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) 512–2250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402–0001

26–237 PDF 2006

H.R. 1999—THE STATE AND LOCAL

HOUSING FLEXIBILITY ACT OF 2005

HEARING

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON FINANCIAL SERVICES

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED NINTH CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION

MAY 11, 2005

Printed for the use of the Committee on Financial Services

Serial No. 109–28

(

(II)

HOUSE COMMITTEE ON FINANCIAL SERVICES 

MICHAEL G. OXLEY, Ohio, Chairman

JAMES A. LEACH, Iowa 

RICHARD H. BAKER, Louisiana 

DEBORAH PRYCE, Ohio 

SPENCER BACHUS, Alabama 

MICHAEL N. CASTLE, Delaware 

PETER T. KING, New York 

EDWARD R. ROYCE, California 

FRANK D. LUCAS, Oklahoma 

ROBERT W. NEY, Ohio 

SUE W. KELLY, New York, Vice Chair 

RON PAUL, Texas 

PAUL E. GILLMOR, Ohio 

JIM RYUN, Kansas 

STEVEN C. LATOURETTE, Ohio 

DONALD A. MANZULLO, Illinois 

WALTER B. JONES, JR., North Carolina 

JUDY BIGGERT, Illinois 

CHRISTOPHER SHAYS, Connecticut 

VITO FOSSELLA, New York 

GARY G. MILLER, California 

PATRICK J. TIBERI, Ohio 

MARK R. KENNEDY, Minnesota 

TOM FEENEY, Florida 

JEB HENSARLING, Texas 

SCOTT GARRETT, New Jersey 

GINNY BROWN-WAITE, Florida 

J. GRESHAM BARRETT, South Carolina 

KATHERINE HARRIS, Florida 

RICK RENZI, Arizona 

JIM GERLACH, Pennsylvania 

STEVAN PEARCE, New Mexico 

RANDY NEUGEBAUER, Texas 

TOM PRICE, Georgia 

MICHAEL G. FITZPATRICK, Pennsylvania 

GEOFF DAVIS, Kentucky 

PATRICK T. MCHENRY, North Carolina 

BARNEY FRANK, Massachusetts 

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 

DARLENE HOOLEY, Oregon 

JULIA CARSON, Indiana 

BRAD SHERMAN, California 

GREGORY W. MEEKS, New York 

BARBARA LEE, California 

DENNIS MOORE, Kansas 

MICHAEL E. CAPUANO, Massachusetts 

HAROLD E. FORD, JR., Tennessee 

RUBE ́ N HINOJOSA, Texas 

JOSEPH CROWLEY, New York 

WM. LACY CLAY, Missouri 

STEVE ISRAEL, New York 

CAROLYN MCCARTHY, New York 

JOE BACA, California 

JIM MATHESON, Utah 

STEPHEN F. LYNCH, Massachusetts 

BRAD MILLER, North Carolina 

DAVID SCOTT, Georgia 

ARTUR DAVIS, Alabama 

AL GREEN, Texas 

EMANUEL CLEAVER, Missouri 

MELISSA L. BEAN, Illinois 

DEBBIE WASSERMAN SCHULTZ, Florida 

GWEN MOORE, Wisconsin, 

BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont

ROBERT U. FOSTER, III, Staff Director 

(III)

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

Hearing held on: 

May 11, 2005 ..................................................................................................... 1

Appendix: 

May 11, 2005 ..................................................................................................... 45

WITNESSES 

WEDNESDAY, MAY 11, 2005

Jackson, Hon. Alphonso, Secretary, U.S. Department of Housing and Urban 

Development ......................................................................................................... 4

APPENDIX 

Prepared statements: 

Oxley, Hon. Michael G. .................................................................................... 46

Velazquez, Hon. Nydia M. ............................................................................... 48

Jackson, Hon. Alphonso ................................................................................... 49

ADDITIONAL MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD

Frank, Hon. Barney: 

American Association of Homes and Services for the Aging, Council for 

Affordable and Rural Housing, Institute for Real Estate Management, 

Institute for Responsible Housing Preservation, National Apartment 

Association, National Affordable Housing Management Association, National Association of Affordable Housing Lenders, National Association 

of Homebuilers, National Housing Conference, National Leased Housing Association, National Muti Housing Council, letter, April 28, 2005 .. 58

ACORN, American Association of People with Disabilities, American Network of Community Options and Resources, The Arc of the United 

States, Call to Renewal, Catholic Charities USA, Child Welfare League 

of America, Children’s Defense Fund, Coalition on Human Needs, Consortium for Citizens with Disabilities, Corporation for Supportive Housing, Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, Jesuit Conference USA, 

Lutheran Services in America, National Advocacy Center of the Sisters 

of the Good Shepherd, National AIDS Housing Coalition, National Alliance for the Mentally Ill, National Allicance of HUD Tenants, National 

Association of Protection and Advocacy Systems, national Coalition 

for the Homeless, National Council for Community Behavioral 

Healthcare, National Council on Independent Living National Fair 

Housing Alliance, National Law Center on Homelessness & Poverty, 

National Low Income Housing Coalition, National Student Campaign 

Against Hunger and Homelessness, National Mental Health Association, NETWORK, A National Catholic Social Justice Lobby, Poverty 

and Race Research Action Council, Technical Assistance Collaborative, 

United Cerebral Palsy, United Jewish Communities, United Spinal 

Association, United Way of America, Volunteers of America, Wayne 

Sherwood and Associates, letter, May 10, 2005 ......................................... 60

Consortium for Citizens with Disabilities, prepared statement ................... 62

Council of Large Public Housing Authorities, prepared statement .............. 68

Lawyers Committee for Civil Rights, letter, May 10, 2005 .......................... 70

Jackson, Hon. Alphonso: 

Written responses to questions from Hon. Deborah Pryce ........................... 75

(1)

H.R. 1999—THE STATE AND LOCAL 

HOUSING FLEXIBILITY ACT OF 2005

Wednesday, May 11, 2005

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, COMMITTEE ON FINANCIAL SERVICES, Washington, D.C. 

The committee met, pursuant to call, at 2:02 p.m., in Room 2128, 

Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Michael Oxley [chairman of 

the committee] presiding. 

Present: Representatives Oxley, Ney, Kelly, Gillmor, Shays, Miller of California, Tiberi, Kennedy, Brown-Waite, Pearce, 

Neugebauer, Davis of Kentucky, Frank, Waters, Velazquez, Watt, 

Carson, Sherman, Lee, Moore of Kansas, Crowley, Lynch, Miller of 

North Carolina, Scott, Davis of Alabama, Green, Cleaver, Moore of 

Wisconsin, and Jones of Ohio. 

The CHAIRMAN. [Presiding.] The committee will come to order. 

Pursuant to rule 3(a)(2) of the rules of the Committee on Financial Services for the 109th Congress, the Chair announces he will 

limit recognition for opening statements to the Chair and ranking 

minority member of the full committee and the Chair and ranking 

minority member of the Subcommittee on Housing and Community 

Opportunity or their respective designees to a period not to exceed 

16 minutes, evenly divided between the majority and minority. Prepared statements of all members will be included in the record. The 

Chair recognizes himself now for an opening statement. 

Today the Financial Services Committee again welcomes the Secretary of the Department of Housing and Urban Development, 

Alphonso Jackson, to discuss the details of the Administration’s 

proposal to overhaul the housing choice voucher program. Commonly known as the Section 8 program, the Housing Choice Voucher Program reflects a major commitment on the part of the Federal 

Government to assist low-and very low-income families who are unable to pay market rents in their communities. 

While this program has succeeded in providing secure, safe, and 

affordable housing, this program comes at a high cost. Over the 

years, the cost of the housing choice voucher has continued to increase. In 1998, the housing certificate fund consumed 42 percent 

of HUD’s annual budget. In 2005, HUD predicts that the program 

will consume 62 percent of its budget and in 2006 it will surpass 

73 percent. 

These cost increases can be attributed to a number of factors. 

The current voucher program operates under a complex set of regulations which makes the program overly prescriptive and difficult 

to administer. The value of a voucher is calculated as roughly the 

2

difference between rents in a community and 30 percent of participating household’s incomes. In recent years, rents have been rising 

faster than incomes, which have driven up the cost of a voucher 

and, therefore, the cost of the program. Even though the cost of the 

program continues to increase, the number of people served has remained roughly the same. 

Of equal concern is the fact that the rising cost of this program 

has begun to impact funding for other key housing programs. 

Funding levels for other important housing programs such as 

CDBG, HOME, and housing opportunities for people with AIDS, 

were reduced below their 2004 appropriation level to cover the cost 

of the Housing Choice Voucher Program. 

The spiraling cost of the Housing Choice Voucher Program dictates that we reevaluate the program to determine how best to create a more efficient and effective way of providing rental assistance 

to the neediest low-income families in this country. In 2003, the 

Administration proposed a State-run block grant model for housing 

assistance for the needy. The Subcommittee on Housing and Community Opportunity held a series of hearings on this proposal, but 

in the end no legislative action was taken on the Administration’s 

proposal. 

In the last Congress, the Administration proposed a different approach. Instead of a block grant to the States, the Administration’s 

Flexible Voucher Program envisioned a dollar-based grant program 

to be administered by public housing authorities. While the Flexible Voucher Program was not considered by the 108th Congress, 

the appropriators did include provisions in the 2005 Consolidated 

Appropriations Act moving the program from a unit-based program 

to a dollar-based program. This year, in conjunction with the dollar-based budget approach, the Administration has proposed a new 

version of its flexible voucher program. 

I would like to take this opportunity to acknowledge Congressman Gary Miller for his excellent work on this issue. Mr. Miller, 

along with six original cosponsors from this committee, introduced 

the Administration’s new proposal, H.R. 1999, the State and Local 

Flexibility Act of 2005. This proposal makes significant changes to 

the Housing Choice Voucher Program by providing greater flexibility to public housing authorities to manage their individual 

budgets. I trust that the introduction of the Administration’s proposal by Congressman Miller will move us closer to consensus on 

reforms that will not only preserve the program for those that truly 

need it, but that will address the program’s spiraling cost. 

We are pleased to have Secretary Jackson with us again today. 

I believe this is your third appearance before this committee this 

year, but who is counting? I know that many here today are anxious to learn more about the new Section 8 initiative. 

The Chair’s time has expired. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts, Mr. Frank. 

[The prepared statement of Hon. Michael G. Oxley can be found 

on page 46 in the appendix.] 

Mr. FRANK. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I think it is probably because of the disruption of today that we 

are so sparsely attended, Mr. Secretary. It is no disrespect to you, 

but I think the evacuation kind of threw people’s schedules off and 

3

I think several of our colleagues were disappointed to get the all 

clear. Not that they were hoping for any disaster, but that they 

thought we might as well just take the rest of the day off. So I 

think that accounts for the small attendance. 

I am very troubled by this proposal. Let me say first of all, it is, 

as the chairman mentioned, another effort by the Administration 

to reduce Section 8 costs. Previous efforts have encountered a 

firestorm of opposition, as you know, and people had to back off. 

I think there are some elements of this when they get carried out 

that would have the same kind of problem. 

I should say this. I understand this program costs some money, 

but as I look at money we spend elsewhere in the budget and as 

I look at the tax cuts and other factors, I think it is a mistake to 

say that we must start out with some kind of pre-set target for cutting the Section 8 voucher program. I am all in favor of trying to 

improve the efficiency of this program. The gentleman from Ohio 

who is not here, Mr. Ney, had convened a couple of very important 

meetings with a variety of people, including HUD, to talk about 

how we might improve Section 8, how we might make it more efficient, how we might reduce costs. 

I continue to want to participate in that, and I think there are 

some things we can do. What we have here today are cuts that are 

driven, I believe, clearly by a need to save money at a time when 

we are spending money significantly elsewhere, on the military and 

elsewhere, when we are cutting taxes. I reject the notion that it 

has to come out of the poorest people. 

Here are some of the things that I have a problem with. First, 

the proposal to end enhanced vouchers. Enhanced vouchers are 

themselves a compromise. Enhanced vouchers, as we know, go to 

people who are living in housing that was built with Federal aid 

and where there were to be limitations on the rent. Those limitation periods having expired, the purpose of the enhanced vouchers 

was to prevent eviction for people who have been living in places 

for a long time. 

I will be interested, Mr. Secretary, if you could tell me, I assume 

you know this, having made this proposal, how many evictions we 

can expect when we get rid of the enhanced vouchers. That is, how 

many people who are now on enhanced vouchers will be unable to 

stay where they have been living for a long time, including many 

of them who are elderly, when we cut this back? 

I am also concerned about what this does for the homeless. You 

have said on other occasions, Mr. Secretary, that I have seen in the 

newspapers that we should be aiming to help people in Section 8 

who are not quite as poor as the current group we are helping. This 

brings in more money. The Administration has proposed some very 

useful things with regard to Section 8, proposing to consolidate 

services with regard to the homeless. But we must remember the 

single overriding characteristic of the homeless is the thing that 

earns them their name. They are home-less. They do not have 

homes. 

If you are able to get the Section 8 voucher program geared at 

people at higher levels, if you get up toward 60 percent of median 

income rather than below 30 percent, then it seems to me, inevitably, you will be hurting the homeless. I would be particularly inVerDate 0ct 09 2002 16:05 Mar 22, 2006 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 G:\DOCS\109.28 RODNEY
4

terested in HUD’s analysis on what you expect to happen when we 

relax the targeting, when you no longer have this requirement that 

so much go to people below 30 percent of the income. 

I do not claim to be the world’s expert, but I have encountered 

myself very few homeless people who have 50 or 55 percent of the 

median income in their area. I believe when you consciously upgrade, as it appears we are trying to do, you will have a problem. 

I would also ask to put it in the record, Mr. Chairman, a letter 

from the Lawyers Committee for Civil Rights letter. 

The CHAIRMAN. Without objection. 

Mr. FRANK. I have appreciated your affirmation of the importance of fair housing, of fighting segregation, of fighting the concentration of poor people. I was particularly troubled, therefore, to 

see in the proposal as it was explained to me, a proposal that 

would make it harder for people to take a Section 8 voucher in one 

community and go to another community. Basically, the bill appears to give the receiving community the right to veto people with 

Section 8 vouchers coming in. That seems to me to be an invitation 

to segregate and concentrate. 

As I understood it, you could get your Section 8 voucher in community A and then you could use that anywhere else you could find 

a place with community A’s permission. To give all the receiving 

communities a right of veto over the people who would be coming 

with the Section 8 vouchers, I am very disturbed by that. I thought 

HUD agreed that we have a problem with people resisting the construction of housing and causing problems and causing segregation 

as a problem. 

We have the CDBG proposal that was going to say that money 

could only be spent in the poorest areas. Cumulatively, we are 

doing a lot to prevent effort concentration here, whether it is racial 

or economic. So I do not understand what the justification can be 

for giving receiving entities the right to say no to people bringing 

a Section 8 voucher. I do not even see how that saves money, and 

I do not think saving money ought to be every piece of it. 

So those are just some of the things that are very troubling to 

me about this. I look forward to our discussion of them. 

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman’s time has expired. 

We will turn to our distinguished witness. 

Again, Secretary Jackson, welcome back to the committee. We 

appreciate your efforts on behalf of the committee and your steadfastness in going through a number of hearings. 

STATEMENT OF HON. ALPHONSO JACKSON, SECRETARY, U.S. 

DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT 

Secretary JACKSON. Thank you very much, Chairman Oxley and 

Ranking Member Frank, distinguished members of the committee. 

Thank you for inviting me to join you this afternoon. 

I am pleased to appear before the committee to discussion H.R. 

1999, the State and Local Housing Flexibility Act of 2005. I would 

like to thank Representative Miller and his cosponsors on this committee, Representatives Feeney, Harris, King, and Renzi, for their 

leadership in introducing H.R. 1999. 

Mr. Chairman, I ask that I be allowed to submit my full statement for the record. 

5

Each day, I bring more than 25 years of direct experience in 

housing, much of it gained in the public housing arena, to my job 

as Secretary. In fact, I am the first Secretary in the history of HUD 

to have run a public housing authority. I fully understand the importance of HUD’s supportable housing program, and I support 

them wholeheartedly. 

My experience allows me to tell you without hesitation that reform of both public housing and Section 8 is needed. Under Section 

8, HUD provides approximately two million low-income families 

with subsidies to afford decent rental housing in the private market, yet the program faces serious challenges. In recent years, Section 8 costs have spiraled out of control and positive results are 

being overshadowed by the lingering doubt about the program’s effectiveness and viability. 

With Congress’s support, however, I am hopeful that we can preserve and strengthen the program. The most telling indicator of the 

Section 8 structural challenge is the program’s rising cost. In 1998, 

the housing certificate fund consumed 36 percent of HUD’s budget. 

By 2005, that had risen to 57 percent. Between December 2000 and 

December 2004, the amount paid by the Federal Government increased by 36 percent, totaling more than $3.3 billion. 

The cost increase occurred even as the market across the country 

exhibited record high vacancies and many PHAs reported that 

their rental markets were soft. In fact, in some rental markets Section 8 is leading the surge of rental increases. Despite rising costs, 

we are not seeking equally dramatic results in moving families 

from dependency to self-sufficiency. Families are staying in the program for a much longer duration of time and the waiting list remains troublesome. 

As currently structured, PHAs are required to give three out of 

every four vouchers to families making 30 percent or less of area 

median income. This has led to a high rate of subsidies per family 

and created a system where families are most likely to stay in the 

program much longer. We believe that since 1998, families have 

been in the program for longer than 5 years, representing the fastest growing segment of the voucher recipients. 

Furthermore, the Section 8 program is overly prescriptive and 

too complex. Over the past 2 years, HUD has engaged in numerous 

discussions with PHA directors, housing policy and industry experts, Members of Congress, and interested parties on how best to 

address the challenges facing the Section 8 program. The result of 

these policies is a proposed State and Local Housing Flexibility Act 

of 2005. The Administration is convinced that this approach will 

enable PHAs to better serve low-income families, reduce the waiting list for vouchers, and move more working families toward selfsufficiency and homeownership. 

The proposed legislation would put more decisionmaking at the 

lower levels and allow PHAs to run a more streamlined program 

while requiring them to control costs. As more families move up to 

self-sufficiency, the duration of assistance will drop and the dollars 

will be available to help additional families over time. H.R. 1999 

also takes the initiative to provide long awaited rental simplification relief for PHAs in their operating public housing programs. 

6

Finally, Title I of H.R. 1999 is the flexible voucher program 

which allows the local PHAs to determine the approximate mix of 

low-income families to be served by targeting 90 percent of all assistance to those earning at or below 60 percent of the area median. PHAs would also be allowed to create incentives for voucher 

recipients to find work or improve their job situation and create 

new options for families pursuing homeownership. PHAs would be 

able to design their own tenant policies and simplify rent calculations, thereby reducing the number of errors. 

Finally, the proposal would significantly reduce unnecessary administrative burdens on the PHAs. The 35-year history of tenantbased housing assistance for low-income renters has been one of 

growth, refinement, and responsiveness. It has been a history of 

change. There is no question that change is urgently needed once 

again. It must happen soon if we are to continue to serve families 

that need Federal help and continue to provide for the individuals 

who seek the American dream of self-sufficiency. 

I look forward to the work ahead as we seek to improve the nation’s largest rental assistance program. I would like to thank all 

the members of the committee for your support of this effort that 

we are doing at HUD. I welcome your guidance as we continue to 

work together. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Mr. Ranking Member. 

[The prepared statement of Hon. Alphonso Jackson can be found 

on page 49 in the appendix.] 

Mr. MILLER OF CALIFORNIA. [Presiding.] Thank you, Mr. Secretary. 

Currently, voucher recipients can keep their vouchers as long as 

they remain income eligible and adhere to the rules, of course. 

Can you explain the provisions that were included in the Administration’s proposal regarding time limits and basically why you 

feel time limits would be important, and how the disabled and elderly would fit under that in particular? 

Secretary JACKSON. I will answer the latter part first. The disabled and elderly would not be affected at all. They would, in effect, be grandfathered in because we realize that in many case 

their income level will never change. But we felt deeply that pre1998 that the average stay on the voucher was about 3 1/2 years. 

Today, we are looking at somewhere between 5 to 8 years on the 

voucher. 

My understanding in filling the voucher program was that it was 

a transitional program, Mr. Chairman, not a substitute for public 

housing. We believe that giving the housing authorities the option 

of limiting the amount of time that recipients can stay on the Section 8 program will open up more space for the availability of those 

people on the waiting list. So we think that Section 8 is a transition between public housing and self-sufficiency. If that is the real 

case, then it should not be in perpetuity. 

Mr. MILLER OF CALIFORNIA. I also wanted to mention we had a 

roundtable, and Scott Keller was there, and Mr. Frank and other 

members, a few other members, Congresswoman Waters. I thought 

it was healthy. One thing that I guess is more of a comment, but 

prior to your becoming Secretary, we went through the first proVerDate 0ct 09 2002 16:05 Mar 22, 2006 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00010 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 G:\DOCS\109.28 RODNEY
7

posal, which was to block grant. We got no takers in the entire 

country. So we went through that whole thing. 

We did not have an authorization and, of course, appropriations 

comes in and Section 8 grows. I understand that, and then all of 

a sudden Section 8 grows, and if not, more money does not go in. 

The end result is other good programs such as the homelessness, 

AIDS, veterans, a lot of other programs are going to get eaten up, 

basically, after a period of time. 

So we had the roundtable. I guess it is sort of like education. You 

can reform education to death, and people have to catch a breath. 

So we kind of went from this one proposal, and then it stopped. 

Now we have this one. I want to thank you for coming. I think the 

roundtables are a more informal way to continue to get more issues 

laid out there. 

But on proposals like this, the caution that I have is that when 

they are done, how are they implemented after that; how is it carried out; what kind of huge turnover occurs, not turnover of people, 

but of the system, occurs out in the hinterlands? And does it cost 

more money to actually make change? I think those are some 

things with these kinds of proposals that are problems. 

A question I had, with my limited amount of time, but in the 

written testimony, the current voucher program encourages disincentives for very low-and extremely low-income families from 

seeking housing outside the Section 8 voucher program. 

The proposal today would broaden the target assisted population, 

so that if that proposal would be enacted, what happens to the very 

low and the extremely low families? Would there be some other assistance for the extremely low and very low? 

Secretary JACKSON. Actually, Mr. Chairman, if we look at what 

we have designed, we said that 90 percent of the vouchers should 

be used for persons 60 percent or less of median. If we go back to 

the present proposal that we have before us, 75 percent of those 

must be used for people 30 percent or less of median, and 25 percent for those up to 80 percent of median. We have effectively cut 

out those persons between 60 and 80 percent down to 10 percent. 

So actually, we are serving more people when we said 90 percent 

of the vouchers must be 60 percent of median or less. We believe 

that clearly those persons who are presently on vouchers will not 

be affected at all, unless they leave the voucher program. If they 

do, then the housing authority has the right to seek others to take 

up the voucher. But the housing authority also under our proposal, 

Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member, they do not have to go up to 

60 percent if they choose not to. We are giving them that option. 

That is not something that we said is mandated. We are saying 

that they should have the option to serve 90 percent of their vouchers to 60 percent or better of median. 

I think that is a rational way of doing it. I do not think that anyone in the low-income bracket will be displaced, as long as they already have a voucher. 

Mr. MILLER OF CALIFORNIA. I have heard from groups. They 

would say that this proposal would help the more higher affluent 

of the poor. In other words, not wealthy people, but this would not 

come in to help the poor of the poor. It would help the poor, but 

the more higher end of that, not that they are rich. I am not trying 

8

to say that. I do not know if you have heard this argument, but 

it still comes back to this really will not help the poor of the poor. 

Secretary JACKSON. Well, my answer to that, Mr. Chairman, is 

that when we are talking about 30 percent of 60 percent of median, 

we are talking about marginal people, period, in our country. I do 

not believe that you should have two persons working every day 

who could benefit from the voucher, but because they make 35 percent of median, they are, in essence, foreclosed from having the opportunity to use the voucher. They are in need also. 

If you go back to pre-1998, there were two unique provisions to 

the law. The first was that the homeless population rose to the top 

of the list no matter where they were. Secondly, people who did 

make up to 50 percent of median had the same rights as the person 

making 30 percent of median. All we asked them to do was to go 

back to pre-1998 to that provision, where people stayed a lesser period of time in the voucher program. 

Now, the one provision that does not exist today is the homeless 

provision. I have heard the advocates talk about, well, the homeless persons are going to be disadvantaged. Well, they are clearly 

disadvantaged today. They do not rise to the top of the list anymore. They do not get the preferential treatment that they did pre2000. 

So clearly I think we are going to serve more people. The voucher 

will turn over much quicker, and it will be more effective. 

Mr. MILLER OF CALIFORNIA. My time has expired. 

The gentleman from Massachusetts? 

Mr. FRANK. Let me begin with that one. 

Frankly, I am confused, Mr. Secretary, because I think you are 

arguing both sides of the issue. On page five, you seem to say that 

you want to get to people with more income in the program. 

Secretary JACKSON. I am sorry. I did not hear you. 

Mr. FRANK. You, on the one hand, have been arguing that one 

of the virtues of your proposal is that it will get people on the 

whole with higher incomes than are currently in it, but then you 

say it is not going to hurt the lower-income people. Well, it is zerosum game, particularly under your approach. 

With regard to the homeless, I do not understand. You say that 

this does not hurt the homeless. To the extent that you ratchet it 

up, it seems to me that you are going to have a problem. People 

who were homeless and are now living in housing, no, they are not 

affected. 

But when you talk about people who are currently homeless applying, does your proposal do anything to enhance their ability to 

get into public housing or into Section 8 vouchers? 

Secretary JACKSON. I think that is a fair question, Mr. Ranking 

Member. Let me say this to you. No, the preferential treatment of 

the homeless has been dismissed——

Mr. FRANK. Does your proposal do anything to improve the position of the homeless? 

Secretary JACKSON. No, it does not. 

Mr. FRANK. When you do not do anything to improve it substantively and when you bring the targeting basically from 30 percent to 60 percent, I think you have a negative effect. 

9

Let me ask you about the enhanced vouchers. As I understand 

it, you are abolishing enhanced vouchers after a year. Right now, 

people who are now living in projects that are no longer incomelimited are able to stay because of enhanced vouchers. If they cannot meet the new market rent, they will have to move. Is that 

right? 

Secretary JACKSON. No. 

Mr. FRANK. Well, how does it work then? 

Secretary JACKSON. Again, if you look at my initial speech, we 

are talking about housing authorities having a great deal of flexibility with the move to work. What we are saying is——

Mr. FRANK. Excuse me. I am not talking about move to work. 

Now wait a minute. Enhanced vouchers, as I understand it——

Secretary JACKSON. I am going to get to that. 

Mr. FRANK. But I want you to get to it before my 5 minutes expire. Here is the problem. Are you telling me that housing authorities would have the power to go above the FMRs? 

Secretary JACKSON. Housing authorities have the power right 

now to go above the FMRs. 

Mr. FRANK. On their own say, whenever they want to? They do 

not think that. 

Secretary JACKSON. No, they have to come back to——

Mr. FRANK. Well, right now we have something called enhanced 

vouchers, which are for people who are in this situation which we 

know about, so they do not get evicted. You want to abolish them. 

What is the effect? 

Secretary JACKSON. No, we are giving the housing authority the 

flexibility again, Mr. Ranking Member——

Mr. FRANK. Then your people did not do a very good job of explaining to me. Everything I have seen says you are going to abolish enhanced vouchers. 

Secretary JACKSON. We believe that clearly——

Mr. FRANK. Are you going to abolish enhanced vouchers? Mr. 

Secretary——

Secretary JACKSON. No, we are not abolishing enhanced vouchers. 

Mr. FRANK. Well, it says you are. 

Secretary JACKSON. No, we are not. No, we are not. 

Mr. FRANK. Then correct what your people give out. 

Secretary JACKSON. No, we are not. 

Mr. FRANK. That is what they told us. 

Secretary JACKSON. They have a year. 

Mr. FRANK. What does it say with regard to enhanced vouchers? 

Secretary JACKSON. They have a year to have the enhanced 

voucher, and if they choose to stay in that particular building, they 

have a right to pay a higher cost. 

Mr. FRANK. Would you read me the language that says that? 

Would you explain to me why your people came to me and showed 

me a paper that says we were going to abolish enhanced vouchers? 

Other people have that same impression. 

Secretary JACKSON. They did not say they were abolishing enhanced vouchers——

Mr. FRANK. But they did, Mr. Secretary. I read it. 

10

Secretary JACKSON. No, they said that they have a year. That is 

not abolishing enhanced vouchers. 

Mr. FRANK. It says it would abolish them after a year. 

Secretary JACKSON. Yes, but the way you just asked me a question——

Mr. FRANK. Excuse me. Okay. 

Secretary JACKSON. You said——

Mr. FRANK. No, I did say you would give them a year. So you 

acknowledge that you are going to abolish them after one year. 

Secretary JACKSON. Yes. 

Mr. FRANK. That is not funny, Mr. Secretary——

Secretary JACKSON. It is not funny because——

Mr. FRANK. Look, I must say I try to be reasonable. I do not 

think you are cooperative in trying to give me honest answers. I 

asked you if you were planning to abolish enhanced vouchers. I did 

say after a year, so let’s be careful. Your bill would if passed as 

submitted abolish enhanced vouchers after one year? 

Secretary JACKSON. Yes. 

Mr. FRANK. Thank you. What do you think the effect will be on 

the people who are living in those units where they have needed 

enhanced vouchers to avoid eviction? 

Secretary JACKSON. I do not think they are going to be evicted. 

Mr. FRANK. What makes you think that if their rents go up and 

they cannot pay it? 

Secretary JACKSON. I think that they can. 

Mr. FRANK. Oh, you think that the people you are giving enhanced vouchers to could all afford to pay the higher rent? 

Secretary JACKSON. Yes, I do. 

Mr. FRANK. Could I see HUD’s study on that? How many people 

are there now receiving enhanced vouchers? 

Secretary JACKSON. I cannot give you that answer. 

Mr. FRANK. Has HUD studied that? There is a callousness about 

this in telling me this. A lot of these are elderly people, and they 

are going to——

Secretary JACKSON. It does not affect elderly or handicapped. 

Mr. FRANK. Oh, if they are elderly they keep getting an enhanced 

voucher forever? 

Secretary JACKSON. That is right, and the physically handicapped. 

Mr. FRANK. But other people, families, they lose the enhanced 

voucher and you know as a fact that they can all pay the higher 

rent. I envy you your certainty, Mr. Secretary. 

Secretary JACKSON. No, I cannot tell you that with certainty. 

Mr. FRANK. I do not think it is a certainty, but that is what you 

just said. You said none of them would be evicted. I do not think 

it is a certainty. I think it is indifference. 

Let me ask you about this provision that says now if I get a 

voucher from City A and currently I can use it in Town B, but 

under your proposal if Town B does not allow me to use it there, 

I cannot use it there. What is the justification for that? It does not 

save money. It seems to me it is just enforcing anti-poor people. It 

is segregationist and economically restrictive. 

11

What is the justification for allowing receiving communities to 

veto someone coming in and renting an apartment with a voucher 

if the landlord is willing to rent it? 

Secretary JACKSON. Let me say this. I think it takes away from 

the housing authority that issued that voucher because it limits the 

amount of money that they are going to have. 

Mr. FRANK. No, no. Excuse me, but you are wrong. We are not 

talking about the housing authority’s current agreement to do it. 

The current housing authority, the issuing housing authority could 

limit it. We are talking about the receiving housing authority. You 

could accomplish that by saying that the issuing housing authority 

could say you cannot use it here; you can only use it in this area. 

But why should the receiving housing authority be able to veto 

a use of a voucher, a rental unit in that town, if the issuing authority is willing for it to happen? 

Secretary JACKSON. Well, either the issuing authority or the receiving authority can say no. 

Mr. FRANK. I understand the argument with the issuing authority, controls of costs. Why would you allow the receiving authority 

to say no? Which I do not believe they now can, and I do not believe they should. 

What other than accomplishing various forms of segregation is 

that going to accomplish? It does not save money. Why do you let 

the receiving community veto poor people coming in and renting 

apartments in their town? 

Secretary JACKSON. My position is that it is the issuing authority 

that has the right——

Mr. FRANK. Your bill gives it to the receiving authority. Your bill 

gives it to the receiving authority as well; both have to say yes. I 

do not understand why you are adding that. It is your bill. 

Secretary JACKSON. I think that the housing authorities should 

have the right to decide. 

Mr. FRANK. The receiving authority? 

Secretary JACKSON. The receiving authority. 

Mr. FRANK. Why? Why? 

Secretary JACKSON. Because clearly——

Mr. MILLER OF CALIFORNIA. The time has expired. 

The gentleman, Mr. Shays from Connecticut? 

Mr. SHAYS. Sometimes, most of the time, believe it or not, I think 

Mr. Frank is right, and I think he is right about a lot of these 

issues. I have a hard time keeping up with how quickly he speaks. 

[Laughter.] 

But the bottom line is most Democrats tend to represent urban 

areas. Most Republicans tend not to. I represent an urban area, 

and HUD is very important to us. 

I believe that we have gotten ourselves in this mess out of a good 

motive. The good motive was we do not want publicly owned housing where we just warehouse the poor. We would like to be able 

to have these vouchers so we can have poor people basically live 

in units that are market-based, and so a kid can wake up in the 

morning and see someone go off to work. All of that is good. 

But we should not be surprised, now, that we are looking at what 

is really horrific. In 1998, 42 percent of your budget was vouchers; 

in 2005, 62 percent. I do not know why it goes up another 10 perVerDate 0ct 09 2002 16:05 Mar 22, 2006 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00015 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 G:\DOCS\109.28 RODNEY
12

cent in just one year to be 73 percent of your budget, but basically 

your testimony before us is that 73 percent of your budget is vouchers. 

Secretary JACKSON. It will be, yes, if we continue the road that 

we are going down. 

Mr. SHAYS. And so we all know we have a huge challenge. The 

one good thing is that we are not spending our money on bureaucracy. We are spending it getting it out there. But the bad news is 

we basically, I would make the analogy to homeownership. You 

own your house, and the rents keep going up; you have a home, 

and your mortgage stays more or less constant. Your taxes may go 

up, and you have been swept up in this marketplace, and you can 

stay with it. 

What we have basically done is we have basically said the Government is going to be in the rental market and as the rental market goes up, we are going to pay these costs. I guess my point is, 

when we did it, we knew it was going to happen. What concerns 

me is I feel like we are just kind of pushing this program off a cliff, 

because, in essence, we are just trying to get the local communities 

to take it over. We are trying to give them the flexibility to basically dump some people off of it to weed it out. 

I feel in a way, candidly Mr. Secretary, that we are passing the 

buck. I feel like this has got to be a joint effort with the Federal 

Government. I do not think my housing authority has the capability to maintain this program on its own. I can just tell you, living in the highest-taxed city in the country, I am seeing homeowners in Bridgeport, Connecticut looking at a simple Cape paying 

$6,000 or $7,000 living on Social Security. 

So I guess my concern is not a question. It is to say I understand 

why you are here, because you are looking at so much of your 

budget in this program. I do not think it can be a program we just 

dump to the local communities and then basically give them more 

flexibility. I feel candidly we are doing the same thing with CDBG 

and CSBG. We are basically taking a $5.2 billion program, making 

it $3.7 billion, and then we are saying this is great because we 

have this new block grant out of Congress. 

So having voted for the war in the Gulf and seeing the money 

that we are spending there, I think people have a right to be critical that we have kind of forced our revenue in that area. I think 

we are shortchanging you. I think that we have got to be willing 

to spend more on HUD, and I think that we have to find a way 

to make sure that HUD is still in the game and not passing the 

buck. 

Secretary JACKSON. Congressman, I do not disagree with you, 

nor do I disagree with the ranking member in the sense that the 

Section 8 program is a very valuable program that we have. It does 

help low- and moderate-income people. But we cannot continue to 

let it grow at this point. 

I do not think the Section 8 program should disappear, go away, 

nor people who have a voucher should be put off of those vouchers. 

I am in total agreement with that. But I do think that we should 

do everything in our power to assist people to become self-sufficient, and the creation of the voucher program was that bridge. 

That bridge was between public housing and becoming self-suffiVerDate 0ct 09 2002 16:05 Mar 22, 2006 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00016 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 G:\DOCS\109.28 RODNEY
13

cient, not a program to substitute for public housing as we know 

it today. 

So my contention is I want the program at HUD. We want the 

program to work. 

Mr. SHAYS. But what confuses me is that we are basically, knowing that the program cannot even afford the folks that we have already, we are expanding and saying more can compete for this as 

you increase the income limits. So it seems like a little bit of a disconnect for me. 

Secretary JACKSON. No, and I understand your concern. I have 

said a number of times before you, if housing authorities will do 

their job by enforcing the rent integrity program to make sure that 

every person that is on that voucher deserves to be on that voucher, and does not deserve to be paid for utilities or a negative-based 

or zero-based rent, I think yes, that 50 or 55 percent that are on 

negative-based or zero rent can afford to pay. There are few people 

other than the physically or mentally handicapped that might not 

be able to pay. 

The most important thing for us to note today is seniors pay 

their 30 percent. The bulk of the seniors in the Section 8 voucher 

program pay every day. It is not seniors that do not pay. It is those 

persons who we would say are physically capable that are in that 

50 percent that I am talking about. Yes, I believe they can pay. I 

will tell you why, because I used to run the rent integrity program. 

I used to go out and make sure. I found that a lot of people who 

have the ability to pay that were not paying. If housing authorities 

would do their job, I think we can change this, and we can house 

more people. 

Mr. MILLER OF CALIFORNIA. The time has expired. 

The gentlelady from California, the ranking member, Ms. Waters? 

Ms. WATERS. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

I feel as if I have been through this before. I think we all agree 

that there are a large percentage of people with extremely low incomes who have a need for affordable rental housing. Do we agree 

on that? 

Secretary JACKSON. Right. 

Ms. WATERS. Roughly how many people are we talking about 

who have low incomes? 

Secretary JACKSON. About 2 million people. 

Ms. WATERS. About 2 million people. So there is a big gap between the number of persons with these extremely low incomes 

who now have vouchers and the number of people who need them. 

Is that——

Secretary JACKSON. I think yes, there are still a large number of 

people who need vouchers. 

Ms. WATERS. I heard you say more than once that we cannot continue to allow this program to grow. I mean, is there not a relationship between people who need it and the growth in the program? 

Secretary JACKSON. No. 

Ms. WATERS. There is not? 

Secretary JACKSON. No. 

Ms. WATERS. So you think the program is growing despite the 

fact people do not really need the program? 

14

Secretary JACKSON. The program is growing, but we are not serving any more people. It is growing because we are paying more out 

in subsidies for rent and for utility allowances per person. It is not 

growing. 

Ms. WATERS. What do you propose to do about that? 

Secretary JACKSON. Well, as I said before, we have suggested in 

this bill that 90 percent of the people that are 60 percent or less 

of median be accorded the right to have a voucher. I think that 

clearly if we put time limitations on it, that would be a way to 

make sure that they turn over. Pre-1998, the average person, Congresswoman, stayed on a voucher about 3 1/2 years. Today, it is 

closer to 8. It is between 5 and 8 years. That is a huge difference 

than what we had before. 

Ms. WATERS. Let me see where we are going with this, because 

I do know that there are some basic philosophical differences between me and you and the Administration. 

Are you suggesting that this program that you call a bridge program should only serve people for a very limited period of time and 

that miraculously they are going to have more income? They do not 

need a voucher? Where do they go? What do they do? 

Secretary JACKSON. Well, I do think that there should be a time 

limitation, and I have said that a number of times. 

Ms. WATERS. What happens to the people? 

Secretary JACKSON. I think that what people are saying, where 

do they go, I think that they will be fine in many cases. 

Ms. WATERS. I beg your pardon? 

Secretary JACKSON. I think they will be fine. I am saying to you 

that many people, as I just said to the Congressman a few minutes 

ago, of the 50 percent that we pay negative-based or zero-based 

rent, I believe that they have the ability to pay rent. 

But if the housing authorities will do their job, they will end up 

paying their subsidies and moving off the program much quicker. 

But if housing authorities do not do what they should be doing, 

that is consistently the rent integrity program, doing the inspections, no, they are not going to move. 

Ms. WATERS. Do you think there is any relationship to the unemployment rate in poor communities, particularly minority communities, and the inability to pay for housing, people who need help? 

Is there any——

Secretary JACKSON. I think if you are unemployed, clearly you 

cannot pay for housing. 

Ms. WATERS. Well, unemployed or under-employed, do you think 

that somehow folks who need help are going to be able to get help 

for 2 or 3 years and then they will be fine; they get pushed off the 

program and they just go into the wild blue yonder? 

Secretary JACKSON. Yes, I do, because there are a lot of underemployed people today that are paying almost 50 percent of their 

income for rent who I think should have the same option as those 

who we say do not have a job. I think they deserve a hand-up just 

as well. 

Ms. WATERS. Well, you know, I suppose we could go on with this 

conversation, except really we just come from two different places 

on these issues. 

15

As it was said before by my colleague on the opposite side of the 

aisle, HUD is a very important agency because of a number of the 

programs that you administer that are so important to low-income 

people, average working people, just having a simple decent quality 

of life. 

Secretary JACKSON. I agree. 

Ms. WATERS. We believe that it is inevitable that there will be 

growth in the program as we have economies that are not performing, as we have people who are losing their jobs, as we have 

jobs that are being exported or outsourced to world countries for 

cheap labor, as, as, as. We just believe that. And I think the data 

that we have shows us that we are basically on the right track. 

You either have to think that it is the Government’s role and responsibility to try and help in a real way, or you do not. You are 

on the don’t side, and I am on the belief side. And so we are not 

going to get anywhere with these meetings. We are not going to 

learn anything new. It is your job to come over here and talk to 

us, and it is our job to sit up here and ask you these dumb questions that we know we are not going to get any good answers from 

you about. 

So having said that, let me yield back the balance of my time 

and stop wasting my time. Thank you very much. 

Secretary JACKSON. Let me say this to you. I would like to say 

something to the Congresswoman. I do think that the Government 

should make every effort to help people help themselves. So we do 

not disagree on that. I just do not think it should be in perpetuity. 

Mr. MILLER OF CALIFORNIA. The gentleman from Texas? 

Mr. NEUGEBAUER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Thank you, Mr. Secretary. I want to commend you for your long 

and distinguished service in housing. Basically, I came to Congress 

from the housing business. I started actually, if you are familiar 

with the old 236 programs, the D-4 and then served on a city council where we had a housing authority in Lubbock. 

What I am really interested in, and I think I hear you saying 

this, is that we need to do everything we can at HUD to help people transition to ownership, because ultimately when people own 

their homes, the family does better overall. We have a more stable 

household. A lot of studies have been done to confirm it. 

Kind of talk through with me and the panel today about what 

the flexibility that happens here and how this program will help 

us begin to transition those people to homeownership, because that 

is something of great interest to me. 

Secretary JACKSON. Thank you very much, Congressman. 

I think that somehow people believe that persons, once they are 

in public housing or voucher, must be there in perpetuity. I ran 

three housing authorities; I have never met a person who understands public housing to stay on a voucher. Not one. They all want 

to get off, but they need significant help. 

One of the ways that we did it when I ran the Dallas Housing 

Authority is we had our own training program. We had our own 

program with the Dallas community about training people. It 

worked very well. We had sufficient turnover. 

That is what I am saying today, that the Section 8 program in 

the beginning after we left the project-based, but the voucher proVerDate 0ct 09 2002 16:05 Mar 22, 2006 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00019 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 G:\DOCS\109.28 RODNEY
16

gram, was a transitional program. It was to help people move from 

public housing who had acquired skills and jobs, give them a period 

of time to try to get those kills in jobs that they have learned in 

the trade down, and then move into rental housing that is marketrate or homeownership. 

I think that we had that program well in tact until 1998 when 

we came up with the new proposal that 75 percent of the vouchers 

must go to people 30 percent or less of median, which at that point 

in time was not the case. So when you go and give it to 30 percent 

or less of median, you end up paying utility costs. You end up paying other allowances. 

But more importantly, which is very important to understand, is 

the housing quality inspection that we required each housing authority to do. We ended up, and most people do not realize this, we 

ended up paying landlords 2 or 3 months’ rent with no one in those 

apartments because it takes the housing authorities so long to get 

to those quality inspections. Where if you and I go out and rent an 

apartment, we do in it the next week, once we give the security deposit. 

So we are saying, with this State and local flexibility, give the 

housing authorities the right to manage their housing like we 

would give a private landlord. So if we give a person a voucher, 

they can go directly into that apartment within 2 or 3 days, not 2 

or 3 months. And that is the average because it takes about 60 

days to finish an inspection. 

So if they have that authority, and I wish we had had that authority, and we had very much similar to that before 1998, and 

that is why we were able to rent and keep the voucher turning over 

and over. I think something is very important to understand. In 

2005, Congress gave us this budget and said work with it. We are 

working with the budget, and I think the way to work with the 

budget is to give the autonomy to housing authorities. 

I want to close by saying this. When I ran the housing authority, 

I always had a saying that HUD was not flexible. It always hid behind regulations, and we had too many regulations. And so my position was, I think I can manage my housing authority if you let 

me run it. That is one of the reasons today I am here before you 

to say, give the housing authorities the choice to run their authority. 

Mr. NEUGEBAUER. So your opinion is that if we give the housing 

authorities more flexibility, they can do some more transition-type 

programs within the complex and help people start to prepare for 

the ownership piece of that. 

Secretary JACKSON. I agree with you. This is going to sound very 

funny because when I was running housing authorities, I said in 

many cases there was not a capable, competent, or compassionate 

person at HUD. Well, since I am at HUD, I think we are competent, capable, and compassionate, and we are trying to do that 

at this point in time by giving housing authorities the flexibility to 

run their program. I think we are too prohibitive to housing authorities. 

Mr. NEUGEBAUER. Thank you. 

I yield back. 

17

Mr. FRANK. How many competent, capable people are there now? 

Do you have one or more? 

Secretary JACKSON. A lot of them. 

Mr. FRANK. Okay. I would just ask unanimous consent to put 

into the record some communications that came to myself and the 

chairman of the full committee. 

There is a statement from the Public Housing Authority Directors Association, the National Association of Housing and Redevelopment Officials, and the Council of Large Public Housing Authorities saying we are very concerned; the bill fails to address the most 

pressing problems facing our members and assisted families renewal funding; also a statement of opposition from a large coalition 

of groups from Catholic Charities and the Cerebral Palsy and others worried about its impact on low-income people; and a letter 

raising serious questions from the alliance of the groups that are 

generally in the housing supply business, home builders and the 

Housing Conference, et cetera; and also a statement in opposition 

to the bill from the Consortium for Citizens with Disabilities. 

I ask that all these be put in the record. 

Mr. MILLER OF CALIFORNIA. Without objection. 

The gentleman, Mr. Crowley? 

Mr. CROWLEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

One of the concerns I have is that every time the Administration 

makes another change to Federal housing policy, it results in less 

funding and more troubles for many of the people that I represent 

in my district. You and I had a discussion the last time you were 

before Congress about the drug elimination program, a program 

that provided public housing units with police officers placed there 

to lower crime and to address the issue of drug abuse. 

I believe it worked. Many people believed it worked. The Bush 

administration eliminated that and said that agencies could use 

capital and operational funds that they receive from the Federal 

Government to subsidize those programs, when, in fact, both of 

those funding streams were cut as well. 

We look at New York City’s housing authority, HPD. They are 

facing a $50 million shortfall. You have said before you want to 

give the authorities the right to deny and to do the inspections they 

need to do in order to make sure that the people who are receiving 

those vouchers are legitimate or that there is actually a person living in that apartment. And yet at the same time, they are saying 

they do not have the resources to do what they need to do as it exists right now on a local level. 

I just do not believe, Mr. Secretary, and this is my personal belief, that you believe half the things you are saying today. I say 

that because you went out of your way desperately not to admit to 

the ranking member that the Section 8 enhanced vouchers were 

going to be eliminated. You danced around for a few moments 

there, about a minute or so, until you actually admitted that after 

1 year, the enhanced Section 8 vouchers would be eliminated. 

I have a building in my district in the South Bronx, in the 

Soundview section of the South Bronx, Mr. Secretary. It is 100 percent Section 8 housing. I have a new landlord who wanted to take 

over that building, and he has indicated to folks in that building 

that he will not accept Section 8 vouchers, enhanced or otherwise. 

18

I do not know what those folks are going to do. Maybe you can tell 

me what they are going to do for those poor folks who live there 

now. 

Public housing is not a spa. Public housing is not a fun place to 

be. I have many constituents, and I visit them. They welcome me 

into their homes and to their abode. They are very gracious. They 

try to show me the best that they possibly can the side of their living that they are in. But quite frankly, it is not a spa. It is not a 

five-star hotel. 

The idea that somehow many of these folks will somehow find a 

way to pay for the increase that they will have to use in order to 

make up for the enhanced voucher is just ludicrous. People just do 

not have the resources in a city like mine to do that. They are 

being pushed out of the quasi-public housing that they are in right 

now, enhanced Section 8 housing, to make way for what the market rate will pay. 

Maybe you have answers to that. I do not know what you think 

these folks are going to do. I am going to ask you. What do you 

think these people are going to do? How do you propose to address 

that crisis? 

Secretary JACKSON. First of all, when I understood what the 

ranking member’s question was, did we have a year, I answered 

him yes. Before I thought he said, were we going to eliminate the 

enhanced voucher. I said no. That is the question I answered. 

Secondly, Congressman, I understand your concern, but I ran 

three housing authorities. I am well aware of the games that people play. Many of the persons that we are talking about have the 

ability because they are physically capable of doing it, to pay these 

rents. But if you do not do the necessary inspections, if you do not 

do the necessary rental integrity program——

Mr. CROWLEY. Mr. Secretary, who benefits from the voucher? 

Who gets that money? 

Secretary JACKSON. The landlord. 

Mr. CROWLEY. Yes, so it is the landlord who is at fault, not the 

individual who receives the voucher. Yet it is the person who receives the voucher, who gives it to the landlord, who is going to 

be——

Secretary JACKSON. No, it is the housing authority not doing 

their responsibility. We are the ones——

Mr. CROWLEY. You are just passing the buck to unfunded mandates. As I said before, New York City——

Secretary JACKSON. You say I am passing the buck. The landlord 

does not do the evaluation of the persons, Congressman. The housing authority does that. 

Mr. CROWLEY. He gets the check, though. 

Secretary JACKSON. Yes, but the point is——

Mr. CROWLEY. But he gets the check. They benefit from the housing authority. They are not honest enough to come forward and say 

the person does not live there anymore; here is your money back. 

Secretary JACKSON. In some cases, no. 

Mr. CROWLEY. So the individual who is on Section 8 housing, 

that is the individual who pays the price because of that. 

Secretary JACKSON. No. 

19

Mr. CROWLEY. Yes. You are seeing that now. You are eliminating 

the enhanced vouchers. 

Secretary JACKSON. No, no. 

Mr. CROWLEY. No, you are not eliminating them? 

Secretary JACKSON. No, I think many of the people on enhanced 

vouchers have the ability to pay. And if the housing authority——

Mr. CROWLEY. You actually said they have a right to pay a higher cost. 

Secretary JACKSON. They have the ability to pay a higher cost. 

Mr. CROWLEY. But not a right. They have the ability to pay a 

higher cost, and you know that? You just empirically know that? 

Secretary JACKSON. I am saying to you that 50 percent of the 

people on the voucher program today, or 55 percent, are physically 

in good shape and can pay. I am saying to you when I ran housing 

authorities, I did the necessary investigations to make sure that 

many of the people paid. I would not let anyone live in public housing or voucher program that did not pay rent. 

Mr. CROWLEY. Well, Mr. Secretary, I would love to have you 

come to my district in the South Bronx and see the people themselves, and you can explain it to them personally. 

Mr. MILLER OF CALIFORNIA. The time has expired. 

You are next. 

Mr. NEY. Well, I was up, so it is great timing. We seem to be 

doing a lot of arguing about something that is not specified in the 

bill. The goal here is to do everything we can to create a venture 

between the Federal Government and locals. 

Secretary JACKSON. That is correct. 

Mr. NEY. Now we say we are going to take 90 percent, and we 

are going to make sure that goes to the 60 percent range. Couldn’t 

a local agency do just what they are doing now? 

Secretary JACKSON. They can. It is totally left up to them. 

Mr. NEY. So we are not saying that you have to change the current system. If you like the current system and it works locally, 

you can do that. Is that not correct? 

Secretary JACKSON. That is correct. 

Mr. NEY. So all this arguing is really about nothing. What the 

argument is that people in Washington do not trust local public 

housing authorities to meet the needs of local people. 

Secretary JACKSON. Well, Congressman——

Mr. NEY. That is what I am seeing. We want to try to give local 

agencies more control. I want you to respond to that. 

Secretary JACKSON. That is baffling to me because a lot of times 

they say they trust them, and they do not necessarily trust HUD. 

We asked for the flexibility so they can run it, and now they are 

telling us they cannot run it. So I do not think they can have it 

both ways. Either we believe the housing authorities can run it or 

we do not. I am one who believes that they can. I ran three of 

them, and I ran them with limited resources, and people stayed 

and did very well. 

I also, in all three, I charged rent. No one lived in public housing 

free with me, because I knew if they lived there, they could afford 

to pay, other than those who were physically or mentally handicapped. Again, I go back to tell you. Seniors pay their rent. It is 

physically, able-bodied people that are in that 50 to 55 percent. 

20

Mr. NEY. And if you are handicapped and you are elderly, we are 

not going to do a thing to throw you out. 

Secretary JACKSON. That is right. Nothing. 

Mr. NEY. You are going to continue where you are at. 

Secretary JACKSON. That is right. 

Mr. NEY. I guess the thing that bothers me is the goal here—

and I have told you my problems with HUD in the past. 

Secretary JACKSON. That is correct. 

Mr. NEY. I did not think there was any accountability. I did not 

think they really cared. They had these guidelines that one size fits 

all, and you had to live with them, like it or not. But for us to go 

to say that Chicago, New York, Los Angeles, San Francisco, Pittsburgh, you all have different needs; you all have different situations. We are going to give you a guideline. We want to make sure 

that 90 percent go to that 60 percent or below, but you determine 

your needs in the community. 

What we have to do is you have to give PHAs an incentive to 

control costs to help people to become self-sufficient. That seems to 

be the goal because you just cannot continue a program that is just 

going to fail. We have a long waiting list even in my district. How 

do we move people into self-sufficiency so we can basically serve 

more people. That has got to be the goal here. Do you not agree? 

Secretary JACKSON. I agree. Let me say this to you. First of all, 

I appreciate your sponsoring the bill, but what I have seen in dealing with many of the persons in public housing and dealing with 

many of the advocates is they come to those persons in public housing or on a voucher with a very paternalistic and patronizing attitude. They do not believe that they have the same sense of work 

that they have, and they must be in poverty for the rest of their 

lives. 

I do not believe that. I cannot believe that because the record is 

very clear. The last place that I was in in Dallas, we moved a lot 

of people out. In fact, we educated more than 900 public housing 

kids through college, and they are not back in public housing. We 

have to believe that they have the same sense of work that we do, 

and as my mother used to say, get up on the same side of the bed 

and want exactly the same thing that we want. I do believe that. 

Mr. NEY. Some try to say that this shifts the need from those at 

the lower income bracket and just serves those who basically have 

higher income, those families. I want you to address that, and have 

the time to address that because I do not think you have had time 

to specifically deal with that. Do you really think we are in any 

way taking money away from the people who really are poor and 

giving it to people who have less of a need? 

Secretary JACKSON. Absolutely not. What we have said is that 90 

percent of the vouchers will go to 60 percent of the people who are 

less than median. Today, 75 percent of the vouchers go to 30 percent, and 25 percent can be used all the way up to 80 percent. So 

the top level between 60 and 80 percent are effectively being cut 

out. It is 60 percent or less of median. That is very important. 

Again, we have heard people say, well, it is going to affect the 

homeless. The homeless population does not get preferential treatment, period, today. You have to go and apply for public housing. 

But I do think that in my travels, as I have traveled around this 

21

country, when I see people, as I have said before, when I was in 

Las Vegas, like the Gonzalez’s, who are at about 40 percent, who 

are working every day and paying close to 50 percent of their income for rent, they deserve a hand-up too. They are working every 

day. 

And there are people with the same physical ability today sitting 

in public housing or on the voucher who are not working. And I do 

not think that that is right. We can all believe that everybody who 

has a voucher or even 50 percent of them or 60 percent of them, 

cannot work. I do not buy that. It was the most amazing thing 

when we made a decision in Dallas to charge everybody rent. I had 

the advocates. I had legal aid lawyers saying that people are going 

to be evicted overnight. Well, no one got evicted, but they came up 

with the minimum rent. When I demanded, they came up with it. 

Mr. NEY. And based on your experience, you believe that public 

housing authorities have a much better ability to determine who is 

able to pay and who is not than the Federal Government sitting 

here in Washington, D.C.? 

Secretary JACKSON. Absolutely, because it is the same thing with 

the fair market rents that we put in place. I do not think we should 

be in the business of telling Boston or New York or Connecticut 

what the fair market rent is. I think that is best determined by the 

local housing authority. 

Mr. NEY. Thank you. My time has expired. 

Mr. Davis? 

Mr. DAVIS OF ALABAMA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Jackson, Mr. Secretary, let me go back to one of your major 

premises in your colloquy with Ms. Waters earlier. You stated several times in your written testimony that people are staying on 

Section 8 too long; the lifetime of people in Section 8 is longer than 

it should be. That suggests, I guess to some of us, that this is a 

matter of choice, that people can be incentivized into making 

choices to leave the program, so I want to test that proposition for 

a moment. 

Looking at the bottom 30 percent of median income, what we call 

the very poor of the poor, over the last 4 years have the wages of 

those people in the bottom 30 percent gone up or down or stayed 

the same in this country? 

Secretary JACKSON. You would have the individual housing authority. I do not think that question can be answered because most 

of the housing authorities——

Mr. DAVIS OF ALABAMA. No, I am asking you a basic question. 

Secretary JACKSON. No, no. I cannot answer that question for 

you. 

Mr. DAVIS OF ALABAMA. Okay, so you cannot answer the question. 

Secretary JACKSON. Not that way. The question should be asked, 

if they do the necessary investigation, they will be able to answer 

that question. 

Mr. DAVIS OF ALABAMA. Okay. Well, let me ask the questions, 

and you can tell me either that you cannot answer them or not. 

You are unable to tell us if the wages have gone up for people in 

the bottom 30 percent. I will represent to you based on my own 

personal knowledge from reading statistics in this country in the 

22

last several years that wages for the lowest income Americans have 

actually stayed stagnant or gone down in most communities. I will 

represent that to you, and you do not appear to be in a position 

to challenge it. 

I will ask the second question. Has the unemployment level——

Secretary JACKSON. No. Are you telling me that you know specifically that the 30 percent that we serve are in the low income——

Mr. DAVIS OF ALABAMA. No, sir, I am asking you. You can feel 

free to not like my question or like it, but I have the time, and I 

am going to struggle through and ask it. 

Looking at the bottom 30 percent of the population of the people, 

the bottom 30 percent income level, less than 30 percent of median 

income, let’s look at their unemployment levels. Have their unemployment levels gone up or down in the last 4 years? 

Secretary JACKSON. I cannot answer that. 

Mr. DAVIS OF ALABAMA. Okay. So you cannot answer that. 

Secretary JACKSON. No, you are talking about the general population. I am talking about those persons who are in public housing 

or on vouchers. 

Mr. DAVIS OF ALABAMA. Okay, well, then let’s limit it to that. 

Let’s limit it to those in public housing. The bottom 30 percent of 

median income, have their unemployment levels gone up or down 

or stayed the same in the last 4 years? 

Secretary JACKSON. That is for the housing authorities to decide. 

Mr. DAVIS OF ALABAMA. Do you happen to know? 

Secretary JACKSON. That is for the housing authority to decide. 

Mr. DAVIS OF ALABAMA. So I take that as a no. 

Secretary JACKSON. No, no. HUD does not do the evaluation or 

the work for housing authorities. Each housing authority is independent. 

Mr. DAVIS OF ALABAMA. Let me make the point then fairly directly, Mr. Secretary. My proposition to you is that I think your 

major premise is wrong. Your major premise is that——

Secretary JACKSON. That is your right. 

Mr. DAVIS OF ALABAMA.—people who are staying on Section 8 are 

doing it somehow because of a behavioral choice, that they just like 

the idea of being on Section 8, that they want to linger on Section 

8, and that if we have time limits, if we give the local housing authorities more ability to limit their timeframe, they will get their 

act together and get off the program. I would submit to you that 

I think that major premise is wrong. 

Secretary JACKSON. That is your assessment. That is not what I 

said. That is what you said. 

Mr. DAVIS OF ALABAMA. Well, let me finish my point, please, sir. 

I would submit to you that if you look at the unemployment levels, if you look at the percentage of people in Section 8 who are in 

poverty, if you look at the percentage of the people in Section 8 

who are not working or whose wages have been stagnant, that 

their conditions have not improved in the last 4 years and that 

rather than it being a matter of laziness or behavioral incentives 

on their part, that that is why they are staying on Section 8 longer. 

Let me shift to another line of questions. When your boss, the 

President, came into office in 2001, he announced a goal of reducing chronic homelessness; let me get the exact quote here, ending 

23

chronic homelessness. Excuse me, not reducing it, but ending 

chronic homelessness within 10 years. We are approaching year 5 

of the Bush presidency. Has chronic homelessness been reduced in 

half in this country, Mr. Secretary, in the last 4 1/2 years? 

Secretary JACKSON. No, and we are working very hard to——

Mr. DAVIS OF ALABAMA. Tell me how close the Administration 

is——

Secretary JACKSON. I am sorry? 

Mr. DAVIS OF ALABAMA. Tell me how close the Administration is. 

Secretary JACKSON. I think——

Mr. DAVIS OF ALABAMA. Let me finish my question, please. 

Secretary JACKSON. Okay. 

Mr. DAVIS OF ALABAMA. Tell me how close the Administration is 

to meeting its goal of eliminating chronic homelessness in 10 years, 

because the answer can be we are really, really close, in which case 

you guys should be touting that; the answer could be we are no 

where near it; or the answer could be something more complex 

than that. 

Secretary JACKSON. I think we are doing extremely well because 

we are funding it at the highest level it has ever been funded at 

in this country. 

Mr. DAVIS OF ALABAMA. No, no, Mr. Secretary, you routinely tell 

us that funding is not the test now, so I do not want you to go 

there with me. Tell me the number of homeless people in this country in 2001. What is the number of homeless people today, and 

what was the number in 2001? 

Secretary JACKSON. I will be happy to get back to you. We can 

get you a number. 

Mr. DAVIS OF ALABAMA. You do not know that? 

Secretary JACKSON. We can give you that. 

Mr. DAVIS OF ALABAMA. You do not know that? 

Secretary JACKSON. We will get back to you on that number. 

Mr. DAVIS OF ALABAMA. Okay. Well then let me conclude with 

this proposition. Again, I would submit to you, and I think most 

people in this room know the number of chronic homeless people 

is actually a little bit worse today than it was 4 years ago. 

Secretary JACKSON. That is absolutely not true, Congressman. 

Mr. DAVIS OF ALABAMA. Well, you told me you did not know. 

Secretary JACKSON. Give me the facts that you have. You have 

made a definitive statement. Tell me where you got it from, and 

I will be happy to look it up. 

Mr. DAVIS OF ALABAMA. Well, I am basing it on what I have 

read, and I think again——

Mr. MILLER OF CALIFORNIA. The gentleman’s time has expired. 

Mr. DAVIS OF ALABAMA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. MILLER OF CALIFORNIA. Mrs. Kelly? 

Mrs. KELLY. Thank you. 

Mr. Secretary, I thank you for coming before the committee and 

explaining the Administration’s intentions on the legislative text 

that is in front of us. It is deeply appreciated by this member and 

a welcome contrast to the Administration’s performance on the 

CDBG bill because we still do not have legislative text or a full understanding of the impact on the States or the localities on CDBGs. 

24

I have been contacted by a number of public housing authorities 

who have shared some concerns with the bill before us and the Section 8 program administration. On their behalf, I would like to pose 

a couple of questions. H.R. 1999 allows the PHAs to target 90 percent of their assistance to those at or below 60 percent of area median income, as I understand it, while retaining the hard cap at 80 

percent of income for any assistance. 

While I think this is admirable flexibility, many areas have housing markets that place the vast majority of people without adequate housing options between median income and 60 percent of 

median income, rather than at 60 percent and below. I just want 

a yes or a no answer to this question. Isn’t HUD’s ability to declare 

the nonperforming PHAs as troubled protection enough against the 

fraud and ineffectiveness to allow the PHAs to determine their own 

income caps and targets below median income? 

Secretary JACKSON. No. 

Mrs. KELLY. Okay. If H.R. 1999 is passed as drafted, what kind 

of streamlined process will HUD have in place to adjust income cap 

and target requests from the PHAs? 

Secretary JACKSON. They will always be able to appeal to us. 

Mrs. KELLY. They will be able to do what, sir? 

Secretary JACKSON. Appeal to us, to show us if they are——

Mrs. KELLY. To appeal? In other words, you are not changing? 

You are not going to streamline the process? They can do it by appeal? That is not streamlining. 

Secretary JACKSON. No, when we say we are streamlining the 

project, Congresswoman Kelly, we are saying we are giving them 

the flexibility to use the voucher as they see fit, not being dictated 

by our mandates from HUD. Right now, if they want to pay 110 

percent of median, they have to get approval from us. I do not 

think they should have to. I think if they realize within their jurisdiction that 110 percent is the median cost, they should be able to 

do it. If it is 150 percent, understanding that they have a certain 

amount of money that they have to work with. I think they should 

have that. 

Mrs. KELLY. Okay. You mention in your testimony that Section 

8 has expanded from 36 percent of HUD’s budget in 1998 to 57 percent of HUD’s budget in 2005. In my analysis of your budget request, it shows that to me Section 8’s percentage of HUD’s budget 

increases next year to 72.9 percent of HUD’s budget if the CDBG 

program is moved from your department. If you exclude the CDBG 

from the percentage of HUD resources that you spend on Section 

8, then that expands the Section 8 from 71.3 percent to 72.9 percent. That is a 1.6 percent increase. 

You say that H.R. 1999 can help contain the cost growth and improve the effectiveness, but the percentage of your agency resources 

being consumed by Section 8 goes up if your own proposals are enacted. How do you explain that? 

Secretary JACKSON. No, it does not. 

Mrs. KELLY. Well, that is what your budget told me. 

Secretary JACKSON. If we do not enact the State and Local Flexibility Act, it is going to go up, but we believe that clearly if we will 

let the housing authorities around this country have the flexible 

25

vouchers, it will go up minimally, but not like it has in the past. 

It will not go up. That is why we are here. 

You have given us a 2004 budget that said clearly we are going 

from unit-based to budget-based. We are on a budget base. Now 

what we are asking you to do is give the housing authorities the 

flexibility to be able to use the voucher as they see best for themselves. But if it does not, then yes, if we do not pass the flexible 

voucher program, yes, we are going to have to come up with more 

money. We believe with the passage of the bill, we will be able to 

minimize the increase. 

Mrs. KELLY. In your proposed budget for 2006, housing for the 

elderly is flatlined at $741 million, while Section 8 grows by 1.6 

percent, and the funds for housing for those with disabilities declines by $118 million. Don’t you think maybe now it is time to establish a firewall between Section 8 funding and the other HUD 

programs to prevent a continuing drain on the discretionary resources that you have? 

Secretary JACKSON. Absolutely. 

Mrs. KELLY. I am very concerned about the housing for the elderly and the housing for the disabled. My concern is what you are 

saying to us. When I look at your budget——

Mr. MILLER OF CALIFORNIA. The gentlelady’s time has expired. 

Mrs. KELLY. Will the gentleman let me finish? 

What I am concerned about here is that there will be cohorts of 

people that are going to be ignored because Section 8 is going to 

grow. I think you need to very strongly have a look at this, and 

I wish you would get back to this committee about how you are 

going to handle these people, the elderly flatlined and aid for disabilities declining by that much money. 

Secretary JACKSON. I will be happy to do that, Congresswoman. 

I will say this to you. The $1.1 million that we added to the Section 

8 voucher program is to help make the transition toward the flexible voucher program. That we think is very important. 

Secondly, I think that it is important to understand that, as I 

have said before, the physically, mentally, and seniors will be 

grandfathered in. They will not be affected by this. We are simply 

talking about those who can do it. 

Mrs. KELLY. It is reflected in your budget. When you see things 

like area housing——

Mr. MILLER OF CALIFORNIA. The gentlelady’s time has expired. 

Mrs. Lee? 

Mrs. KELLY.—you know you are going to have more people in 

Section 8. 

Mr. MILLER OF CALIFORNIA. Mrs. Lee? 

Ms. LEE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Good to see you, Mr. Secretary. 

All I have to say is, here we go again. You know, first of all, let 

me just say to you, the more and more I listen to you, the more 

and more I understand what you meant when you said poverty was 

basically a state of mind. 

Also, and you did not agree around CDBG, but again I am going 

to have to say to you, this block granting of Section 8 and what 

you are doing under H.R. 1999 is another effort to dismantle HUD. 

26

For whatever reason, this administration has it out for the poor 

and the low income. Why, I do not know. 

Let me ask you a couple of questions. In terms of homelessness, 

don’t you think first of all by changing this formula you are going 

to actually increase the numbers of homeless? And secondly, it is 

my understanding, and I want to ask you, how do you determine 

what mechanisms you use to count the number of homeless in this 

country? 

And thirdly, some numbers that I have, and you may want to go 

back and verify them, but you said that this is the highest budget 

we have had for the homeless, but 10 years ago it was $1.79 billion, 

and adjusted of course for inflation; in 2005 it was $1.2 billion; and 

in 2006, $1.4 billion. So that does not appear to be the highest 

amount of money that we have actually spent, which again is very 

minimal, if you ask me, given what I think may be 180,000 people 

who are homeless, but you guys do not tell us because you do not 

know how to count, I guess. 

So could you kind of give me some feedback on that first question? 

Secretary JACKSON. Sure. Your figures as they relate to the 

homeless population are pretty close. It is according to what study 

you look at, whether it is 180,000 or 200,000 people. We believe 

that clearly we will do everything in our power to end chronic 

homelessness because it is very, very important. 

I do not think that this present budget that we are presenting 

for Section 8 we are trying to dismantle HUD. I do not see——

Ms. LEE. Do you think this is going to increase the numbers of 

those who are homeless, though? 

Secretary JACKSON. No. 

Ms. LEE. What is going to happen to all these people who are at 

the bottom of the barrel? 

Secretary JACKSON. Until 2000, homeless people rose to the top 

of the Section 8 waiting list, the same in public housing. That provision was struck out by Congress. That is not the case. So we are 

not serving the homeless even today with the present vouchers that 

we have. We are serving those who are the top of the waiting list, 

and many of those persons are not homeless, Congresswoman. 

Ms. LEE. I am saying you are going to create more people. 

Secretary JACKSON. I do not see how the two connect. 

Ms. LEE. If this goes through, in 3 years guarantee there will be 

another 50,000 to 60,000 people homeless as a result of this. 

Secretary JACKSON. I do not believe so, Congresswoman. 

Ms. LEE. You do not believe so. 

Secretary JACKSON. No. 

Ms. LEE. Okay, but would you let us know what mechanisms you 

have in place to provide the numbers in terms of statistical data 

for the homeless? 

Secretary JACKSON. I will be happy to. 

Ms. LEE. Secondly, let me ask you about this provision which of 

course I am really quite shocked about, and I did not realize it 

until today. There is a provision of this bill that eliminates the 

housing agency requirement to consult with residents or the public 

in terms of changing the key housing policies, and it prohibits 

27

voucher holders from serving on public housing boards. Is that the 

case? And if it is——

Secretary JACKSON. Will you give me that again? I am sorry. 

Ms. LEE. Okay. There is some provision, and what is why I am 

trying to clarify this, that actually prohibits voucher holders from 

serving on public housing boards and also eliminates current requirements to consult with residents in public housing units and 

changes key housing policies as it relates to the involvement and 

the participation by tenants. 

Secretary JACKSON. Let me say this to you, I am not familiar 

with that portion, but if it is in there, I will tell you personally I 

will look at that, because clearly I am a person who believes that 

the residents should have say-so about what affects their lives, 

whether they are in public housing or on a voucher. I believe that 

residents should also serve on the housing authority boards. 

Ms. LEE. If that is in there, we have a commitment from you at 

least to try to take it out? 

Secretary JACKSON. Yes, you do. 

Ms. LEE. Okay. Thank you very much. 

Secretary JACKSON. I will tell you that, yes. 

Ms. LEE. I appreciate that. And also, finally just in terms of following up on Congresswoman Waters’s questions with regard to 

the time limits. You know, I am not an attorney, but I have many 

friends who are lawyers, many on this committee. Listening to you, 

you cite the worst cases, and I know they always say worst case 

makes bad law. And you cite, you know, no program is perfect, but 

you always cite some form of abuse or people trying to beat the system. 

But for the most part, that is a very small percentage of those 

living on Section 8 vouchers. So why do you keep saying, you know, 

giving us those examples when, in fact, those are the smallest 

number of people, rather than showing us how the program benefits people and how the majority of those on Section 8 play by the 

rules? 

Secretary JACKSON. First of all, let me say this. I believe that the 

Section 8 program does benefit people. I do not want any misunderstanding. I think it does help the quality of life of people. But Congresswoman, I have had the unique ability of running three housing authorities. It is not a small number. It is not a small number, 

and I do not know why people believe that those persons who try 

to escape the system are small numbers. 

I can tell you, whether it was in St. Louis, whether it was in 

Washington, D.C, or whether it was in Dallas, it was a large number, and in many cases we were removing, in some cases 300 or 

400 people off of our rolls about every, not even a year, about every 

6 to 8 months because we did find that they were not honest with 

us. And when you have valuable vouchers, I think it should be 

used for those persons who actually need the vouchers, not those 

who are, in essence, conning the system. 

So I do not think it is a small number. We disagree on that. 

Ms. LEE. Well, okay. 

Mr. MILLER OF CALIFORNIA. The gentlelady’s time has expired. 

Ms. LEE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. MILLER OF CALIFORNIA. Ms. Ginny Brown-Waite? 

28

Ms. BROWN-WAITE. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Secretary, just a couple of questions. Why does it seem to 

take so long for vacant units to be inspected by housing agencies 

before the unit is actually approved for a lease-up? I am sorry I 

came in late. Someone may have already asked this question. Is 

the problem the standards, the current housing quality standards? 

Are they too stringent or too lenient? I would appreciate your response. 

Secretary JACKSON. Yes. As I said before you came in, Congresswoman, in many cases when we find a landlord who is willing to 

rent to one of our voucher holders, it is somewhere between 60 and 

90 days before they can move in. In many cases, the housing authority has said that their housing quality inspectors are overworked by checking other units. 

So what this bill has proposed is the same thing that we do in 

the regular rental market. If clearly the unit is stable and up to 

snuff, and the renter, that is the voucher holder, says it is, they 

have an opportunity to move in. If within the 60 days of that period that they move in, we will do an inspection to see if the unit 

is up to snuff. If it is not, then we will hold the landlord responsible or tell the person they still have their voucher, but they have 

to look for a better place to live rather than waiting 60 to 90 days 

to move that person in, yet we are still paying that landlord. 

Ms. BROWN-WAITE. A follow-up question on the question that Ms. 

Kelly asked. When I came in, she was asking it. Do I understand 

you to say that the housing units and the expenditures for housing 

units for seniors and disabled are not being decreased? 

Secretary JACKSON. No. What I said is that if we institute the 

flexible voucher program, many people have said, well, we are 

going to push seniors, physically and mentally handicapped people 

off of the rolls. No, we are not. They are not affected by the flexible 

voucher program that we are talking about here today. We are 

talking about those persons who are physically capable of carrying 

out their daily lives. 

Ms. BROWN-WAITE. Are there any provisions in the flexibility 

plan that will protect the seniors and the disabled in public housing? 

Secretary JACKSON. Yes. 

Ms. BROWN-WAITE. Tell me what those protections are. 

Secretary JACKSON. It clearly says that they are not included in 

the bill. It is just very clear. 

Ms. BROWN-WAITE. And the funding that will specifically be 

there for elder housing and for the disabled, that is the same? 

Secretary JACKSON. Yes, it is all in the voucher program package. 

Ms. BROWN-WAITE. It has not changed any? 

Secretary JACKSON. No, no. 

Ms. BROWN-WAITE. So the housing authorities will be given the 

same amount of money or more? Is it possible that there will be 

more? 

Secretary JACKSON. There might be a possibility that there will, 

but they will clearly be allocated the amount of money that you all 

have given us for the 2005 and 2006 budget. 

29

Ms. BROWN-WAITE. Okay. And if I go to your specific budget request, I will see that the funding for seniors and the disabled are 

not reduced. 

Secretary JACKSON. Yes. I cannot say you will see. The funding was increased by $1.1 billion, period, the voucher program, and 

that takes care of everybody. So it is not dissected into whether it 

is senior. We do have some specific 811 program which is for the 

disabled. 

Ms. BROWN-WAITE. Okay. Thank you. 

Mr. MILLER OF CALIFORNIA. Mr. Lynch of Massachusetts? 

Mr. LYNCH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and the ranking member. 

Mr. Secretary, thank you for your willingness to testify and help 

this committee with its work. I want to follow up on a point in your 

dialogue with Mr. Davis. You mentioned that a lot of folks just stay 

too long in public housing. In your own experience, how long do you 

think it should be before people have the ability to move out and 

move off of either Section 8 assistance or move out of project-based 

housing? 

Secretary JACKSON. I guess that would depend on the needs of 

each individual family. In a sense, I do think that traditionally I 

did not think that 3 1/2 years on a voucher was extensive. I do not 

think 3 or 4 years in a public housing unit is extensive. I think 

that it gives the person an opportunity to save and to increase the 

ability to go out in to the rental market or to buy a home. I think 

that any way we can help them increase their abilities to get off 

of public housing or a voucher, we should help them. 

Mr. LYNCH. Yes, I just wanted to say this. I do feel that some 

of your approach is more blaming the tenant, quite frankly, in looking at their approach to life versus looking at what their options 

might be. In my area in the city of Boston, I actually grew up in 

the housing projects in South Boston in the Old Colony housing 

projects myself and my five sisters. My dad worked full time. My 

mom worked part time. It took us 15 years to finally get out of public housing. My mom and dad wanted us out of there every single 

day. It is the poorest predominantly white census tract in the 

United States, a lot of single parents and a lot of hardship there. 

Believe me, the families there, and I think in most cases, they 

want to be out of public housing. I do not agree that they are laying back and they are being insensitive to the needs of their children to get out of that environment in many cases. In the situation 

of my own family, we were able to buy a house for $14,000 back 

then. Of course, it was across the street from the housing project, 

so my parents never did get us out of there even when we did 

‘‘move out.’’

I spend a lot of time with my folks in public housing. That is 

where I come from. Right now, a lot of those families are faced with 

a couple of options. One, they can try to move out and pay $1,500 

a month rent. And if they want a two-or three-bedroom, and a lot 

of these families have kids, they are looking at $2,000 a month 

rent. And that is about $500 or $600 more than they make in a 

month, so there is a deficit here. They want to eat and pay for 

clothing for their kids. 

The other option is just to move out and go into a shelter. That 

is why we are seeing a lot of the overcrowding in our homeless 

30

shelters. I just do not, and you know, I have had some time to 

spend with these families and they want desperately out of public 

housing and they are working their way out, but there are no alternatives for other housing, other than public housing, for these families. We are trying to figure that out. 

I just want you to realize that for a lot of these families, they 

are doing the right thing and looking to get out of a tough situation. This Section 8 situation is the only hope that they have in 

many cases of getting their kids out of a tough situation. 

Mr. MILLER OF CALIFORNIA. Would the gentleman yield for a second? 

Mr. LYNCH. The gentleman will yield. 

Mr. MILLER OF CALIFORNIA. In the bill when we introduced it, it 

is optional. We said that if you are going to have time limits, it is 

no less than 5 years. It is optional. 

Secretary JACKSON. That is right. 

Mr. MILLER OF CALIFORNIA. We do not mandate that they set 

any timeframe on it. The local public housing authority has the 

right to determine how long they want if they want a time limit. 

Mr. LYNCH. Right. But what I am saying, if I could reclaim my 

time——

Mr. MILLER OF CALIFORNIA. Yes, absolutely. 

Mr. LYNCH.—is that it obviously creates the opportunity for discrimination. If you are making a case-by-case rule by every individual in each individual circumstances with a couple of million 

people, I would dare say that from PHA to PHA, whether it is Baltimore or Boston, depending on that person’s location and their 

luck, they are going to be treated differently under this policy. 

There is no hard and fast rule if you are going to treat it on a caseby-case basis. 

I am just very concerned about this. I do not see the resources 

being put in this area. I see a pullback, quite frankly. I understand 

because the budget is growing and we have less money because we 

have to support those tax cuts for folks in the top income brackets, 

and I understand the need to do that. But in all seriousness, I just 

see a complete retrenchment in terms of the Federal Government’s 

commitment to public housing. I see it every day, and I see it especially in these hearings. 

Secretary JACKSON. Well, Congressman, I understand what you 

said, but let me first say that I believe, and I think I said it before 

you came in, that I have not met one person who wants to stay in 

public housing or stay on a voucher. I agree wholly with you on 

that point of view. The difference is, as Chairman Miller just said, 

it is an option. 

Secondly and thirdly, we have been criticized over the years for 

being so prescriptive in the sense that we want unanimity for the 

housing authority in New York to be the same in San Francisco. 

They are totally different. They are totally different. What we are 

saying to you today is we want to give them the flexibility to be 

able to run their housing authority. 

Some years ago, Congress gave us a demonstration program 

called Move to Work. We have about 10 housing authorities. All 10 

of them are different. One is Cambridge, within your, I am not sure 

if within your congressional district, but Cambridge——

31

Mr. FRANK. No, no, Cambridge is not in the Congressman’s district. 

[Laughter.] 

To their mutual relief, I think. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. MILLER OF CALIFORNIA. The gentleman’s time has expired. 

Secretary JACKSON. But the key to it is, what we recognized at 

that point in time, and I had said years before, these housing authorities are different, and they should have the flexibility to run 

their programs as they see fit. But initially when we started the 

Move to Work, they said the best model we have seen is Cambridge, so everybody should follow that model. Well, it just did not 

work in Atlanta, so we had to adjust the models and let the different agencies run their own Move to Work. It would not work in 

Chicago, so I think flexibility is very important. 

Let me close by this. You know, I am very, very sensitive to lowand moderate-income people, but I do not address them the same 

way as many people. I do not address them from a very paternalistic and patronizing manner. I think they have the same sense of 

worth that I do, and I am going to help them if they want to help 

themselves get out of public housing, get off of the voucher. 

I will do everything in my power to help them. I think that if 

you go to either one of the housing authorities I ran, you will do 

that. If you go to Brumley East and ask your people there, they 

will tell you that I have probably been one of their greatest advocates. 

Mr. MILLER OF CALIFORNIA. Mr. Lynch, that was a very good 

question. The key to this bill is we do not mandate anything. If 

they want to leave the system as it is, they can. 

Secretary JACKSON. That is right. 

Mr. MILLER OF CALIFORNIA. We are just saying to the local PHA, 

if you want to mandate some type of time limits, you can do that, 

but it can be no less than 5 years, so we try to put a minimum 

standard on there. 

Mr. FRANK. Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. MILLER OF CALIFORNIA. Yes. 

Mr. FRANK. I did want to say, because I would like to consult 

with the gentlewoman from New York, and I did think, Mr. Secretary, I hope you would address this. In her question when she 

talked about a 1.6 percent budget increase, someone got the impression that your answer was that would have been under the old 

system. I think the gentleman is accurate that the increase she 

talked about is the increase you asked for assuming the new system was in place. So the gentlewoman’s assumption I think is that 

the 1.6 percent increase is what you are asking for under the new 

system. 

Secretary JACKSON. Yes. 

Mr. FRANK. Well, I think your answer came out differently to 

that. 

Secretary JACKSON. I am sorry if it did. 

Mr. MILLER OF CALIFORNIA. Okay, thank you. 

Mr. Green? 

Did that answer your question, Ms. Kelly? He rephrased his answer. 

32

Mrs. KELLY. I very much appreciate the gentleman’s comments, 

because yes, there was a misunderstanding in the way that you responded to my question. So thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. MILLER OF CALIFORNIA. Mr. Green? 

Secretary JACKSON. Please excuse me. I did not understand it. 

Thank you. 

Mr. GREEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you, Mr. 

Ranking Member. 

And I thank the Secretary for giving us this portion of his valuable time. 

Mr. Secretary, perhaps I am restating what has been said, but 

I too believe that most people receiving welfare really want to say 

farewell to welfare. They do not care to be on welfare. I had the 

opportunity for 26 years to sit as a judge of a court that had exclusive jurisdiction over forcible entry and detainer lawsuits commonly 

known as eviction lawsuits. So I had an opportunity to interact 

with various housing authorities. 

I have had an opportunity to examine empirical data as it relates 

to the persons who had zero-based rent. Over the years, I consistently saw empirical data that indicated these persons were receiving zero-based rent because of their inability to afford some of the 

necessities of life. I saw justification for zero-based rent. 

My question is, if a person was receiving zero-based rent and you 

imposed a standard that required the person to pay some amount 

of rent, where were they to acquire these funds for this rent? Did 

it matter where they were to get the money from, given that they 

were qualified to receive zero-based rent? 

Secretary JACKSON. I think, Congressman, I do believe that there 

are some people who are physically and mentally handicapped who 

deserve to be on zero-based rent. I am of the opinion that if you 

are physically capable of going to work and in many cases most of 

the people are, they can come up with the rent. As I said a few 

minutes ago, when I imposed a rent requirement many people said 

people could not pay it, that we would have huge evictions. We had 

no evictions. People came up with the money. 

Mr. GREEN. That was why I posed the question. Let me just interrupt for a second because my time is short. That is why I posed 

the question. Where do you think they are coming up with the 

money from? I say this to you because to have zero-based rent, by 

definition means that you could not afford some of the necessities 

of life. So where do you come up with the money to pay this rent? 

Secretary JACKSON. Congressman, and I do not want to sound 

very harsh, but if they had zero-based rent, in many cases they 

would not have any amenities within their apartment. It is my belief that in many cases these people do have the ability to make 

a living and in a lot of cases they do make a living. They just do 

not report their income. I believe that if you are physically or mentally handicapped, in some cases elderly people, you might clearly 

have a serious problem with zero-based rent. But I do not think if 

you are physically capable that that is an issue. 

Mr. GREEN. Let me go on. I have actually gone into homes as a 

part of the judicial process. I have actually gone to locations. I have 

seen the homes, and you are right. They had very little in their 

homes. I will also tell you that usually it was a female. Usually she 

33

had more than one child, more than two, probably three or four 

children. 

Notwithstanding what I would like America to be, they were in 

a position where they could not work and take care of those children, the needs of those young children. There was no day care 

available for those children. They did not have a spouse who was 

there to care for those children. 

Literally, there are some people who merit zero-based rent, who 

are physically capable of working. I marvel at the notion that they 

all paid. That is why I asked where did they get the money from. 

Secretary JACKSON. I cannot tell you that, but I know they paid. 

Mr. MILLER OF CALIFORNIA. The gentleman’s time has expired. 

Mr. GREEN. Thank you. 

I thank you, Mr. Secretary. 

Mr. MILLER OF CALIFORNIA. Did you have a conclusion? 

Mr. Cleaver? 

Mr. CLEAVER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Secretary, thank you for being here. I am perhaps in a 

unique position. I think one other person may be in the same position. I both lived in public housing and appointed later in life a 

public housing authority. My mother, father, and three sisters, and 

I lived in this house for 7 years. It still stands not far from the last 

place you served in Dallas, Texas. We lived in here for 7 years. 

My father paid $5 a week for us to live in here, and that was 

too much, no running water, no plumbing. This is an alley. We paid 

the Templeton family $5 a week to live in what used to be a slave 

shanty. Mr. Chairman, we moved out of this shack into public 

housing. We lived in public housing for 7 years. My daddy is not 

trifling. My daddy worked two jobs and cut yards on the weekend. 

My mother worked ironing, doing everything else, and started college when I was in the eighth grade. 

We lived in public housing for 7 years. To show you how trifling 

my family was, all three of my sisters and I have post-graduate degrees from this shack. Mr. Secretary, people who live like this for 

the most part, and I am speaking experientially, are struggling to 

do better. I agree with you. Nobody enjoys living like this. Our disagreement comes when we have a disagreement on zero rent because there are people who are struggling every day, working hard, 

working two or three jobs trying to elevate their families, who cannot pay. 

I can call the names. This is not something I read in a sociology 

book. I know people. I grew up with people. I know people today 

who are struggling. It seems to me that the responsibility of the 

United States Government is to do everything conceivably possible 

to make sure that people do not live like this, particularly those 

who are struggling to get out. 

I am troubled that I would be a Member of Congress when we 

ended up passing legislation that would essentially put people in 

the streets. I do think people will become homeless in situations 

like this. We would have, my family would have become homeless. 

If that had happened, they would not have principals of schools in 

Houston, in Kansas City, Missouri, and in Flint Michigan. 

The proposed lower-income targeting in H.R. 1999 would change 

the voucher program serving primarily the lowest of the low, the 

34

extremely low-income families who are below 30 percent of the median, to families with income up to 60 percent of the median. Now, 

the change in the income targeting would have a damaging impact 

on African Americans and Latinos. According to the National Fair 

Housing Alliance, 53,000 African American families and over 

12,000 Latino families would lose their vouchers. 

So what do we say to them? How do we respond to them? What 

help is available to them? 

Secretary JACKSON. Mr. Congressman, I do not know where they 

got those figures from. Those persons who are presently on vouchers will not lose their vouchers. That is again the exaggeration that 

I go through every day. They are not going to lose their vouchers. 

Let me say something to you. It is clear to me that there are people out there every day that clearly are struggling. I am not in any 

way blind to that facet of life. I came from a family. My father had 

a fifth grade education. I am the last of 12 children. They educated 

all 12 of us. We did not live much better, but I remember something that happened that has always stayed with me. 

When my father got cancer, Congressman, the welfare worker 

came by. She said, ‘‘Mr. Barker,’’ she called him, she says, ‘‘You are 

entitled to Social Security, Social Security supplement, welfare and 

food stamps.’’ My father could barely talk, but he said something 

that has stayed with me. He said, ‘‘I have only earned two, that 

is Social Security and Social Security supplement; I will not take 

welfare, and I will not take food stamps.’’ That was his belief, that 

he had the pride. He had earned what he wanted. 

So I am saying to you, I am in no way going to denigrate anybody who is low-income in this country because I have been 

through it. And due to the hard work of my mom and my dad, I 

am sitting here because they, too, my mom worked every day. She 

washed and cleaned white persons’ homes. That is what she did. 

So I am totally in agreement with you, but I do believe this, that 

we must give people something to shoot for. If we do not give them 

something to shoot for, then we leave and we disrespect them. We 

are saying that they are not human beings with the same sense of 

work as me. I am not going to do that. I am not going to be patronizing and paternalistic to a person because they are low-income. I 

believe we can help them if they want to help themselves. My job 

is to help them, and that is what I did with the three housing authorities that I ran. 

I said earlier today, 900 kids came out of college because we 

started a program. I did not want to see them going back to public 

housing. I thought that they deserved better and we should give 

them better if they had incentives. And they did. Now we might 

disagree how we get there, but I think we agree philosophically 

that there are people who are suffering, and I do not disagree with 

that. 

Mr. MILLER OF CALIFORNIA. The gentleman’s time has expired. 

Thank you. 

Mrs. Moore? 

Ms. MOORE OF WISCONSIN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

And thank you, Secretary Jackson. 

I am focusing on page four of your testimony. I am looking at, 

I will start from number two since my time is limited, where you 

35

are really talking about 1998, those reforms that gave PHAs greater control. Because HUD was paying more money, that you gave 

them flexibility, thus allowing them to set the standards between 

90 and 110 percent of the local fair market rate. 

Secretary JACKSON. Yes. 

Ms. MOORE OF WISCONSIN. So here you clearly laid out the problem and why there were escalating costs in the program, but then 

you concluded that it was the behavior or the wrong program incentives, which is why we now need to give flexibility to these 

agencies that already abused it. I was not quite understanding 

that. Could you just clarify that cause-effect relationship because 

I do not get it? 

Secretary JACKSON. What we are saying——

Ms. MOORE OF WISCONSIN. And do not take all my time because 

I have another question. 

Secretary JACKSON. All right. I won’t. 

Ms. MOORE OF WISCONSIN. Okay. 

Secretary JACKSON. What we are saying is that we gave them 

that incentive, but it was still based on units. It was a unit-based 

cost. And they could go that high, but in the final analysis what 

we are saying today is if they choose to pay 150 percent of median, 

that is their right if they think that is the way they are going to 

be able to get a person or a family of four into housing. 

Now in New Hampshire, in California, even at the ability of 110 

percent, they still cannot house a person. I am for giving them the 

flexibility that they need to address the locale in which they live. 

Ms. MOORE OF WISCONSIN. But you said that it was that abuse 

that caused the costs to spiral, and now you——

Secretary JACKSON. No, what we are saying is this, Congresswoman, is that clearly because it was unit-based, there was no incentive for public housing authorities to really make an effort to 

bring down the cost of those units, even when the market was less 

than what it was. 

Ms. MOORE OF WISCONSIN. Let me explain my background to you 

a little bit. Notwithstanding the fact that I have a very similar impoverished background, I want to tell you something else about my 

background. I was an employee of the Wisconsin Housing and Economic Development Authority for 15 of the 16 years I served in the 

State legislature and was an employee of that agency. 

I saw our creating Section 8 project-based and unit-based Section 

8 housing that offered opportunities to families with higher and 

higher and higher incomes, thus squeezing out the very, very, very 

low-income person. As a member of that board, I squealed and 

whined and cried about approving every Section 8 project because, 

in fact, the lowest-income people were not going to benefit from the 

program. So I see this bill as just codifying what the public housing 

agencies are already doing, squeezing out low-income people. 

And let me tell you about those people who do not want to be 

on welfare. Let me tell you; I want my welfare. When I put in my 

mortgage interest deduction, the biggest housing welfare program 

we have, I want that welfare because those kinds of things really 

stabilize a family. 

If you have a mortgage, Secretary Jackson, you know, at 4 percent, you have stabilized your housing costs. Maybe you bought or 

36

if you bought property here in the D.C. area, maybe you could direct me to how I can get some welfare or how I can have bought 

a property 20 years ago for $20,000 at 6 percent interest rate and 

maintained that same housing costs. Should we kick those people 

out because they have been there for 5 years? These poor people 

want the same sort of stability. 

So I guess when we start talking about the character of people 

and not changing the 30 percent, the Brooke amendment, eliminating that. You have asked for hard-core data. I am from Milwaukee, Wisconsin where according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, 59 percent of African American men have no jobs. Our economy has changed. We have had loss of thousands of manufacturing 

jobs. These are not people who are just trifling and unwilling to 

work. 

So I can tell you that I see your testimony being very oxymoronic 

because you did identify the problem. You gave PHAs flexibility, 

and as my nephews would say, they vicked you. And you are now 

attributing those high soaring costs to the behavior of poor people, 

and it is totally unfair. 

Secretary JACKSON. I would say this to you, Congresswoman. No, 

I am not attributing those high costs to low-income people. I do not 

believe that. I think that clearly the housing authorities, as I said 

earlier, have not done their job. I am not trivializing anyone because of their low-income status. I would not do that. 

Mr. MILLER OF CALIFORNIA. The gentlelady’s time has expired. 

Ms. MOORE OF WISCONSIN. I just want a clarification, Mr. Chairman. I did not say that. I said that you identified the problem in 

your testimony that the flexibility that you provided them and the 

extra cost that you picked up was the problem, but you concluded 

with, we have to create an incentive for people who do not have 

more than 30 percent; we have to reward the bad behavior of the 

PHAs by giving them even more flexibility. That is my read of your 

testimony. 

Mr. MILLER OF CALIFORNIA. Thank you. 

Would you like to respond? 

Secretary JACKSON. I do not think, Congresswoman, that is what 

I am saying; at least not from my perspective, that is not what I 

am saying. I am not in any way trying to denigrate the person who 

uses the voucher. What I am saying clearly is this, is that HUD 

and the housing authority are both at fault because we let this get 

out of hand. Today, we are trying to correct it. 

There is no question about it. You are right. The housing authorities have not done what they should be doing, but HUD did 

not do what it should have been doing either. Okay? 

So I see this as a way and a mechanism to correct the problem 

and yet serve more people who are in need. That is all I am saying 

to you. 

Mr. MILLER OF CALIFORNIA. Thank you. 

Mrs. Carson, it is good to see you up and about and here with 

us today. You are recognized for 5 minutes. 

Ms. CARSON. Can I ask the gentleman a question? 

Mr. MILLER OF CALIFORNIA. Yes, you may. 

Ms. CARSON. Is it my turn? 

37

Mr. MILLER OF CALIFORNIA. Yes, it is. It is your time. You are 

recognized for 5 minutes. 

Ms. CARSON. Thank you very much. 

Mr. MILLER OF CALIFORNIA. I am sorry. Mrs. Velazquez, you are 

first. 

I am sorry, Mrs. Carson. I am getting a look. I crossed you off. 

I am sorry, just a second. 

Ms. Velazquez? 

Ms. CARSON. That is all right. We both look alike. No problem. 

[Laughter.] 

Ms. VELAZQUEZ. That is correct, sister. 

Mr. Secretary, I think that the problem that we have with this 

proposal is, and I am speaking in terms of myself and this side of 

the aisle, is that my understanding is that this bill rolls back 30 

years worth of protection. I am here listening to you saying that 

everything is going to be fine, that low-income people are not going 

to be impacted, that they will not lose their vouchers. Is that what 

you said? 

Secretary JACKSON. That is correct. 

Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Are you prepared to send to us in a written position stating and laying out how this will not happen? 

Secretary JACKSON. I have no problems at all, Congresswoman, 

telling you that those persons who are currently on a voucher, we 

are not going to go in and take those vouchers away. If you want 

a letter from me saying that, I will be happy to give it to you. We 

are not going to take a voucher from anyone who presently has 

one. 

Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Mr. Secretary, we all know that increasingly 

more Section 8 buildings are reaching the end of their 20-year contract. There are nearly 2,000 units in my district with expiring contracts this year alone. Despite these figures, this proposal limits 

the use of enhanced vouchers which protect tenants from unmanageable rent increases. 

This is happening in my district in New York City, where we are 

facing a housing crisis right now. Rather than jeopardizing people’s 

housing stability by limiting enhanced vouchers, wouldn’t it be a 

wiser approach to preserve affordable units by helping tenants find 

ways to purchase their buildings? 

Secretary JACKSON. I agree with that. 

Ms. VELAZQUEZ. And? 

Secretary JACKSON. I agree with that. 

Ms. VELAZQUEZ. So how are we going to do that? 

Secretary JACKSON. We are working every day to make sure that 

if the tenants can do it, they can do it. And we are working also 

to make sure that those persons who own those buildings do not 

take them out of the program. 

Ms. VELAZQUEZ. But do you have any specific ways to do it right 

now? 

Secretary JACKSON. We work with the landlords who have 

project-based subsidies. We are doing everything in our power. Legally can we keep them from taking it out of the program once the 

30-year period is gone? No, but we are using all of our moral persuasion to make sure that they do not. Because I agree with you, 

where would many of the persons, whether they are in New York 

38

or they are in Detroit or Chicago or wherever they are, where do 

they go if that person decides to make the complex market rate? 

I am totally in agreement with you, and we will continue to do everything. 

Ms. VELAZQUEZ. But what kind of assistance do you provide to 

the tenants so that they are in a position to purchase those properties? 

Secretary JACKSON. Well, we cannot provide the tenants any provision to purchase the properties. What we can do is if the tenants 

get together, whether they create a co-op or whatever, and try to 

buy the property, we think that clearly we are going to work with 

them, but we do not have monies to give them to purchase the 

properties. 

Ms. VELAZQUEZ. So how would you prevent a landlord who wants 

to opt out and go to the market rate? 

Secretary JACKSON. You cannot prevent him if clearly the 

project-based subsidy has run out. You can use moral persuasion. 

Legally, there is nothing we can do. 

Ms. VELAZQUEZ. I know that because this is happening in my district every day. What I am asking you is, what is it that you can 

do as a department who wants to end homelessness as we know 

it, because by having this, what you are going to do is increase 

homelessness everywhere in this country. What is it that you can 

do to help these people? 

Secretary JACKSON. I think that you understand exactly what I 

have just said. Legally, there is nothing we can do once the subsidy 

has run. We cannot make the landlord stay in the program. 

Ms. VELAZQUEZ. I know that. What I am saying to you is, why 

can’t we think out of the box and put together a program that will 

help tenants with resources so that they could purchase, like if 

they want to link up with not-for-profit organizations who will help 

them purchase those properties? 

Secretary JACKSON. I wish I could give you an answer. I am saying to you that legally once the subsidy runs, the person has a 

right to leave the program. We do not want them to leave the program. We will ask them to sell the property to a 501(c)(3). 

Ms. VELAZQUEZ. I am not talking about the landlord. I am talking about the tenants. 

Secretary JACKSON. Well, when a tenant moves in on a projectbased certificate, they know that the certificate goes with the 

apartment, not with them. They understand that. 

Mr. MILLER OF CALIFORNIA. The gentlelady’s time has expired. 

Ms. VELAZQUEZ. No, I have not finished. 

Mr. MILLER OF CALIFORNIA. It has expired. 

Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Oh, it is expired. You know what, it does not 

make any difference. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. MILLER OF CALIFORNIA. I apologize for passing over you, and 

I would never want that to happen again. It was an interesting 

look you gave me, and I will make sure I never do that again. 

[Laughter.] 

Mrs. Carson? 

Ms. CARSON. You would notice, Mrs. Velazquez, that I did not 

allow him to do that either. 

39

Mr. Secretary, I have a question on the fair housing implications 

of H.R. 1999. I apologize if it is redundant or repetitive because I 

was not here. I was like a runaway bride when they had that airplane running around, so I was running with everybody else. 

Secretary JACKSON. Okay. 

H.R. 1999, the State and Local Housing Flexibility Act of 2005 

would essentially eliminate portability in the voucher program. The 

bill would allow, for example, a suburban housing authority to reject a family from an urban housing authority. How does HUD intend to follow its own fair housing goals of desegregation, as well 

as the de-concentration of poverty by eliminating this important aspect of the program? 

Secretary JACKSON. Congresswoman Carson, we are not eliminating that. What we are saying is that the housing authority will 

have the ability to say if you want to take the portable voucher 

with you, we are not going to pay other than what we agreed to 

pay when you were sitting here. They are not saying that you cannot take that voucher with you. 

You will probably end up paying more if it is a higher-income 

area. But the way it stands now with portability, if you move from 

Dallas, Texas from an apartment complex, the best example I can 

give you, where it is two-bedroom and might cost you, let’s say, 

$850 a month, and you take that same voucher to Chicago for a 

two-bedroom that is going to cost you $1,200 a month. We are saying that the housing authority has the ability to say we agreed 

when we signed the contract that we are paying you $850, and that 

is what we are going to pay you. 

It does not restrict the ability to take that voucher with you. It 

is just that we are giving them the flexibility to say no, we are not 

going to do it. Because when you move that voucher from Dallas 

to Chicago, you are effectively taking $400 from some other person 

who could get that voucher. I think that is absolutely wrong. I 

think that clearly when the housing authority is allocated money, 

they should serve as many people as they can. Portability has 

drained on a lot of housing authorities. So we are not saying that 

the voucher is not portable. We are giving the housing authority 

the right to say we agreed on a contractual arrangement, but we 

will pay you $850. We are not going to pay any more than that. 

Ms. CARSON. Just hypothetically, Mr. Secretary, if I can further 

inquire here. If you have a tenant who is already established as 

being eligible, number two, already establishes being eligible at a 

point, at a level, then are you saying that if something happens 

where the tenant cannot retain the housing that they had and they 

have to move, that is just tough luck? 

Secretary JACKSON. No. That is not what I am saying. 

Ms. CARSON. You are saying you are not going to increase. 

Secretary JACKSON. I am saying the housing authority has the 

flexibility to tell them, no, they are not going to increase, because 

when you signed the contractual arrangement, it was for a certain 

amount of money, and that is what the housing authority agreed 

to pay. They must have, in my mind, some sure ability about what 

they are going to pay out in the coming year. 

Ms. CARSON. What happens if a dire emergency exists? Do you 

make any exceptions? 

40

Secretary JACKSON. Of course, of course. I think that clearly if 

a person in Dallas and the development that they lived in or the 

apartment complex burned and the next one that they came up to 

was $950, I think clearly the housing authority would make that 

adjustment if they could not find another apartment at $850 a 

month. Yes, we have to think that there are always going to be the 

probabilities that you will have emergencies or something very, 

very definitely could happen to the person’s ability to live in that 

apartment complex. It could be lead or it could be some other 

things. All of that must be taken into consideration. 

Ms. CARSON. So you do take some extraneous circumstances——

Secretary JACKSON. Circumstances, yes. 

Ms. CARSON.—into consideration? 

Secretary JACKSON. Yes. 

Ms. CARSON. I yield back, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. MILLER OF CALIFORNIA. Thank you very much. 

Ms. Tubbs Jones, I know you left us to go on Ways and Means. 

Did you change your mind? 

Mrs. JONES OF OHIO. Absolutely not. 

Mr. MILLER OF CALIFORNIA. I will give you 5 minutes anyway. 

Mrs. JONES OF OHIO. I have constituents that are concerned 

about housing, so I invited myself back to this hearing. 

Good afternoon, Mr. Secretary. How are you? 

Secretary JACKSON. How are you doing, Congresswoman? 

Mrs. JONES OF OHIO. I am doing great. Thank you. 

Secretary JACKSON. I know you always do well. 

Mrs. JONES OF OHIO. Blessed by the best, you know? 

Let me ask you this question; when Congresswoman Sue Kelly 

asked you the question about Section 8 vouchers and seniors and 

people on disability, in fact, people on disability receive Section 8 

vouchers, don’t they? 

Secretary JACKSON. Say that again to me. 

Mrs. JONES OF OHIO. Finish with your staffer, and then I will 

ask you. 

Secretary JACKSON. I have it. 

Mrs. JONES OF OHIO. Are you straight now? 

Secretary JACKSON. Yes. 

Mrs. JONES OF OHIO. All right. Now, Congresswoman Kelly 

asked you specifically about seniors, the people on disability and 

Section 8, and said that Section 8 increases were causing a loss on 

behalf of the seniors and those among the disabled on some functional charts she had. Correct? 

Secretary JACKSON. Right. 

Mrs. JONES OF OHIO. In fact, Section 8 vouchers include seniors 

and those on disability. Is that a correct statement? 

Secretary JACKSON. That is correct, yes. 

Mrs. JONES OF OHIO. So you are really not playing them one 

against another. You are actually all part of a Section 8 program. 

Secretary JACKSON. Well, yes, but also you have 811 which is——

Mrs. JONES OF OHIO. I understand that, but I am saying conceptually they are all part of a Section 8 program. 

Secretary JACKSON. That is correct. 

41

Mrs. JONES OF OHIO. Let me go on to something else. All of the 

proposals that you have under H.R. 1999 deal with concept, policy, 

philosophy. Is that correct conceptually? 

Secretary JACKSON. I think that——

Mrs. JONES OF OHIO. Let me go through them and maybe you 

will have a better understanding. 

Secretary JACKSON.—the bill that Congressman Miller introduced is pretty specific as far as we are concerned in that it addresses the needs that we think are very important at HUD. 

Mrs. JONES OF OHIO. Number two deals with flexibility and simplification, right? 

Secretary JACKSON. Yes. 

Mrs. JONES OF OHIO. Number one deals with, I am picking up, 

having picked this up this afternoon, and section three allows new 

options for homeownership; one does something else. I am just not 

coming directly at it. But the law does not provide any additional 

dollars to the housing authorities. It just says that I used to give 

you $90,000, and under the old rules you could spend $90,000 Xway, but under the new rules I am giving you more flexibility, but 

I am not giving you any more money. 

Secretary JACKSON. Well, we increased the budget by $1.1 billion 

in 2006, so that is more money. 

Mrs. JONES OF OHIO. But you are still not even with the changes 

under this law. If this should pass, there is no new money in this 

law to change. 

Secretary JACKSON. It is not in the law per se, but there is never 

any new money in the law. The money comes by appropriation 

from you all. 

Mrs. JONES OF OHIO. I understand that. It comes by appropriation, but this legislation does not provide for any additional dollars. 

Secretary JACKSON. No, the legislation provides, Congresswoman, 

a guideline. 

Mrs. JONES OF OHIO. All I am saying to you is, folks, change the 

way you do it, but I am not going to give you any more money to 

do what you do. 

Secretary JACKSON. You allocate the money. That is Article I, 

Section 7. You are the authorizer and the appropriator. 

Mrs. JONES OF OHIO. Absolutely, I am. 

Secretary JACKSON. Okay. 

Mrs. JONES OF OHIO. But understood, this is a piece of legislation 

that you are promoting, and you are not saying give me any more 

money; you are just saying allow me to do it in a different way. 

You do not want to take my line of questioning, Mr. Secretary, 

so I am going to go on to something else. 

Secretary JACKSON. No, I think——

Mrs. JONES OF OHIO. But it is clear from talking to all that I 

see——

Secretary JACKSON. Congresswoman, I think that would be very 

presumptuous on my part to tell you how to do your business. 

Mrs. JONES OF OHIO. I do not want you to be presumptuous. You 

are already that, generally, when we have a conversation. 

The point I am trying to make is you are asking your housing 

authorities to do more with less. 

Secretary JACKSON. No. 

42

Mrs. JONES OF OHIO. Because you are saying I am going to be 

flexible; I am going to make you flexible, but you still only have 

the dollars that you already had. 

Let me ask you about, I guess someone already really asked this 

question of you, and I am concerned, too. I was the Cuyahoga 

County prosecutor, and I worked very closely with the Cuyahoga 

Metropolitan Housing Authority when we had police officers, when 

we were doing drug elimination programs, when we were doing all 

of that. Clearly, there were a group of people within the housing 

authority that, A, we thought should not be there, B, did not deserve to be there, and C, were causing problems. 

But the majority of the people living in public housing, they do 

not love being there. They would love to be out of there. A lot of 

them would love to be out of there if they only had a job. But a 

lot of people right now are suffering even though the economy is 

supposedly going up. There are a lot of people suffering in my congressional district without a job, 60,000 without a job since 2001, 

who would love to walk up and say, take your voucher and shove 

it, and then go buy a house, but it is not happening. 

And so when you sit there having come from where you come 

from and say, you know, pull yourself up. 

Mr. MILLER OF CALIFORNIA. The gentlelady’s time has expired. 

Mrs. JONES OF OHIO. I am almost done, Mr. Chairman. Thank 

you very much. 

Pull yourself up by your bootstraps, you know, go on out here 

and get a job, and if you had a job, you would not have to be in 

the housing. It is really disingenuous because there are so many 

people out there who want a job and cannot get one. 

Secretary JACKSON. Congresswoman, let me say this to you. I 

disagree with you. I have never said pull yourself up by your bootstraps. 

Mrs. JONES OF OHIO. Same concept. 

Secretary JACKSON. May I finish? I believe that no one gets anywhere without someone helping them. The problem becomes whether you want or seek the help. I am saying where there are people 

who want and seek the help, we should do everything in our power 

to make sure that we do everything that is possible to make sure 

they get out of the condition in which they live. 

If you do not want the help, I have no sympathy for you. 

Mr. MILLER OF CALIFORNIA. I will answer the question you were 

unable to answer. This bill does not require anything additional of 

any housing authority anywhere in the United States. It does only 

require that they have flexibility to do what they want to do. 

Secretary JACKSON. That is correct. 

Mr. MILLER OF CALIFORNIA. But there is no additional mandate 

that costs one penny in this bill. 

Mrs. JONES OF OHIO. I never said that it was, Mr. Chairman. 

That was not my question. 

Mr. MILLER OF CALIFORNIA. You did not give me a chance to answer that one. You said we were mandating they do more and 

spend more money. No, we are not. We are just allowing them 

flexibility to do what they think is——

Mrs. JONES OF OHIO. I did not say that, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. MILLER OF CALIFORNIA. Then I misunderstood. 

43

Mr. Jackson, would you like to answer anything that you have 

not had a chance to answer today in your closing? I know there has 

been a lot asked of you that you would like to answer, and maybe 

you have not had a chance to. 

Secretary JACKSON. No. First of all, I would just like to thank 

you for being the sponsor and the other cosponsors of the bill because I think the bill will be very important for housing authorities 

to have that flexibility. You know, it is important when you think 

about some of the housing authorities that welcome the flexibility. 

One of the most progressive housing authorities in the country is 

Atlanta. They welcome the responsibility of having the ability to do 

it, and they are not by themselves. There are a number of housing 

authorities. 

Now you have some that do not, and you have advocates that do 

not, but then the advocates are going to be there because in many 

cases their living is made off of the housing authority making sure 

that they feel that they need their help and support. I am saying 

to you in closing today that even when I ran housing authorities, 

Mr. Chairman and members, I had problems with the advocacy 

groups because they could disagree with me, and they would think 

that probably I am not sensitive, do not care. And I do. 

But I believe that public housing residents, Section 8 residents, 

are human beings with the same sense of worth as me, and I am 

not going to them and telling them how to live, nor am I going to 

them being very paternalistic and patronizing to them, as if they 

are children. They are human beings, and our task and hopefully 

the flexible voucher will help housing authorities move many of 

these people out of dependency towards self-sufficiency. 

Mr. MILLER OF CALIFORNIA. Mr. Secretary, thank you for your 

testimony. I am looking forward to working with my Republican 

and Democrat colleagues to end up with a better situation in public 

housing than we have today. That is our goal, not to create a situation that is worse. 

Secretary JACKSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. MILLER OF CALIFORNIA. 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 place their responses in the record. 

Without any additional comments, this hearing is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 4:10 p.m., the committee was adjourned.] 

(45)

A P P E N D I X

May 11, 2005

46


26237.001
47


26237.002
48


26237.003
49


26237.004
50


26237.005
51


26237.006
52


26237.007
53


26237.008
54


26237.009
55


26237.010
56


26237.011
57


26237.012
58


26237.013
59


26237.014
60


26237.015
61


26237.016
62


26237.017
63


26237.018
64


26237.019
65


26237.020
66


26237.021
67


26237.022
68


26237.023
69


26237.024
70


26237.025
71


26237.026
72


26237.027
73


26237.028
74


26237.029
75


26237.030
76


26237.031