. Smith. To retro fit it into a green item because I just 
do not want people sleeping on the streets.
    Secretary Fudge. Well, one of the things that we have to do 
is give us the money. Once we have the resources, then we can 
put in place the processes to make sure it happens.
    Mr. Smith. How much does your Agency have left over from 
the prior COVID packages?
    Secretary Fudge. Total, I do not know the number off the 
top of my head, but I would say about 90 percent of it is 
already out.
    Mr. Smith. So it's interesting because according to CBO in 
the Biden bailout bill in February, there was $5 billion 
dollars for homeless assistance and zero was going to be spent 
in the year 2021 and the rest was going to be spent in 2022 and 
after.
    Secretary Fudge. Sir, that is absolutely not accurate.
    Mr. Smith. This is what the Congressional Budget Office----
    Secretary Fudge. That was in February, we are in June.
    Mr. Smith. So and we are still in Fiscal Year 1921. I am 
just saying what the Congressional Budget Office said. So I 
would love for you to provide to the House Republicans that 
that is not accurate and then we will make sure the 
Congressional Budget Office says whether it is the case or not.
    Secretary Fudge. I would be happy to get it to you, sir.
    Mr. Smith. I appreciate that. So, you do not know a 
timeline of whenever these green energy homes will be 
retrofitted. It's just whenever the money comes?
    Secretary Fudge. Well certainly, you have to plan. You 
know, we cannot just say to people oh, we have a million 
dollars, go find something to do with it. We are very good 
stewards of taxpayers' dollars and we want--what we want is a 
plan and a timeline to make sure that the resources are being 
spent appropriately and timely.
    Mr. Smith. Exactly. So will the timeline delay the 
availability of housing for homeless persons or someone in need 
whenever you do have this timeline?
    Secretary Fudge. Well let me just tell you where we are 
now. The Chairman talked about some 600--almost 600,000 people 
sleeping on the street. If we do not do something very, very 
quickly, we do not have places to put people now.
    Mr. Smith. Yes, my biggest concern is I don't want people, 
additional people sleeping on the street because we are just 
trying to green retrofit. And so----
    Secretary Fudge. I think that is really not a fair 
statement.
    Mr. Smith. I just want to make sure that it is a priority 
Madam Secretary that when you are looking at retrofitting, that 
you put people before retrofitting and make sure that we allow 
as few as people to be sleeping on the streets just because of 
these green new proposals that is coming.
    Secretary Fudge. No one is sleeping on the street because 
of a green retro fit.
    Mr. Smith. That is good to hear.
    Chairman Yarmuth. The gentleman's time has expired. I now 
recognize the gentlewoman from Illinois Ms. Schakowsky for five 
minutes. No, sorry the gentleman from North Carolina, Mr. Price 
for five minutes.
    Mr. Price. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and let me join you and 
other Members in welcoming Secretary Marcia Fudge back to the 
House and our Committee. We had a good session on our 
Transportation HUD Appropriations Subcommittee and now we have 
another round at the Budget Committee and I am grateful for 
that.
    Madam Secretary, I want to commend you, first of all, for 
the relentless message on the importance of turning around this 
housing crisis in this country and increasing our housing 
supply. Making certain that we have a clear understanding that 
housing is infrastructure. You have said that repeatedly and I 
want you to keep saying it. Because we have a huge stake in the 
passage of the American Jobs Plan and the inclusion of housing, 
full inclusion of housing as a component of American 
infrastructure.
    I want to turn to another matter: disaster recovery, which 
is also, of course, within our HUD budget and something that 
has required a lot of attention in recent years. Especially in 
areas like I represent where we have repeated natural disasters 
and have reason to monitor this closely and to try to get the 
money flowing as quickly and efficiently as possible when 
people desperately need help. The THUD Appropriations 
Subcommittee has appropriated around $90 billion through this 
CDVGDR program, disaster relief program or disaster recovery 
program as we call it. And so we have experienced it firsthand 
in North Carolina, the effects of some of these hurdles that we 
have to clear and some of the delays we have to deal with.
    The particular problems--there have been particular 
problems with Puerto Rico, and I want to ask you first of all 
how we are doing in getting some of those problems--those 
inequities corrected. And then I want to ask you some questions 
about the bigger picture. Because this program is cumbersome 
even when it works well, even when it works the way it should. 
There are multiple checkpoints, and the aid does not get out 
the way it should.
    But there were particular with Puerto Rico, we discovered 
in our hearing. I saw what some of those were, and we know 
there was a political aspect to that with President Trump and 
his attitude Puerto Rico. They recklessly held back aid. So I 
wonder if you can first provide us a status update on the 
disaster recovery efforts in Puerto Rico and how those funds 
are flowing?
    Secretary Fudge. Certainly, and thank you for the question. 
I think that you will find, and I hope you will be pleased at 
what we have done since this Administration took over this 
project. One of things that we did was we streamlined the 
project. We made sure that we could get the resources out 
quickly. Right now, about 90 percent of all the resources that 
should have gone out seven, eight years are out.
    What we do know though is that we need some kind of a 
permanent framework, Mr. Price, so that we can do this fairly, 
efficiently, and quickly. Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands 
should have seen significant increases in their allocations, 
and I am very pleased at where we stand today.
    Mr. Price. Well the repeated needs for federal Register 
notices about disaster recovery, unmet need funds, about 
mitigation funds it is a bewildering array sometimes of the 
check points. We did pass an authorization, as you well know in 
the last Congress----
    Secretary Fudge. Correct.
    Mr. Price [continuing]. an authorization of that DR program 
in the House. And it certainly would help if we could have an 
authorization, I understand that. That one is on us. The--I 
wonder if you have anything to say though about the Puerto Rico 
situation in particular. What has this Administration 
specifically done to expedite that flow of funds and the help 
where it is needed?
    Secretary Fudge. I have personally spoken with the 
Governor. I have spoken with the Representative here. We have 
come to some very good--come to a very good place as to how we 
move forward. Again, we have removed the person who did 
oversight because we thought that that was a clog in the 
process. And so, we are moving very, very rapidly to be sure 
that we are providing not only the resources but the technical 
assistance they need. And my last conversation with the 
Governor, he was very pleased at our progress.
    Mr. Price. All right. Well that is good to hear. We do want 
to monitor that carefully with you, and I visited the island--
many, many members over the last few years since those 
devastating storms have had concerns about this. And so, we do 
want to make sure that that is expedited and then understand 
also that this is part of a larger problem of the, you know, 
the CDBG money in many ways is the most flexible money we have 
so that is a good thing. And that category is there for a 
reason, but we defeat some of the purpose if we have it too 
entangled in bureaucracy. So we appreciate your commitment to 
working that out. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
    Chairman Yarmuth. The gentleman's time has expired. I now 
recognize the gentleman from Pennsylvania, Mr. Smucker, for 
five minutes.
    Mr. Smucker. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Secretary Fudge, good 
to see you, congratulations on your new role as Secretary. I 
think we can all agree we want every American to have access to 
housing and at a price that they can afford, and we do not want 
anybody to be in a situation of being homeless. So, you know, I 
hope to be able to work with you in your role to help address 
some of these issues.
    I am concerned that the impacts of this budget will 
negatively impact the affordability of housing and will 
overwhelm some of the work that is being done at HUD. We are 
seeing massive new spending at a scale that we have not seen 
before which is clearly resulting in, due to expansion of the 
money supply to support that spending, inflation.
    And I do not think it is going to be short term, I think we 
will see sustained inflation like we have not seen in decades 
as a result of the policies that this Administration. Which 
will make housing more unaffordable and will make individuals' 
dollars less able to provide for their needs. Are you concerned 
about how inflation will impact the affordability of housing?
    Secretary Fudge. I am concerned about inflation generally. 
But I think that if you look at what economists are saying 
today, the majority are saying that there may be some inflation 
but at this time they are not concerned about it being long 
term. Nor are they concerned about it doing something like 
increasing the cost of housing.
    What is increasing the cost of housing today is things like 
lack of materials. I met with the home builders. They told me 
it costs them an additional $32,000 in the purchase of 
materials and time to build a home.
    Mr. Smucker. Per home, yes.
    Secretary Fudge. Yes. Another $13,000 because of zoning 
that makes it more difficult for them to build the type of 
housing that they can build quickly. And so, that is a much 
bigger cost than inflation would make it.
    Mr. Smucker. Well, that is inflation. The price of lumbar 
going up 300 percent is inflation.
    Secretary Fudge. Some of it is a result of COVID that they 
do not have the materials.
    Mr. Smucker. Yes. I mean, I am hearing exactly what you 
are, and it is making homes that much more affordable for so 
many more American families. So, you know, again, I want to 
work with you but the Department as a part of the overall 
budget, you are proposing an increase of 15 percent in 
spending. And I would like to hear how you intend to address 
the operations of the Department.
    As I am sure you know in September last year, the GAO found 
that at HUD there are 20 different entities administering 160 
programs. So, you know, I think surely some of those programs 
are duplicative, some are probably more cost effective than 
others. In fact, there are quite a few studies out there that 
have found just that. According to HUD data before its most 
recent allocation, the housing trust fund, one particular 
program, received more than $1.19 billion since Fiscal Year 
2016. Yet through February 2021, more than two-thirds of those 
funds remain undispersed. And from the funds that have been 
dispersed, the housing trust fund has completed production of 
only 800 units of housing. So that is a 5-year production rate 
that would equate to one completed unit of housing for every 
$1.5 million in the fund.
    Your budget as I mentioned not only is a 15 percent 
increase but requests $45 billion over the next five years for 
the housing trust fund. Could you please justify why you need 
more dollars for this fund when it has such an inefficient 
track record?
    Secretary Fudge. Well, I think that you kind of hit the 
nail on the head, and I agree with a lot of what you are 
saying. But let me just be clear about this: all the programs 
that HUD runs have been authorized by this Congress. I did not 
make them up, you know, I think it is time for us to take a 
look. I do not disagree with you at all. I think it is time for 
us to see if we can be more efficient, if we can be better and 
so I would love to work with you with that.
    Mr. Smucker. So what plans do you have to create more 
efficiency in that particular program or in others as well?
    Secretary Fudge. Well, I think that probably maybe 
sometimes people do not really understand what the housing 
trust fund is for. Yes, it assists in building houses, but the 
primary purpose is to bring down the cost of housing. It kind 
of fills the gap for what a house would cost and how we can 
make it affordable.
    Mr. Smucker. But the primary purpose is to bring down the 
cost of housing----
    Secretary Fudge. Well to build and to bring down the cost.
    Mr. Smucker [continuing]. it is dramatically failing at 
that, yes.
    Secretary Fudge. Well no, that is really is what it is for. 
And so we put the resources into the trust fund in order to 
make housing affordable. It is specifically directed at low-
income and moderate-income people. That is what the program is 
for. And I think that for the most part, I cannot speak to what 
happened before I came, but for the most part, we are on track 
to do what is necessary to be done.
    And as it relates to how, we talked about our staff in 
which I am so pleased that you did. In 2019, we went down to 
6000 staff, lower than it has ever been. At one point in this 
country, housing made up about 7 percent of the budget, it is 
less than 1 percent.
    So then when we sit and wonder why our public housing is so 
bad, why there has not been any real investment in new housing, 
why the housing is in the shape it is in, because we have 
disinvested. We have not kept up for decades with what we 
should be doing to make public housing decent, to build new 
housing. We are 11 million houses short of where people need to 
live today. And so at some point, we have to say to ourselves, 
do we really want to make this better or do we want to just 
keep putting band aids on it. This budget wants to make it 
better.
    Mr. Smucker. Thank you, I am out of time.
    Chairman Yarmuth. The gentleman's time has expired. I now 
recognize the gentlewoman from Illinois, Ms. Schakowsky, for 
five minutes.
    Ms. Schakowsky. Thank you so much and thank you, Madam 
Secretary for being here. It was a pleasure to serve with you 
and now it is such a pleasure to see you in this position. So I 
am very concerned because at the end of this month which is 
coming up, the CDC extension on the moratorium on evictions 
ends. I was relieved when the HUD moratorium ended in March 
that the CDC came through with one.
    I wanted to ask you, what is the plan? Because it is not 
forgiveness of the money that is owed and so what is the plan 
for all the people now who have this accumulated amount of 
money that they owe to the landlords and what is going to 
happen to the landlords?
    Secretary Fudge. First off, thank you. It is good to see 
you.
    Ms. Schakowsky. So good to see you.
    Secretary Fudge. Thank you. As you know, the CDC is the 
entity that actually issues the moratorium and I do know that 
they are having some discussions. I do not know at this point 
what the outcome is going to be, but I know what we need to do 
right now is to be sure that our communities and I have had 
many, many conversations with mayors and others, get the 
resources out. There is a bottleneck. Because when the 
resources were sent out, there was no technical assistance, no 
direction, and so we send money to these communities through 
the Treasury and the Treasury at the time did not have the 
capacity to tell them how these funds should be and could be 
used, and so they did not use them.
    And so now what we are seeing now that they have the kind 
of direction and technical assistance that we have been giving, 
the resources are coming out much quicker. But we need to get 
that $45 billion through the system so that the landlords can 
be paid. I mean I think that certainly we need to bring in 
landlords more and have conversations with them about how these 
resources can be helpful. But I do think that you will see that 
the numbers are coming up significantly, exponentially, month 
by month now that people understand what the process is and of 
course the urgency of June 30th.
    Ms. Schakowsky. So is that amount of money sufficient to 
absolutely prevent people from being left on the street now? 
That they could be evicted at this point?
    Secretary Fudge. Well, I would say this. It is sufficient 
enough to keep people from being evicted on June 30th if the 
money gets through the system because it can bring most people 
current. Whether they be renters or whether they have--or 
whether they are homeowners. But I just do believe that we have 
to make sure that every community and especially rural and 
smaller communities who are having the most difficulty because 
most of them do not have the kinds of staffs to be able to take 
in these resources and do not have the capacity within their 
structures to get these resources out.
    So we need to really put more time and attention toward the 
smaller and rural communities because that is where a lot of 
this is lacking because they just do not have the capacity to 
do it.
    Ms. Schakowsky. Let me ask you a different question. I 
wanted to talk to you about exclusionary zoning rules. The--we 
heard from Deputy Secretary of the Treasury Walter Adeyemo I 
think is what it is. That this is a problem and I wondered if 
you could just discuss that a little bit about exclusionary 
zoning rules.
    Secretary Fudge. I would be happy to. I mean, I think one 
of the things that, even having been a mayor myself, some of 
the things that we do not really think about is we have these 
zoning ordinances that have been around sometimes for decades 
and decades that we really do not take a look at. So maybe what 
we need to do is stop and have a conversation about how 
exclusionary zoning rules are making it more difficult not only 
to build new housing but for people to move to communities that 
they can afford to live in under normal circumstances without 
the additional cost.
    So let's just take something simple like requirements for 
so many parking spaces, let's say or for a certain width of a 
driveway or a certain lot size. When I was a mayor, the 
community right next to mine required you to have a two-acre 
lot before you could build a new home. It made it almost 
impossible for a normal, average moderate-income person to live 
in that community. But that law had been on the books for 50 or 
60 years.
    And so what we want to do is have conversations, but I want 
to be clear because I have heard this a number of times. We are 
not dictating or demanding that anyone change their zoning 
laws. What we want to do is make them aware of how difficult 
that they are making it for people to build homes and for us to 
move people into those communities who need housing.
    Ms. Schakowsky. Perfect, I appreciate that, and my time is 
up. I yield back.
    Chairman Yarmuth. The gentlewoman yields back and now I 
recognize the gentleman from New York, Mr. Jacobs for five 
minutes.
    Mr. Jacobs. Thank you, Madam Secretary. Great to be here, 
and I just wanted to mention my first job out of college was 
working at HUD here in Washington, DC. I worked in the first 
Bush and Kemp Administration in the Office of Policy 
Development when we passed the Hope Program. And actually, 
after several years at HUD, I left and went with a couple to 
work in public housing communities. Implementing, working to 
help implement resident management grants for residents taking 
over management responsibilities and entrepreneurship in public 
housing, giving them a more vested position in their housing.
    So it is great to be here and talking about housing policy. 
I also owned a small development company in Buffalo, New York 
doing revitalization of older structures in downtown Buffalo.
    I just wanted to, as we are Representatives representing 
areas throughout the country, I just wanted to relay something 
recently that had come up in my area. As we talk about the need 
for more affordable housing and additional public housing, 
additional aid to public housing. Certainly, I am sure you 
agree, a lot of affordable housing is still provided by small 
landlords who own several units, may have a double where they 
live in one and then lease out the other.
    The other day I met a couple. They were immigrants from 
India, and they had obviously over a good period of time built 
up a significant real estate holding of affordable residential 
properties. New York state still has the moratorium on rent and 
they're at a point now that they have not received rent for 
well over a year from many of these tenants. And my second 
point of this is the rental assistance is finally coming 
through in New York state. But the problem they've been having 
is they're honoring, of course, the moratorium on mandating 
rent, but they have financing through Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, 
and they have found that there has been no flexibility there to 
work with them on the other side. You know, they're not 
receiving rent but there's not any grace period on payments and 
so forth. So I don't know more about that but I just want to 
relay a concern.
    And then the other thing I would mention is just recently, 
finally, the Cuomo Administration has got--started to get out 
money of the rental assistance that came from the federal 
government. The problem is that that money requires--for the 
landlord to attain that money, that rental assistance, the 
tenant has to concede to that. There's really no incentive for 
the tenant to say I agree. So they have been unable to get any 
assistance with that. And my concern is, this individual has 
now been forced to sell several properties to continue to pay 
the loans on other properties. My concern is we could get to a 
point if this gets more protracted that we are going to have 
people turning over the keys to banks and we are going in 
reverse in terms of housing stock and affordability.
    So, I wish I had more specifics about that, but I just 
wanted to relay that to you. I am supportive of the rental 
assistance. I understand that we want people to be able to stay 
in their homes during this crisis, but we do not want to be 
creating another crisis, a longer-term crisis, as a result.
    Secretary Fudge. I very much agree, and I thank you. And I 
will make sure that I check. And we will get with you about 
this because FHA, they should be working with them. Not only 
have they been instructed to do so but at least since I have 
been there for sure. But also, we have agreements with our 
mortgage servicers. We have done everything we believe that we 
should have done so I need to figure out how they fell through 
the cracks, and I want to be helpful in any way I can.
    And second, tenants, in hindsight, there are probably some 
things that should have happened differently, but I would say 
to you that tenants do have an incentive because they will be 
on the street if they--the whole purpose of this is not only to 
just keep people in their apartments or homes but to make the 
landlords whole as well. And so if we are failing on that part 
then we have some work to do.
    Mr. Jacobs. Yes, I will say in New York we are failing on 
that part. We will never make these landlords whole. And I 
think there are, unfortunately, some tenants who decide they 
are going to milk this as long as they can, and then they will 
just go somewhere else and there is no consequences on their 
credit or anything like that.
    Secretary Fudge. We need to look at that then.
    Mr. Jacobs. But thank you. I will follow up with you and I 
yield back.
    Chairman Yarmuth. The gentleman yields back.
    I now recognize the gentleman from Michigan, Mr. Kildee, 
for five minutes.
    Mr. Kildee. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Secretary Fudge. It 
is good to see you. Thank you for being here.
    One area of policy that you and I have both worked on over 
our years together in Congress has been supporting the older 
industrial cities in this country, particularly those affected 
by globalization, by changes in those communities due to trade 
impacts, technology, et cetera. And I know we share a concern 
that the places that have been left behind be given the support 
they need in order to connect to the 21st century economy. I 
have an initiative in the Ways and Means Committee that creates 
a new approach to trade adjustment assistance for communities, 
specifically to provide trade impacted, distressed communities, 
federal support and technical assistance to help them design 
and execute an economic redevelopment plan. Essentially, 
connecting them to the new economy.
    One of the goals of the Biden Administration which you are 
responsible for executing in this budget is to address the 
issues of inequality in our economy, in our society, and I 
believe that the economic issues facing our older industrial 
cities relate to this inequality of opportunity based on place. 
It often just depends on where you live as to whether or not 
you have access to opportunities.
    So my initiative to provide trade adjustment assistance for 
communities is one step to begin to correct this. But I know 
you, through the HUD budget proposal, include a $10 billion 
community revitalization fund, specifically to support 
redevelopment projects in communities that have suffered from 
chronic disinvestment.
    So Madam Secretary, I wonder if you might discuss your 
vision for this proposal and also comment on how Congress might 
be helpful in supporting and implementing I think what is a 
really important effort to create greater equality in our 
economy.
    Secretary Fudge. I think, if I am not mistaken, I spoke to 
the mayor of Detroit not too long ago about a Choice 
Neighborhood Grant. I think it was $35 million, and I am just 
doing that off the top of my head, Representative Kildee. But 
what we are trying to do now is take those kinds of communities 
and create transformational change. For them to get a $35 
million grant, a one-time $35, at one time, the planning that 
went into their project, the way that it is going to be 
executed is going to be transformational. And I promise you 
that it is going to make other communities realize what the 
federal government can do when we have the will to do it and 
make it happen.
    As it relates to the Revitalization Fund, the fund would 
provide about $500 million in planning grants, which is 
something that communities, especially smaller communities, do 
not have the capacity to do. So we are going to make sure that 
the planning is done, and then we are going to provide about 
almost $10 billion in implementation funds for these community 
investment projects. So I think that you will see, once we can 
get through this process and if, in fact, this budget and the 
President's Jobs Plan is approved, you will see a significant 
difference in the resources that are going to be available to 
do the things that you are talking about doing. And I would 
love to see your plan, quite frankly.
    Mr. Kildee. I really appreciate that. We see with trade 
adjustment assistance a specific set of targeted communities 
that have been chronically left behind due to the massive 
changes in our economy related to trade and technology but as 
you know, one of the big challenges that these communities 
face, and so I am so pleased to hear the way you conceptualize 
this program, is that the communities themselves, the local 
government capacity, even the private sector capacity is often 
quite thin. And of course, we have this expectation that all 
communities need is the resource. They do need financial 
resources, public and private capital. But in order to put 
together an effective strategy they need technical help, 
technical support. And I spent a lot of my career before coming 
to Congress working in older communities that are struggling 
and I think it is important that the federal government 
recognize that. And so that is why I am pleased that this 
effort will address that. So thank you for that.
    Secretary Fudge. Thank you. And of course, you know, I am 
very aware. My hometown is Cleveland.
    Mr. Kildee. Right.
    Secretary Fudge. And so we have much in common. So thank 
you.
    Mr. Kildee. Thank you. Madam Secretary, thanks for your 
work. Mr. Chair, I yield back.
    Chairman Yarmuth. The gentleman yields back.
    I now recognize the gentleman from Texas, Dr. Burgess, for 
five minutes.
    OK. Then I now recognize the gentleman from Virginia, Mr. 
Good, for five minutes.
    OK. We will not start the clock on you until you are ready.
    Mr. Good. Thank you, Secretary Fudge, for being with us. 
Thank you, Chairman, for recognizing me this morning. And I 
appreciate all of my colleagues' input as well.
    Secretary Fudge, earlier, the Ranking Member mentioned the 
Biden-Harris border crisis in his remarks, and I wanted to 
followup on that and to reiterate what he asked about. I think 
it is safe to say the Biden Agenda is in shambles in many ways 
and particularly as it pertains to the disaster at the border 
and the failure to enforce our existing immigration laws. HUD 
recently issued a guidance stating that the Agency is not 
requiring applicants to provide Social Security numbers with 
the submission of their emergency housing voucher applications 
which is in violation of existing law. Obviously, this will act 
as an incentive or a further incentive for more illegal border 
crossings. And while the so called borders are Vice President 
Harris has timidly asked illegal immigrants not to come across 
the border, the policy of this Administration in fact welcomes 
illegal immigrants with open arms, seeks to accommodate and 
facilitate those crossings instead of preventing those, and 
these policies will further overrun our public housing system.
    Secretary Fudge, Vice President Harris's failure in 
leadership as border czar has directly resulted in your 
Department being forced to prioritize illegal immigrants over 
Americans, American taxpayers. Do you plan on confronting her 
for her failure of leadership in this regard?
    Secretary Fudge. First off, sir, let me just be very clear. 
I am not going to allow you to continue to be dishonest about 
what we are doing. I represent HUD. I do not represent Homeland 
Security. I represent HUD. And I have said and I said to your 
Ranking Member and I will say to you, sir, we are not, have 
not, and will not prioritize illegal aliens of any kind over 
American citizens, and I very much resent that you continue to 
say it.
    Mr. Good. Well, if American citizens have to provide Social 
Security numbers to apply for these vouchers and illegal aliens 
do not, how is that no prioritizing illegal aliens?
    Secretary Fudge. It is not that they do not. I have said 
and I will repeat myself, that they are required to provide 
information. The Public Housing Authority----
    Mr. Good. Excuse me, what you said was that they could get 
the voucher and then they are supposed to provide the Social 
Security number later at some point in time and you did not----
    Secretary Fudge. Correct.
    Mr. Good. When is the requirement they would have to do 
that by and how long did it take?
    Secretary Fudge. As soon as the Public Housing Authority--
--
    Mr. Good. You did not have an answer. You did not have an 
answer for us on when they would have to provide that Social 
Security number after receiving the voucher and how long that 
would take.
    Secretary Fudge. And I said I would get back to you with 
that number.
    Mr. Good. So it seems like we are providing the voucher 
first without the Social Security number but then we are saying 
they have to get back to us with the Social Security number. 
What was the rationale behind HUD's guidance to make these 
housing benefits less secure by not requiring in advance in 
order to receive the voucher the Social Security number for 
these applicants?
    Secretary Fudge. I do not believe that they are less 
secure.
    Mr. Good. Why would someone not be able to provide a Social 
Security number at the time of application?
    Secretary Fudge. That is a process that is put in place by 
our Public Housing Authorities. I do not know. I said----
    Mr. Good. Is there any reason why a person who has a Social 
Security number would not be able to provide that at the time 
of application?
    Secretary Fudge. Absolutely. Do you know homeless people do 
not carry around wallets? People who sleep on the streets----
    Mr. Good. So you are suggesting----
    Secretary Fudge [continuing]. often have no identification 
at all. Do you have a Social Security card in your pocket? I do 
not.
    Mr. Good. I asked can they provide a Social Security 
number.
    Secretary Fudge. As I said to you, most homeless people 
have many issues. Besides being homeless, many of them----
    Mr. Good. Let me change gears. Excuse me. Let me change 
gears for a moment, the remaining minute that I have.
    The President's budget requests over $800 million for 
climate initiatives pushed by the liberal leads and the 
progressive Democrats. How do you think these climate 
priorities help hardworking families who are simply trying to 
put food on the table?
    Secretary Fudge. I think that they help because if you live 
in Louisiana or Mississippi or Alabama and you have been hit by 
a bad storm, you want to be sure that when you rebuild that you 
will not be in the same situation again.
    Mr. Good. As a former mayor, and you mentioned this 
previously, this budget proposes to use federal dollars to 
coerce local governments into changing their zoning land use 
and development policy regulation most egregiously through the 
AFFH initiative. A federal law actually prohibits the 
conditioning of grants on a state or local government adopting, 
continuing, or discontinuing any public policy regulation or 
law. It is disappointing that this Administration would propose 
this in spite of the laws. We do not have time for you to 
answer. But thank you, and I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
    Chairman Yarmuth. Thanks.
    Secretary, would you like to answer that question?
    Secretary Fudge. No.
    Chairman Yarmuth. OK. The gentleman's time has expired.
    I now recognize the gentleman from Nevada, Mr. Horsford, 
for five minutes.
    Mr. Horsford. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Chairman Yarmuth. I 
want to thank you for holding this hearing. Secretary Fudge, it 
is great to see you. We miss you, and the congressional Black 
Caucus is especially proud of your confirmation.
    I wanted to allow an opportunity for the record to be 
clarified. The Ranking Member implied, as he calls it the Biden 
Bailout Bill, it is really the American Rescue Plan, does not 
fully support funding for veteran housing. However, the 
information that I have is that it is $2.1 billion in this 
current budget proposal which is an increase of $335 million or 
14.5 percent from last fiscal year. So, Madam Secretary, can 
you talk about the coordination between HUD and the VA and the 
allocation of this investment of more than $2.1 billion of 
funding?
    Secretary Fudge. Thank you so very much for allowing me the 
time.
    There are currently 22,000 veteran vouchers that are unused 
and still available. That is why we did not necessarily need to 
put in the budget the increase. The resources are there. We are 
just not asking for any more at this stage because we have 
vouchers available and the VA has vouchers. The problem is, Mr. 
Horsford, is that for some time, just as with HUD, VA over the 
last four years also did not have the capacity to make sure 
that we got the vouchers out. And so now that is happening 
because people are put in place to make sure that happens.
    Mr. Horsford. Thank you. And also, several of my colleagues 
on the other side have criticized the programs of the Housing 
and Urban Development, despite the fact that most of their 
criticism is of the former HUD Secretary Ben Carson and the 
prior Administration, and so I would just urge them to take 
responsibility for their own actions of what they did to weaken 
HUD during the prior Administration.
    Madam Secretary, you recently spoke in an interview about 
the role that student loan debt plays in limiting homeownership 
for Black people. Black people are especially impacted by 
student loan debt, while 29 percent of bachelor's degree 
recipients in 2016 graduated without debt; only 14 percent of 
Black graduates were able to do so. This debt keeps people from 
saving up for a down payment and qualifying for home loans. The 
racial disparity in home ownership and education is evident as 
the homeownership rate for Black people who graduated from 
college is only 3.2 percentage points higher than that of white 
high school dropouts. So obtaining an education should open 
doors and improve quality of life, not put up barriers from 
building wealth for themselves and future generations. So how 
does the requested budget support HUD's efforts to increase 
Black ownership? And what specific tools within HUD currently 
exist to promote and support homeownership as a part of 
infrastructure in our country?
    Secretary Fudge. The first thing about homeownership is we 
have put in this budget $100 million to assist in first-time 
homeowners. And what we have found, and I am glad you mentioned 
the student debt piece, what we have found is that most people 
of color come out of school with student debt that amounts to 
almost $60,000 where non people of color come out with less 
than half that amount. And what HUD has systematically done 
through FHA is weight that student debt higher than any other 
kind of credit. And so it has prevented people who are poor or 
people of color who come out with significant amounts of debt 
from being creditworthy and getting a loan. And so what we have 
done is level the playing field there.
    As well as we are looking at how we assess credit. We look 
at the credit reporting agencies, et cetera. We know that there 
is discrimination built into that process.
    The third thing we are doing and I am excited about it, is 
that we are looking at how we appraise properties.
    And fourth, and probably last about this, we have 
historically disinvested in poor neighborhoods because we will 
not give loans less than $75,000. So if you have a neighborhood 
that has a lot of housing that is empty and you can get it for 
$20,000 or $30,000 or $50,000, we will not loan you the money 
to do it. And so what we have done is created blight by not 
investing in these communities and allowing people to buy these 
homes. So those are just kind of in a nutshell the things we 
are doing.
    Mr. Horsford. Thank you, Madam Secretary. I look forward to 
working with you. We have a Choice neighborhood in our district 
that I look forward to partnering with HUD on and really 
appreciate your leadership. And I would just encourage my 
colleagues, let's work together for the American people. This 
is not a bailout bill. It is the American Rescue Plan. It is 
for all Americans. Your constituents benefit, Mr. Smith, just 
like mine. Thank you, and I yield back.
    Chairman Yarmuth. The gentleman's time has expired.
    I now recognize the gentleman from Wisconsin, Mr. Grothman, 
for five minutes.
    Mr. Grotham. Welcome back to the House.
    Secretary Fudge. Thank you.
    Mr. Grotham. I am glad to see your face.
    OK. A couple of quick questions. I personally believe that 
people are coming here illegally and are winding up in low-
income housing. But I am going to ask you this question. As far 
as I can tell, about 70,000 people a month are crossing the 
border who we would not necessarily want here or are not 
picking, either on asylum claims or just on what they call got-
aways. Will you acknowledge that if we are getting 70,000 
people a month coming across the southern border, that part of 
the housing crisis, if we do have a housing crisis or a housing 
shortage is because of those 70,000 people?
    Secretary Fudge. No, sir. I would not acknowledge that. We 
had a housing crisis long before the border crisis. And second, 
I do not know how many people come across the border.
    Mr. Grotham. OK. Well, the Vice President went down to the 
border. She asked the border patrol, and they tell her.
    OK. I hear from, when I tour the low-income housing in my 
district, that some of the people moving into the low-income 
housing are moving there from their parents' house. Does that 
ever happen?
    Secretary Fudge. I have no idea.
    Mr. Grotham. Well, I guess the question I am trying to say 
is to me, if I am a 24-year-old or I am a 24-year-old with a 
child and living with my mother, I am not sure I need 
subsidized housing because I already have housing. And a lot of 
people do live with their parents. Do you think under any 
circumstances people who have a bedroom and are living with 
their parents should move into subsidized housing?
    Secretary Fudge. Sir, I cannot make those decisions for 
people, how they should live their lives.
    Mr. Grotham. OK. Next question.
    I realize section 42 is part of the Internal Revenue Code, 
but it is a big part of low-income housing assistance in this 
country. I receive complaints both from individuals and people 
who build apartments in that they feel the section 42 housing 
is much superior to housing that is not low-income. In other 
words, you are giving people who are low income superior 
housing to people who do not. Could you comment on this? And I 
also feel the Section 42 housing gives large tax credits to 
sometimes very wealthy people. So you are benefiting a lot of 
very wealthy people and building units that are, whether I talk 
to the tenants or the builders of the properties, you are 
giving superior quality housing to people in the low-income 
brackets. Could you comment on section 42, and do you think I 
am right in that?
    Secretary Fudge. No. Section 42 comes under the Treasury 
Department.
    Mr. Grotham. Right.
    Secretary Fudge. Low-income housing----
    Mr. Grotham. I know. I said it is the IRS.
    Secretary Fudge. That is a question for Treasury.
    Mr. Grotham. Well, I mean, it is such a big part of the 
low-income housing in this country----
    Secretary Fudge. Except for that I do not control it. 
Neither does HUD.
    Mr. Grotham. So you are not going to comment.
    OK. This is kind of a larger question. I think, well, I 
will say this about section 42. Would you mind if we got rid of 
section 42 and gave it to you so that all the low-income 
housing programs are under one roof? Section 42 is such a large 
amount of what we do for low-income housing in the country.
    Secretary Fudge. If Congress within its resources wants to 
give me those resources, fine with me.
    Mr. Grotham. OK. There is an author I know who talk about, 
you know, difficult areas. Actually, not even in this country. 
But in his country, he felt that they had given people, no 
matter how you behaved, you got all the food you want, free 
medical care, and free housing. And he felt a lot of the 
difficulties in his country were due to the fact that people, 
no matter how they behaved, got medical care, all the medical 
care they need, all the food they need, and all the housing 
they need. Do you think that could be a problem in this 
country?
    Secretary Fudge. No.
    Mr. Grotham. It is not a problem if however you behave you 
get those three things?
    Secretary Fudge. I know a whole lot of people that do not 
have healthcare.
    Mr. Grotham. Well, that is probably true but, I mean, 
people who get on Medicaid do have healthcare; correct?
    Secretary Fudge. Well, people who get on Medicaid, yes, 
they do have Medicaid; correct.
    Mr. Grotham. That is right. That would be called having 
medical care. Right, right, right.
    Secretary Fudge. If you are on Medicaid; correct.
    Mr. Grotham. That is right.
    So do you see a problem in society that no matter how you 
behave, if we set up a society in which you always get housing, 
food, and medical care, do you think that is a problem, maybe a 
problem in the family structure you are encouraging?
    Secretary Fudge. That is not what our society does.
    Mr. Grotham. I am under the impression that is what it 
does.
    OK. I guess those are my questions. I wish you would think 
about it because I think a lot of our problems in society stem 
from our safety net and maybe the one that is administered the 
worst is the housing part of the safety net. But thank you.
    Chairman Yarmuth. The gentleman's time has expired.
    I now recognize the gentlewoman from California, Ms. Lee, 
for five minutes.
    Ms. Lee. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for this hearing.
    Good to see you, Madam Secretary. And congratulations. We 
miss you but you are the right woman for the right time.
    Secretary Fudge. Thank you.
    Ms. Lee. First of all, let me thank you for answering these 
questions with clarity. You are being very gracious in how you 
answer them. But I just have to be, and I know you are very 
direct. I am very direct, and I have to just say to you, the 
last Administration, it was disastrous. It totally neglected 
our housing assistance programs and I hope those who are asking 
you these questions recognize the fact that the last 
Administration did nothing for addressing all of the issues 
that our secretary now is trying to address by having to repair 
the damage of the last four years and still provide for 
affordable, safe, and decent housing. And I know this very 
well.
    In my district, for example, we suffer from challenges with 
homeless and housing insecurity. The Bay Area accounts for 30 
percent of the total levels of homelessness in the United 
States. We have the nation's highest rate of unhoused people at 
73 percent. It grew exponentially during the last 
Administration. This number has grown almost four times faster 
than the overall regional population.
    And so I wanted to ask you just in terms of specific 
approaches HUD is taking to deal with specific challenges of 
high-cost areas and making sure, and it is primarily people of 
color, do not face an unequal burden, the unequal burden of 
housing costs.
    And then second, again, because of the neglect, only one in 
four households eligible for rental assistance receive any help 
from the federal government, specifically Black and Brown 
people, almost two-thirds of renters with severe cost burdens 
are people of color. President Biden thankfully has proposed 
expanding housing support to all eligible households, and his 
budget proposes an additional 200,000 vouchers to begin.
    And so I just wanted to kind of get your sense of how the 
scale of assistance will fulfill the promise to make these 
vouchers available to everyone who needs them. And so thank you 
again very much for your leadership and for being here.
    Secretary Fudge. Thank you, my friend. I appreciate it.
    Let me say this, Ms. Lee. California probably is doing the 
best across the country in dealing with this homeless situation 
because they have by far the lion's share of homeless people. 
So one of the things that the mayors are doing right now, and I 
have talked to Mayor Breed and I have talked to Garcetti, and 
mayors all across California. And they are taking advantage of 
the $5 billion that Congress allocated to create housing. So 
they are doing things like buying motels and hotels. They are 
finding ways to get homeless people out of congregate shelters. 
They are finding ways to get people on the street because they 
have done such a good job at identifying where they are, where 
we find them, what stakeholders work with them best. And so 
they are working with our on-the-ground stakeholders and they 
are making tremendous strides, whether it is in L.A. or Santa 
Monica or Oakland, I am really happy about what is happening 
there. It is a big job and there is still much to do but they 
started planning early. And so their plans are working now 
instead of what some of your colleagues are saying, you know, 
we just throw money at people. They planned. You cannot just 
take every dollar and just go out and just willy nilly decide, 
oh, I'm going to submit it here. It takes planning, and your 
communities are doing it very, very well.
    Ms. Lee. Also, Madam Secretary, just in terms of the rental 
assistance as it relates to vouchers, and I am so pleased to 
see the commitment to expand now and add an additional 200,000 
vouchers, have you all decided how to make sure that these 
vouchers are going to be spread around so everyone who needs 
them will receive them?
    Secretary Fudge. What we are doing now is trying to make 
sure that instead of just using the formulas that we normally 
use, is to get them to the communities who have the greatest 
needs. And so you are not going to see a standard formula. We 
are going to start right now even transferring some of those 
vouchers now to places that are out of them already. And many 
of those places happen to be in California, quite frankly. But 
what we are also seeing is that the cost of housing in 
California is so high that it is creating problems just being 
able to get people into housing because the costs are rising so 
much. And we know this across the country. There is no place in 
the country today where a person making a minimum wage can 
afford a two-bedroom apartment. Nowhere. And when you look at 
the continually rising cost of housing across this country, 
even though we have vouchers, it is still hard to place people 
because so many people will not accept the voucher. So it is 
kind of a catch-22 in some respects. But we are moving vouchers 
to places where we know they have used them and need more.
    Ms. Lee. Thank you very much. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I 
have a lot of hope that finally we will be able to address many 
of the structural issues as it relates to housing. Thank you, 
Madam Secretary.
    Chairman Yarmuth. The gentlewoman's time has expired.
    I now recognize the gentleman from Georgia, Mr. Carter, for 
five minutes.
    Mr. Carter. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you, Madam 
Secretary, for being here. I appreciate your work here.
    Madam Secretary, Congress over the past six months has 
appropriated $46 billion in rental assistance. And I believe it 
was last month, Republicans on the Financial Services Committee 
wrote to the Treasury requesting an accounting of all emergency 
rental assistance funds that had been distributed. And the 
Treasury Department has not provided that, those figures to us. 
Now, I understand you are not with Treasury; however, this 
money was appropriated to ultimately end up in your Department 
and to go for something that you have jurisdiction over and 
that is the rental assistance. Can you provide us with an 
update regarding how much of the $46 billion has already been 
provided to renters to settle back rent debts and protect 
renters from facing eviction?
    Secretary Fudge. I can get that information for you from 
Treasury. I would be happy to.
    Mr. Carter. Thank you. Because, obviously, Treasury is 
ignoring us, but I am sure----
    Secretary Fudge. I would be happy to get whatever they 
have.
    Mr. Carter. Thank you very much for that.
    On the other side of the issue with the evictions, and none 
of us want to see renters evicted because of what has happened. 
However, we have to be cognitive of the fact that there is 
another side of that and that includes the landlords and the 
property owners. The CDC eviction moratorium expires a week 
from today. How many of these landlords, and many of these 
landlords I should say are small business owners and they 
depend on this income on their rental properties. What is HUD 
doing to ensure that debts are paid to property owners and how 
fraud can be prevented?
    Secretary Fudge. Well, we are providing all the assistance, 
not just to Treasury to assist them, but our staffs are in 
place. We are having weekly meetings with landlords. We have 
website information that any of them can access. We have our 
staff available to answer any questions. And we are speaking 
directly with local and state governments as to how they can 
get the resources out faster because the majority of the money 
has actually been allocated. It is just that these communities, 
especially smaller and rural ones, are not getting them out 
fast enough. Now, some major cities do, but part of the problem 
was the capacity to get it out. Some of these committees just 
do not have the people to make sure it happens properly so that 
is where we are stepping in at HUD and trying to provide that 
kind of assistance.
    Mr. Carter. And I appreciate that, and I am not going to 
dispute what you said because I think you are right. We have 
gotten calls in our office from so many people who are 
landlords and wondering when they are going to get the rent and 
when it is going to happen. And there have been bottlenecks in 
the process. There have been bottlenecks at the state level as 
well. We need to understand that. And at the local level.
    Secretary Fudge. Most of it is state, quite frankly.
    Mr. Carter. Thank you. And that is what we have experienced 
in Georgia, so I will tell you that. But nevertheless, thank 
you for intervening in that and making sure that that happens. 
That is very important.
    I want to switch gears now and talk about homelessness, and 
specifically to housing first, which gives homeless housing. 
And that is something I think we all agree with that needs to 
happen. But when we look at the root cause of homelessness, we 
understand that a lot of it has to do with addiction. A lot of 
it has to do with mental illnesses. And we all want to shift 
the nation's homelessness policy toward better outcomes. I 
think we all agree on that. And unfortunately, it appears that 
in certain areas we are not making the progress that we hope to 
make, especially when you look at a lot of our major cities. 
Perhaps there is a need to change the approach. Perhaps there 
is a need to change our approach to the issue. Would you 
support a treatment first policy which provides housing but 
also requires participation in drug treatment, mental health, 
and employment programs?
    Secretary Fudge. Well, I do not know that I would support 
requiring it because I think that this Congress has also, even 
when I was a member, did not believe that we should force 
people to do things.
    Mr. Carter. Not even treatment? Not even getting mental 
health or addiction treatment?
    Secretary Fudge. I do not know that we can legally do that. 
That is the first thing. Second, I think that, yes, we need to 
find ways to change our approach in some ways. I think we do 
need to address the root issues. I do not disagree with that at 
all. But I do not know that mandating that someone get 
treatment, first off, is constitutional.
    Mr. Carter. So if there is someone living in a HUD 
building, a HUD-provided home and we know that they have an 
addiction problem, we know that they have a mental health 
problem, we do not have any recourse whatsoever?
    Secretary Fudge. I do not believe so, sir. I mean, this is 
still a country--we talked about it earlier--we follow the law, 
and we follow the Constitution. And I do not believe that 
either of those give us that authority.
    Mr. Carter. Well, would you be in favor of a treatment 
first program though? Obviously, I do not want us spinning our 
wheels. I want to help these people. And as a healthcare 
professional, as a pharmacist, I can tell you addiction is a 
big problem and it is one of the biggest problems we have with 
homelessness. So I hope----
    Secretary Fudge. I certainly support it. I certainly 
support treatment. Oh, absolutely.
    Mr. Carter. I understand. But somehow we have got to make 
this happen. I do not want the heavy hand of government 
intervening either; however, I hope that we can work toward 
some kind of a solution to help these people get the help that 
they need.
    Secretary Fudge. I am certainly happy to talk to you about 
it. I would love for it to happen as well.
    Chairman Yarmuth. The gentleman's time has expired.
    Mr. Carter. Thank you.
    Chairman Yarmuth. I now recognize the gentlewoman from 
California, Ms. Chu, for five minutes.
    Ms. Chu. Thank you. Secretary Fudge, it is so thrilling to 
see you up here before our Committee. Thank you for putting 
forth----
    Secretary Fudge. Thank you.
    Ms. Chu [continuing]. a budget that reflects the tremendous 
housing needs facing our country. And it is no accident that 
both Congressmember Barbara Lee and I are asking about 
homelessness because in California, it is a huge issue and 
certainly in Southern California it is. And in fact, despite 
moving more people than ever into permanent housing, the 2020 
homeless count in Los Angeles County, which includes my 
district, increased 13 percent year after year. Housing is 
becoming less affordable and more of our neighbors are falling 
into homeless each year than we can actually house. But there 
are still examples of progress, including in a city in my 
district, Pasadena, which has seen homelessness decrease by 65 
percent since 2011 thanks to investments in permanent, 
supportive housing.
    So I am glad to see that the Administration is requesting 
$3.5 billion for homeless assistance in Fiscal Year 2022, 
including $3.1 billion to increase funding for the continuum of 
care program, which is our main tool to reduce homelessness 
over the long term. Can you explain how you plan to invest this 
increase in continuum of care funding between renewals and new 
grants and talk about the importance of the local partnership 
model and increasing homelessness, particularly in the wake of 
the COVID pandemic?
    Secretary Fudge. Thank you so much. It is good to see you 
as well.
    We know that our continuums of care program funds do help 
us with this program. We could not do it without the assistance 
of people on the ground. And so what we are doing is giving 
grants. And in some instances we are working with people who we 
know have a track record of being successful in addressing the 
homelessness issue because I think sometimes people also forget 
that when homelessness becomes a way of life for some people, 
these tent communities, et cetera, they become very entrenched 
in wanting to be homeless because that is their safe place.
    And so it takes people with real skill to help people get 
off the street. I mean, they literally create their own 
hierarchies of who runs it and what they do, especially with 
veterans because of their training. So it is very difficult in 
some instances for them to trust the government, to do what is 
best for them. So we could not do it without the continuums of 
care. I appreciate the fact that you recognize that this $3.5 
billion is significant. And what we are hoping is that we can 
serve as many as $750,000 people with these resources.
    Ms. Chu. Thank you.
    And Secretary Fudge, as a Member of the House, Ways and 
Means Committee, I am interested in finding new revenue streams 
to support affordable housing construction because we need to 
invest in a housing supply to make housing more affordable. 
HUD's congressional budget justification estimates that Fannie 
and Freddie Mac will contribute $371 million to the National 
Health and trust fund this year. Yet advocates and other 
Members of Congress, including myself, have asked for $45 
billion for the trust fund including $26 billion reserved for 
permanent supportive housing.
    Has the Administration given thought to additional ways to 
raise revenue to direct to the trust fund?
    Secretary Fudge. Well, you know, a trust fund is funded 
through GSEs, through Fannie and Freddie. And we are looking at 
how we can make it easier and how we can make it more 
effective, so I think that the Administration is looking at it, 
but just as a reminder, this is a top line kind of a budget. We 
have not gotten down into the real specifics at this stage or 
if some of the things that you are asking about. But the good 
thing is that I am on the board that oversees the GSEs and it 
is something that is a conversation we will take up.
    Ms. Chu. Thanks. And to the question about people's 
addiction and mental illness, I have legislation on sober 
living homes for recovery residences. Do you see that it might 
be possible to formalize a more permanent funding stream for 
these kinds of facilities, including formalizing HUD's role in 
their oversight, so that we could work together on such 
facilities?
    Secretary Fudge. I would be happy to have a conversation 
with you about it. I think it is a great idea. Let's talk about 
it. You know, I cannot make a commitment at this point, but I 
would be really happy to discuss it with you.
    Ms. Chu. That would be fantastic. Thank you so much. And I 
yield back.
    Chairman Yarmuth. The gentlewoman yields back the balance 
of her time.
    And now I recognize the gentleman from California, Mr. 
Obernolte, for five minutes.
    Mr. Obernolte. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. And Madam 
Secretary, congratulations on the position. I know that as a 
former Member of Congress, you and I share a passion for making 
sure that the resources that we have to use to solve problems 
like homelessness are used as effectively as possible.
    And to that end I wanted to ask a question that has been 
kind of vexing me. I represent among the cities in my district, 
the city of Hesperia that has been involved in a lawsuit for 
the last five years with the Department. They had an ordinance 
that they passed over five years ago----
    Ms. Chu. Well, I was able to actually get that third one in 
there and the funny thing is she said exactly----
    Mr. Obernolte. Thank you. Over five years ago, the city had 
an ordinance on the books that allowed landlords to evict 
tenants that were convicted of crimes committed around rental 
properties. The Department sued the city council, later 
modified that ordinance to make it voluntary instead of 
compulsory, and then later rescinded the ordinance entirely. 
And yet here we are five years later still in court over that 
ordinance. And I am struggling to understand why it is taking 
up city resources, it is taking up Department resources, and I 
am just struggling to understand why the Department would be 
continuing to pursue litigation about that.
    Secretary Fudge. Well, I am going to be just very honest 
with you. I do not know about the lawsuit. I will find out 
about it. And if there is something we can do to bring it to 
some conclusion, I am happy to try to work it out.
    Mr. Obernolte. OK. I appreciate that. I think it would be 
probably best for all involved and would give us resources to 
do other things with.
    Second question for you concerns those resources. In my 
district, I represent a lot of military bases, and therefore, I 
represent a lot of veterans. And as you know, we have a 
pervasive problem with homelessness in veterans that we have 
been struggling to solve. I was a little dismayed to see that 
the budget that you are proposing does not include dedicated 
funding for the VA Supportive Housing Program and I wondered if 
you could tell us why that was not a priority.
    Secretary Fudge. Well, it is a priority. We have 22,000 
available VA vouchers right now that are going to continue to 
be available. So we believe that there are enough vouchers in 
the system. Twenty-two thousand that are unused. And we are 
working with the VA to try to be sure that we can get those 
vouchers out to the people who need them. But it is a process 
that really goes through VA. It really does not come through 
HUD. We provide the vouchers because it is housing. But 
contacting the veterans to get them into the VASH program 
really goes through the VA.
    Mr. Obernolte. Right. I think we share a goal of making 
sure that those vouchers are issued to anyone that needs them.
    Secretary Fudge. Absolutely.
    Mr. Obernolte. Just to point out as I am sure you are 
aware, the VASH program includes case management which is a lot 
more critical than just giving someone a voucher. It is making 
sure that they are on a path to transitioning back into a 
housing situation. And I think that that is one of the things 
that I really value about that program. So if we could work 
together to make that happen I think it would be a benefit not 
just to the district but to everybody.
    Secretary Fudge. We would be happy to but that is also part 
of the problem. They have not had the case managers. Their 
numbers were down so much, they did not have the case managers 
to get to the vouchers. I agree 100 percent.
    Mr. Obernolte. Right. Well, thank you very much. It is very 
nice to meet you. I look forward to working with you.
    Secretary Fudge. My pleasure.
    Mr. Obernolte. I yield back, Mr. Chair.
    Secretary Fudge. Please. Thank you.
    Chairman Yarmuth. The gentleman yields back the balance of 
his time.
    I now recognize the gentlewoman from the U.S. Virgin 
Islands, Ms. Plaskett, for five minutes.
    Ms. Plaskett. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you so 
much, Madam Secretary for being here. It is an honor to 
question you this morning on the work that you all are doing 
and the tremendous mission that you have to accomplish at HUD.
    I wanted to talk with you, you know, it is so interesting 
that the phrase HUD is urban development, but HUD as well has 
so much work that is done in rural areas as well. And so I 
wanted to ask you about funding that is available for the home 
funds which can be used for construction and rehabilitation 
housing for homeownership in areas where adequate supply or 
substandard houses are available. What is your commitment to 
ensuring that those funds are necessarily going to those 
communities that have not seen it as yet?
    Secretary Fudge. I commit to you I am going look at it and 
figure out what we can do to be helpful. It is certainly a 
pleasure to see you, and obviously, we have had conversations 
in the past about the Virgin Islands in particular, and I am 
more than happy to work with you and your staff to be sure that 
you get what is appropriate for your district.
    Ms. Plaskett. Thank you. You know, I am concerned about 
areas like the Virgin Islands, those rural areas which really 
need the technical support. You know, I heard a colleague 
talking additionally about the Choice neighborhoods. These are 
grant programs and oftentimes rural areas, undeserved areas do 
not have the technical support to be able to meet the criteria 
for some of these grants. Their communities very much fit the 
mission of the program but they do not have the support for the 
grants. So having your commitment with that would be very much 
appreciated.
    The other thing I wanted to talk about, Congressman Price 
brought this up related to Puerto Rico and you expanded it--
thank you very much for that--to talk about the Virgin Islands. 
And I want to commend HUD under your leadership for releasing 
long-awaited disaster recovery funds for the Virgin Islands and 
Puerto Rico. After the devastation of the 2017 hurricanes of 
Irma and Maria, this Congress appropriated over $21 billion to 
the Virgin Islands and Puerto Rico. Over $22 billion. And yet 
we were unable to see that for the entirety of the Trump 
Administration. There was always some hiccups and always 
additional publication conditions that inhibited us from 
receiving those funds.
    But one of the things now that we have as a problem that I 
was hoping you would address, or your staff, I could talk with 
them about, is that currently there are only three HUD staffers 
serving the Virgin Islands and Puerto Rico, at least in terms 
of community planning and development programs. That is for 
over $22 billion. And the islands do not have the type of 
support I believe necessary to process payments in a timely 
manner.
    In addition, for the Virgin Islands, anything over $5 
million has to go to HUD and it takes them weeks in order to 
review the pay packages. Are there any provisions included in 
this budget that could help raise HUD staffing levels, 
including for the Virgin Islands and Puerto Rico related to the 
implementation of CDBG-DR funding?
    Secretary Fudge. Absolutely. And I am so very pleased that 
you asked that question.
    In recent years, we have seen about a 33 percent reduction 
in staff for our financial, fiscal, and program integrity 
functions. Those are the people that would be staffing. Thirty-
three percent. That is why this budget is requesting a 
significant increase in staffing. If we are not put in a 
position to carry out the mission in a way that is urgent and 
efficient we are always going to be behind the eight-ball. I 
have got great staff. Do not get me wrong. The staff we have is 
outstanding, but they can only do so much. And so if we build 
our capacity within the agency to do the kinds of things that 
you are talking about, we will be a much better agency. So that 
is why we have made this request. But also do know that at some 
point in the last couple of years we reached our very lowest. 
Very lowest. Six thousand employees. At one point, HUD had 
20,000 employees. So you can imagine what is happening. And I 
say again, at one point, HUD was 7 percent of the federal 
discretionary budget. Today, it is less than 1 percent.
    Ms. Plaskett. Well, thank you for that.
    Mr. Chairman, as someone who grew up in public housing and 
understand its importance to allow families like my own parents 
to be able to save to then purchase a home which was then used 
to leverage to allow me to go to school, I appreciate the 
support that this Administration is giving to providing not a 
safety net but a means to bounce up in this country. Thank you 
very much.
    Secretary Fudge. Thank you.
    Chairman Yarmuth. The gentlewoman's time has expired.
    Now, I recognize the gentleman from Florida, Mr. Donalds, 
for five minutes.
    Mr. Donalds. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Secretary Fudge. 
Thank you for being here. I am new so we never got a chance to 
served together but congratulations on the appointment. And 
let's just go ahead and get to it.
    A couple things before I get into questions. I know that in 
Committee we were discussing some of the potential inflationary 
impacts going on in the housing market. I do think it is 
important for us to understand that when HUD, frankly, no 
matter what administration is in charge, enters into the 
marketplace for greening projects or even for construction 
projects, they are actually purchasing stock of material that 
is already scarce in the going marketplace. So one of my 
concerns is that the purchasing activity of HUD under the 
budget recommendation is actually going to exacerbate our 
inflationary problems when it comes to housing which is going 
to have a direct corollary impact on the actual price of 
housing in a lot of communities because if you do not have as 
much lumber available, concrete available, windows available, 
et cetera, because the federal government is using its 
purchasing power to engage and gobble up these supplies faster 
than GCs on the ground can gobble them up, that creates a real 
issue for the market overall.
    The second issue I would add is, and I would say this is 
probably not under your direct purview being the Secretary of 
HUD, but our immigration enforcement policies right now are not 
helping the matter because if the numbers are correct that we 
are taking in about 700,000 people into the United States 
illegally over this year already, I mean, where are they going 
to go? We already know we have an affordable housing shortfall 
but if we are bringing people into the country illegally and 
there is already a housing shortfall, that only further 
exacerbates the housing issues we are seeing across the United 
States. So I would think that not so much your purview but the 
Administration has to take a long look at this because if you 
try to bring these two things together, that policy does not 
help, frankly, homeless Americans and other Americans trying to 
find affordable housing here in the United States. If you bring 
more people into the United States, I mean, there is only but 
so much housing available. Bringing more people in while not 
being able to have the ability to expand the stock because of 
inflationary pressures and other things like that is not going 
to help Americans in the long run.
    But I do want to focus on the part of the budget that deals 
with exclusionary zoning, local zoning. I see that the 
Administration has dollars committed to that, but the budget 
request does not really provide much detail. Can you expand 
upon the detail of how this grant program is going to work 
dealing with exclusionary zoning issues on a local level?
    Secretary Fudge. Well, as I was explaining earlier, what we 
are doing is we are asking communities to look at their zoning. 
I was a mayor of a city. I had zoning that had been there 100 
years. And some of that zoning, because we never had looked at 
it, was creating barriers to and/or increasing the cost of 
building, whether it be housing or businesses or whatever. So 
what we are saying to them is let's have a conversation about 
the zoning that may, in fact, be prohibiting not only new 
housing and new businesses but keeping people who under normal 
circumstances that could afford to purchase a home in your 
community or build a home in your community, let's help them do 
that, to move to communities of opportunity. And so that is 
what it is about. It is not dictating. It is not mandating. It 
is saying, let's put the resources in place to have people 
actually take a look. So maybe it is the planning commission. 
Maybe it is a group of people, a citizens group. But we are 
putting resources to assist them in taking a look at their 
zoning. That is basically all it is.
    Mr. Donalds. So, Madam Secretary, and I understand the 
conversations that exist. I was a state legislator before I 
came here. I would have conversations with our local county 
commission because what would happen is you would get county 
commissioners and people in the affordable housing space would 
say the state needs to put more dollars into affordable 
housing. And I would look right back at them saying, if you are 
going to really deal with affordable housing issues, you have 
to deal with unit per acre. And the only entity politically 
that deals with that are local county commissions and city 
councils. They have to look at their zoning rules.
    But hearing what you are saying, can you commit to the 
committee that the proposal is not going to force local 
governments into a zoning parameter that these dollars in the 
budget are really just to foster a conversation? Is that----
    Secretary Fudge. There is no way we can force them to do 
it.
    Mr. Donalds. All right. I just want to make sure that we 
are not--because, you know, my concern is that frankly it is 
not the role of any federal agency or our government writ large 
to put mandated pressure on local governments associated with 
zoning. That is something local governments need to figure out 
for themselves with their citizens and what works best for each 
one of their individual communities.
    Secretary Fudge. I agree with you 100 percent. Remember, I 
was the mayor of a city. I would never let someone come in and 
tell me how to zone my city. And that is what I was saying to 
some of your colleagues earlier. We should not be mandating 
what communities and people do with their lives and with their 
communities. I agree.
    I am sorry I did not get to serve with you.
    Mr. Donalds. That is all right. Listen, thanks so much, 
Madam Secretary, for your time. I appreciate it.
    Secretary Fudge. Thank you.
    Chairman Yarmuth. The gentleman's time has expired.
    We are going to take just a minute or two break. We think 
we may have a technical problem that we are trying to resolve, 
so we can relax for just a minute or two. Why don't we just say 
five minutes and if anybody needs to take a break you can do 
that.
    [Recess]
    Chairman Yarmuth. The Committee will come to order and is 
now back in session. I now yield five minutes to the 
gentlewoman from Virginia, Ms. Wexton.
    Ms. Wexton. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I thought that the 
issue that you all were experiencing was that the clock had 
been--had disappeared from our view here. So, I don't actually 
have a clock. But I am going to go ahead and set a five-minute 
timer in any event.
    So, thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you, Secretary 
Fudge, for joining us. This is actually the second time I have 
had the pleasure of hearing from you. You came before us in 
April in the Subcommittee on Transportation and Housing 
Appropriations, and it is wonderful to see you again and to see 
this great budget that you have put together.
    Now, before I start with my questions, I do want to take a 
moment to thank you for two actions that were recently taken by 
HUD that will go a long way toward preventing discrimination 
against vulnerable people in housing. When we spoke back in 
April, I asked you about the timeline for rescinding the 
Preserving Community and Neighborhood Choice Rule from the 
previous Administration. As you may recall, this rule 
threatened Fair Housing Act protections for millions of people 
with disabilities and many others. And I am very glad to see 
that HUD issued an interim final rule that will go into effect 
at the end of next month to rescind it. So, thank you very much 
for that.
    And thank you also for withdrawing the rule proposed by the 
previous Administration that would have weakened the Equal 
Access Rule and prevented transgender people from accessing 
emergency shelter and housing. As you know, that community is 
under attack, experiences homelessness, and crises at a much 
higher rate than the regular population, and were very, very, 
vulnerable because of the appeal of the Equal Access Rule. So, 
I want to thank you so much for doing that.
    Now, turning now to President Biden's budget request. I was 
very glad to see that the budget included strong increased 
funding for Section 811 Supportive Housing for Persons with 
Disabilities program. Can you talk about how this program will 
help more individuals with disabilities find housing and 
continue to live independently?
    Secretary Fudge. Thank you very much. The 811 Program has 
been increased. We have increased funding for the 811 Program 
and 202 Senior Program. What we are finding is that persons who 
are disabled are having as much difficulty as almost any other 
population finding a place to live. And so, when we put the 
resources in to build new housing, as well as to provide 
vouchers for those to put them in other facilities other than 
our standard public housing facilities, I think that it is 
going to be a significant change in how we make sure that we 
are addressing that population. There is about $270 million to 
address this issue in and of itself. So, we are very, very 
happy about the direction that the President wants us to go. 
And it is more than a $40 million increase over our last 
budget.
    Ms. Wexton. Thank you so much. And we have a great need for 
help for our disabled community in my district and I think in 
every congressional district. So, this will really go a long 
way to help. Your budget also includes a large increase in 
funding for technical assistance at the Office of Policy 
Development and Research. And you touched on this a little bit, 
I think, with representative Plaskett. In April we talked about 
how this technical assistance could help providers who are 
working to address the needs of transgender people and older 
LGBTQ adults, as well as other, you know, historically 
marginalized communities. Can you talk about how this or any 
other HUD program can help these marginalized communities?
    Secretary Fudge. You broke up at the end. You asked me how?
    Ms. Wexton. How this increase in technical assistance will 
help traditionally marginalized communities get more access to 
HUD programs?
    Secretary Fudge. One of the things about our development 
and research arm, we have been taking a look at the effects. 
And so, we are putting more money into--to be sure that we are 
taking a look in its totality at how we can better address 
these communities. So, I think it is going to be a significant 
improvement in how HUD approaches communities, especially 
communities, transgender communities, and others. I do say that 
HUD was one of the very first to recognize the problem and 
address the problem. So, we are really on top of it, probably 
more than just about any other agency in the federal 
government.
    Ms. Wexton. Thank you very much. And just I do want to 
touch on something else that you talked a little bit about 
today. HUD staffing declined 22 percent during the time from 
2010 to 2019. Can you describe the impact of reduced capacity 
at HUD that it has on grant review, monitoring, oversight, and 
overall program administration, and how President Biden's 
proposed budget will help address these issues?
    Secretary Fudge. Well, one of the things that happens is 
that HUD does get tasked with doing an awful lot of things, but 
they don't increase our staff. So, we get new funding. We get 
new programming. But we don't get more staff. So, it just 
continues to make the problem worse. So, we need--they 
sometimes will give us temporary housing, but those programs go 
on for years and years. So, we don't just need the staffing for 
a short period of time. We need staffing to go throughout at 
least those programs, which can go five years or 10 years. So, 
we need permanent staff.
    And I think that when you start to take a look at the 
resources that come though HUD and the amount of people there, 
the corollary is just so off that any person should be able to 
look at what we receive in the number of our staff and know 
that we are having some challenges doing the kind of work we 
need to do.
    Ms. Wexton. Great. Thank you so much. I see my time has 
expired so I will yield back.
    Chairman Yarmuth. The gentlewoman yields back. I now 
recognize the gentleman from Iowa, Mr. Feenstra, for five 
minutes. Apparently, he has given up. I now recognize the 
gentlewoman from Texas, Ms. Jackson Lee, for five minutes.
    Ms. Jackson Lee. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. A very 
vital and important hearing and thank you to Madam Secretary 
for hitting the ground running and certainly being so effective 
by understanding the coequal branches of government and the way 
in which we can work together as Congress and executive. So, 
welcome again.
    Secretary Fudge. Thank you.
    Ms. Jackson Lee. Chairman, thank you, and thank the Ranking 
Member. Let me start, as you well know, we have a short period 
of time in these sessions, so, I thank you for your answers. 
But let me, because of my frustration, let me have you just 
clarify again the Administration's commitment to homeless 
persons, which in a city like Houston and Harris County we are 
working, but we are also struggling.
    In terms of funding for homeless vets, which as you 
indicated, the distribution and selection goes to the veterans. 
But to be very clear that there is no reality to the zeroing 
out, that there are funding--that you are collaborating with 
funding for homeless persons and also for homeless vets, which 
is a great need in Houston and I want to be able to work with 
you on that. But Madam Secretary, would you just comment on 
that, please?
    Secretary Fudge. Yes, thank you for allowing me to make the 
clarification again. We currently have 22,000 unused veterans' 
vouchers. The vouchers that are in the system now are 
continuing. And overall, the budget increases vouchers by 
200,000 vouchers, which would include new vouchers for 
veterans. So there is plenty of vouchers available for 
veterans.
    Ms. Jackson Lee. What about homeless funding for persons 
homeless on the street, families, children, that are in our 
communities?
    Secretary Fudge. Yes, if you remember, Congress did give us 
$5 billion to address--well, actually, a total of $10, $5 
billion for vouchers and $5 billion to actually put them in 
housing, as well as this budget asked for an increase as well.
    Ms. Jackson Lee. So, the Administration is on record for 
recognizing the crisis of homelessness in America and 
addressing it by increasing their fiscal budget for this 
timeframe. Is that correct?
    Secretary Fudge. That is correct.
    Ms. Jackson Lee. Let me put in a pitch for Houston in terms 
of work that we are doing and will need to get with you on 
those fundings as we move through the process. Thank you. As 
you well know, our community in Houston and Harris County has 
suffered enormous devastation from Hurricane Harvey. In the 
balanced Bipartisan Budget Act of 2018, we were given funding 
dealing with Community Development Block Grant Mitigation. In 
fact, we were given about $4 billion. Unfortunately, we are 
still, because of inadequate response by the GLO and--that is 
the Government Land Office, which governs this in the state of 
Texas, that we are still in the process of distribution. Let me 
ask you and I ask to submit this letter into the record, June 
17, 2021, sent to HUD, Madam Secretary, is that the GLO got $1 
billion, Houston and Harris County each got zero. They are two 
separate entities, the fourth largest city and the fifth 
largest county. Would you be able to look into the fact that 
the GLO wants to give to Houston--excuse me--to Harris County 
$700 million and zero to Houston? Which is without 
justification in light of us having over 50 percent of the 
damage of Hurricane Harvey.
    [Letter submitted for the record follows:]
    
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]    
     
    Secretary Fudge. If I may, Ms. Jackson Lee, the state of 
Texas received a total of $4.2 billion----
    Ms. Jackson Lee. Absolutely.
    Secretary Fudge [continuing]. from the CDBG-MIT. So, let me 
just be clear, and I am going to read it just so I say it 
correctly. Texas cannot, cannot draw or distribute funds for 
the municipalities designated in this competition unless and 
until their substantial action plan amendment is approved by 
HUD. We have not approved a plan. A plan has not been submitted 
to us. And so, until such time as they do that, not only do 
they need to submit a plan, but further, they need to have 
input from the community. Neither of those things have 
happened. And they are not at this point allowed to do anything 
to distribute it to anyone. And so, we don't know what the plan 
is we are going to receive from them. But once we get it, we 
will make sure that they in compliance because the plan further 
requires that they look at communities of need as well.
    Ms. Jackson Lee. Thank you so very much. And we will 
provide our input. Let me just quickly say this. One of the 
issues in my community, I know the stance on public building 
new construction, but dealing with those in public housing now, 
the maintenance, the additional resources for additional 
enhancement programs, job training, and others, you have been 
committed to that in terms of development in our inner cities. 
Can you tell me the kind of funding or emphasis will be on 
existing public housing and to improve the quality, as well as 
the opportunity for potentially returning felons, which we have 
made the request, who have done their time, to be able to come 
home to their families?
    Secretary Fudge. In the American Jobs Plan, the President 
asked for $40 billion. We are asking for another $3 billion in 
this budget. We know that that is not probably going to be 
enough to take care of all of the problems. But what we do know 
is that it is a significant investment. One that has not been 
made in those numbers in a very, very long time. As well as we 
expect for those funds to be leveraged so that they can be used 
through the Section 8 program or the RAD program. So, we do 
believe that it will make a significant improvement in existing 
public housing.
    Ms. Jackson Lee. It is very important.
    Chairman Yarmuth. The gentlewoman's time has expired.
    Ms. Jackson Lee. I will continue this discussion, Mr. 
Chairman, thank you. And Madam Secretary, we invite you to 
Houston. Thank you so very much. I yield back.
    Secretary Fudge. Thank you.
    Chairman Yarmuth. The gentlewoman's time has expired. I now 
recognize the gentleman from New Jersey, Mr. Sires, for five 
minutes.
    Mr. Sires. Madam Secretary, can you hear me?
    Secretary Fudge. I can hear you fine. It is nice to see 
you, Mr. Sires.
    Mr. Sires. It is nice to see you. First of all, 
congratulations on your confirmation.
    Secretary Fudge. Thank you.
    Mr. Sires. If anyone is the right person for this job, it 
is you. Because certainly someone who has been dealing with 
public housing as a mayor knows exactly what the problems are. 
We saw that they need a brain surgeon for this job. I just want 
to say also that I thank you for coming to Hoboken recently for 
the Rebuild by Design Project in Hoboken, New Jersey. This 
project will build infrastructure resilient to the kind of 
floodings that we had with Superstorm Sandy. So, I thank you 
for being there. It meant a lot to the people in my district 
when you were there.
    Secretary Fudge. Thank you.
    Mr. Sires. Also, I have a couple of questions, but it would 
be more for my own information. When I was mayor, we had a lot 
of housing stock that was built after the war for the veterans 
coming back. And I remember having trouble using funds from the 
West New York Housing Authority to fix those apartments that 
were built for the veterans. Do you know if that is still the 
case?
    Secretary Fudge. You know, Mr. Sires, let me see if I can 
find out. I don't know, but I will find out and get you an 
answer as quickly as I can.
    Mr. Sires. OK, great. The other thing is I also dealt a lot 
with the HMFA. We have two particular programs that I think are 
very good. One is the Right to Own Program that we have in New 
Jersey. Basically, people would be able to buy. They would have 
to live in the place for 15 years before they could buy it. But 
what it turned out to be was a very small community where 
everybody took care of the property. Everybody took care of 
their particular home. And they were very, very happy to have a 
place called of their own, even if they could not sell it even 
after 15 years.
    The other program that we will use, especially to build for 
senior building was the Tax Credit Program. At a time where 
dollars are short, I think these programs were so beneficial 
because we were able to build these kinds of programs in my 
community. So, I would just urge you to continue funding these 
programs because I just feel that this is the way to go.
    And the other thing is I am very happy with the American 
Jobs Plan because it will produce money to retrofit almost $2 
million affordable housing units. As we all know, these 
affordable housing units have aged. And aging is very expensive 
to retrofit these units. So, you know, I think that that is a 
wise use of the money. So, if you could just help me out with 
those.
    Secretary Fudge. I would be happy to. As a matter of fact, 
we are expanding the resources that are available to the low-
income housing tax credit, as well as in the President's Jobs 
Plan, there is going to be an expansion because there is going 
to be a new tax credit. So, we are on the same page and 
thinking the same way.
    Mr. Sires. Great. And in terms of the program of Right to 
Own?
    Secretary Fudge. I am sorry?
    Mr. Sires. And in terms of the program where the person----
    Secretary Fudge. Oh, the Right to Own.
    Mr. Sires [continuing]. purchases the right to own.
    Secretary Fudge. Right to Own.
    Mr. Sires. Yes.
    Secretary Fudge. Let me look into that. I mean, I think it 
is a great idea. Let me look into it and see, yes. The Right to 
Own, OK. We will check it and get back with you.
    Mr. Sires. Well, you can always come back to the district. 
I will take you around.
    Secretary Fudge. Thank you for the invitation.
    Mr. Sires. All right. I really don't have much else to say, 
but just congratulating. I am so happy that we are finally 
focused on the need that is so needed in this country. And 
before I forget, you know, 70,000 people came across and they 
are not legal. You know, they make it sound like 70,000 people 
are going to get apartments and taking it away from the 
American people. Actually, they are not eligible to have any 
unit, right?
    Secretary Fudge. Correct.
    Mr. Sires. If they are here illegally?
    Secretary Fudge. You are correct. They are not eligible.
    Mr. Sires. Good. Thank you. I don't need more time. Thank 
you, Mr. Chairman.
    Secretary Fudge. Thank you, my friend.
    Chairman Yarmuth. The gentleman's time has expired. I now 
recognize the gentleman from Iowa, Mr. Feenstra, for five 
minutes.
    Mr. Feenstra. Thank you, Chairman Yarmuth, and Ranking 
Member Smith. Secretary Fudge, thank you for being here today.
    Secretary Fudge. Thank you.
    Mr. Feenstra. Housing shortages have blocked many families 
out home across the country, especially first-time buyers. My 
district is facing these same housing shortages, but because I 
represent a rural district, housing development can be more 
complicated. Rural areas lack the infrastructure urban areas 
have and can't quickly produce track housing with 25 starter 
homes without a significant investment from local resources to 
make sure that they have electricity, water, infrastructure, 
broadband, and so forth. So, the Community Block Grant, 
communities in my district rely on the Community Block Grant as 
a flexible source of funding to compete and complete some of 
these projects.
    The congressional justification also includes $295 million 
increase for revitalization of deteriorating or deteriorated 
neighborhoods and places with the greatest need. These funds 
are separate from the old formula used to calculate the usual 
allotment of these resources. The justification says that the 
allotment of these dollars would be at your discretion. Madam 
Secretary, how much of the $295 million CDBG dollar increase 
will be utilized in the rural parts of our country?
    Secretary Fudge. Well, I think if you take into 
consideration that about 14 percent of all of the dollars we 
use for public housing, et cetera, goes to rural communities. I 
would think that we would look at how much really goes. I can't 
tell you off the top of my head, but we know that it is 
significant because we know that a significant number of people 
who live in rural communities are already receiving HUD 
resources.
    So, the one thing that I say to people who ask me about 
rural, HUD is not a rural or urban area particularly. HUD takes 
care of all people who need housing. And certainly, the rural 
communities, I believe, in the past have not been always given 
the resources that they deserve. And I am certainly willing to 
take a look at how we can make sure that that doesn't continue 
to happen.
    Mr. Feenstra. Thank you, Secretary Fudge. I greatly 
appreciate that because we really struggle in rural America. 
You know, as our communities continue to reduce in population 
and stuff like that, and the infrastructure costs are just so 
significant that we need all the assistance that we can get.
    One other note, on the subject of rural broadband. House 
congressional justification notes that the public housing 
program in the Office of Multifamily Housing will focus on 
providing broadband to families of underserved communities. 
Broadband access is a major priority for me and my rural 
district in Iowa. Will these initiatives provide any focus 
toward rural America? If so, how? And I know what you said 
earlier, but I would just like if you could relate this now to 
broadband, I would greatly appreciate it.
    Secretary Fudge. You know, the language of the bill 
actually directs a lot of it to rural and underserved 
communities. One of the things that I know even from my days on 
AG, is that one of the things that farmers talked about was 
broadband. One of the things that people in rural communities 
talk about is broadband. So, know that we are going to spend a 
significant amount, probably more in rural communities as a 
percentage, as a percentage of the total because rural 
communities have less access.
    So, there are two main populations that don't have 
broadband. Rural and inner cities. And so, the bulk of the 
resources are going to go to those two places.
    Mr. Feenstra. Secretary Fudge, I really appreciate that. 
You know, when you think of rural America--and this is where 
the struggle again becomes especially when we talk about 
education, online education, we really struggled through the 
pandemic. And then also telehealth. You know, a lot of people 
are traveling 30 to 40 miles to a hospital right now. And 
broadband could be the difference maker when we trade 
telehealth. So, I urge you to look at this. I think it is such 
a critical asset for rural communities. With that, thank you 
for being here, and I yield back.
    Secretary Fudge. Thank you. And I would say that we are not 
going to continue to allow kids to have to go and sit in a 
parking lot of a McDonalds or at the library. We are really 
going to do everything we can to be sure that communities that 
you are addressing have the kind of broadband that they need.
    Mr. Feenstra. I am so grateful for those comments. Thank 
you.
    Chairman Yarmuth. The gentleman's time has expired. I now 
recognize the gentleman from Massachusetts, Mr. Moulton, for 
five minutes.
    Mr. Moulton. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Can you hear me OK?
    Chairman Yarmuth. We hear you.
    Mr. Moulton. Thank you. Madam Secretary, I am thrilled to 
see you before the Committee today. And while you are missed in 
the House chamber, I could not think of a better person to 
serve as Secretary and fight for housing security and economic 
equity for all Americans. So, thank you so much.
    Secretary Fudge. Thank you, my friend. It is nice to see 
you.
    Mr. Moulton. It is good to see you too. I also applaud the 
budget request before the Committee today for its significant 
investment in affordable housing, and specific housing 
assistance to historically underfunded and marginalized 
communities. Madam Secretary, as you know, we live in an era 
where rent is skyrocketing. Housing is increasingly scarce. 
More families are having to choose between paying rent and 
putting food on the table.
    So much of this is about access to housing and then access 
to jobs from that housing, which is why I am such a strong 
supporter of transit-oriented development, a model of mixed-use 
development. Housing, retail, commercial building, located 
within a 1/2-mile radius of transit. And, you know, this 
doesn't have to be forced. You have good transit and 
businesses, retail, they like to locate there. And you get good 
housing options. So, Madam Secretary, do you agree that 
transit-oriented development could drastically increase the 
supply of affordable housing? Both around transit stations, but 
also in the areas to which transit provides access?
    Secretary Fudge. I agree 100 percent. And Secretary 
Buttigieg and I are working together to be sure that the Jobs 
Plan and our budgets reflect that sentiment exactly.
    Mr. Moulton. What else can we do to work alongside HUD and 
DOT to make these kinds of investments and to support your 
work?
    Secretary Fudge. Well, I think that one of the things that 
can be done is for Congress to start to look at the budgets as 
a collective and not just look at a HUD budget and look at a 
transportation budget separately. But to look at them together 
because I think then you will find that when we work together, 
we do accomplish the things that you are talking about. I can't 
put it in mine, but he can in his. So, that is why we are 
working together. We are going to be doing some things publicly 
as well. And it would great if you all could just make sure 
that you are supportive and that you are there when we come to 
your communities to talk to about the very things that we know 
our communities need.
    You know, if we are talking about building new housing, we 
have to get people to work. If we are talking about building 
new businesses, we have to get people to work. We know that 
transportation is tied significantly to what we are doing with 
housing as well.
    Mr. Moulton. One of the things that often prevents transit-
oriented development in places where the free market would 
bring it without even any incentives, is zoning practices. And 
zoning practices coupled with restrictive covenants, a history 
of unethical mortgage and real estate practices, have often 
left racially and socially economically segregated communities 
in their wake. So, affordable housing, of course, aims to 
address this challenge. But there are a lot of challenges that 
persist. And often families who get access to affordable 
housing don't get access to the higher performing schools, the 
best performing jobs and other community resources that are so 
important. So, I know you well--excuse me--you know all too 
well that housing determines whether many resources and 
opportunities are accessible. How does the Fiscal Year 2022 
budget request promote smart growth zoning ordinances?
    Secretary Fudge. Well, one of the things--and you 
mentioned, you said the word, zoning. One of the things we are 
doing is giving incentives to communities to look at their 
zoning. You know, the one thing that I know from my many years 
of being an elected official and just from being a community 
person, all people want the same thing. You know, every single 
person wants to live in a decent home. To live someplace that's 
safe. To have their children have a good education. To be able 
to take care of their parents and grandparents. Every single 
person, whether you are rich or poor, wants the same thing. But 
our societies have become so separated and segregated that in 
one community that I used to represent, if you drove nine 
miles, their life expectancy was 10 years more.
    So, we can't continue to allow zip codes to dictate our 
outcomes. And I think that all of us throughout government are 
looking at everything through an equity lens. And I believe 
that when you get a chance to look at the total President's 
budget, I think you will be pleased.
    Mr. Moulton. Well, keep us informed of how we can further 
support your work. We are so fortunate to have your leadership. 
So, thank you so much. And, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
    Secretary Fudge. Thank you. Good to see you.
    Chairman Yarmuth. The gentleman yields back the balance of 
his time. Now, you are stuck with me for about 10 minutes,----
    Secretary Fudge. OK.
    Chairman Yarmuth [continuing]. so I yield myself those 10 
minutes. And to begin, I want to echo what Mr. Moulton has 
said. I can't imagine a person who not only has the background 
to do this job so well and successfully, but also the passion 
for the mission of the agency. And that is what sometimes we 
haven't seen in recent years.
    You know, I said to you before the hearing that one of the 
things that impressed me most--has impressed me most about the 
Biden Administration and their proposals and this would 
certainly be true of the HUD budget proposal as well, is that 
we have essentially changed the mindset of the last 50 or 60 
years about how the federal government deals with the 
challenges of the country.
    Secretary Fudge. Right.
    Chairman Yarmuth. We have been saying the first question we 
have always asked is, what can we afford to do? And now the 
question we are asking, which I think is the appropriate 
question first, is what do the American need us to do? And I 
think, again, your budget proposal and the entire Biden Agenda 
reflect that mindset.
    In my district, we have a neighborhood of low-income 
housing. It is virtually 100 percent people of color. And in 
the middle of it, we have something called the Keystone 
Academy. The Keystone Academy is an early childhood education 
center. It stays open all day. It provides not only incredible 
education for the kids from that neighborhood, but also 
childcare, which is essential for those families. And when I 
visited there and saw not only the miracles they work there 
with the kids, but also thinking about how pieces fit together 
in a lot of different ways. And while your focus is on housing, 
we really are focused on broader pictures. We are focused on 
communities, neighborhoods, communities, cities, and obviously, 
our country. And it seems to me that we have kind of touched on 
this a little bit, but I would like you to kind of elaborate on 
how the pieces of the American Jobs Plan and the American 
Families Plan fit together, both to help you advance the 
mission of your Department, but also just the country.
    Secretary Fudge. You know, Mr. Yarmuth, Mr. Chairman, I 
have been in elective office almost 30 years. I have never been 
more happy to be where I am today. The Biden Administration has 
become so visionary. These budgets talk about how we live, not 
what we do, but how we live. Coming out of COVID, you just 
can't imagine the number of people who can't afford childcare, 
who maybe aren't back to their jobs, who are now forced to take 
care of their families.
    And I say it this way. When we went into the COVID 
protocols, the first thing they said to us, Mr. Chairman, is 
stay home. What happened if you didn't have a home? They said 
to us that we need to educate our children virtually. So, you 
don't have a home and then you don't have high speed internet 
or you don't have broadband. They said if you are sick, stay 
home. Heal at home.
    And so, when people say to us that, well, housing is not 
infrastructure. How could it not be? When they say to us that 
it is not important for us to do things like create a care 
economy. When we have a system today where there are not enough 
places for people who are elderly to go. Our senior care is 
really not anywhere near where it needs to be. So, we are 
saying we need to build more senior housing. The other thing we 
need to do is help people who are getting older but are healthy 
age in place. Our societies have never talked about those 
things.
    We need to talk about how we better educate our children. 
We talk about it, but we don't put the resources or we don't 
put the heft behind it that needs to be there. And so, I would 
say that the Jobs Plan, the Families Plan, and, of course, the 
Rescue Plan that was already passed, is looking at an America 
that is really going to be able to compete and lead the rest of 
the world. If we continue to think about infrastructure and we 
continue to think about how we treat our families the way we 
did 20 years ago, we will forever be lost.
    We are already being surpassed by so many countries because 
we have not invested in research and technology. We have not 
invested in our education systems to the way we should. And we 
have clearly not made it comfortable for people to live and 
work in this country. And that is what this budget does. It 
looks at how people live and not just what they think people 
need.
    Chairman Yarmuth. And it also strikes me that there is 
something that kind of permeates the entire Biden Agenda and 
that is a sense of urgency. And I think too often we, because 
they are tough challenges that we face in so many areas whether 
it is housing, education, and healthcare, there is a tendency 
to kick the can down the road and not deal with things when 
they can be dealt with, maybe less expensively, and more 
efficiently. And sometimes I see and not necessarily in 
Congress right now, but I see some of my Republican colleagues 
around the country think that it is more urgent to keep schools 
from teaching critical race theory--which they don't teach--
than it is to deal with the things that really matter in 
people's lives.
    And one of the things that you mentioned early on in your 
testimony: the issue of disinvestment. And certainly, that is 
true of our housing stock. It is true of, again, you just 
mentioned a number of areas in which we have disinvested and 
part of that was because of our austerity attitude starting 
back in 2011 and the sequestration program. So, I know to some 
people a 15 percent increase seems like a pretty hefty increase 
in one year, but you have talked about the cutback in staff and 
all the things. So, this really probably if you think about if 
you were running a business organization, you wouldn't have 
needed a 15 percent increase this year because you would have 
made the investments all along.
    Secretary Fudge. Right.
    Chairman Yarmuth. Is that the case?
    Secretary Fudge. You know, I would say this, Mr. Chairman. 
I think that we have so long looked at numbers and not what the 
numbers mean. At some point, we do have to bite the bullet. 
Great nations do great things. And this is a great nation. And 
until we make the kinds of commitments and put the resources 
behind it, we are not ever going to be what we ought to be. At 
some point you just have to say, this is the time. I don't know 
that there is a better time. We have an Administration that is 
willing to do big and bold things. We have a Congress full of 
brilliant people. And we have people in this country who have 
hope.
    This is the time for us to make the changes that need to be 
made. And if we don't do it, then we talk a good game, but when 
you really want to do something, you find a way to do it. You 
find the resources. We find the resources to do all kinds of 
other things. Let's find the resources to invest in our people 
and the future of this nation.
    Chairman Yarmuth. I totally agree. We asked the right 
question first. What do we need to do? I think the Biden 
Administration has answered that. Now, we figure out how to 
resource it.
    Secretary Fudge. That is right.
    Chairman Yarmuth. We can do that.
    Secretary Fudge. Absolutely.
    Chairman Yarmuth. I am going to let you go. I just wanted 
to make one point just because this something I follow as kind 
of pet project. Because we talked about inflation and lumber 
prices, lumber prices are now down almost 50 percent in the 
last month. And as a matter of fact, I just checked a little 
while ago, and they are down almost 11 or 12 percent today.
    Secretary Fudge. Right.
    Chairman Yarmuth. So, what has happened is--and this is why 
I think this discussion of this panicking over inflation right 
now is uninformed and misguided. And that is what happened with 
the lumber prices, a lot of the lumber producers thought when 
the pandemic started, there wouldn't be a demand, so they cut 
back. Then the developers started buying up all the stock and 
the futures driving the prices up. Now, they are having to sell 
that back--all those things they bought because they misjudged 
the dynamics of the market. So, you know, and that is happening 
with rental cars. It is happening with a lot of other things 
right now. So, again, all this goes to the point of we can 
afford to do what we need to do on behalf of the American 
people.
    So, once again, let me thank you for your testimony and the 
time you spent with us, your responsiveness, and the great job 
you are doing. And unless there is any further business, the 
hearing stands adjourned.
    Secretary Fudge. Thank you very, very much.
    [Whereupon, at 12:34 p.m., the Committee was adjourned.]
    
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]