U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

39–538 PDF 2007

H.R. 2930, THE SECTION 202 SUPPORTIVE

HOUSING FOR THE ELDERLY ACT OF 2007

HEARING

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON 

HOUSING AND COMMUNITY OPPORTUNITY

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON FINANCIAL SERVICES

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION

SEPTEMBER 6, 2007

Printed for the use of the Committee on Financial Services

Serial No. 110–59

(

(II)

HOUSE COMMITTEE ON FINANCIAL SERVICES 

BARNEY FRANK, Massachusetts, Chairman

PAUL E. KANJORSKI, Pennsylvania 

MAXINE WATERS, California 

CAROLYN B. MALONEY, New York 

LUIS V. GUTIERREZ, Illinois 

NYDIA M. VELA ́ ZQUEZ, New York 

MELVIN L. WATT, North Carolina 

GARY L. ACKERMAN, New York 

JULIA CARSON, Indiana 

BRAD SHERMAN, California 

GREGORY W. MEEKS, New York 

DENNIS MOORE, Kansas 

MICHAEL E. CAPUANO, Massachusetts 

RUBE ́ N HINOJOSA, Texas 

WM. LACY CLAY, Missouri 

CAROLYN MCCARTHY, New York 

JOE BACA, California 

STEPHEN F. LYNCH, Massachusetts 

BRAD MILLER, North Carolina 

DAVID SCOTT, Georgia 

AL GREEN, Texas 

EMANUEL CLEAVER, Missouri 

MELISSA L. BEAN, Illinois 

GWEN MOORE, Wisconsin, 

LINCOLN DAVIS, Tennessee 

ALBIO SIRES, New Jersey 

PAUL W. HODES, New Hampshire 

KEITH ELLISON, Minnesota 

RON KLEIN, Florida 

TIM MAHONEY, Florida 

CHARLES A. WILSON, Ohio 

ED PERLMUTTER, Colorado 

CHRISTOPHER S. MURPHY, Connecticut 

JOE DONNELLY, Indiana 

ROBERT WEXLER, Florida 

JIM MARSHALL, Georgia 

DAN BOREN, Oklahoma 

SPENCER BACHUS, Alabama 

RICHARD H. BAKER, Louisiana 

DEBORAH PRYCE, Ohio 

MICHAEL N. CASTLE, Delaware 

PETER T. KING, New York 

EDWARD R. ROYCE, California 

FRANK D. LUCAS, Oklahoma 

RON PAUL, Texas 

PAUL E. GILLMOR, Ohio 

STEVEN C. LATOURETTE, Ohio 

DONALD A. MANZULLO, Illinois 

WALTER B. JONES, JR., North Carolina 

JUDY BIGGERT, Illinois 

CHRISTOPHER SHAYS, Connecticut 

GARY G. MILLER, California 

SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West Virginia 

TOM FEENEY, Florida 

JEB HENSARLING, Texas 

SCOTT GARRETT, New Jersey 

GINNY BROWN-WAITE, Florida 

J. GRESHAM BARRETT, South Carolina 

JIM GERLACH, Pennsylvania 

STEVAN PEARCE, New Mexico 

RANDY NEUGEBAUER, Texas 

TOM PRICE, Georgia 

GEOFF DAVIS, Kentucky 

PATRICK T. MCHENRY, North Carolina 

JOHN CAMPBELL, California 

ADAM PUTNAM, Florida 

MICHELE BACHMANN, Minnesota 

PETER J. ROSKAM, Illinois 

THADDEUS G. McCOTTER, Michigan

JEANNE M. ROSLANOWICK, Staff Director and Chief Counsel 

(III)

SUBCOMMITTEE ON HOUSING AND COMMUNITY OPPORTUNITY

MAXINE WATERS, California, Chairwoman

NYDIA M. VELA ́ ZQUEZ, New York 

JULIA CARSON, Indiana 

STEPHEN F. LYNCH, Massachusetts 

EMANUEL CLEAVER, Missouri 

AL GREEN, Texas 

WM. LACY CLAY, Missouri 

CAROLYN B. MALONEY, New York 

GWEN MOORE, Wisconsin, 

ALBIO SIRES, New Jersey 

KEITH ELLISON, Minnesota 

CHARLES A. WILSON, Ohio 

CHRISTOPHER S. MURPHY, Connecticut 

JOE DONNELLY, Indiana 

BARNEY FRANK, Massachusetts 

JUDY BIGGERT, Illinois 

STEVAN PEARCE, New Mexico 

PETER T. KING, New York 

PAUL E. GILLMOR, Ohio 

CHRISTOPHER SHAYS, Connecticut 

GARY G. MILLER, California 

SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West Virginia 

SCOTT GARRETT, New Jersey 

RANDY NEUGEBAUER, Texas 

GEOFF DAVIS, Kentucky 

JOHN CAMPBELL, California 

THADDEUS G. McCOTTER, Michigan 

(V)

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

Hearing held on: 

September 6, 2007 ............................................................................................ 1

Appendix: 

September 6, 2007 ............................................................................................ 37

WITNESSES 

THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 6, 2007

Allton, Terry, Vice President of Support Services, National Church Residences .................................................................................................................... 27

Feingold, Ellen, President, Jewish Community Housing for the Elderly, Boston, Massachusetts ............................................................................................... 22

Frigo, Michael, Vice President, Mayslake Village, Westmont, Illinois ............... 23

Garvin, John, Senior Advisor to the FHA Commissioner, and Acting Deputy 

Assistant Secretary for Multi-Family Housing, U.S. Department of Housing 

and Urban Development ...................................................................................... 7

Kondor, Deje, Executive Director, Presbyterian Homes and Housing Foundation of Florida, Inc. .............................................................................................. 20

Lizarraga, David C., President and CEO, TELACU/Millennium, LLC ............... 16

Protulis, Steve, Executive Director, Elderly Housing Development and Operations Corporation (EHDOC) .............................................................................. 25

Slemmer, Thomas W., Board Chair-Elect, The American Association of Homes 

and Services for the Aging .................................................................................. 18

APPENDIX 

Prepared statements: 

Maloney, Hon. Carolyn B. ................................................................................ 38

Allton, Terry ...................................................................................................... 39

Feingold, Ellen, ................................................................................................. 46

Frigo, Michael ................................................................................................... 65

Garvin, John ..................................................................................................... 67

Kondor, Deje ..................................................................................................... 72

Lizarraga, David C. .......................................................................................... 79

Protulis, Steve ................................................................................................... 86

Slemmer, Thomas W. ....................................................................................... 97

(1)

H.R. 2930, THE SECTION 202 SUPPORTIVE 

HOUSING FOR THE ELDERLY ACT OF 2007

Thursday, September 6, 2007

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, SUBCOMMITTEE ON HOUSING AND

COMMUNITY OPPORTUNITY, COMMITTEE ON FINANCIAL SERVICES, Washington, D.C. 

The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:10 a.m., in room 

2128, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Maxine Waters [chairwoman of the subcommittee] presiding. 

Members present: Representatives Waters, Maloney, Clay, Sires, 

Ellison; Biggert, and Capito. 

Ex officio: Chairman Frank. 

Also present: Representative Mahoney. 

Chairwoman WATERS. This hearing of the Subcommittee on 

Housing and Community Opportunity will come to order. 

Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. I’d first like to thank Ranking Member Judy Biggert for being here today and the members 

of the Subcommittee on Housing and Community Opportunity for 

joining me for today’s hearing on H.R. 2930, the Section 202 Supportive Housing for the Elderly Act of 2007. 

I’d like to start by noting that without objection, Mr. Mahoney 

will be considered a member of the subcommittee for the duration 

of this hearing. Also without objection, all members’ opening statements will be made part of the record. 

I am looking forward to hearing from the two panels of witnesses 

today, because the Section 202 program is such a cornerstone of 

our Federal response to the needs of our Nation’s most vulnerable 

elderly households. 

I appreciate the work of Mr. Mahoney in crafting H.R. 2930, 

which is designed to ensure that Section 202 retains its vitality. 

Today over 6,000 projects, containing over 310,000 units nationwide, receive assistance under this program. Enacted as Section 

202 of the Housing Act of 1959, it is among our oldest Federal subsidized housing programs, and the only HUD program with the sole 

focus on meeting the needs of the poor elderly. 

I’d like to start with the good news about the 202 program: it 

works. By this I mean that the combination of affordable housing 

and coordinated supportive services provided by 202 project sponsors has been proven to enable elderly tenants with a median age 

of 76 to live as independently as possible for as long as possible. 

This goal, referred to as helping seniors age in place, is part of 

what I regard as almost a technological revolution over the last few 

2

decades in meeting the health and housing needs of many vulnerable populations. 

At one time, the frail elderly, the mentally ill, and the otherwise 

disabled could expect to live for long periods in institutional settings, because those were the only places equipped to meet their 

needs for long-term support. Today, entrepreneurial nonprofits 

have worked with government at all levels to develop housing plus 

services models that instead promote more independent living. And 

these new models make sense physically as well as morally, while 

preserving individual dignity, a principle on which our Nation was 

founded, and that would alone justify preferring independence over 

institutionalization. 

It turns out that it also generally costs more to do their own 

thing, just as cycling chronically homeless, often mentally ill individuals through detoxes, shelters, hospitals, and jails is far more 

expensive than providing them with supportive housing. So, too, 

are nursing home settings and frequent hospitalizations in comparison to 202 supportive housing projects for the elderly who are 

still well enough to live in them. Simply put, the longer we can 

help seniors to stay on the more independent end of the housing 

and services continuum, the better it is for them, and the better 

it is for taxpayers. 

But the 202 program does face major challenges. First, the current 202 portfolio doesn’t come close to meeting the need. A 2006 

AARP survey of 202 project sponsors found an average of 10 seniors waiting for each unit that becomes available. And in 202, a bipartisan, congressionally appointed commission on senior housing 

and health needs, with which I know several of today’s witnesses 

were involved, called for the creation of an additional 730,000 units 

of affordable housing by 2020. 

In light of this overwhelming need for more elderly housing, I’m 

compelled to note that the Administration’s recent budget request 

for HUD’s housing for the elderly appropriations account, which includes 202, have consistently sought to cut the program significantly. This includes a reduction from the Fiscal Year 2007 funding 

level of $735 million to only $575 million in the President’s Fiscal 

Year 2008 request. 

Fortunately, the appropriators have to date declined to make 

these cuts. I hope this hearing plays a part in moving the 202 program to a firmer footing, both programmatically and financially. In 

any event, Title I of H.R. 2930 seeks to streamline the new construction process of the new 202 program. Since 1990, the 202 program has operated as a capital advance and an associated rental 

assistance stream known as PRAC, which combine to meet the development and ongoing operating costs of the project. 

Title I responds to the concerns I have heard, namely, that as 

now administered, the 202 program imposes on potential sponsors 

all the inflexibility and bureaucracy that might conceivably be justified in a funding stream that pays a project’s full freight in a program that no longer does. In order to use scarce resources to reduce 

more units, HUD has made the understandable policy decision to 

thrust 202 sponsors into a world of mixed finance. 

Title I proposes to ease that transition by, among other things, 

requiring HUD to make adjustments to the PRAC to reflect certain 

3

unexpected increases and project operating costs, consider delegating some administrative responsibilities in mixed finance transactions to State or local housing agencies with strong underwriting 

expertise, and develop new, more responsible, development cost estimates. 

I am interested in today’s witnesses’ experiences with the current 

process. In particular, I hope to hear about their ideas about meting project funding needs in the area of services and services coordination, a thing that not only runs through H.R. 2930, but also 

resonates across a number of issues the subcommittee will be addressing this fall. 

Second, as one might expect in a program of 202’s vintage, much 

work must be done simply to preserve the existing stock of projects. 

At particular risk are the 40,000 to 45,000 units funded prior to 

1974, when the program was structured as a 50-year, 3 percent 

loan, many of which do not have any rental assistance attached to 

them. Nearly 10 percent of those units are in California. To serve 

low- income seniors as these projects head into their second halfcentury will require some sort of ongoing funding beyond affordable 

tenant rents. H.R. 2930 would create a senior preservation rental 

assistance program for this purpose. If HUD or other witnesses 

have viable alternatives to that approach, I’m certainly open to 

hearing them. 

Additionally, these projects need access to new capital to undertake needed repairs and program improvements. Fortunately, today’s lower interest rate environment offers a real opportunity to 

refinance and recapitalize them. I understand, however, that HUD 

and many 202 nonprofit sponsors disagree about the flexibility 

these organizations should have in using the proceeds of such refinancing. Title II of H.R. 2930 provides additional flexibility, including lifting the current cap for their use for supportive services permitting developers’ fees for nonprofits and enabling nonprofit sponsors to reallocate funds generated by refinancing an individual 

project’s refinancing to a broader range of activities consistent with 

a nonprofit mission. 

I’m interested to hear HUD’s views on these measures, as well 

as the other provisions of the bill, whose original co-sponsors I 

again wish to thank for their bold proposals to address the needs 

of this critical housing program for the elderly. 

At this time, I would like to call on Ranking Member Biggert to 

present her opening statement, for 5 minutes. 

Mrs. BIGGERT. Thank you, Chairwoman Waters, for holding this 

important hearing on the Section 202 Supportive Housing for the 

Elderly Amendments Act. 

I’ll keep my remarks brief, as I’m interested in hearing from our 

witnesses this morning about how we can best streamline and simplify the development of affordable housing for our seniors. As we 

all know, the Baby Boomer generation has begun to reach retirement, and that means more and more elderly Americans need access to affordable housing. 

They also need housing that is coupled with supportive services 

and features that promote independence for aging residents. Section 202, the primary Federal housing program for seniors, is designed to do just that. Our goal today is to examine what changes 

4

we can make to this program to satisfy the growth and demand for 

affordable senior housing and better meet the needs of seniors 

across the country. 

Specifically, we will evaluate whether H.R. 2930 provides the 

necessary flexibility to the Section 202 program so that local community groups can best serve the needs of our seniors. And I thank 

the bill’s sponsor, Mr. Mahoney, for being with us today. 

Also, we’ll propose changes to the Section 202 program to enable 

better use of mixed financing, tax credits, grants, and loans to preserve and build housing for seniors. 

Finally, I’m interested in learning more about the impact of the 

provisions in Title II of H.R. 2930, which is intended to expand refinancing opportunities for older Section 202 properties. How can 

the changes in Title II benefit taxpayers, our community organizations, and most importantly, seniors? 

I’m confident that this morning’s witnesses will be able to answer 

these questions, and more. I know this because we have the privilege of welcoming to this morning’s hearing a constituent of mine, 

Mr. Michael Frigo, who is vice president of Mayslake Village. And 

with him is Father Larry Dreffein, President of Mayslake Village. 

Welcome. And I’ll formally introduce Mr. Frigo when the second 

panel begins, but I can say that I visited Mayslake Village many 

times, and I have seen firsthand the wonderful work they are doing 

for seniors in Du Page County in Illinois. 

In 1960, what is now Mayslake Village, was a ministry started 

by the Chicago area Franciscan friar community with the goal of 

serving the needs of low- and moderate-income seniors. Today’s 

Mayslake is a model facility of over 600 units of affordable housing 

to low- and moderate-income seniors in my congressional district. 

So I look forward to hearing from Mr. Frigo about the ways that 

we can amend the Section 202 program to help his organization, 

and others like it, provide even better housing and improve our 

services to the Nation’s seniors. 

I’d also like to welcome HUD acting Deputy Assistant Secretary 

Garvin and all of this morning’s witnesses, and I look forward to 

your testimonies. 

I yield back. 

Chairwoman WATERS. Thank you very much, Ranking Member 

Biggert. 

I would now like to recognize for 3 minutes the chairwoman of 

the Subcommittee on Financial Institutions and Consumer Credit, 

Mrs. Maloney. 

Mrs. MALONEY. Thank you, Chairwoman Waters and Ranking 

Member Biggert. I would like very much to be associated with the 

comments of both of the distinguished leaders of this committee. 

There is no program that’s more important to seniors, and I want 

to congratulate the leadership of Congressman Tim Mahoney for 

introducing this legislation, which not only reauthorizes the program, but also adds a series of improvements that will help expand 

the supply of affordable housing to the elderly. 

I would say in New York, Chairwoman Waters, there are probably 20 or 30 seniors waiting to get into each 202 project or each 

202 apartment. There is no other program that is more beloved, 

that provides more assistance and help and allows our elderly to 

5

retire with great dignity. It happens to be my favorite housing program. Every year, I have many, many requests for 202 housing 

projects. We never have enough dollars for it. This reauthorization 

is extremely important, and I would say that the seniors of this 

country are indebted to your leadership, Mr. Mahoney, for moving 

this forward and making this happen. 

I have a list of statements about the improvements in the program, and I would ask unanimous consent to place it in the record. 

I look forward to the testimony, particularly of the community 

groups, the religious organizations that are on the ground working 

hard to provide this housing, and of course, HUD; we appreciate 

your leadership. And we’re so glad that you’re here, Mr. Garvin. I 

look forward to your testimony, and I’d like to put my statement 

in the record. 

Just to close, I’d like to say that with the rapid increase in housing prices over the last decade, we have seen in my community, 

and probably many other communities across this country, that 

many seniors are priced out of the communities that they helped 

build. This is wrong. 202 housing and the reauthorization of this 

program will help provide more affordable housing options to seniors and afford opportunities for safe, affordable housing. 

Again, I congratulate Mr. Mahoney and the chairwoman for moving this forward, and the ranking member for her support. Thank 

you so much. 

Chairwoman WATERS. Thank you. Without objection, your information will be accepted in the record. 

Mrs. Capito, for 3 minutes? 

Mrs. CAPITO. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman, I just want to 

welcome the witnesses. I look forward to this extremely important 

topic, certainly, across the country. My State of West Virginia has 

a high amount of low-income elderly who are in great need of not 

only affordable, but safe and better quality housing. And I appreciate the opportunity. I want to thank the chairwoman and the 

ranking member for bringing this forward today. 

Chairwoman WATERS. Thank you very much. 

Mr. Sires, for 3 minutes. 

Mr. SIRES. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. I also want to congratulate my colleague on this legislation. It’s certainly needed. 

Having been a mayor for 12 years, I can tell you that there’s no 

grater need than housing for seniors. I used to kid people. I used 

to say, ‘‘You know, you don’t need money to get reelected anymore, 

all you need is housing for seniors,’’ because the need was so great. 

I happen to come from an urban area. People were not well off, 

and this 202 is a lifesaver. You could see in their faces after they 

moved in and you went by their buildings how happy they were 

that they had a roof over their heads. So I really want to commend 

my colleague and the chairwoman for having this hearing. And any 

help that I can provide to my colleague on this issue to expand the 

program, please count on it. 

I also would like to say that I think more in the future of the 

private sector and government sector combined to do some of these 

senior programs, and also I think it’s something we should look at. 

So thank you very much. 

Chairwoman WATERS. Thank you, very much, Mr. Sires. 

6

Now, Mr. Ellison, for 3 minutes? 

Mr. ELLISON. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. 

I just want to lend my voice to other colleagues and members 

who have commended Mr. Mahoney on this excellent piece of legislation. I am a supporter of it and look forward to hearing the witnesses. I will also make this comment, and that is that our seniors 

are the people who have blazed the trails for the rest of us. They 

have knocked down barriers and built up bridges so all the rest of 

us could walk across, and a decent, caring nation should care for 

them, as well. 

I think Section 202 advances the improvements that Congressman Mahoney has proposed, and we’ll improve and strengthen 

that, as well. So I just want to commend him and look forward to 

hearing the witnesses. 

Thank you. I yield back. 

Chairwoman WATERS. Thank you very much. 

And now for the man of the hour. The author of H.R. 2930, one 

of our new members from the State of Florida, who makes us all 

very proud with the introduction of this legislation, Mr. Mahoney. 

Mr. MAHONEY. Thank you, Chairwoman Waters. 

I’d like to thank Ranking Member Biggert, and to say that I’m 

really humbled to be here with my colleagues, working together for 

seniors. I’d like to point out that Chairwoman Waters, you have 

provided unbelievable leadership on housing issues, not only for 

seniors, but also for victims of Hurricane Katrina, and you have 

been a real inspiration for me. 

I’d also like to thank Chairman Frank for his tireless leadership 

in addressing the affordable housing crisis that’s gripping our Nation. 

I’d also like to welcome Ms. Deje Kondor, who will be participating in today’s hearing. Ms. Kondor is the executive director of 

the Presbyterian Homes and Housing Foundation of Florida, which 

manages 19 affordable housing communities for over 3,500 seniors, 

comprised of more than 3,000 apartments throughout Florida. And 

earlier this year, I had the pleasure and opportunity to visit one 

of the facilities located in my district, Presbyterian Homes of Port 

Charlotte. 

As our elderly population grows, the need for affordable housing 

will increase. In 2005, there were approximately 37 million Americans over the age of 65. According to the U.S. Census Bureau, the 

number of seniors is expected to grow rapidly during the next several decades. 

Despite this increase in demand, the number of affordable housing units is shrinking. According to the Joint Center for Housing, 

for every unit of affordable housing constructed, two are lost, either 

by a conversion of affordable to market rate housing or by sponsors 

of Section 202 housing opting out of the program when their contracts expire. 

In 2002, Congress created a bipartisan commission to study the 

need for affordable housing in support of services for the elderly. 

In the Commission’s report to Congress, entitled, ‘‘A Quiet Crisis 

in America,’’ they stated that, ‘‘This nation, despite competing demands for national resources, must respond to the critical need for 

affordable housing and home and community-based supportive 

7

services with substantial financial commitment and effective policies.’’ 

The report also concluded that all seniors, no matter what their 

individual circumstances and resources, should be able to continue 

to live where they prefer, regardless of their income, with services 

that they need to maintain personal dignity and quality of life. 

One of the most important responsibilities we have as a society 

is to ensure that our seniors have safe and affordable places to live. 

The Section 202 Supportive Housing for the Elderly Act is the first 

step in achieving this goal. This important piece of legislation will 

give owners of 202 facilities the ability to leverage the property’s 

equity, access much needed capital, and benefit from low interest 

rates from private lenders. 

By doing so, this legislation will ensure that these facilities are 

preserved and improved to meet the changing needs of seniors. In 

addition, the bill allows for funding to be used to increase the services that Section 202 communities provide for the residents, allowing them to live a more independent life. 

Finally, this bill will assist seniors living in older section 202 facilities by extending them rental assistance. 

I look forward to working with members of the committee on this 

legislation, and again, I would like to thank Chairwoman Waters, 

and I look forward to hearing the testimony of our witnesses today. 

I yield back the balance of my time. 

Chairwoman WATERS. Thank you very much. 

At this time, I’d like to introduce our first panel, which consists 

of Mr. John Garvin, Senior Advisor to the Assistant Secretary for 

the Office of Housing, and Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary for 

the Office of Multifamily Housing. Deputy Assistant Secretary Garvin, I want to thank you for appearing before the subcommittee 

today, and without objection, your written statement will be made 

part of the record. You will now be recognized for a 5-minute summary of your testimony. 

STATEMENT OF JOHN GARVIN, SENIOR ADVISOR TO THE FHA 

COMMISSIONER, AND ACTING DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR MULTI-FAMILY HOUSING, U.S. DEPARTMENT 

OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT 

Mr. GARVIN. Thank you very much, Chairwoman Waters, Ranking Member Biggert, and distinguished members of this committee. 

Thank you for the opportunity to testify today on H.R. 2930. 

As you mentioned, my name is John Garvin, and I am the Senior 

Advisor to the Assistant Secretary of Housing, Federal Housing, 

Mr. Brian Montgomery, who sends his regrets that he can’t be here 

today. I also, for the last few months, have been serving as Acting 

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Multi-family Housing, and in this 

role, oversee the Section 202 program. 

I would like to start by also thanking Congressman Mahoney for 

recognizing the need to address services and affordable housing options for seniors. 

The 202 program is one of the Nation’s major sources for providing safe and affordable housing to America’s very-low-income 

seniors. The program funds construction, rental assistance, and in 

many cases, service coordinators. Within Section 202, there is also 

8

an assisted living conversion program, the goal of which is to modify 202 developments to better serve frail seniors who require a 

higher level of services to be able to age in place. 

Section 202 is a very comprehensive program, and one that 

serves many frail seniors, as well. As Chairwoman Waters mentioned, it has proven a great program since 1959. I would like to 

take this opportunity to commend HUD staff nationwide, as well 

as our industry stakeholders, many of whom are here today, for 

their complete dedication to this program and their hard work in 

making this program the success that it is. 

The average age of a 202 resident is approximately 75 or 76 

years old, and they have an annual average income of around 

$9,500. To date, we have more than 300,000 Section 202 units in 

our portfolio. Section 202 units are limited to serving seniors aged 

62 or older, who have incomes of less than 50 percent of an area’s 

median income, or, as mentioned before, a very low income. 

Each year while providing continued rental assistance, HUD also 

provides construction funding for approximately 4,500 new units. 

Unfortunately, over the last 12 years, production in the Section 202 

program has decreased by almost 50 percent, from 7,800 units in 

1995, to 4,200 units in 2006. The main reason for this decrease is 

as we renew rental assistance, that money comes out of the construction pool. So as we produce more, more rental assistance is required to be renewed annually, and that takes away from what we 

can use to increase production. 

I don’t need to tell this committee about the growing need for affordable housing options for seniors, as Chairwoman Waters also 

mentioned the AARP survey that said there are 10 seniors waiting 

for every one unit that becomes available, and Congresswoman 

Maloney mentioned that she thinks it’s more like 30 in New York. 

Obviously, the need is there. We don’t have to debate that issue. 

Secretary Jackson and Commissioner Montgomery are very committed to preserving existing 202 units. Moreover, they want to increase production of new units to address the ever-growing demographics of seniors in need of affordable housing. One of the main 

reasons Commissioner Montgomery hired me to come to HUD from 

the multi-family industry is to bring about some changes to the 202 

program so as to make it leverage better with the low income housing tax credit, both 9 percent and 4 percent credits. 

While I mentioned that I am extremely impressed with the HUD 

staff nationwide, and their work on the 202 program, and industry 

stakeholders, we need to do more. There are a lot of changes we 

can make to streamline the program, making it more attractive to 

tax credit sponsors. Right now, there are many barriers—unintentional, most of them—that get in the way of tax credit developers 

using 202. If we could get that utilization strong, we could increase 

the production of 202 units, leverage with tax credits and the services that the 202 program bring in, and we could do that exponentially. 

Christian Montgomery asked us to come up with a demonstration 

program which we all saw in the 2008 budget, which was basically 

addressing some of the need for streamlining in the 202 program. 

We got together with the American Association of Homes and Services for the Aging, and a lot of the stakeholders in this room today, 

9

to come up with a good report which recommended several changes 

to the 202 program. 

While the 2008 demonstration program in the 2008 budget did 

not make it through markup, HUD’s staff has proposed guidance 

to break down many of these barriers that we’ll discuss here today. 

We will continue this effort administratively and will take into serious consideration any sound proposal that eases the way to 

leveraging other sources of funding with 202 and to preserve and 

create more units. 

We value our partnership with the American Association of 

Homes and Services for the Aging and look forward to our continuing work with them and other organizations to increase affordable housing options for seniors. 

Again, thank you for the opportunity to be here today, and I welcome any questions you may have. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Garvin can be found on page 67 

of the appendix.] 

Chairwoman WATERS. Thank you very much, Mr. Garvin. 

We have been joined by the chairman of the Financial Services 

Committee, Mr. Barney Frank. 

I will recognize him for as much time as he may need. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. 

I apologize, because I will have to go to the Floor. The Native 

American Housing bill is on the Floor, and we will be dealing with 

a number of issues, including, I will say, an amendment I found 

somewhat intriguing to the Native American Housing bill. This is 

a program that provides housing for Indian tribes, and we will 

have an amendment dealing with illegal immigration. And I’m 

afraid the Indians’ response is going to be, ‘‘Why didn’t we think 

of that?’’ 

[Laughter] 

The CHAIRMAN. I am pleased to be here today, Madam Chairwoman, and this is a further example of the leadership you have 

given as chairwoman of this subcommittee. Working with you on 

a range of issues has been a great pleasure. 

And I’m also glad to be here at the start of ‘‘Tim Mahoney day’’ 

at our committee, because the gentleman from Florida is the sponsor of this bill. And this afternoon, the bill that he has created and 

co-sponsored with his Florida colleague, Mr. Klein, will be having 

a hearing, and in both cases, responding to real needs. I see a lot 

of friends who are active in the elderly housing field, and I am glad 

to be here. I hope we can get a bipartisan movement here, because 

we are talking about making a good program better. 

We don’t control the amount of money, but we do have the responsibility to make it go further. And I do think when many of 

us go to the appropriators and say, let’s have more money for this 

program, the fact that we will have helped to improve it, and made 

it more flexible and more efficient, should stand us in good stead. 

I am very glad to be here and see so many friends, and I will 

go over to the Floor knowing that under the chairmanship of the 

gentlewoman from California, and my other colleagues here, and 

the ranking member, with whom we’ve been able to work very constructively in a lot of ways—the gentlewoman from Illinois—things 

are in good hands. 

10

Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. 

Chairwoman WATERS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and we are all 

appreciative for your leadership and the assistance that you have 

given to Mr. Mahoney. We are very proud. Thank you very much. 

Mr. Garvin, we gave you a list of questions that we would have 

you respond to at this hearing. Your testimony did not match the 

questions we had asked you to deal with, so we are perhaps going 

to have to ask some of those questions at some time during this 

hearing. 

But first, let me start on the issue of removing some of the bureaucratic delay in mixed finance 202 projects. There seems to be 

some level of agreement that it makes sense not to duplicate every 

administrative process at HUD and every other public finance 

agency involved. 

You have proposed a demonstration program involving tax credits and tax housing agencies, and H.R. 2930 seems to provide somewhat more room for delegating underwriting and other functions to 

State and local agencies. Can you describe for me your understanding of the difference between your proposed demonstration 

program and what the bill would allow? Specifically, I’m interested 

in knowing what specific kinds of delegation H.R. 2930 would allow 

and what circumstances HUD would not be comfortable with and 

why? 

Mr. GARVIN. First, Chairwoman Waters, I would like to say we 

did get your questions and we have formal answers to each of 

them. I think a lot of those questions would take a half hour to answer; they’re very technical. But we will submit those to you. 

On the delegation to the local housing agencies, in our demonstration program we were considering when it came to the use 

of tax credits and tax-exempt bond financing of having the State 

housing agency that allocates the credits, the underwriter, and 

HUD would approve the underwriting. That would take away one 

step. H.R. 2930 has a similar concept, but it seems to move all of 

Section 202 to housing agencies within a 90-mile radius of a proposed development. I think that is a little far-reaching right now. 

We would like to analyze it a little bit more and get a better 

grasp on how many agencies would be administering 202 if that 

proposal were successful. We just have a feeling that it might take 

a lot longer to get local housing agencies up-to-speed on how this 

program works, and we feel that it would be losing a little bit of 

our responsibility as a strong fiduciary with that. 

Chairwoman WATERS. Thank you very much. On the issue of the 

use of proceeds from refinancing, can you tell me why HUD views 

it as critical that excess proceeds only be used for pretty limited 

purposes in the same project? What would be the concern if nonprofits were able to use these proceeds more broadly, as H.R. 2930 

envisions? 

Mr. GARVIN. We just see such a shortage of affordable housing 

funds that we think to use excess proceeds from recapitalization to 

do non-housing, while mission-driven, while good nonprofit, mission-driven purposes, we think that there’s such a shortage of affordable housing, and as you mentioned, a lot of these older properties are in need of fixing up. But we think the proceeds need to 

stay on that property for housing needs. 

11

Chairwoman WATERS. Thank you very much, Mr. Secretary. 

I am going to recognize our ranking member for 5 minutes for 

questioning. 

Mrs. BIGGERT. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. 

Mr. Garvin, what do you perceive to be the major challenges facing HUD in furthering the goal of preserving these existing 202 

properties? 

Mr. GARVIN. I think that along the line with what Commissioner 

Montgomery asked me to do when I first came to HUD is figure 

out ways to make the 202 program more attractive to the housing 

tax credit sponsor. There are a lot of excellent nonprofit developers 

out there that are already mixing 202s with tax credits. But as I’m 

sure many of them will bring to your attention right after I finish, 

there are a lot of issues that need to be worked out to make this 

program a little bit more seamless. If we could make it a more 

seamless program, then we could do a lot more, and more importantly, do it a lot faster. 

Mrs. BIGGERT. What is HUD currently doing to address the need 

for elderly housing preservation? 

Mr. GARVIN. As I mentioned before, we have a really good rapport with all recommendations from a group of stakeholders, many 

of which are here, that we are going through, and we proposed it 

in our 2008 budget. But the demonstration program didn’t make it 

through the 2008 budget. It doesn’t mean we’re not continuing to 

do what we can do administratively to take a lot of these. I know 

we’ve talked about increased costs. We have done quite a few 

things to make it a smoother program. 

Mrs. BIGGERT. Do you think that the bill that’s been introduced 

will help to be able to move that forward? 

Mr. GARVIN. Again, we haven’t had the time to do a proper comprehensive assessment, but the bill does have very similar proposals to what was in the study group’s recommendations. 

Mrs. BIGGERT. Mr. Frigo, from my district, is going to testify. 

Is this a concern that comes up all over the country as far as the 

aging properties have small, you know— 

Mr. GARVIN. Efficiency? 

Mrs. BIGGERT. —efficiency units, and, you know, people find that 

very hard to live in? Is this a problem across the country? And will 

the bill, as you know, will that help to address that issue and 

maybe solve that problem? 

Mr. GARVIN. With or without the bill, we hear about the issue 

quite a bit. We don’t hear from it in places like New York or something where efficiencies are still marketable, but we do have serious concerns. We see it all over the country. There will be 40 vacant efficiency units and the sponsor would like to refinance and 

rehab the building and make it 21 bedrooms. And we’re firmly of 

the belief that 40 vacant units do not need to be subsidized. I’d 

rather be subsidizing 20 occupied units than 40 vacant units. 

So yes, we’re on the same exact page on that issue. 

Mrs. BIGGERT. Well, with the buildings that are the older buildings to be revamped, restored, there’s been a difference in those because of the date that they were built, so there aren’t any rent subsidies. Is there going to be a change in that if these buildings are 

12

restored? Would that change, whether they would receive a rent 

subsidy in those buildings? 

Mr. GARVIN. That wouldn’t. We would have to seek new authority to come up with a rental program for those units. 

Mrs. BIGGERT. Do you think that’s a good idea, to match them 

up? I think one of the problems is if they cost more than a onebedroom in a newer building, it seems unfair that people should be 

paying more. 

Mr. GARVIN. Exactly. 

Mrs. BIGGERT. All right. With that, I yield back. 

Chairwoman WATERS. Thank you very much. 

I would like to go straight to Mr. Mahoney so that he can have 

an opportunity to ask some questions of the Secretary. 

And so, Mr. Mahoney, let me give you an opportunity to question 

our witness. 

Mr. MAHONEY. Thank you for your courtesy, Madam Chairwoman. 

Mr. Garvin, thank you for being here today. I appreciate it. 

You know, in the written testimony that you provided the committee, I noted that HUD estimates that there are over 1 million 

senior renters experiencing worst case housing needs, and you 

went on to cite statistics from the Commission on Affordable Housing and health facility needs for seniors in the 21st Century that 

indicated that an additional 730,000 rent-assisted units will be 

needed by 2020. 

You also indicated that HUD is researching ways of addressing 

the declining numbers of Section 202 units, all of which are included in H.R. 2930. My concern, and the main reason why I introduced the legislation, you know, is that it is taking way too long. 

You indicated that we began witnessing the decline in Section 202 

housing in 1995, yet here we are in 2007, 12 years later, and we’re 

still researching ways to reverse this dangerous trend. 

And now you’re saying that one of the things you just brought 

up here today is the fact that part of the issue is, you know, an 

increase in units increases the amount of rental assistance, so 

therefore that’s going down. That indicates that there has to be a 

priority problem, too, because we’re talking about a budget issue. 

We’re talking about Mr. Frank saying that we could provide some 

ideas on how to make the program better. But at the end of the 

day, it’s the Administration’s responsibility to address the needs in 

terms of the budget and the funding and so on and so forth. 

My question is, when are we going to start taking this seriously 

for our seniors? I mean, this is a situation where for every person 

who is in one of these homes, there are anywhere—in my district, 

20 to 30 people waiting, and these are crises. I mean, these are 

people in crisis. This is somebody’s grandmother who cannot afford 

to live. You said it yourself—living on $9,500 a year. When does 

this become a priority for this Administration to do something 

about this? 

Now, why does a guy like me have to get involved in working 

with the committee to, you know, bring it to your attention? I 

mean, it’s unbelievable to me that you came here, and this bill has 

been out now for 2 months, and you haven’t done an assessment 

13

on it? Can you explain that? What’s going on? What’s happening 

with the priorities there? 

Mr. GARVIN. It is definitely a priority of this Administration to 

address this. That’s why we really need to find the ways to use the 

biggest producer of affordable housing, which is lowering the housing tax credit. That’s why we put it in our budget. That’s why we 

continue—even though it didn’t pass in the 2008 budget markup—

to do whatever we can administratively. 

I give you my word; I have been at HUD for about a year-anda-half. It has been my top priority the whole time I’ve been there, 

as it is the Commissioner’s and the Secretary’s. 

Mr. MAHONEY. Well, I recognize that you’re here, and you’ve 

taken on this responsibility because you’re passionate about it. But, 

at the same time, you know, what’s happening with the budget, 

and how successful are you getting the resources that you need 

from this Administration to do something about this problem? 

Mr. GARVIN. Well, we want to make sure the resources we do get, 

budgetary resources, are used in their best way. We have issues 

right now of some of the 202. And let me preface this by saying 

that the overwhelming majority of the 202 sponsors are excellent, 

on-time producers. Unfortunately, we have a large amount of 

money that’s in the pipeline, and we just don’t feel fiscally responsible asking for more and more money while we have funds. 

We have some developments that have been funded in 1999 that 

still aren’t completed, and we needed to get that money worked 

out. And I think a lot of the changes—some of the reasons for the 

slowness was because of the bureaucratic red tape we were talking 

about earlier. 

So we’re dual-tracking both. We’re trying to streamline our efforts as your bill does—recognizes it as well. 

Mr. MAHONEY. But you recognize that HUD has been streamlining their efforts for what, 10 years? 

Mr. GARVIN. I don’t know if we’ve been streamlining for 10 years. 

Mr. MAHONEY. I mean, it has been going on since the 1990’s. 

When does it become critical? When does something happen in the 

Administration that makes people jump up and say, ‘‘We have to 

reverse this?’’ We know it’s a problem. 

Mr. GARVIN. We have jumped up and said we have to reverse it, 

in January of 2006, when Commissioner Montgomery charged us to 

get moving on this. 

Chairwoman WATERS. Thank you very much, Mr. Mahoney. 

I’d like to call on Mr. Sires now for questions, and following his 

questions, we have to break and go to the Floor. 

We do not want to keep you, Secretary Garvin. At the end of that 

time, you may be dismissed. 

Mr. GARVIN. Thank you. 

Chairwoman WATERS. Mr. Sires? 

Mr. SIRES. Well, Mr. Garvin, I guess you could say, ‘‘saved by the 

bell.’’ 

[Laughter] 

Mr. SIRES. But I have to tell you, I have a combination of a statement and a question, and I could not agree more with my colleague. As a former mayor, I cannot tell you how hard it was trying 

to put a senior project together in dealing with HUD. 

14

I think all the gray hairs that I had during my administration 

was dealing, trying to put together a project. It was impossible. 

You may say whatever you may here, but I lived it. I was in the 

trenches. I had the people in my office every day, and it is really 

a shame, in a country where the population is getting older, that 

our responsibility to take care of them sometimes is not looked 

upon as very important. I tell you that for seniors, the need is 

great. The need is great for seniors who are handicapped, and seniors who are blind. 

We have to find a way to streamline the process. I did tax credits. Between trying to get the property, trying to deal with you, trying to get the finances, trying to get—it took me more than a year, 

and I don’t know what we can do, and I’m hoping that this bill 

helps streamline the process, but when you make a statement that 

has been the reduction from a peak of creating 8,200 units to 4,500 

units, that, to me, is very bothersome. 

And to try to expedite this process, I think it should be in 

everybody’s interest. You use the money that you have there. Why 

is it so difficult for municipalities to put together a project to build 

a senior citizen project? Because you know what happens? Many 

people just surrender. Many municipalities give up on the process 

because they feel that HUD doesn’t care and they feel that it’s too 

hard to put it together. And by the time you finish the project and 

I’ll tell you my experience, your cost is 20 percent more, because 

construction goes up, property value goes up, so all I can say to you 

is that somehow we have to find a way to streamline the process 

and make it faster—put it on some sort of a fast track. 

Because there is a list. My housing authority had a list of about 

2,500 to 3,000 people, a waiting list. And I can tell you that more 

than half of those were seniors. 

So I guess that’s a statement, and it’s like I said to you before, 

you probably were saved by the bell. 

Do you have any comments about that? 

Mr. GARVIN. I just want to reiterate that we do care, and the 

issue of capacity is something we recognize deeply. We do have a 

predevelopment fund out there to get municipalities on board, so 

we’ll cover the cost for them to learn the program and do the 

predevelopment work on the deal. So, hopefully, that will add some 

of the local governments. 

Mr. SIRES. Well, Mr. Garvin, when you came in, you said from 

the peak of 8,200 units to 4,500 units. 

Mr. GARVIN. That’s annual production, though. I hope you recognize that within that, we are still funding rental assistance at tens 

of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, of dollars. 

Mr. SIRES. You see, you bring a lot of memories. I hate to interrupt. For one of the things we had to do, and HUD gave us permission for, is to bond in the future so we could fix the units, because 

there was no money for units to be fixed. 

So HUD gave the authorities permission to bond so they could 

fix up some of those units. That’s also something you have to look 

at. 

Chairwoman WATERS. Thank you very much. 

The Chair notes that some members may have additional questions for this witness, which they may wish to submit in writing. 

15

Without objection, the hearing record will remain open for 30 days 

for members to submit written questions and to place the responses 

in the record. 

This panel is now dismissed, and we would like to get to the 

Floor for the vote. I think it’s going to be about 20 or 25 minutes, 

and then we will return for the second panel. We thank you for 

your patience. 

[Recess] 

Chairwoman WATERS. The subcommittee will come to order, and 

we’re going to call on our second panel. 

Please come forward. Is Mr. David Lizarraga here? 

Oh, there he is. This is our first witness, Mr. David Lizarraga, 

president and chief executive officer of TELACU, a friend that I’ve 

known for many, many years, who has done tremendous work, not 

only on behalf of seniors, but on behalf of poor people, working people, and housing and community programs. I’m very pleased to introduce Mr. Lizarraga, who has served as chairman, president, and 

chief executive officer of TELACU for nearly 4 decades. 

With over $500 million in assets, TELACU operates the Nation’s 

largest community development corporation and is the 44th largest 

Hispanic business in the entire United States. Under Mr. 

Lizarraga’s leadership, TELACU has innovated in a wide range of 

areas, including its core approach of ensuring that its core for-profit businesses in the areas of financial services, real estate development, and construction themselves benefit the community as well 

as support TELACU’s nonprofit entities. 

In particular, TELACU has been a leader in leading the housing 

and social services needs of California’s elderly, including under 

the 202 program. Indeed, TELACU developed and operated two excellent 202 projects in my area—TELACU Terrace and TELACU 

Senior Housing. Therefore, I know, Mr. Lizarraga, that you will 

make a valuable contribution today to this subcommittee hearing, 

and consideration of H.R. 2930. I certainly look forward to your testimony. 

Also, we have Mr. Slemmer; a second witness will be Mr. Thomas 

Slemmer, chief executive officer of the National Church Residences. 

And is Ms. Maloney here? I think she would like to introduce our 

next witness, Ms. Kondor. 

Ms. Maloney? Ms. Maloney, would you like to introduce Ms. 

Kondor? No, is that Mr. Slemmer? 

Mrs. MALONEY. Mr. Mahoney does. 

Chairwoman WATERS. Oh, I’m sorry. 

Mr. MAHONEY. That’s okay. 

Chairwoman WATERS. Go right ahead. 

Mr. MAHONEY. I’m really excited about the fact that we have the 

executive director of Presbyterian Homes and Housing Foundation 

of Florida, Deje Kondor, with us. And I’m really very, very pleased, 

because there’s a lot of talk about working with faith-based organizations and concerns about Democrats and our commitment to 

working with organizations like this. 

And whether it be the Presbyterian Homes or the Catholic housing organizations over on the East Coast and Martin County, we 

have great organizations doing a wonderful job and we have great 

16

leadership. And I’m really pleased that Ms. Kondor is here from my 

district. 

Chairwoman WATERS. Thank you very much. 

Chairman Frank is not present, but I know that had he been 

here, he would like to have introduced Ms. Feingold. So, Ms. Feingold, thank you for being here. She’s our fourth witness, and she’s 

the president of the Jewish Community Housing for the Elderly. 

And Ranking Member Biggert, I know there’s someone you would 

like to introduce, Mr. Frigo. 

Mrs. BIGGERT. Thank you, Chairwoman Waters. 

Yes, I am delighted to introduce Michael Frigo, and I mentioned 

him before, but he is the vice president of Mayslake Village, which 

is located in Westmont, in my district, the 13th Congressional District. And Mayslake is a nonprofit organization which operates a 

low-income housing project, with 620 apartments on a 40-acre campus. And he’s managed this facility and during his tenure, has 

worked to complete six renovation projects at Mayslake, including 

projects with the help of HUD Section 202 program—replace 1960’s 

buildings with new buildings that could better serve the needs of 

seniors at Mayslake. And they just recently opened a new facility 

in Will County in Plainfield, Cedar Lake. 

Since 1992, he has been the vice president and he is a CPA, having worked at McGladry & Pullen as partner in charge of auditing 

and accounting services before coming to Mayslake. I’m happy to 

welcome him here. 

Chairwoman WATERS. Thank you very much. 

Our sixth witness will be Mr. Steve Protulis, president, Elderly 

Housing Development and Operations Corporation. 

Our final witness will be Ms. Terry Allton, vice president of support services, National Church Residences. 

Without objection, your written testimony will be made part of 

the record. You will now be recognized for a 5-minute summary of 

your testimony. 

We’ll start with Mr. Lizarraga of TELACU. 

STATEMENT OF DAVID C. LIZARRAGA, PRESIDENT AND CEO, 

TELACU/MILLENNIUM, LLC 

Mr. LIZARRAGA. Good morning, Chairwoman Waters, and thank 

you for your outstanding leadership over the years in every level 

of housing legislation, and many others as well. They have been 

very important to all our communities. 

Ranking Member Biggert and other members of the committee, 

thank you so much for giving us the opportunity to speak to you 

today. 

My name is David Lizarraga, and TELACU began developing 

senior housing in 1975. Today we own and operate Section 202 and 

tax credit-financed housing communities that serve thousands and 

thousands of low-income seniors and families in the greater Los 

Angeles area. The Section 202 program provides funding to address 

a particularly vulnerable group of seniors, those living on very low 

incomes and below 30 percent of the area median income level. 

However, while the Section 202 program is a very good and important program, it is in need of certain improvements that will 

allow it to much more effectively serve senior Americans. In 

17

TELACU’s extensive experience in the 202 program over the years, 

we have found that the repeated underfunding of the Section 202 

development awards, and operational subsidies, have made development more difficult to accomplish in recent years. The cumbersome process of working with HUD at both the local and headquarters level increases project delays by sending the developer 

through a very complicated process of underwriting. 

Currently, we must go through layers and layers of approval, including repeated requests for waivers from obsolete program provisions. H.R. 2930 will allow more discretion at the field office level 

where HUD staff members are much more familiar with projects 

and local conditions that require a variation from HUD policies. 

TELACU, like most nonprofit developers, spends a great deal of 

time looking for additional or ‘‘gap’’ financing from other programs 

and local governments to make up for shortfalls for HUD funding. 

It is not unusual for an average TELACU-sponsored 202 project to 

require funding from at least four different sources to cover shortages in project funding. 

May of those ‘‘gap’’ financing sources are awarded on a competitive basis and in funding rounds that rarely correspond with a Section 202 NOFA process. This means that TELACU’s development 

team must prepare additional applications and wait for award announcements before, during and after the Section 202 application 

process. As delays increase and construction costs rise, we now find 

that the amount of ‘‘gap’’ financing we ultimately need often turns 

out to be far greater than anticipated, forcing us and our team to 

return to those entities that made initial commitments to a project 

to ask for more additional funding. 

Many of the local governments we work with have expressed 

frustration that the Section 202 projects are beginning to feel like 

a ‘‘bait and switch,’’ with the developer returning to the city and 

making greater demands on their decreasing pools of resources. We 

believe that the additional discretion at the local level, as provided 

for in H.R. 2930, will help to reduce delays and consequently the 

gap we must fill to make projects a reality. 

It is a fact that nonprofit developers, HUD, and Congress must 

be more creative in using our resources to further our joint goal of 

providing more affordable housing. To this end, 2 years ago, 

TELACU made a proposal to HUD that would have allowed 

TELACU to refinance seven of our older Section 202 properties 

through a private funding source. This transaction would have generated approximately $800,000 annually in savings. 

We proposed that after repaying HUD’s debt, performing capital 

improvements on our senior housing, and increasing our building 

reserves, TELACU be allowed to create a revolving equity fund 

from its interest savings. That money would enable TELACU to leverage other financing to develop affordable homes for low-income, 

first-time home buyers. Home sales proceeds would have replenished the fund for new projects, and each year, this fund would 

have increased by another $800,000 generated by the interest savings from the 202 refinancing. 

Despite the fact that our plan at that time was overwhelmingly 

supported at the local level as a highly-creative model for expanding housing resources, and was looked upon very favorably by SecVerDate 0ct 09 2002 15:44 Dec 14, 2007 Jkt 039538 PO 00000 Frm 00023 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 K:\DOCS\39538.TXT HFIN PsN: TERRIE
18

retary Jackson, TELACU waited a year-and-a-half to have our request denied by HUD headquarters staff. We were informed that 

HUD did not want to approve the utilization of interest cost savings from 202 housing projects to benefit home ownership for lowincome individuals, and given the recent events in the credit markets that will negatively impact millions of low income homeowners, we find this decision to have been very unfortunate. 

While the refinancing provisions in H.R. 2930 may not allow 

TELACU savings from refinancing to be used as originally proposed, then TELACU would be able to now use 202 section refinancing proceeds in excess of our project capital repair to repair 

our housing, to reinvest it in our housing, and to address the funding gaps, our new senior housing projects, and to hire additional 

coordinators. 

You know, we get about 1,000 applicants for 75 units every time 

we build the 75 units. We literally have to go to a baseball field 

and have a lottery, so that in some way we not discriminate as to 

who is selected. But that’s the need that’s out there. This added 

flexibility will allow housing providers to meet the needs of their 

various communities with clear, focused direction, as opposed to a 

vague, drawn-out process of submitting requests to HUD with no 

idea if they fall within permissible policy or not. 

TELACU believes that H.R. 2930 will not only improve the ability of nonprofit organizations to develop new 202 properties, but 

that it will advance our collective goal of addressing the affordable 

housing shortage and the needs of senior Americans in an increasingly complex development environment. We must bring the 202 

program into the 21st century with creativity, vision, and fiscal responsibility. 

I would like to express my gratitude to Representative 

Mahoney—thank you very much for your very, very enlightened 

legislation that really addresses the need—Chairwoman Waters, 

and Ranking Member Biggert, and the members of the subcommittee present here today, for your leadership in making this 

possible. 

Thank you very much. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Lizarraga can be found on page 

79 of the appendix.] 

Chairwoman WATERS. Thank you very much. 

Mr. Slemmer. 

STATEMENT OF THOMAS W. SLEMMER, BOARD CHAIR-ELECT, 

THE AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF HOMES AND SERVICES 

FOR THE AGING 

Mr. SLEMMER. Thank you, Chairwoman Waters, and Ranking 

Member Biggert. And Mr. Mahoney, thank you very much for introducing this legislation. 

I am testifying this morning on behalf of the American Association of Homes and Services for the Aging. I am honored to be the 

chair-elect and serving on their board of trustees. We have 5700 

members in the American Association of Homes and Services for 

the Aging, all not-for-profits, 70 percent faith-based. We are a big 

proponent of affordable housing for seniors. Today, we are serving 

about 2 million seniors, so I come before you supporting this legisVerDate 0ct 09 2002 15:44 Dec 14, 2007 Jkt 039538 PO 00000 Frm 00024 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 K:\DOCS\39538.TXT HFIN PsN: TERRIE
19

lation and thanking you for your leadership in addressing what we 

think is a really critical issue here for us. 

I do serve as executive director for National Church Residences. 

We are one of the larger not-for-profit developers and operators of 

affordable senior housing in the country. We have two facilities in 

your district, Mr. Mahoney—one in Sebring, I believe, and Grove 

City—and also one in St. Louis, Roosevelt Apartments. And what 

we’re finding is an incredible need to make some changes in the 

202 program because of the aging portfolio. We’ve talked about the 

demand here today, lots and lots of demand. We see that not only 

as a demand for housing, but also for services. 

Our organization operates healthcare facilities, hospice, service 

coordination, assisted living, and nursing facilities. We have homeless housing, and what we see is that housing is really a solution 

of a lot of problems that are out there facing our aging consumers. 

So thank you so much for your support of this sorely needed legislation. 

I just want to quickly give you an overview of what this legislation does. One of the things it addresses is that we believe we’re 

losing affordable housing at a rate that is alarming. We think 

maybe we’re losing twice as fast as we’re building it—market rate 

forces in the areas where these communities are located, where 

there’s a lot of interest in market rate housing and also aging 

buildings. And H.R. 2930 provides an opportunity for you, I think, 

as well as our providers, to develop a financially-sound development and preserve this housing. 

I testified before a subcommittee like this about 5 years ago, and 

I said the 202 program was one of the best programs that the government ever came up with. I could not tell you that today. It’s not 

the case, and it’s primarily because of the complexity of the transactions that made development and preservation of these projects 

under the 202 program kind of a Herculean effort. 

The program needs an overhaul, and H.R. 2930 does that. The 

key provision that we’re looking at here is delegated processing. 

We’re suggesting that this legislation really addresses a major 

problem with HUD processing by shifting the processing of HUD 

funds over to State housing finance agencies and other State development agencies. The reason for that is that the tax credit program 

now accounts for the biggest development effort under affordable 

housing; and the 202 program oftentimes, the tail-wagging of the 

dog, where we have multiple sources of financing and yet the HUD 

regulations are getting in the way of sound development. In more 

and more deals, Section 202 funding is fully matched or even exceeded by other sources. 

Ideally, agencies that are administering HOME funds now and 

CDBG are maybe better prepared to serve as an allocating agency 

for the Section 202 grants. It’s particularly important if you’re 

going to do any kind of mixed financing with tax credits that we 

have kind of a simultaneous processing of 202 funds as well as 

other State and local and tax credit funding. 

HUD staff admit to us that they don’t understand tax credits and 

the complexities that go along with that. They don’t really have the 

time or the resources to learn it, and HUD rules are not well-suited 

to tax credit transactions. 

20

The other problem that this legislation addresses, the development cost limits, let’s just say very clearly, they don’t work. Everybody knows they don’t work. The pipeline problem often is caused 

by the underfunding of development costs as well as PRAC allocations. 

That’s the reason the pipeline is so long, because it requires 

sponsors to go out looking for funding and trying to pull together 

multiple sources of funding to make the program work. I don’t 

think 202 was intended to be that way when it was originated and 

certainly really requires a major problem to be addressed today. 

I would also say that this legislation addresses preservation. Preserving this housing stock is really important. In our written testimony, we talk about some of the examples of this. The older 202 

housing stock is really in need of preservation, and H.R. 2930 goes 

a long way to address this, primarily by coming up with a preservation voucher for 202 program sponsors that would allow lower income residents to stay in these buildings as we renovate them to 

the tax credit program. 

We discuss a lot more in our written testimony. I can’t go into 

all of it, but I would be glad to answer any questions about it. I 

thank you, Chairwoman Waters, and also Congressman Mahoney, 

for your leadership in sponsoring this legislation is sorely needed. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Slemmer can be found on page 

97 of the appendix.] 

Chairwoman WATERS. Thank you very much. 

Ms. Kondor? 

STATEMENT OF DEJE KONDOR, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, PRESBYTERIAN HOMES AND HOUSING FOUNDATION OF FLORIDA, 

INC. 

Ms. KONDOR. Good morning, Chairwoman Waters, Ranking 

Member Biggert, and distinguished members of the committee. And 

my special thanks to Congressman Mahoney. 

My name is Deje Kondor, and I am the executive director of 

Presbyterian Homes and Housing Foundation of Florida. I am honored to speak to you today as a member of FAHSA, the Florida affiliate of AAHSA, the American Association of Homes and Services 

for the Aging. 

We are a faith-based nonprofit organization dedicated to serving 

the housing needs of low-income seniors for over 40 years on the 

west coast of Florida. We receive our sponsorship through the Presbyterian Church, U.S.A., specifically two presbyteries, the presbytery of Tampa Bay and Peace River presbyteries. 

The Presbyterian Church does not provide us with any funding 

whatsoever. With over 3,000 units in 19 different communities in 

the State, we are the largest nonprofit sponsor of HUD housing in 

Florida. Of our 19 communities, 9 of them are 202s. H.R. 2930 can 

provide us with the tools to preserve our senior communities and 

build new ones. 

I want to talk first about our old 202s. We have four of those, 

totaling 816 units, but in those 816 units, only 43 of those units 

benefit from project-based, Section 8 rental assistance. 

21

The other very-low-income residents in those buildings would not 

be able to afford to stay there if we did substantial rehabilitation 

to the buildings, because the rent would have to go up. 

If H.R. 2930 were to become law, those very-low-income seniors 

would receive project-based rental assistance. We had, 2 years ago, 

received two low-interest, 1 percent, 15-year loans from the State 

of Florida to do elevator rehab at two of our old 202s. This past 

year, we applied and also were granted another 1 percent, 15-year 

loan at our community for over $500,000 from the State of Florida. 

We were told by HUD that we could not accept this loan, because 

the only moneys that we had to repay the loan were through operational funds derived from tenant rent. The HUD staff in Jacksonville told us that the sponsor could pay the mortgage payments on 

this low-interest loan, but not the community itself. So therefore, 

we had to tell the State of Florida that we could not accept the 

500,000, 1 percent loan. 

If this legislation were enacted, we could refinance the mortgages 

and accomplish the substantial rehabilitation that is necessary in 

these old 202s instead of a piecemeal approach. 

Refinancing. We refinanced two of our three 202s. It was an extremely laborious and complicated process and took much longer 

than projected. The direction provided by H.R. 2930 would make 

refinancing more direct and a lot easier. 

Our new development. We have experienced what every Section 

202 PRAC sponsor has experienced: insufficient construction dollars; insufficient initial budgets; and long time delays. Our newest 

property, which is Trinity Apartments of Lakeland, was opened in 

December of this past year. It’s a 70-unit, 5-story building with 73 

seniors currently living there. 

Before the building was even begun, the concrete costs were $359,000 more than originally budgeted. In addition to that, we felt 

that there was good cause to have an emergency generator at the 

property. It’s five stories. It’s located in Lakeland. It was hard hit 

in 2004 by Hurricane Charlie, Francis, and Jean. They had power 

outages for over 10 days. 

We were refused $30,000 for an emergency generator in a 5-

story, senior high-rise. We feel that local and State housing authorities could be more realistic at assessing what the needs of 

those communities are. 

I want to talk briefly about the obligations that HUD has to provide rent increases to cover operating costs, which of course include 

insurance. Our organization from 2004, we spent a little under 

$700,000 in insurance premiums. Our October 1, 2006, bill was 

$1.25 million. HUD has repeatedly refused to grant us rent increases to cover these deficits in funding to pay our insurance premiums. 

We are hopeful that Congress will demonstrate some direction 

and national policy to support affordable senior housing. We believe that H.R. 2930 offers a ray of hope for assuring the future of 

all Section 202 senior communities. 

Thank you for considering this legislation, and I encourage you 

to support H.R. 2930. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Kondor can be found on page 72 

of the appendix.] 

22

Chairwoman WATERS. Thank you very much. 

Ms. Feingold? 

STATEMENT OF ELLEN FEINGOLD, PRESIDENT, JEWISH COMMUNITY HOUSING FOR THE ELDERLY, BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS 

Ms. FEINGOLD. Thank you very much for inviting me to appear 

before you, Chairwoman Waters and Ranking Member Biggert, and 

all our heartfelt thanks to Congressman Mahoney for his work on 

bringing this bill forward. 

I am Ellen Feingold, the president of Jewish Community Housing for the Elderly in Massachusetts. And in 2001 and 2002, I was 

co-chair of the congressionally mandated Commission on Affordable 

Housing and Health Facility Needs for Seniors in the 21st Century 

that really set the context for this legislation, which JCHE strongly 

supports. 

We have developed and operate over 1,050 apartments for lowincome elderly in Boston and Newton, Massachusetts, and are currently developing another 150 units in Framingham. We have 

1,300 people on our waiting list. We’ve also refinanced and are 

close to the end of renovating one of our developments, an occupied 

building that opened in 1973 with 256 apartments. 

For years, it’s been our mission to enable our frail, low-income, 

elderly residents to live out their lives in the JCHE homes without 

having to move to a higher care facility. We’ve been exceptionally 

successful; only 2 to 3 percent of our residents move to a nursing 

home. The average age in our buildings is over 80; the average income is under $9,000 a year, and on average, people live in our 

buildings over 11 years. That is what a 202 program can do. 

We are very grateful to the committee for drafting this legislation. It covers a lot of issues we wrestle with. Many of us on this 

panel are faith-based, non-sectarian, large and small, dedicated to 

providing decent and supportive housing to elderly people with low 

incomes. But our job has gotten harder and harder over the past 

decade, to the point that where our public policy and programs are 

intended to produce this kind of housing, in practice the obstacles 

tell a different story. 

When we started, we built our first 202 development with 243 

apartments in 1971 with one 202 mortgage that paid every penny 

we needed to complete the building, which is still 100 percent occupied. Today, we are in the process of developing a 150-unit, mixedincome building with 50 Section 202 units, 40 tax credit units, and 

60 market units. But that’s not all. We’ll have a State housing finance agency mortgage, grants from the State’s Priority Development Fund and Affordable Housing Trust Fund, two other State 

housing grants, grants from foundations that support ‘‘green’’ 

buildings, a sponsored contribution of the developers fee, plus $5 

million we’ve had to raise from foundations and other donors to 

make the pro forma work; nine sources with all of the inconsistencies and timetables, etc. 

One little contradiction, an example. The HUD 202 maximum 

unit size is smaller than the tax credit minimum unit size. Both 

agencies look at each other and say, we’re right. But the major result is pipeline delays that have caused an inflation of cost for this 

23

project of 50 percent over the past 21⁄2 years. You know, if HUD 

can’t fully finance the low-income housing that is its mandate, it 

has to help mixed financing work. And I have a lot of respect for 

Secretary Garvin, but the fact of the matter is they have not helped 

mixed financing work. 

Our organization, helped by Congressman Frank, whom we salute, and Congressman Capuano, put the mixed income financing 

on the books. That was 6 years ago. HUD has not helped make it 

work. It is counterproductive, wastefully expensive, and unfair to 

make organizations like us resolve these conflicts. H.R. 2930 addresses many of the problems we faced. HUD has historically taken 

the position that nonprofits are incompetent to manage their own 

money. 

As the committee well knows, the developers over the years of 

202 housing have had the fewest problems of any government-supported housing. Yet HUD’s effort to keep the money under control 

has reached an extreme where organizations like ours find ourselves with our surplus proceeds, which are investor contributions, 

now locked up in a Section 8 set-aside for future Section 8 needs. 

In other words, investors in a tax credit program designed to create new housing, more housing, that money is replacing money 

that HUD should be spending on Section 8. My written testimony 

gives you a blow-by-blow description of the woeful process that we 

went through to get to this point, but we were not even permitted 

to use the funds for cost overruns in the rehabilitation and for hiring additional support staff to assist tenants in their 80’s and 90’s 

to pack their belongings, cover their furniture, and leave their 

apartments at 8 a.m. each day while the construction was in process. Why is that not an appropriate use of investor proceeds? 

One other issue I would just like to raise is that many of us 

around the table who use the 202 program have also used other 

Federal and State housing finance agency programs to develop 

housing and run it as if it were a 202. All of our buildings are funded under five different Federal and State programs, and all utilize 

Section 8 subsidies for the rents. 

I want to thank you again for having us here. It’s a pleasure. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Feingold can be found on page 

46 of the appendix.] 

Chairwoman WATERS. Thank you very much. 

Mr. Frigo? 

STATEMENT OF MICHAEL FRIGO, VICE PRESIDENT, 

MAYSLAKE VILLAGE, WESTMONT, ILLINOIS 

Mr. FRIGO. Chairwoman Waters, Ranking Member Biggert, and 

the entire committee and staff, I’d like to thank you for giving me 

the opportunity today to speak to you regarding this very important matter of senior housing. 

My name is Mike Frigo, and I’m the vice president of Mayslake 

Village, which is located in Westmont, Illinois, approximately 15 

miles west of downtown Chicago. Mayslake Village has been a 

partner with HUD since 1960. We currently have five different 

HUD-sponsored buildings with 622 apartments on our campus. Our 

oldest building goes back to 1971. In 1971, the subsidy on this 

24

building was a 3 percent mortgage with a 50-year amortization and 

no rent assistance. 

The main reason I am here today is to discuss H.R. 2930, which 

speaks of some very important, exciting amendments to the HUD 

Section 202 program. All of the proposed items mentioned in this 

amendment make a great deal of sense and will allow us to preserve our oldest project, which is in deep financial trouble. This 

oldest project is known as the Center Building. It is functionally 

obsolete. It has 100 efficiency apartments that are no longer rentable. These are the only efficiencies among the 622 apartments on 

the campus. This building also has 50 one-bedroom apartments, for 

a grand total of 150 apartments in the Center Building. 

The efficiency apartment’s living space is only 300 square feet, 

compared to the one-bedroom apartments, that are 540 square feet 

in size or more on our campus. We have no demand for the efficiency apartments, and there is no waiting list for them, either. 

Currently, 85 of the 100 efficiency apartments are sitting empty, 

and as our older residents vacate these 15 units, we expect that 

they, too, will become empty. 

Our problem at Mayslake Village in renting these efficiency 

apartments is so bad that 2 years ago, after Hurricane Katrina hit 

New Orleans, we had five senior citizens who had evacuated from 

New Orleans come to Mayslake Village seeking shelter. Of these 

five senior citizens, only two would accept the efficiency apartment. 

The other three informed me that they would rather squeeze in 

and stay with their families than move into a 300-square-foot efficiency apartment. 

Today, only one of those two people still lives at Mayslake, as the 

other person moved out a few months after moving into our facility, 

stating to me that the small space was driving her crazy. Since we 

have such a large number of empty apartments in this building, we 

have experienced significant financial losses over the last 5 years, 

totalling $1.58 million. We have used our own funds to cover these 

losses so the building could remain solvent. However, we are running out of funds. For the last year ended June 30, 2007, we have 

put $400,000 of our own money into this building to keep it afloat. 

We do have a practical and efficient plan prepared to rehabilitate 

this building. It calls for taking two efficiency apartments and combining them into a one-bedroom apartment, which would measure 

approximately 600 square feet. Ultimately, this would result in creating 50 one-bedroom apartments, which I know we would be able 

to rent immediately. In addition to that, we would also need to 

modernize the existing 50 one-bedroom apartments, because they 

have the original bathrooms and kitchens from 1971. 

We have been working on this rehabilitation project for the past 

3 years with our architects, engineers, and consultants, and they 

inform me that if we were to start this construction today, it would 

cost approximately $10 million. In contrast, I have also been told 

by our experts that if we were to construct a new building with 100 

one-bedroom apartments, it would cost approximately $15 million. 

Thus, by rehabilitating this building, we would save approximately 

$5 million. 

H.R. 2930 would create a senior preservation rental assistance 

contract which would allow our property to be refinanced and rehaVerDate 0ct 09 2002 15:44 Dec 14, 2007 Jkt 039538 PO 00000 Frm 00030 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 K:\DOCS\39538.TXT HFIN PsN: TERRIE
25

bilitated. Additionally, this amendment would give our residents a 

rental assistance program, which we have never had for this building since its inception in 1971. Both the funding to rehabilitate and 

a rental assistance program would enable us to keep this building 

going for another 40 years. 

In closing, I would like to again thank you for giving me this opportunity to speak to you about Mayslake Village and the importance of passing H.R. 2930. These changes will benefit all of our 

low-income seniors in the United States. 

I thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Frigo can be found on page 65 

of the appendix.] 

Chairwoman WATERS. Thank you very much. 

Mr. Protulis? 

STATEMENT OF STEVE PROTULIS, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, ELDERLY HOUSING DEVELOPMENT AND OPERATIONS CORPORATION (EHDOC) 

Mr. PROTULIS. Good morning, Chairwoman Waters. 

First of all, let me just thank you for giving us the opportunity 

to speak to such wonderful persons as yourself and the ranking 

member of the minority. 

Let me just say to you the following thing: I am not going to read 

my statement, because I am going to speak from my heart. 

The organization I represented many years ago in Washington 

was the National Council of Senior Citizens. And about 10 years 

ago, I became the CEO of a company that created a lot of 202s 

through participation from the Congress. I learned a new experience, and I learned the unbelievable crisis that we have in this 

country. I got a little bit upset when after spending 18 months 

after Senator Sarbanes appointed me to the commission to review 

affordable housing for seniors. 

We spent unbelievable energy between Republicans and Democrats, appointed by both sides, from this book, and what happened 

to this book remains on the shelves. No one ever bothered to open 

it up and study the hard work of citizens like ourselves, to learn 

and to help each other. And we had several debates; our co-chair 

can tell you. We spent hours and hours, debate on both sides of 

both groups, trying to find a common ground. 

One of the things that we recommended was that 40,000 units 

were needed every year to even come close to the need of Section 

202, the best-running program in this country. There’s never been 

a single scandal ever in Section 202 at any point of mismanagement by anyone in this country. 

So what happened now? We get less than 4,000 units for the 

whole country, and properties in 14 States I have, like in the State 

of Florida, I have over 1,000 people in each property waiting. 

And let me just tell you what happened to me yesterday. I flew 

in from Cleveland. I spent 5 years to finish a project of 40 units 

in the most devastated part of Cleveland. And I could not have 

enough money from the Federal Government to finish the 202, and 

I was lucky enough, because of my background with the labor 

unions, to get the City of Cleveland to donate $257,000 worth of 

26

project and the State of Ohio to donate $600,000 so we can make 

the ends meet. 

So yesterday we cut the ribbon. We have 40 units in there. We 

have 40 seniors, happy as hell, for living in dignity in their olden 

days. And what happened to us? We have to have a part-time manager, because there’s not enough resource in the program to have 

a full-time manager, a part-time maintenance person. And guess 

what? No money for the service coordinator. So we, in our organization, subsidize those people so they can serve those seniors after 

the money and the project was given by the government. It doesn’t 

make sense. 

The way we do it now is we have so little money for so few applications to be approved, that the government cuts the units to a 

lower level. Everybody at this table can tell you, if you get less 

than 60 units, you are going to lose money the first 5 years. It is 

impossible to continue saying that we support Section 202, and we 

tighten everything. And then we deal with a bureaucracy of the 

HUD government, where in my opinion, one of the things you’re 

going to find is a lot of people have left HUD and retired. 

And the brains and the memories of the efforts that were made, 

do you realize that 5 years ago, they cancelled the library in HUD 

so there’s no history of things that can be asked for people that are 

experts of the government to help people like ourselves? 

I can tell you. I can go on or not. I know one thing: you give me 

5 minutes of my life to come and tell you, I can spend 5 hours, and 

the rest of us can do the same. It’s about time. 

I am so pleased to introduce this legislation and I promise you 

not only that, but if you look behind me, when I was testifying as 

a member, I always bring seniors. The seniors behind me come 

from Council House, and they have come up here and demonstrated and testified many times about many issues before, and 

are ready to go on the streets and do what it takes to make sure 

that we take care of the seniors’ indignity and the government’s 

sponsor. 

You know, I don’t know anything about tax-graded, and I had to 

learn about tax-graded, because what has happened from HUD? 

They’re pushing more tax-graded, because that seems to be the direction they want to go, and I couldn’t believe when the Secretary 

of HUD said one day when he testified that that’s the direction we 

should go in housing. 

I don’t believe that’s the direction we should go. We can use the 

entrepreneurs. We can use the tax-graded, but we should not abandon a 202 Section. It’s the best program ever created in this country. 

Thank you very much. I appreciate that. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Protulis can be found on page 86 

of the appendix.] 

Chairwoman WATERS. Thank you. Thank you very much. 

Mr. Allton? 

27

STATEMENT OF TERRY ALLTON, VICE PRESIDENT OF 

SUPPORT SERVICES, NATIONAL CHURCH RESIDENCES 

Good morning, Chairwoman Waters, Ranking Member Biggert, 

and other members of the committee. Thank you very much for inviting us here today. 

My name is Terry Allton, and I am vice president of support 

services at National Church Residences. That means that I have 

the responsibility of making sure that our 160 service coordinators 

that we have in 28 States across the Nation have adequate tools 

and resources so that they can go and help the seniors who live in 

our buildings. 

My primary job is working with service coordinators, and so 

that’s what I want to take a minute to talk to you about. The reason we’re so excited about this particular legislation is it’s going to 

provide and open up a revenue stream of funding for service coordination that doesn’t currently exist. 

Congress provided appropriations for HUD service coordinator 

grants in Section 202s; however, HUD refused to allow PRACs to 

be eligible for the service coordinator grants. So there is very little 

cash and very little ability to finance service coordinators in those 

PRAC Section 202 communities, which is very challenging for us. 

And I wanted to make sure that you understood how important 

service coordination is. And the best way for me to tell you that is 

to share a story. 

Marsha Powell, who is a service coordinator in Clinton, North 

Carolina, shared a story with me about a resident who came to our 

building. This gentleman, an elderly gentleman, lived in a tobacco 

barn. He took a bath in a stream. That’s where he got his drinking 

water. He ate meals at a gas station where the local gas station 

owner would provide him food and let him use the rest room. The 

gas station owner became very concerned about him. It was going 

to get cold. Winter was coming, and he happened to hear about a 

property down the street that was for low-income elderly, and the 

gas station owner came down and got an application for the gentleman. He was eligible to move in. We were very fortunate to have 

a vacancy, so he was able to take that. Now, that’s not where the 

story ends. This gentleman had nothing. He had no furniture. He 

had no clothes. He has no food. He has no forks, knives, utensils. 

And the service coordinator (this is where they’re so important and 

where they come into play) was able to get donations from local 

churches. She brought in different agencies, different volunteer 

programs, and was able to provide this gentleman with a furnished 

apartment with clothes, food, pantry. And that’s why this program 

is so important. 

We do a great job providing the housing, but if you are our average resident, aged 79, your average income is a little bit more than 

Mr. Garvin said. It’s around $10,018 a year. And 40 percent of the 

residents who live in our building are frail, so they don’t have a 

lot coming in. So the housing is the one big piece, but the second 

big piece is how are they going to continue to live and not have to 

choose between food, rent, and prescription drugs. 

And in our organization, we found that it’s very important to 

make sure that if we’re going to take that money from the Federal 

Government, we need to show that we have positive outcomes. And 

28

we know that when a resident works with one of our service coordinators, 91 percent of the time, those residents are able to age in 

place. It is excruciatingly important that they do not have to go to 

nursing homes unnecessarily, and that they do not have to go to 

the hospital unnecessarily. We are able to take care of them in 

their home where they want to live, and in many cases, our residents live in our buildings for 20 or 25 years. 

The other thing that is very important for us to know is that 

when a resident works with a service coordinator, they’re able to 

save that resident on average $279 a month in expenses. And if 

you remember, I just said their average annual income is $10,000. 

That’s a third of their annual income. That is huge for them, and 

that’s why residents will say when you go and talk to them about 

their property they’re very blessed and very thankful to have that 

unit that they know they’re able to live in. But they are even more 

grateful that they have the service coordinator, because it allows 

them to live in a safe place, but then also have food, prescription 

drugs, clothing, furniture, and all those other things that are excruciatingly important. 

So I thank you very much for allowing this bill to be presented. 

We are strongly supportive of it. We hope that we continue to find 

more avenues to fund service coordination and affordable housing, 

because housing with services is going to be able to have the potential to save Medicare and Medicaid hundreds of thousands, if not 

millions of dollars if we can really invest in that type of program. 

So thank you very much for the time. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Allton can be found on page 39 

of the appendix.] 

Chairwoman WATERS. Thank you very much. 

Let me thank all of you for the services that you are providing, 

the leadership that you are providing, and for being here today to 

help us understand better what we can do to be of assistance to 

you as you provide these housing opportunities for our seniors. 

Let me start with, I think, Mr. David Lizarraga, because I want 

to make sure I understand. I personally am interested in flexibility. 

I think that in order to be creative, you need flexibility. 

You have described in so many ways how some of the rules and 

regulations of HUD just do not allow you to be able to do the best 

job. I think I’m interested in the refinancing aspect of all of this, 

and I believe that your ability to refinance perhaps could go a long 

way toward helping to rehab and revitalize these projects. And I 

want to make sure that we do everything that we can to do that. 

But in addition to revitalization, if you had the flexibility to use 

funds from the refinancing efforts, what are the other kinds of 

things you would do with that? Starting with Mr. David Lizarraga. 

Mr. LIZARRAGA. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. 

Well, first of all, we would have to utilize those sources to meet 

the major need. That major need is making sure that the senior 

housing stock that we have built in the last 30 years is still meeting all the standards and needs that HUD requires. 

Chairwoman WATERS. Okay. 

Mr. LIZARRAGA. And so that would be the first priority. The second priority we use would be you use some of those resources for 

additional services for those seniors who so badly need the supVerDate 0ct 09 2002 15:44 Dec 14, 2007 Jkt 039538 PO 00000 Frm 00034 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 K:\DOCS\39538.TXT HFIN PsN: TERRIE
29

portive services. In any event, you know, as I indicated, the model 

that we presented 3 years ago, and you’ve heard the message, that 

was then and this is now. Right? 

Chairwoman WATERS. Yes, Mr. Frank says it all the time. 

Mr. LIZARRAGA. Yes. That was a concept that met the approval 

of the staff at HUD at every level. And at the end they finally said, 

you know what? We don’t like the idea, because we shouldn’t be 

leveraging dollars for other than senior housing. 

That’s okay with us. I saw at the need at that time that maybe 

there would be a more varied response to the utilization of those 

dollars, however, the fact is that that equity is lying there, sitting 

there, providing no service to anybody. And that money can be leveraged with additional dollars to meet the tremendous need. And 

it’s revenue-neutral. It doesn’t cost the government one single dollar more. Okay? 

So what would we be doing? We’d be accessing capital and 

leveraging assets on the properties. We would be accessing lower 

rates. Okay? 

In addition to that, we would be raising the cap on supportive 

services. All those are the things that seniors need, and it’s just 

lying there dormant. In addition to refining, I think, the outdated 

legislation that’s there and rules and regulations that are there, to 

streamline the process. You have heard testimony after testimony 

after testimony about how we need to be gatherers. 

You know, the HUD dollars simply do not meet that need, so we 

have to go to 20 percent set-aside redevelopment dollars. We have 

to go to other sources of funding, like in the County of Los Angeles, 

as you know, in the City of Los Angeles, we use industry dollars. 

Other cities that don’t want to use their 20 percent set-aside dollars for any type of senior housing or low-income housing, grant it 

to the county so that they can deliver it in other areas other than 

themselves. 

So that’s what we have to do, and this would be another way of 

leveraging dollars that in other words would not be utilized. 

Chairwoman WATERS. Thank you so much. 

I wanted to ask, I think it is Mr. Frigo. You described these efficiencies that you would simply like to combine two and get 600 feet 

of space. You have the plans. You know what you need to do, and 

I know that you need to have resources to do it with. You are continuing with the plans. Does this bill help you to be able to do that 

and to make good sense out of it? The idea that those properties 

are sitting vacant just tears me apart. 

Mr. FRIGO. Yes, Chairwoman Waters, it does. We have been 

meeting with HUD, and they basically have said that you can look 

to pay off the mortgage and go find some other financing. And 

we’ve looked for other financing through the housing development 

authority, but that would raise the rents, as one of my other colleagues said, ‘‘considerably,’’ so it would no longer be affordable. 

So this bill would greatly help us because it would allow us to 

refinance and then allow us to take those efficiencies and convert 

them. 

As I mentioned in my testimony, as soon as we convert them to 

one-bedrooms, they would be rented. 

Chairwoman WATERS. Wow, that’s great. 

30

Mr. LIZARRAGA. So that would be very helpful. 

Chairwoman WATERS. Thank you very, very much. 

I think, Mr. Slemmer, you had your hand up. You wanted to 

share something with us? 

Mr. SLEMMER. Well, I just wanted to support the other testimony, as HUD already has the discretion, we believe, to allow excess funds to be put in a trust fund. There are examples that happened around the country where HUD could put restrictions on it 

for use for affordable housing development or land acquisition for 

affordable housing development to have sign-off control. 

So it’s not like the money is going to be squandered at all. In 

fact, it’s a waste of money, we believe. Transactions we did in California where you have excess funds available, HUD requires you to 

just put it in reserve for a property that doesn’t need it. So it really 

is kind of ridiculous, and we think this legislation will solve that 

problem. 

Chairwoman WATERS. That’s excellent. Thank you very much. 

I’m going to recognize Ranking Member Biggert for questions. 

Mrs. BIGGERT. Thank you. 

Mr. Slemmer, you said that there was going to be a need for an 

additional 730,000 units by 2020. The program has been flat-funded, although there was a cut by the Administration and then the 

appropriations authorization has going up to being flat-funded from 

2007 to 2008 in the appropriations bill. 

What role can the program play to meet the need then, the 202 

program? 

Mr. FRIGO. Thank you very much. 

The program, I think, provides a vital piece of affordable housing 

spectrum in that it really serves very-low-income seniors with services in that housing. There are other programs. There are voucher 

programs that you are funding, as well as the tax credit program. 

But we think this legislation allows you to leverage the 202 funding so they can really provide more housing than it’s producing 

now and also provide more services. 

Right now there are so many bottlenecks that prevent this program from being efficiently operated that we think it can be used 

and the money can be added to this to really provide a very significant piece of that 730,000 units that are going to be needed. 

Mrs. BIGGERT. Thank you. 

And Mr. Frigo, you know, I’ve been to see these efficiencies, and 

they really are small. But the building itself seems to be in pretty 

good shape and not quite as nice as the new facilities that you built 

recently. So, do you think it’s more economical to refurbish those 

units rather than to start over again? 

Mr. FRIGO. Yes, Congresswoman. We actually had our engineers 

look at the building and they came back and they said, you do not 

want to waste the money to tear this building down. It lends itself 

very nicely for rehabilitation, and it would be a crime to tear the 

building down because it is structurally sound. 

Mrs. BIGGERT. Is there any rule or regulation? It just seems to 

come to mind that if you refurbish, you have to provide the same 

number of units, like a one-for-one unit? 

Mr. FRIGO. There is. 

Mrs. BIGGERT. And is that the problem that you have? 

31

Mr. FRIGO. That’s one of our problems. So in our case, where we 

have 100 efficiency apartments and we convert them into 50 onebedrooms, we would have to find 50 units to replace the 50 that 

disappeared with the conversion. And when I first heard that rule, 

I thought it was a joke. And when no one was smiling from the 

other side from HUD, I said, so how do you do this? 

It was analogous to me of the Wizard of Oz, where they say, go 

find the witch’s broom. I thought, how do you do this? So we’ve 

been trying to work that through, too, but that is a very difficult 

requirement to meet, for obvious reasons. 

Mrs. BIGGERT. So do you think this bill that’s been introduced 

will alleviate that? 

Mr. FRIGO. It would greatly assist us in what we’re trying to do, 

absolutely. 

Mrs. BIGGERT. But what does it do for the one-for-one. Does it 

change the regulation? Is it a regulation? 

Mr. FRIGO. My understanding that it makes it easier to take 

those efficiencies and convert them into one-bedrooms. So I don’t 

know the specifics of all of it, and maybe somebody in the room 

does. But my understanding is that it would eliminate that roadblock of the one for one replacement, is my understanding. 

Mrs. BIGGERT. What we’ve seen thus far, it says that it’s going 

to clarify that the reconfiguration of efficiencies to one-bedroom 

apartments is permissible where projects are struggling with vacancies and obsolete units. So it sounds like it, but I’m going to 

have to check out the language, and maybe Mr. Mahoney knows a 

little bit more about that. 

Mr. SLEMMER. I don’t believe it’s in the statute now. I think this 

basically allows HUD not to require that one-for-one provision, so 

I think it directly deals with this and would solve the problem. 

Mrs. BIGGERT. Thank you. Would it also enable you to have the 

rent assistance so that it matches what the other buildings are? 

Mr. FRIGO. The rent assistance would be invaluable, because currently the rent in that building is about $400 a unit, and it’s not 

based on the individual’s income. So we often have residents who 

come to us who want the existing one-bedrooms in that building, 

and because of their incomes, the rent would be in excess of 30 percent. 

So we’re fortunate enough to be able to put them in other buildings, but the rent assistance would be the other wonderful portion 

of that, changing the bill to allow us to offer that to the residents. 

Mrs. BIGGERT. So in some cases the efficiency could cost more 

than a one-bedroom. 

Mr. FRIGO. Absolutely, absolutely. And again, when you try to explain this to an elderly person, they look at you like you have three 

heads. And they say, ‘‘Well, how can that be?’’ And I said it’s a 

HUD rule. That’s why we’re fortunate enough with the other buildings on our campus to say, well, let’s not have you move into the 

Center Building. Perhaps you could move into one of our other 

buildings where there is the rent assistance. 

Mrs. BIGGERT. Do you have waiting lists for the other buildings? 

Mr. FRIGO. Yes, we get five to ten phone calls a day, and like the 

rest of my colleagues here, we have a wait list of over a couple hunVerDate 0ct 09 2002 15:44 Dec 14, 2007 Jkt 039538 PO 00000 Frm 00037 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 K:\DOCS\39538.TXT HFIN PsN: TERRIE
32

dred. And we stop it and cap it off; otherwise, we would be up into 

the thousands. 

Mrs. BIGGERT. All right. Mr. Protulis, where do these people go? 

I mean, what do they do until they get off the wait list? 

Mr. PROTULIS. I’d like to, first of all, wish that you could come 

to one of our properties and see their faces when they call us after 

a couple of weeks and find out their name moved up in the list. 

And I’d like you to see also in South Beach, in one of the most wonderful areas, most expensive real estate, we have two gorgeous 

properties where our poor seniors live, where they’re among the 

rich and famous. And I want you to see sometimes in the evening 

when a senior brings their meal from the room and they feed the 

homeless people who sleep between cars. 

I mean, that’s the real world where we live every day. And I hope 

that you don’t take my passion as who is a lunatic, but as an 

American who fought in Vietnam, and believes in the strong America that we have. 

To your question earlier, what this bill does to the increase of the 

need, the answer is that it doesn’t do anything. We are trying to 

find resources to maintain what we have today, because in the 

study we have in our commission, 33 percent of the stock that we 

have on 202s are being opted out. 

In many cases, a lot of people don’t even have the opportunity 

to learn what we know in this organization, because we have multiproperties. They are single individuals. They have work from a 

church or from a group. They are actually starving to find ways, 

and there is no resolve from anyone to help that hundred units. 

So where do the seniors go? I tell you where they go. They go 

to their families. They go to shelters, like in some cases cities provide them. And in most cases, they are individuals. They actually 

live in multi-couples and sleeping two or three of them at a time. 

I promise you that if you see some of the seniors, when they take 

that first step to a brand new room, you will never forget their 

faces, because it’s almost like a new day for them. And remember, 

some of us have been in this business. We have an age population 

between 79 to 82 years old. And as the fastest-growing age population, and we have the baby boomers coming, so. 

Mrs. BIGGERT. Well, thank you very much for your passion. 

Thank you. I yield back. 

Chairwoman WATERS. Thank you so very much. 

Mr. Clay? 

Mr. CLAY. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman, and let me thank 

you for conducting this hearing as well as thank my colleague from 

Florida, Mr. Mahoney, for the introduction of this bill. 

I’d like to start the questioning with Mr. Slemmer, who has a 

property in the City of St. Louis you mentioned, Roosevelt Apartments, and Roosevelt happens to be across the street from my district office. A wonderful facility, I notice that the residents appreciate living there. 

I heard one witness say that it’s more cost-effective to renovate 

an older building. Have you found that to be the case, that it’s 

more cost-effective to renovate than to build new? 

Mr. SLEMMER. Right. It’s considerably less expensive. We average, I think, about $70,000 a unit hard cost in 202s. It’s a lot more 

33

in other parts of the country, Los Angeles, I’m sure. But the renovations are coming in at $20- to $30,000 a unit, and many of these 

older properties for $20- to $30,000 a unit, you can get another 30 

years of life, so it’s significantly less expensive. 

Mr. CLAY. I raise the issue, because in St. Louis, we have a troubled property for aging seniors called Council Towers, built in the 

mid-1960’s. It is now roach-infested, rodent-infested, and has broken elevators. And what is HUD’s initial reaction when you bring 

this to their attention, that these are problem properties? What has 

been your experience with HUD? 

Mr. SLEMMER. Well, it varies across the country. Some HUD offices are better than others. But the primary problem we have with 

HUD is that they are kind of trapped by their own set of regulations. So we have a property like you mentioned in Sandusky, 

Ohio, and it’s a property that was sponsored by the Kiwanis Club. 

It’s built back in the late 1960’s, and we have several problems 

that arise. 

Will there be existing HUD debt on that property that has to be 

forgiven or somehow subordinated? That’s a big problem for HUD. 

Oftentimes, you reconfigure units. That’s a big problem for HUD. 

So you get trapped in the HUD regulations oftentimes, and trying 

to combine the tax credit timing cycles with HUD ability to make 

approvals is really a serious problem. 

Secretary Garvin talked about HUD being interested in preservation. I think they are. They’re talking about it. I think they need 

an ombudsman or somebody that really expedites this process, because preserving affordable housing is complicated. It’s tricky. And 

HUD regulations need to be interpreted, and they don’t have anybody on their staff that knows how to do that, really. 

Mr. CLAY. Thank you for that response. 

Ms. Feingold, HUD has said that there is a 30 percent increase 

in the 2008 Section 202 request. Is this enough money? And, if not, 

what funding level is needed? 

Ms. FEINGOLD. Thank you for that question, Congressman. In the 

Seniors Commission Report in our research, we documented that in 

2002, there was a shortage of 6.1 million units of housing to serve 

people with the most serious needs, either financial needs or health 

needs or the condition of their housing needs. And we projected 

that the need would go up to $7.5 million in 2020, if we didn’t do 

anything. And the truth is, we haven’t done anything since 2002. 

The minority report of the Seniors Commission recommended 

that we develop 60,000 units of 202 a year. That won’t fill the gap, 

but it at least will show a commitment to trying to fill the gap and 

it will begin to house the serious need we see right now. 

The question was raised, what happens to people when their 

rents go up. With another of my hats, I’m a founder of something 

called the Committee to End Elder Homelessness in Boston. The 

number of elder homeless has doubled in the last 5 years. And 

what happens to elderly people who are homeless? You know the 

answer. They die. We are consigning old people to death with some 

of the things we’re doing for lack of commitment to a serious attempt to meet the needs that we have now, and they are growing 

into the future. 

I’ll stop. I get excited. 

34

Mr. CLAY. Thank you so much for your response. I thank the 

panel for their testimony. 

Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. I yield back. 

Chairwoman WATERS. Thank you very much, Congressman Clay. 

And now, we’re going to go to the author of the legislation, who 

should be feeling tremendously proud based on the testimony that 

we have heard here today. This bill is going to indeed change lives, 

protect people, and provide opportunities that never would have 

been available, but for what you are doing. 

And I want you to know that if what you have heard today, that 

there is a need to additionally do a little bit more amending or adding, you have the support of your colleagues to do that. And I certainly hope that we do everything that we can to give the flexibility 

and allow for the creativity in order to preserve and expand, and 

provide more services to you, Mr. Mahoney. 

Mr. MAHONEY. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. 

I’m going to quickly ask you each a question, and then I’m going 

to make some comments. And then I’m going to come back to you, 

and I want it to be very succinct. 

My interest is, and I appreciate the support for many of the comments, but I want to know from each of you very succinctly, what 

is one thing that we could do to make this bill better, that would 

make life better? And while you’re thinking about that, I just want 

to say that, you know, I appreciate it. 

I mean, I was a businessman 2 years ago, and you know, there’s 

a large part of life you don’t see. And I’m blessed to have had the 

opportunity to do some public service and to go out into the community and to see the needs. And I think America is blessed to 

have people like yourself who are battling for them. But I’m also 

blessed to have the leadership of Chairwoman Waters and the people on this committee who not only allow you to see problems, but 

to have the wisdom and experience of working so many years on 

this issue to be able to help people like myself do something meaningful. 

The other thing I’m going to say is that this is an issue of dignity. This is a national moral issue. This is an issue of priorities. 

This country has the resources to take care of its people with dignity without raising taxes. Not everything in life can be fixed by 

a tax cut and a prayer. Okay? And this is one of these issues that 

needs to be done. 

So my question is, what is the one thing that we could do to 

make this a better bill, to cut through the bureaucracy, to whatever, to make this more meaningful so that you can do your jobs? 

Mr. Lizarraga? 

Mr. LIZARRAGA. Yes. Allow us to refinance and leverage these 

dormant assets in order we can reinvest back into the housing 

stock and the service of the seniors. 

Mr. MAHONEY. Thank you. 

Mr. SLEMMER. I think the most important piece of legislation is 

a voucher or preservation voucher so that the older 202s, when 

they’re rehabbed, the residents in there can stay in place at the 

same rent. That needs to be strengthened, I think, a little bit. 

Ms. KONDOR. I also have seven 236 properties with very little 

Section 8 assistance in those properties, as well. We have many 

35

very-low-income seniors who don’t receive it, and I’d like to see 

those Section 236 people be able to benefit, too, in the event we refinance those facilities. 

Ms. FEINGOLD. I would like to broaden what my colleague just 

said. I think the single most important thing that you can build 

into this bill is ways to make the regulations of the various programs work better together. For example, we’re talking about helping the refinancing and the use of surplus resources for 202s. We 

need the same rights for 236. 

That’s the problem my organization has dealt with, the tax credit 

programs. These are regulated by IRS. Somebody has to sit down 

and put together the necessary regulations and statutory requirements of those programs so that they work together. It should not 

be so hard to make these things work together. 

Mr. MAHONEY. Thank you. 

Mr. FRIGO. I’m going to stay on the Section 236 theme a little 

bit, because we have the same situation with another building that 

we did not discuss today. And that would be very helpful, again. 

Oftentimes, we have to refer people from that building—that’s 

the 236—to another building, because of the Section 8. But as far 

as what you put together here, I would like to commend you again, 

because it greatly helps us with our efficiency problem. So thank 

you. 

Mr. PROTULIS. My God, asking me for one statement is like asking if it’s going to— 

Mr. MAHONEY. We’re all praying. 

[Laughter] 

Mr. PROTULIS. I will try to say to you that the fully funding of 

construction of the way the program is working today, we are already behind the eight-ball when you get your award. It is unbelievable that those of us that worked so hard to get a meager 40 

or 50 units, we have to go hustle extra money because the government does not want to give us a full-funded construction for properties that we deserve and we show a need. And the government 

seems to know when they give us the money, that we’re already behind the eight ball, and they say well, that’s what you get. You 

don’t want it, I have somebody else waiting for it. 

That, in my opinion, is wrong. 

Ms. ALLTON. I would just add that in the legislation I’m very 

thrilled to see that funding would be allowed to use for service coordination. What I would like to see is that it’s not—it’s a nice allowance, but it’s an absolute requirement. 

Because what tends to happen is when developers or owners are 

looking at their budgets, they will tend to opt-out of that service 

coordination line item, because it costs too much money in a very 

competitive environment. 

So to put everybody at the same table, you know, around the 

table, to make it a requirement, not an option. 

Mr. MAHONEY. Could you do me a great favor and put this in 

writing and send that to me so we can look at things to do to 

amend? 

And again, Chairwoman Waters and Ranking Member Biggert, I 

am honored to be here today to be part of this hearing. It’s very 

36

gratifying, and it’s again wonderful to be working under your leadership. Thank you. 

Chairwoman WATERS. Thank you so much, Mr. Mahoney. And I 

want to congratulate you for putting together a wonderful piece of 

legislation that’s so desperately needed. And again, I want to congratulate you for raising that last question of what else possibly 

can be done to make it even a stronger bill. And we await your 

leadership with whatever additions, amendments, again. I certainly 

believe that you’re going to have support from both sides of the 

aisle. 

Don’t you think, Mrs. Biggert? 

[Laughter] 

Chairwoman WATERS. Thank you all very much. 

The Chair notes that some members may have additional questions for this panel, which they may wish to submit in writing. 

Without objection, the hearing record will remain open for 30 

days for members to submit written questions to these witnesses 

and to place their responses in the record. Thank you so much. The 

panel is now dismissed. 

[Whereupon, at 12:38 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.] 

(37)

A P P E N D I X

September 6, 2007

38


39538.001
39


39538.002
40


39538.003
41


39538.004
42


39538.005
43


39538.006
44


39538.007
45


39538.008
46


39538.011
47


39538.012
48


39538.013
49


39538.014
50


39538.015
51


39538.016
52


39538.017
53


39538.018
54


39538.019
55


39538.020
56


39538.021
57


39538.022
58


39538.023
59


39538.024
60


39538.025
61


39538.026
62


39538.027
63


39538.028
64


39538.029
65


39538.009
66


39538.010
67


39538.030
68


39538.031
69


39538.032
70


39538.033
71


39538.034
72


39538.035
73


39538.036
74


39538.037
75


39538.038
76


39538.039
77


39538.040
78


39538.041
79


39538.042
80


39538.043
81


39538.044
82


39538.045
83


39538.046
84


39538.047
85


39538.048
86


39538.049
87


39538.050
88


39538.051
89


39538.052
90


39538.053
91


39538.054
92


39538.055
93


39538.056
94


39538.057
95


39538.058
96


39538.059
97


39538.060
98


39538.061
99


39538.062
100


39538.063
101


39538.064
102


39538.065
103


39538.066
104


39538.067
105


39538.068
106


39538.069
107


39538.070
108


39538.071
109


39538.072
110


39538.073
111


39538.074