U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

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

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

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

97–152 PDF 2016

THE FUTURE OF HOUSING IN AMERICA: 

OVERSIGHT OF HUD’S PUBLIC AND 

INDIAN HOUSING PROGRAMS 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON 

HOUSING AND INSURANCE 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON FINANCIAL SERVICES 

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

JULY 10, 2015 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Financial Services 

Serial No. 114–40 

( 

(II) 

HOUSE COMMITTEE ON FINANCIAL SERVICES 

JEB HENSARLING, Texas, Chairman 

PATRICK T. MCHENRY, North Carolina, 

Vice Chairman 

PETER T. KING, New York 

EDWARD R. ROYCE, California 

FRANK D. LUCAS, Oklahoma 

SCOTT GARRETT, New Jersey 

RANDY NEUGEBAUER, Texas 

STEVAN PEARCE, New Mexico 

BILL POSEY, Florida 

MICHAEL G. FITZPATRICK, Pennsylvania 

LYNN A. WESTMORELAND, Georgia 

BLAINE LUETKEMEYER, Missouri 

BILL HUIZENGA, Michigan 

SEAN P. DUFFY, Wisconsin 

ROBERT HURT, Virginia 

STEVE STIVERS, Ohio 

STEPHEN LEE FINCHER, Tennessee 

MARLIN A. STUTZMAN, Indiana 

MICK MULVANEY, South Carolina 

RANDY HULTGREN, Illinois 

DENNIS A. ROSS, Florida 

ROBERT PITTENGER, North Carolina 

ANN WAGNER, Missouri 

ANDY BARR, Kentucky 

KEITH J. ROTHFUS, Pennsylvania 

LUKE MESSER, Indiana 

DAVID SCHWEIKERT, Arizona 

FRANK GUINTA, New Hampshire 

SCOTT TIPTON, Colorado 

ROGER WILLIAMS, Texas 

BRUCE POLIQUIN, Maine 

MIA LOVE, Utah 

FRENCH HILL, Arkansas 

TOM EMMER, Minnesota 

MAXINE WATERS, California, Ranking 

Member 

CAROLYN B. MALONEY, New York 

NYDIA M. VELA ́ ZQUEZ, New York 

BRAD SHERMAN, California 

GREGORY W. MEEKS, New York 

MICHAEL E. CAPUANO, Massachusetts 

RUBE ́ N HINOJOSA, Texas 

WM. LACY CLAY, Missouri 

STEPHEN F. LYNCH, Massachusetts 

DAVID SCOTT, Georgia 

AL GREEN, Texas 

EMANUEL CLEAVER, Missouri 

GWEN MOORE, Wisconsin 

KEITH ELLISON, Minnesota 

ED PERLMUTTER, Colorado 

JAMES A. HIMES, Connecticut 

JOHN C. CARNEY, JR., Delaware 

TERRI A. SEWELL, Alabama 

BILL FOSTER, Illinois 

DANIEL T. KILDEE, Michigan 

PATRICK MURPHY, Florida 

JOHN K. DELANEY, Maryland 

KYRSTEN SINEMA, Arizona 

JOYCE BEATTY, Ohio 

DENNY HECK, Washington 

JUAN VARGAS, California 

SHANNON MCGAHN, Staff Director 

JAMES H. CLINGER, Chief Counsel 

(III) 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON HOUSING AND INSURANCE

BLAINE LUETKEMEYER, Missouri, Chairman 

LYNN A. WESTMORELAND, Georgia, Vice 

Chairman 

EDWARD R. ROYCE, California 

SCOTT GARRETT, New Jersey 

STEVAN PEARCE, New Mexico 

BILL POSEY, Florida 

ROBERT HURT, Virginia 

STEVE STIVERS, Ohio 

DENNIS A. ROSS, Florida 

ANDY BARR, Kentucky 

KEITH J. ROTHFUS, Pennsylvania 

ROGER WILLIAMS, Texas 

EMANUEL CLEAVER, Missouri, Ranking 

Member 

NYDIA M. VELA ́ ZQUEZ, New York 

MICHAEL E. CAPUANO, Massachusetts 

WM. LACY CLAY, Missouri 

AL GREEN, Texas 

GWEN MOORE, Wisconsin 

KEITH ELLISON, Minnesota 

JOYCE BEATTY, Ohio 

DANIEL T. KILDEE, Michigan 

(V) 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

Hearing held on: 

July 10, 2015 ..................................................................................................... 1 

Appendix: 

July 10, 2015 ..................................................................................................... 25 

WITNESSES 

FRIDAY, JULY 10, 2015 

Castro Ramirez, Lourdes, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary, Office of 

Public and Indian Housing, U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) ...................................................................................................... 3 

Garcia-Diaz, Daniel, Director, Financial Markets and Community Investment, 

U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) .................................................. 5 

APPENDIX 

Prepared statements: 

Castro Ramirez, Lourdes ................................................................................. 26 

Garcia-Diaz, Daniel .......................................................................................... 36 

ADDITIONAL MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD

Kildee, Hon. Daniel: 

Written responses to questions for the record submitted to Daniel GarciaDiaz ................................................................................................................ 65 

(1) 

THE FUTURE OF HOUSING IN AMERICA: 

OVERSIGHT OF HUD’S PUBLIC AND 

INDIAN HOUSING PROGRAMS 

Friday, July 10, 2015 

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON HOUSING

AND INSURANCE, 

COMMITTEE ON FINANCIAL SERVICES, 

Washington, D.C. 

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

2128, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Blaine Luetkemeyer 

[chairman of the subcommittee] presiding. 

Members present: Representatives Luetkemeyer, Westmoreland, 

Royce, Garrett, Pearce, Posey, Barr, Rothfus, Williams; Cleaver, 

Velazquez, Green, Moore, Ellison, Beatty, and Kildee. 

Ex officio present: Representative Waters. 

Chairman LUETKEMEYER. The Subcommittee on Housing and Insurance will come to order. 

Without objection, the Chair is authorized to declare a recess of 

the subcommittee at any time. 

Today’s hearing is entitled, ‘‘The Future of Housing in America: 

Oversight of HUD’s Public and Indian Housing Programs.’’ 

Before I begin, I would like to thank the witnesses for appearing 

before the subcommittee today. We look forward to your testimony. 

And just as a sidenote, a housekeeping note: We expect votes 

sometime between 10:15 and 10:30, so we will have to recess for 

a period of time to go vote. And hopefully, we can get as much done 

as we can between now and then. We will come back after that if 

there are further questions or if we haven’t gone through the substantive issues of the day. 

So, with that, I recognize myself for 3 minutes to give an opening 

statement. 

Since Fiscal Year 2002, the Federal Government has given more than $550 billion to HUD. Sixty percent of annual funding goes to 

the Office of Public and Indian Housing. The Section 8 budget 

alone has increased 71 percent between Fiscal Years 2002 and 

2013. 

Unfortunately for HUD, success isn’t measured in the number of 

Federal programs or in dollars spent, and I have heard no indication from anyone that the growing need is anywhere close to being 

met. 

Today we will hear from the lady in charge of managing the $26 

billion annual budget and 1,300 employees. Ms. Lourdes Castro RaVerDate Nov 24 2008 16:06 Mar 04, 2016 Jkt 097152 PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 K:\DOCS\97152.TXT TERI
2 

mirez isn’t a stranger to reform. She led the San Antonio Housing 

Authority, a Moving to Work (MTW) agency, and during her tenure, instituted a number of innovative changes that undoubtedly 

made the agency more efficient while providing new opportunities 

to residents. 

Ms. Castro Ramirez, you are now in a position to allow other 

housing authorities and advocates to innovate and improve the 

services they deliver. It is my sincere hope that throughout your 

tenure, you champion the flexibility and innovation that will help 

pave the way for more efficient and modernized housing programs 

across the Nation. 

We will also hear from Daniel Garcia-Diaz of the Government 

Accountability Office. Mr. Garcia-Diaz has extensive knowledge of 

HUD’s housing programs and will testify on the progress HUD has 

made on previous GAO recommendations. It is my hope that we 

will hear that HUD has acted on these recommendations. 

We spend a lot of time discussing the need for reform in our Nation’s housing programs. It is particularly important that this year, 

which marks the 50th anniversary of HUD’s creation, we take time 

to understand what is and isn’t working and how success is measured in each office at the Department. 

As I have stated in the past, the status quo isn’t good enough. 

The reality is that the funding situation isn’t going to get better. 

Despite even the best attempts, asking for more Federal dollars 

isn’t the solution. It is time to roll up our sleeves and work together to build a stronger Office of Public and Indian Housing and 

a better HUD. 

I thank both witnesses for appearing today. I look forward to a 

productive hearing. 

And with that, I yield 5 minutes to the ranking member of the 

subcommittee, the gentleman from Missouri, Mr. Cleaver, for an 

opening statement. 

Mr. CLEAVER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

And thank you very much to the witnesses. I think this subcommittee is perhaps one of the most active subcommittees in the 

House, certainly within the Financial Services Committee. So I appreciate all of the attention that you have given and are giving to 

the issues of housing. 

I will keep my remarks under 3 minutes because of the change 

in the schedule today and the voting. 

I wanted to just emphasize the important work that HUD does 

as it relates to Public and Indian Housing programs. 

Since 1937, HUD has been in the business of trying to help the 

lowest-income Americans receive affordable and sanitary housing. 

And, although this Department was created as a result of what 

happened in the Depression, the truth of the matter is the Great 

Recession has already led to widespread losses in terms of housing 

and wealth in this country. People all over the country are still trying to recover from what happened during the Great Recession. 

About 2.3 million individuals now live in over 1.1 million units 

of public housing. And I always like to try to do this, because I 

think there are a lot of misconceptions and misinformation. There 

are almost 1 million children living in public housing—almost 1 

million in this country living in public housing. Thirty-one percent 

3 

of these households are led by the elderly, and 21 percent of the 

non-elderly are disabled. So about 52 percent of the individuals living in public housing either are elderly citizens, need some assistance, or they are disabled and need some assistance. And then, we 

have all of these children. 

So, contrary to what is thrown out here, that public housing is 

for healthy people who just want to lay up and watch big-screen 

TVs, which I don’t know where you buy them, living in public housing, but that kind of thing has to be eliminated. 

The average length of time for families living in public housing, 

the non-elderly, disabled, is 6.8 years. I think that we have to do 

everything we can to help them. And I think the housing choice 

voucher program is one of the ways in which we can do that, and 

hopefully we can get into that a little more. 

I yield back the balance of my time. 

Chairman LUETKEMEYER. I thank the gentleman. 

With that, we will go to our witnesses. 

We welcome you to the subcommittee. 

A quick tutorial on our lighting system there in front of you: you 

have 5 minutes to give your remarks. When you get to yellow, you 

have 1 minute left. Red means stop or close your remarks as quickly as possible. That same system will work whenever we are asking 

our questions here. 

So, with that, we welcome Ms. Lourdes Castro Ramirez, the Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for the Office of Public and Indian 

Housing at HUD, to the subcommittee. You are now recognized for 

5 minutes for your testimony. 

STATEMENT OF LOURDES CASTRO RAMIREZ, PRINCIPAL DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY, OFFICE OF PUBLIC AND INDIAN HOUSING, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN 

DEVELOPMENT (HUD) 

Ms. CASTRO RAMIREZ. Thank you, Chairman Luetkemeyer and 

Ranking Member Cleaver, for inviting me to testify this morning 

about what has been my life’s work: providing quality affordable 

housing for our Nation’s most vulnerable citizens and supporting 

families and their efforts to improve their circumstances. 

HUD serves 4.6 million households through its rental assistance 

programs, with 3.3 million of them either living in public housing 

or participating in the housing choice voucher program. As the 

Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for the Office of Public and 

Indian Housing, I oversee the public housing and housing choice 

voucher programs as well as the Office of Native American Programs, which provides affordable housing funds to 556 federallyrecognized tribes. 

The vast majority of the 3.3 million households served are elderly 

or disabled or families with children. In fact, elderly or disabled 

adults represent 51 percent of all households, and families with 

children represent 38 percent. 

Rental assistance programs— 

Chairman LUETKEMEYER. Ms. Ramirez, can you pull the microphone around so they can hear you a little better? Thank you. We 

are being recorded here, and they are having a little difficulty picking up your words. 

4 

Thank you very much. 

Ms. CASTRO RAMIREZ. Okay. 

Rental assistance programs help improve lives by providing access to higher-quality housing, reducing homelessness, fostering 

stability, and making it possible for families with children to focus 

on improving their future. 

I am deeply committed to working with Secretary Castro and the 

HUD team to move forward a bold agenda that includes expanding 

housing opportunities; promoting economic self-sufficiency; reducing family, youth, and veteran homelessness; bridging the digital 

divide; and improving health and educational outcomes for our residents. 

We also want to expand housing opportunities for the nearly 13.7 

million low-income households who are not receiving housing assistance and are paying more than half of their income on rent, live 

in substandard housing, or both. Despite a 96 percent occupancy 

rate in public housing and a 98 percent utilization level in the 

house choice voucher program, HUD is only able to serve one in 

four income-eligible households. 

Since 1965, HUD has increased the number of households receiving housing assistance from 600,000 to 4.6 million. In the Indian 

Housing Block Grant Program, over the life of that program, grant 

recipients have built, acquired, or rehabbed 113 housing units. 

Without providing this assistance, studies have shown that there 

would be a dramatic increase in homelessness and in the number 

of extremely-low-income families. The roof that we provide is making a difference in addressing the consequences of poverty by providing access to decent, safe, and affordable housing and promoting 

economic mobility. 

It is important to note that a growing number, 42 percent, of 

adults that are receiving rental assistance have a job and earn 

wages. 

Whether it is through the expansion of workforce development 

programs like the Family Self-Sufficiency Program and Jobs Plus, 

providing critical housing for veterans through the HUD-VASH 

program, or creating public-private investments through the Rental 

Assistance Demonstration and Choice Neighborhoods program, 

HUD is providing millions with stability and a better future. 

HUD’s rental assistance programs have been significantly underfunded for several years. I know firsthand, as the former executive 

director of the San Antonio Housing Authority, just how difficult it 

is for public housing agencies to develop and preserve an adequate 

supply of affordable housing. Despite these funding limitations, 

HUD, in partnership with public housing agencies and Native 

American communities, is doing its best to responsibly manage and 

maximize scarce resources to provide good housing, build strong 

neighborhoods, and promote opportunities. 

The funding levels in the Fiscal Year 2016 housing appropriations bill would make serving even our current program participants much more difficult. Let me give you an example. Compared 

to the President’s budget, the House bill would serve roughly 

100,000 fewer families in the housing choice voucher program. Not 

only does the House bill fail to provide funding to help restore 

5 

vouchers lost to sequestration, the funding level is also insufficient 

to renew the 28,000 existing vouchers. 

In summary, all of our work to expand access to higher-quality 

affordable housing, create and preserve that housing, and to connect residents to jobs and educational opportunities is about one 

simple thing: providing more families with an opportunity to share 

in the American Dream. 

We appreciate the invitation to discuss HUD’s rental assistance 

programs with our colleagues from the Government Accountability 

Office. I thank you for the invitation, and I look forward to the conversation. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Castro Ramirez can be found on 

page 26 of the appendix.] 

Chairman LUETKEMEYER. Thank you, Ms. Ramirez. 

I now recognize Mr. Garcia-Diaz, the Director of Financial Markets and Community Investment at GAO, for 5 minutes. 

STATEMENT OF DANIEL GARCIA-DIAZ, DIRECTOR, FINANCIAL 

MARKETS AND COMMUNITY INVESTMENT, U.S. GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE (GAO) 

Mr. GARCIA-DIAZ. Thank you. 

Chairman Luetkemeyer, Ranking Member Cleaver, and members 

of the subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to discuss 

GAO’s work on programs administered by HUD’s Office of Public 

and Indian Housing (PIH). 

PIH administers several programs including housing choice 

vouchers, public housing, and Indian Housing Block Grants, that 

assist the Nation’s poorest and most vulnerable households in obtaining safe, decent, affordable housing. PIH also operates programs designed to help assisted households become more economically independent through programs such as Moving to Work and 

Family Self-Sufficiency. 

My opening statement is based primarily on reports GAO issued 

from 2012 through 2014 and will be limited to three areas: first, 

HUD’s performance assessment of the MTW program; second, opportunities for greater efficiencies in the voucher program; and 

third, general observations on key challenges faced by PIH. 

The MTW program provides selected PHAs regulatory flexibilities to design and test new models for administering their public 

housing and voucher programs. Because MTW agencies are testing 

new ideas to improve agency and tenant outcomes, robust assessment is necessary to determine the relative success of different program models. 

However, in our April 2012 report on MTW, we identified a number of weaknesses that limited HUD’s ability to determine outcomes in light of the program’s objectives, including a lack of performance indicators and inconsistent information reported by individual MTW agencies. 

We are happy to report that HUD has implemented three of our 

four recommendations addressing these weaknesses. For example, 

in May 2013, HUD revised its reporting policies to require MTW 

agencies to disclose quantifiable, outcome-oriented information on 

their activities. In 2013, HUD established standard measures that 

correlate with the program’s statutory objectives. In addition, HUD 

6 

has recently provided us with information on the steps it will take 

to identify lessons learned in a more rigorous fashion. We are currently reviewing this information. 

I now turn to PIH’s largest program, the housing choice vouchers. 

In our 2012 report, we found that improved information on the 

level of subsidy reserves that PHA should maintain could aid budget decisions and reduce the need for new appropriations or be used 

more effectively to assist additional households. Unused subsidy 

funding can accumulate in reserve accounts when PHAs are not 

able to spend all the funding they receive in a given year. HUD has 

requested the authority to offset and in some cases redistribute excess reserves, but HUD has not developed specific or consistent criteria defining what constitute excess reserves and how it would redistribute funding among PHAs, as we recommended in our 2012 

report. I have received recent information that HUD is starting to 

take action on that recommendation. 

Another area for potential efficiencies involves streamlining the 

administration of the voucher program. We recommended in our 

2012 report that HUD consider proposing to Congress options for 

streamlining the program’s administrative requirements. HUD has 

implemented our recommendation. Specifically, HUD proposed a 

number of statutory changes in its recent budget request. After receiving authorization in 2014, HUD published a proposed rule in 

January of this year that would permit, among other things, PHAs 

to conduct streamlined reexaminations of families with fixed income. HUD expects to publish a final rule by the end of the year. 

I would like to conclude by briefly mentioning three ongoing challenges that PIH will have to continue to manage. 

First, improper payments. Public housing and vouchers are 

among the programs at risk of having improper payments. We have 

noted that HUD has significantly reduced improper payments since 

2000. Further reductions will require sustained management attention. 

Second, preservation of public housing units. A 2010 report estimated $26 billion in capital needs for public housing. HUD has 

multiple efforts under way that may help address these needs. 

Continued HUD oversight of implementation of preservation efforts 

will be critical to its success. 

Finally, PHA monitoring. Work conducted by GAO and the IG 

have identified issues with the effectiveness of HUD’s tools for 

monitoring PHAs. The large number of PHAs nationwide and the 

significant physical and financial challenges some of them face 

highlight the importance of effective HUD oversight. 

This concludes my opening remarks. I would be glad to answer 

any questions you may have. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Garcia-Diaz can be found on 

page 36 of the appendix.] 

Chairman LUETKEMEYER. We thank Mr. Garcia-Diaz for his testimony. 

And, without objection, the written statements of both witnesses 

will be made a part of the record as well. 

Let me begin by recognizing myself for 5 minutes for questioning. 

7 

Ms. Castro Ramirez, as I understand it, the overwhelming majority of PIH funding is spent through formula grants. Yet, you have 

a staff of more than 1,300. What do these 1,300 employees do if the 

bulk of your budget is billed out through formula grants? 

Ms. CASTRO RAMIREZ. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the question. 

As it relates to the Office of Public and Indian Housing and the responsibility that we have to manage a $26 billion budget with 

1,300 staff members, as we all know, we are entrusted to ensure 

that these dollars are spent to enhance and provide adequate housing. And so the employees who work in the Office of Public and Indian Housing are responsible for ensuring that the regulatory requirements, statutory requirements of these programs are being 

monitored. They are also responsible for ensuring that we are 

tracking performance. 

And they are also responsible for providing adequate technical 

assistance and oversight in the field level. We have a number of 

field offices across the United States that work closely with PHAs 

and also with Native American communities to ensure that the 

local needs, the local housing needs, of their citizens and residents 

of those communities are appropriately addressed. 

Chairman LUETKEMEYER. Okay. You said you are tracking performance. Do you have some metrics to show or that you are following to show success for your programs? 

Ms. CASTRO RAMIREZ. Yes, we do have some metrics, Mr. Chairman. 

One metric is our occupancy rate in public housing. Since this 

Administration, since President Obama’s Administration, occupancy in public housing has increased significantly. Six years ago, 

it was at about 90 percent. We are now at 96 percent. 

Another measurement of performance is how well public housing 

agencies are spending their dollars to serve families from the waiting list. As I indicated in my testimony, 98 percent of housing 

choice voucher dollars are being used. 

Chairman LUETKEMEYER. Mr. Garcia-Diaz, you are the ones who 

sort of look over everybody’s shoulders, make sure things are being 

done right. And I am sure you have some ideas. Do you believe 

1,300 employees are necessary to oversee this program when a lot 

of it is done on a contract basis? 

Mr. GARCIA-DIAZ. While the funding of the programs is formulabased, extensive oversight is required of the individual PHAs. 

There are over 3,300 of them of varying size and complexity. I can’t 

comment if 1,300 is exactly the right number or not, but that is the 

kind of assessment that we would hope HUD would be doing. 

As these programs are changing and evolving through things like 

MTW, we would hope that HUD is looking at their structure, their 

organizational structure, to make sure that it is responsive to the 

current program needs and make any changes that they need to. 

Chairman LUETKEMEYER. Okay. I guess the question is, are they 

being well-managed and are they being well-run? Are those 1,300, 

are they doing their job, or do we have some waste there? 

Mr. GARCIA-DIAZ. Again, we haven’t looked at that particular 

issue. 

Chairman LUETKEMEYER. Okay. 

8 

With regards to the number of vouchers that go unused, it looks 

like we have stagnated between the 92 percent range to the 90 percent range. Why do you believe that is so, Mr. Garcia-Diaz? 

Mr. GARCIA-DIAZ. Was it regarding the public housing— 

Mr. LUETKEMEYER. Yes. 

Mr. GARCIA-DIAZ. —occupancy— 

Chairman LUETKEMEYER. Yes. Section 8. 

Mr. GARCIA-DIAZ. —or Section 8? 

Chairman LUETKEMEYER. The Section 8 tenant-based voucher 

programs from 2011 to the present have stagnated in the 90 percent to 92 percent range. 

Mr. GARCIA-DIAZ. Okay. There is a variety of reasons that could 

explain why not all the funding in the Section 8 programs gets utilized. And it could be partly the PHA and their ability to manage 

the program to their optimal occupancy rate. That requires PHAs 

to manage attrition in the program. And so, depending on how effectively they manage that process, you could have a situation 

where they don’t utilize all of the funding for that program. 

Chairman LUETKEMEYER. Ms. Ramirez, what do you think is the 

reason for that? 

Ms. CASTRO RAMIREZ. There are several reasons. In addition to 

what Mr. Garcia-Diaz mentioned, I would specifically stress that 

not providing sufficient funding to housing agencies to administer 

the housing choice voucher has decreased and impacted their ability to deliver this program appropriately. 

As an example, in the last few years the administrative fee, 

which supports the housing agencies’ ability to be able to use those 

vouchers, has been cut by about 25 percent. In some cases, we have 

received requests from housing agencies that are administering the 

housing choice voucher program that they can no longer manage or 

administer the program because there is not sufficient funding. 

Chairman LUETKEMEYER. Thank you. I see my time is up. 

With that, I will recognize the ranking member for 5 minutes, 

the distinguished gentleman from Missouri, Mr. Cleaver. 

Mr. CLEAVER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

And thank you. I failed to thank you in my opening comments, 

but thank you for being here. 

I was on the city council in 1990 and elected to mayor in 1991, 

and President Bush—and it is little discussed—President Bush, the 

first, promoted and eventually signed into law one of the best-kept 

secrets of HUD, I think. It is called the Family Self-Sufficiency Program. It is, I think, very creative. It allows for the promotion of 

employment, and it asks that expansion for residents. 

But maybe it would be of some help if you shared just an overview of the program, because, since I have been on this committee, 

which is 11 years, I am not sure we have ever talked about it, and 

I guess one of the reasons is because it works well. So would you, 

Ms. Ramirez, please? 

Ms. CASTRO RAMIREZ. Yes. Thank you, Representative Cleaver, 

for the question regarding the Family Self-Sufficiency Program. 

The Family Self-Sufficiency Program is a program that has been 

proven to improve the economic standing and opportunities for the 

families that we serve both in public housing and the housing 

choice voucher program. Specifically, one of the key elements of the 

9 

Family Self-Sufficiency Program is for public housing staff to work 

closely with participants to develop a 5-year plan that leads to employment, educational opportunities, and, in many cases, to homeownership. 

Let me share with you two important performance figures or 

metrics. In the first year of participating in the Family Self-Sufficiency Program, 71 percent of adults who participate show an increase in their income. Another important metric is we are monitoring homeownership rate at the end of the FSS program, and, in 

2014, 11 percent of FSS graduates, those that have completed the 

program, moved into homeownership, became homeowners. 

Mr. CLEAVER. And after the 5 years, what happens to the money 

that they have been paying for the increased rental rate? 

Ms. CASTRO RAMIREZ. Yes. So, during the course of the 5-year 

program, families, as their incomes increase, there is an escrow 

that is set aside that allows for families to be able to save those 

dollars for homeownership, for education, or for expenses related to 

the goals that they want to achieve. 

Mr. CLEAVER. So they are able to collect that money that— 

Ms. CASTRO RAMIREZ. Yes. 

Mr. CLEAVER. —they have actually been paying? 

I am not sure how many people are aware that I had to appoint 

the housing authority, as mayor, and became extremely supportive 

of this program, because my residents, my citizens, were involved 

in the program and they were praising it. 

And I just think—you know, I was in a parade on Saturday. And 

one person, as I was walking down the street, only one person out 

of maybe 3,000 wouldn’t take my candy. And I focused the rest of 

the day on this one person. Now, 2,999 took it; I focused on one. 

And I think it is a human characteristic that maybe we can’t move, 

but we tend to go to the negative. And the programs that are functioning, I think, like this program, many of the Members may not 

even know about it because that is not what humans do. So I appreciate that explanation of the program. 

And I yield back the balance of my time. 

Chairman LUETKEMEYER. The gentleman yields back. 

With that, we go to the distinguished gentleman from Georgia, 

the vice chairman of the subcommittee, Mr. Westmoreland, for 5 

minutes. 

Mr. WESTMORELAND. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Ms. Ramirez, are you familiar with the Small Housing Authority 

Reform Program proposal, the SHARP? 

Ms. CASTRO RAMIREZ. Yes, I am somewhat familiar with it. 

Mr. WESTMORELAND. We have met with all of our—well, 90 percent of our housing authorities in the district, and they are very 

concerned. Most of my authorities are of the smaller type—35, 50, 

70 units. And they are very concerned about some of the regulations and requirements that are put on them. 

Is there anything that you can think of that HUD could do administratively, some things out of this proposal, that could be put 

into effect immediately? 

Ms. CASTRO RAMIREZ. Yes, Representative. Thank you very much 

for the question. 

10 

I am keenly aware that many of the housing agencies that participate in and administer these programs are small housing authorities. And so our Department is focused on greater efficiency 

and also identifying opportunities for flexibility and reducing administrative burden. 

Three examples that I would provide of the efforts: First, in the 

President’s budget, there is language that would enable PHAs to be 

able to have flexibility and fungibility in the use of their capital 

funds and their operating funds, up to 30 percent. So, greater flexibility in terms of the use of those dollars. 

Second, we are finalizing a streamlining rule that will enable 

small PHAs and also large PHAs to exercise some additional flexibilities, such as moving to triannual certifications. 

And lastly, the physical needs assessment, we are in the process 

of developing a proposed rule to exempt small PHAs. 

Mr. WESTMORELAND. Thank you. Because I think if you will go 

and especially if you want to come visit some in my district, you 

will find that these are very well-kept, very well-managed, residents love them, but they are under a tremendous amount of pressure on some of the things that they have to do. 

Let me ask you again, you came from the San Antonio Public 

Housing Authority, which is a Moving to Work authority, is that 

correct? 

Ms. CASTRO RAMIREZ. That is correct. 

Mr. WESTMORELAND. Do you think that the San Antonio benefited from the Moving to Work status? 

Ms. CASTRO RAMIREZ. Yes, I think it did benefit. 

Mr. WESTMORELAND. So you and I both are fans of Moving to 

Work. 

As a former director with the Moving to Work status, would you 

ever want to relinquish that Moving to Work status and go back 

to just a normal public housing authority? 

Ms. CASTRO RAMIREZ. I think that the Moving to Work program 

provides greater flexibility and enables PHAs to address local 

needs and to be innovative in the way that they address local affordable housing needs. 

There is also responsibility associated with being an MTW agency, including ensuring that the families who are being housed continue to be—that MTW agencies are doing their best to substantially serve the same number of families. 

So the flexibilities that are afforded through MTW—one of the 

reasons why we are so focused on improving monitoring and evaluation, as mentioned by GAO, is because we believe that those innovative practices that are taking place within the MTW agencies 

are practices and policies that could be scaled up. 

But, in order for us to be able to identify those policies that are 

working, we need more data, more evaluation. And, in fact, our Office of Policy Development and Research is in the process of undertaking a comprehensive study that would enable us to identify 

some of those best practices. 

Mr. WESTMORELAND. Most of us who have visited our public 

housing authorities (PHAs) and are lucky enough to have some of 

the Moving to Work authorities in our district have seen the tremendous progress that they have made. And we are trying to enVerDate Nov 24 2008 16:06 Mar 04, 2016 Jkt 097152 PO 00000 Frm 00016 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 K:\DOCS\97152.TXT TERI
11 

courage that, but it seems like HUD kind of pushes back on us, 

when we want to help people. And we really don’t understand that. 

So hopefully, we can work together and make some of this move 

a little bit faster. 

I yield back. 

Chairman LUETKEMEYER. The gentleman’s time has expired. 

With that, we go to the gentlelady from California, the distinguished ranking member of the full Financial Services Committee, 

Ms. Waters. 

Ms. WATERS. Thank you very much. 

I would like to continue this conversation about Moving to Work 

programs. And let me just say that I think that probably every 

Member of Congress and certainly members of this committee 

would like to see people working, we would like to see them independent, we would like to see them earning money and being able 

to live where they want to live. 

So when we talk about Moving to Work, those of us who question 

it are not opposed to people becoming independent and being able 

to make choices in their lives. But we don’t understand this Moving 

to Work program. There are currently 39 Moving to Work agencies 

with 430 units, or 13 percent of the total stock, and, after 20 years, 

there is nothing to show for it. 

So we find that, supposedly, we are told that in these Moving to 

Work programs that people are employing work requirements, time 

limits, higher rent requirements, et cetera, et cetera. But Moving 

to Work agencies in 2014 shifted to other purposes or left unspent 

$590 million of their voucher subsidy funds, which they could have 

used to support 63,000 additional vouchers. And they used 81 percent of their total appropriated voucher funds for vouchers, meaning they spent 19 percent on other things, including reserves, on 

and on and on. 

So why don’t we know the results of Moving to Work programs? 

Who can tell us about the success of them in real numbers? How 

many people were trained, were given jobs? How many people 

transitioned out of public housing into market-rate housing? What 

is going on with voucher programs? 

It sounds good. Moving to Work sounds excellent. And for people 

who think that everybody in public housing is worthless and don’t 

want to work—and they can get up and they can pound their fist 

and talk about this great Moving to Work program. It sounds good. 

But what is it, Ms. Ramirez? Tell me about Moving to Work and 

the success of it. 

Ms. CASTRO RAMIREZ. Thank you, Representative Waters, for the 

question regarding Moving to Work. 

In the President’s budget, our Department is proposing a modest 

increase in the number of MTW agencies by 15 new MTW agencies 

that would have to be high-performing agencies. And one of the 

reasons why we are proposing a very modest increase is because 

we agree with the statements that you have made, that it is very 

important for us to be able to have good performance information, 

good metrics that demonstrate the positive impact and also that 

demonstrate the policies that have not worked to ensure that as 

the Moving to Work demonstration and designation grows, we are 

very mindful about the policies that are being implemented. 

12 

I would just share, in my experience, in San Antonio, as a Moving to Work agency, we did not have time limits. The focus there 

was about partnering with agencies to bring in workforce development and education programs. And we did develop very specific 

metrics. And I think one of the challenges in terms of macro information is that each agency has developed very specific plans to 

their local need— 

Ms. WATERS. Okay. And I am going to interrupt you for a moment because— 

Ms. CASTRO RAMIREZ. Yes. 

Ms. WATERS. —I only have a short period of time left. 

Ms. CASTRO RAMIREZ. Thank you. 

Ms. WATERS. But why don’t you take the Moving to Work programs now and start demanding the information, come up with 

some standards, so that you could get some credible information, 

instead of expanding on Moving to Work that has not proven or 

shown what they can do? 

I know a lot about this. I created programs in South Central Los 

Angeles that I actually wrote using Wagner-Peyser moneys and 

Project Bill in Nickerson Gardens, Jordan Downs, and all those 

public housing programs. I know what can be done. But I just don’t 

see Moving to Work doing any of that. 

And why are you expanding? Take the ones that are already in 

existence and get that information from them. 

Ms. CASTRO RAMIREZ. I completely agree. And we are in discussions with all 39 agencies currently to make several improvements 

to existing agreements, or agreements as we move to execute new 

agreements. 

And one of the elements that is under discussion with all 39 is 

improving monitoring and evaluation, ensuring also that agencies 

clearly understand the responsibility of continuing to substantially 

serve the same number of families. 

So that is well under way, and we look forward to following up 

with your office with some additional information on that. 

Ms. WATERS. Thank you. 

Chairman LUETKEMEYER. The gentlelady’s time has expired. 

With that, we will go to the gentleman from New Mexico, Mr. 

Pearce, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. PEARCE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I thank both of the witnesses for being here and for your work 

on improving housing for those who need it. 

I appreciated your comments, Ms. Ramirez, and your testimony. 

I think that I actually sense a feeling of excitement, really, for 

the opportunity to reform some of the programs. When we began 

work on NAHASDA 3 years ago, HUD was pretty resistant to some 

reforms in HUD, and then they got supportive because they realized that these would actually be productive, that they were reforms that made sense. 

Likewise, many of the Indian tribes, the housing authorities were 

resistant, but then they began to say: But we need to find the efficiencies. Sometimes we have corruption; we need to get rid of that. 

And we began to have very straightforward conversations. 

So, I am actually approaching this piece of the housing with 

some anticipation that you all, no matter what happens on the legVerDate Nov 24 2008 16:06 Mar 04, 2016 Jkt 097152 PO 00000 Frm 00018 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 K:\DOCS\97152.TXT TERI
13 

islation, there are things I think you all can do internally, and I 

would encourage that. 

So I would like to kind of drill down in one specific area, if we 

can. And I am not trying to catch you in a corner or anything, but 

do you have a rough cost for Indian housing per square foot nationwide? Is that something that you all work on? Because the numbers I get in our district are very high, $200 to $300 a foot, when 

BIA or some agency is in charge of getting the houses built. Do you 

have any figures like that nationwide? 

Ms. CASTRO RAMIREZ. I don’t have those figures with me, but I 

can definitely follow up with— 

Mr. PEARCE. Is $200 kind of out of the range? Is that abnormally 

high, or is that something that you see occasionally? Do you have 

a figure, the cost per square foot on the housing? 

Ms. CASTRO RAMIREZ. Specific to Native American communities? 

Mr. PEARCE. I am just talking about Native American housing 

right now. That is the total focus. 

Ms. CASTRO RAMIREZ. I would have to follow up with you in 

terms of what the specific— 

Mr. PEARCE. Okay. Let’s just begin the discussion that I think 

I have seen those numbers and you would be far better—it looks 

like you might have a note coming up, so if you need to read that, 

that is fine. 

But, again, my point is that I have just been going to the Indian 

tribes and saying, look, why are you waiting on Washington? Just 

build your own. Why don’t you get it set up to where private banks 

can come on and lend money on the reservation? It is actually 

much simpler than what you would think. And so we need longerterm leases, because banks don’t want to build a house on a property that might not be there next year. 

So, many of the tribes are now doing that. They are asking us 

to come in. The ones in New Mexico are saying, you all come help 

us write our mortgage rules. Because we would be happy to do it. 

We just weren’t aware there was a problem. 

And if we can get it to where more people can get private financing, we don’t have to wait for government financing. A lot of the 

Indians are making very good money. And they would rather live 

on the tribal lands, but they can’t get the loan. And so they stay 

in the town, they build a community there, and then the fabric of 

the tribes begins to break down. 

So that is the first thing, to see if we can’t ease those rules. And 

you all could do that. We have suggested this in our legislation, in 

that pilot program, that you all, frankly, I think, could get that 

done internally. 

The second piece is that the tribe should be the first repossessing 

agent, because they don’t want banks repossessing property that is 

on the tribal grounds. I said, look, you know who culturally 

wouldn’t fit in that neighborhood and who would. And they are, 

again, very receptive to that. 

So this year I visited a tribe in New Mexico that is building their 

own houses, and they are using tribal labor. There are actually a 

couple that are doing this, and one tribe is at $57 a foot. So if you 

all could figure out how to get past the bureaucracy that is driving 

this thing towards $200 a foot back into the $57 per foot—another 

14 

tribe had $48 a foot—we could start building 4 and 5 times the 

houses. And I think that is what we are after. 

So I will give you the last minute to—so tribal-owned institutions, you all need to be backing them up, make sure they are not 

building junk houses, because you know how that would work. But, 

anyway, comment, if you would? 

Ms. CASTRO RAMIREZ. Yes. 

First, Representative Pearce, let me thank you for introducing 

the reauthorization of NAHASDA, the Native American Housing 

Self-Determination Act. For the last 18 years, this specific Act has 

empowered Native American communities to ensure that they are 

deciding and determining how best to address the needs within Indian country, and there is tremendous work that has been done. 

As it relates to the specific information on the cost per unit, we 

will follow up and look forward to visiting with you on this. 

Mr. PEARCE. Just count us in as a partner. 

I yield back my time. 

Ms. CASTRO RAMIREZ. Thank you. 

Chairman LUETKEMEYER. The gentleman’s time has expired. 

We do have votes that have been called. I am going to try and 

squeeze in two more people, if we can, before we have to recess. 

With that, I recognize the gentlelady from New York, Ms. Velazquez, for 5 minutes. 

Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and Mr. Ranking 

Member. 

I would like, Ms. Ramirez, to continue and to expand on the 

questions that were asked by Ms. Maxine Waters. 

In your submission of limited expansion of the MTW, the request 

does not, however, include the full set of protections contained in 

the 2012 stakeholder agreement. Why is that? 

Ms. CASTRO RAMIREZ. Yes, Representative Velazquez. Thank you 

for your question. 

The request to expand to 15 agencies does include some elements 

of the discussions that were contained in the stakeholder— 

Ms. VELAZQUEZ. But my question is, there was an agreement 

that was negotiated and committed to by HUD. Why wasn’t that 

included in your request? And how, then, are you going to make 

sure that tenants will be protected from the unintended consequences of the Moving to Work program? 

Ms. CASTRO RAMIREZ. Yes, thank you for the follow-up question. 

So there are some inherent— 

Ms. VELAZQUEZ. I understand. Why some and not the full agreement? Because there is going to be a lack of credibility. 

Ms. CASTRO RAMIREZ. Right. 

So the protections—one of the statutory provisions in MTW is 

that an MTW agency that is participating in the demonstration 

must demonstrate that they are substantially serving the same 

number of families as they were prior to moving to MTW. And we 

believe that is an important element of ensuring that residents are 

protected and ensuring that those services continue. 

Ms. VELAZQUEZ. That doesn’t answer my question. Okay. And I 

just would like to hear—people are frustrated, Members are frustrated, because you continue to ask for expansion of the program, 

15 

and yet we don’t know if tenants are being protected, if their rights 

have been violated. 

Mr. Garcia-Diaz, the GAO has found that HUD has not adequately monitored the performance of MTW agencies, and this lack 

of oversight often comes at the expense of residents. HUD has proposed a limited expansion of MTW but still has not provided Congress with any real data on the program. Can you please explain 

your findings and why a rigorous, standardized evaluation of MTW 

is so critical? 

Mr. GARCIA-DIAZ. Yes. 

So our work in the past has shown that, really, for the longest 

time this program has been operating with no systematic data on 

the statutory objectives of the program. MTW is not just about efficiency and cost-effectiveness, but it is also about improving work 

opportunities and housing choice. 

And we had recommendations that HUD develop standard definitions on how it defines these objectives so that it could be applied 

and that the agencies can collect consistent data and report it up. 

So, for the longest time, we have had a huge missed opportunity 

to find out what is going on with this program. And, now, recently, 

starting from 2013 and on, HUD has started to define terms, encourage a little more consistency in the data collection, and have 

amended contracts so that all the MTW agencies are collecting and 

reporting similar data to HUD that can be consolidated so that we 

can say something about the program. 

Ms. VELAZQUEZ. But, to this day, based on the facts, we cannot 

conclude that it is working. 

Mr. GARCIA-DIAZ. Until the data results come out— 

Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Thank you. 

Mr. GARCIA-DIAZ. —it is hard to judge on the effectiveness of the 

program. 

Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Thank you. 

Ms. Ramirez, conversions on the RAD would create construction 

and rehabilitation jobs subject to Section 3 requirements. However, 

Section 3 has not been properly enforced. And I am concerned that 

inadequate oversight causes residents to miss out on job opportunities. What are HUD’s specific plans to ensure that Section 3 is enforced, specifically as related to RAD? 

I have been working on Section 3 for almost 20 years, and for 

20 years it has been a missed opportunity, a real disaster. So can 

you please—because when we deal with the backlog that exists in 

New York City with NYCHA in terms of repairs, this is a way to 

get able bodies to get jobs—and they are seeking jobs, because 

every week we do workshops trying to get residents to find jobs. 

But yet you don’t have the proper mechanisms in place 20 years 

later. 

Chairman LUETKEMEYER. The gentlelady’s time has expired. 

With that, we go to the gentleman from California, Mr. Royce, 

for 5 minutes. 

Mr. ROYCE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

And thank you very much to our witnesses here. 

And, Deputy Assistant Secretary Castro Ramirez, I would like to 

address an issue with you briefly that was touched on in your prepared testimony, and also Mr. Westmoreland brought this up. 

16 

Your predecessor in your position made a public commitment at 

a February 2014 Moving to Work summit in support of extending 

for 10 years all MTW contracts for public housing authorities with 

rental assistance utilization rates of 90 percent or higher. 

And specifically, last March, she wrote the housing authority of 

the County of San Bernardino, and I will quote from her letter: ‘‘I 

am willing to extend your MTW agreement to the fiscal year ending in 2028, providing your HCV utilization level is at or above 90 

percent.’’ 

And she continued in that letter: ‘‘An amendment to the MTW 

agreement is being drafted for those agencies that are already demonstrating a high utilization level and will be provided as soon as 

possible.’’ 

This amendment hasn’t materialized. And, in fact, rather than 

offering a contract extension last fall, the Department began to 

push more restrictive provisions for existing MTW agencies. 

So San Bernardino County has implemented a 5-year-term-limit 

program for tenants, which has increased family incomes and 

helped many find gainful employment. And, in fact, in between 

April 2013 and September 2014, their MTW initiatives saw a 24.6 

percent reduction of unemployed household heads and a 52.4 percent average income jump. 

The current uncertainty created by HUD threatens this success. 

Many of these 5-year contracts now extend beyond the scheduled 

2018 MTW expiration date. San Bernardino does not know whether 

they will keep their program flexibility past 2018 and whether they 

can fulfill current commitments to their tenant families. 

And, Deputy Assistant Secretary, can you explain, particularly 

since HUD committed to doing this 16 months ago, why MTW 

agencies like San Bernardino have not been granted an extension, 

provided they are well-run, their utilization exceeds 90 percent, 

and HUD is not disputing their funding formula? 

Ms. CASTRO RAMIREZ. Yes. In response to the question about the 

existing MTW discussions to extend agreements, I do want to point 

out that, as mentioned earlier by Representative Waters and Representative Velazquez, it is very important that, as we continue to 

both extend or expand the Moving to Work demonstration, we need 

to ensure that there is strong language about monitoring and evaluation and that MTW agencies are serving families and expanding 

housing opportunities. 

And the ongoing discussions that are happening with the 39 

agencies have enabled us to be able to identify four new things that 

are important in ensuring the success of MTW. One is that the discussions that we are having with the 39 agencies include updating 

administrative and legal requirements. The second is ensuring that 

there is a strong evaluation component. The third is addressing 

funding inequities that affect a few of the agencies. 

Mr. ROYCE. Right. 

Ms. CASTRO RAMIREZ. And, lastly, that there is strong language 

about how we are going to ensure that families are being served. 

Mr. ROYCE. But when could we expect to see an amendment to 

the current MTW agreement? That is the question for me. Because 

it doesn’t make sense for HUD to let well-run agencies twist in the 

17 

wind, and so my hope was that it could be resolved very expeditiously. 

Ms. CASTRO RAMIREZ. Our hope is that could also be achieved, 

Representative Royce. In fact, we have provided the draft contract 

language to all 39 agencies just in the last 2 weeks. 

Mr. ROYCE. So maybe in a couple of months? What do you think? 

Ms. CASTRO RAMIREZ. We are hoping that can be done. We have 

provided the contract language that includes these four principles 

that I have just outlined for you. 

Mr. ROYCE. Okay. Let’s hope it could be done very soon, and I 

appreciate your good efforts if it can be. 

And thank you so much. 

Chairman LUETKEMEYER. The gentleman yields back. 

With that, we are going to go vote. We expect to be back in 30 

to 45 minutes. For those Members who haven’t asked questions, we 

will be back. Hopefully, we will be back shortly. 

With that, the committee stands in recess, subject to the call of 

the Chair. 

[recess] 

Chairman LUETKEMEYER. The subcommittee will reconvene. And 

I thank the witnesses for your indulgence. 

We expect a couple more Members here shortly, but in the meantime we will go to the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Williams, for 5 

minutes. 

Mr. WILLIAMS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

And I would like to say hello to a fellow Texan, Ms. Ramirez. 

It is nice to see you both. Thank you for being here. 

Ms. Ramirez, if you were able to create a program from scratch 

for public and assisted housing, what would it look like in 2015? 

And how would it differ from programs created back in the 1960s? 

Ms. CASTRO RAMIREZ. Thank you, Representative Williams, for 

the question. 

I would focus on strengthening the programs that are already in 

place. The housing choice voucher program, as we all know, serves 

2.2 million households across America. And, recently, there was a 

study released that demonstrates that the housing choice voucher 

program is lifting families up. It is reducing homelessness. And so, 

I would ensure that rental assistance programs are at the core. 

I would also continue to invest in public housing. We know that 

just over a million households are served by the public housing program, but it is critically important to provide the capital funds that 

are necessary. 

And then the third element is invest in opportunities that create 

jobs, further job opportunities, education, and supportive services. 

I firmly believe that affordable housing is a platform to improve 

the lives of the families who are served, and I have seen firsthand 

that quality affordable housing coupled with services and resources 

enables families to do better. 

Mr. WILLIAMS. Thank you. 

And let me move on. As I was preparing for this hearing, I was 

given an article on what the Dallas Housing Authority, which 

neighbors the district I represent in Texas, was doing to change the 

model for how housing vouchers are currently being used by lowincome families. And when I read that—I support new ideas and 

18 

new concepts like they talk about; I am not so sure that this may 

be the answer. 

So my question to you, Ms. Ramirez, again—and it came out of 

The New York Times. In that article published on July 7th, entitled, ‘‘Vouchers Help Families Move Far From Public Housing,’’ it 

was reported that housing vouchers were created in the 1970s to 

help poor families and their children escape from public housing, 

but they largely failed to improve the prospects of their recipients. 

Many of the 2.2 million households that are receiving them at any 

given moment, particularly minorities, remain clustered in low-income neighborhoods in what amounts to virtual housing projects. 

So three questions, really quickly. Do you agree with the statement reported by The New York Times? 

Ms. CASTRO RAMIREZ. I agree with the fact that the housing 

choice voucher program provides families opportunities to access 

communities of opportunity. 

Mr. WILLIAMS. Second, to what extent does HUD measure how 

families and children escape public housing and improve their prospects? 

Ms. CASTRO RAMIREZ. We do have very specific measurements 

within our Family Self-Sufficiency Program and also within our 

Jobs Plus program. 

Within public housing and the Section 8 housing choice voucher 

program, while families and children are participating in the program, as we all know, we are required to ensure that adequate subsidy is being provided, and we track and ensure that families are 

being served through the rental assistance programs that we provide. 

Mr. WILLIAMS. Okay. 

And, lastly, do you believe that HUD has made progress in the 

last 20 years in improving the lives of families receiving housing 

assistance? 

Ms. CASTRO RAMIREZ. I do believe that HUD and specifically the 

Office of Public and Indian Housing has improved the lives of the 

families that we serve. As I stated at the beginning, we have increased rental housing assistance from 400,000 in 1965 to 4.6 million in 2015. 

And, beyond that, we have also established some very important 

and innovative and interagency collaborative efforts, such as the 

partnership that we have with the VA that enables us to house veterans who are homeless. In fact, this is a priority for this Administration, and it is a priority for our Secretary and for our Department. And the progress that we are making is significant. There 

has been a drop of 33 percent in homelessness among veterans in 

the last 4 years. 

Mr. WILLIAMS. Thank you. If you haven’t read that article, it is 

a good article to read. Thank you for your testimony. 

Mr. Chairman, I yield back. 

Chairman LUETKEMEYER. I thank the gentleman for yielding 

back. 

And we go to the ranking member, Mr. Cleaver, for some followup. You are recognized for 5 minutes. 

Mr. CLEAVER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

19 

Are we involved in any efforts to make improvements in the 

housing voucher program? And what are the deficits that you see 

now? Either of you, Mr. Garcia-Diaz or Ms. Ramirez? 

Ms. CASTRO RAMIREZ. Yes, Representative— 

Mr. CLEAVER. Let me—I— 

Ms. CASTRO RAMIREZ. Yes. 

Mr. CLEAVER. I have a rural county, Saline County. I was 

stunned to find out when the head of the economic development 

corporation there said that they had over 1,000 homeless people 

throughout 2 of the rural counties, Lafayette and Saline Counties, 

which means nothing here, but homelessness is still a very serious 

problem. And it is no longer just an urban problem. 

But the problem is we have very little effort in the rural parts 

of the country to deal with the homeless issue. And so, if you can 

tell me the deficits. I would also like to know about how we can 

expand these programs to the rural areas successfully. 

Ms. CASTRO RAMIREZ. Yes, Representative Cleaver. 

As it relates to the housing choice voucher improvements, there 

are a number of efficiencies and improvements that have been instituted, including being able to track information on units that are 

leased and ensuring that we are providing funding that is very 

close to what the utilization has been by producing more accurate 

data, more reports to the public housing agencies, and monitoring 

their utilization rate. 

In fact, two-thirds of the staff who are in PIH are out in the field, 

on the ground, working closely with PHAs to ensure that the housing choice voucher program is serving the needs of the jurisdictions 

that they serve. 

As it relates to rural housing and, more specifically, I would say, 

as it relates also maybe to Native American communities, one of 

the things that we are doing is, largely because of the recommendation from the GAO with regard to improvements, we have created 

a series of resources including a Web site that is very robust in 

speaking to best practices and opportunities for Native American 

communities to leverage their existing Federal resources to create 

more housing. We also have focused our training and technical assistance to build greater capacity, because we know that there is 

ongoing need for additional resources across Indian country. 

Mr. GARCIA-DIAZ. And I would add three areas that I would see 

where improvements could be made in the voucher program. 

One is certainly continued oversight of the PHAs to ensure that 

they are managing their programs as effectively as possible, that 

they are utilizing, using, as many of those vouchers as possible. 

The other area is administrative streamlining. I think there are 

a lot of opportunities there to turn a very complicated program into 

something that is a little more simple. And PHA staff can actually, 

rather than worry about 44 income exclusions and deductions, they 

can look at how they can perhaps do outreach to landlords to help 

success rates for the voucher program. So, aside from the administrative efficiencies, I think there are potentially some positive spillover effects for the tenants. 

And then, finally, understanding how vouchers in a service-rich 

environment, what kind of impact that might have on tenants, in 

particular to the FSS programs and other initiatives that may be 

20 

happening under the MTW program. Voucher traditionally is one 

that has been viewed as being just housing, just rental assistance, 

but this combination of service coordinators or case management 

seems to have some potential to, in some cases, break the poverty 

cycle. 

Mr. CLEAVER. I don’t think we will have time for an answer, but 

one of the things that I have observed with the housing voucher 

program is you still end up essentially putting people in virtually 

the same area. I think when the program was started, there was 

this belief that you can have what we have euphemistically called 

scattered site housing. I am not sure that does it, because of the 

cost difference in the various parts of the community. I am not sure 

I know how to solve that problem. 

Thank you. 

Chairman LUETKEMEYER. The gentleman yields back. 

With that, we go to the gentleman from Minnesota, Mr. Ellison, 

for 5 minutes. 

Mr. ELLISON. Allow me to thank the Chair, and the ranking 

member, and the witnesses today. 

Mr. Garcia-Diaz, sir, I want to thank you and the GAO for doing 

some good reports about CDFIs. And the GAO did report, as you 

noted, it found that collateral restrictions—well, let me put it like 

this. Did the GAO report find that the collateral restrictions discouraged some non-depository CDFIs from joining the Federal 

Home Loan Bank? 

Mr. GARCIA-DIAZ. Yes, that is correct. We interviewed Federal 

Home Loan Bank officials and interviewed individual CDFIs and 

asked them about the range of challenges they face in not only becoming members of the Federal Home Loan Bank System, but also 

obtaining low-interest-rate advances to help finance some of the 

economic development activities that they undertake. 

And one of the key challenges to obtaining advances was that 

CDFIs didn’t have the eligible collateral. They tend not to hold 

mortgage-related assets. They hold small-business loans, for instance. And so non-depository CDFIs are not subject to the same 

exception that some smaller banks enjoy under the Federal Home 

Loan Bank System. 

Mr. ELLISON. What good for community development could come 

if CDFIs were allowed to pledge non-mortgage collateral? 

Mr. GARCIA-DIAZ. In theory, it should expand their capacity to 

lend for the CDFI purposes of community development. And the 

Federal Home Loan Bank advances are a good source of capital financing assistance for these institutions. 

Mr. ELLISON. So, me and my Republican colleague Steve Stivers 

of Ohio have a bill called the Small Business and Community Investment Expansion Act of 2015, and we are looking for cosponsors. 

Thank you. 

Anyway, Ms. Ramirez, thanks for your excellent work, and I am 

glad to have a chance to talk to you about affordable housing. I 

know, in my own district, we have a lot of problems. I am sure you 

are not surprised. 

Experts say that about 80 percent of families earning below $30,000 a year pay more than half their income in housing. There 

is a shortage of more than 7 million affordable rental homes in lowVerDate Nov 24 2008 16:06 Mar 04, 2016 Jkt 097152 PO 00000 Frm 00026 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 K:\DOCS\97152.TXT TERI
21 

income. Nationwide, only one in four eligible families receive housing assistance. And in my own town of Minneapolis-Saint Paul 

area, there are more than 14,000 families waiting for housing assistance. 

Can you talk about the critical role that HUD’s Public and Indian Housing plays in providing affordable rental housing for the 

lowest-income Americans? 

Ms. CASTRO RAMIREZ. Thank you very much, Representative Ellison, for your question about the importance of continuing to preserve and expand affordable housing. 

As it relates to the Office of Public and Indian Housing, one of 

our core goals and priorities is to ensure the preservation of existing resources, because, as you pointed out, there is a growing need. 

In fact, at this point in time, we are only able to serve one in four 

income-eligible households. 

Beyond the core public housing and housing choice voucher programs, many investments also have occurred in the redevelopment 

and creation of mixed-income communities by public housing agencies in partnership with HUD and other public and private developers or partners. Specifically, I think that it is important for us 

to continue to invest in the Choice Neighborhoods initiative that 

has demonstrated successful models to redevelop and attract private investment. 

Mr. ELLISON. Thank you, ma’am. 

And I just would like to ask you to offer your views on this issue. 

Sometimes in this body we talk in terms of cultures of dependency 

and how HUD programs and programs like it create dependency 

and thereby somehow harm low-income people. But my experience 

has been that, when people get an opportunity for some housing assistance, that puts them in a position to really move on to more 

self-dependence, independence. 

Do you have any views on this issue? 

Ms. CASTRO RAMIREZ. Representative Ellison, I completely agree 

with you. 

I started my work in public housing working at Imperial Courts 

in South L.A., leading a program called the Jobs Plus National 

Demonstration Program. And I saw firsthand that families desire 

and are working to improve their lives, and, if appropriately supported and provided with the resources, they will take advantage 

of that. 

And, in fact, the Jobs Plus National Demonstration Program, 

which ran over 5 years, is an evidence-based program that demonstrated that investing in families, providing greater opportunities to jobs, and creating a community that supports work has an 

impact in improving the quality of life and the trajectory for families. 

So I think it is important to acknowledge that the housing programs that we provide are not being just simply delivered to families; families are actively engaged in improving their lives. 

Mr. ELLISON. I have to yield back now, but I want to thank you 

both for being awesome public servants. 

Ms. CASTRO RAMIREZ. Thank you. 

Chairman LUETKEMEYER. The gentleman’s time has expired. 

With that, I will wrap up the questions for today. 

22 

And I want to just mention that, Ms. Ramirez, you have your son 

with you this afternoon— 

Ms. CASTRO RAMIREZ. Yes. 

Chairman LUETKEMEYER. —Jorge. Is that right? 

You are a student at the University of Boulder; is that right? I 

have a daughter who lives in Denver—it is a great place out west, 

right? Very good. Well, welcome. 

Ms. CASTRO RAMIREZ. Thank you. 

Chairman LUETKEMEYER. And I didn’t realize that until now. 

I have a couple of questions. Ms. Ramirez, to start with you, I 

know that in one of the documents with regard to some of the planning that you were doing, you intended to raise or proposed to raise 

the minimum rent from what was $50 up to $135. 

Can you expand on that a little bit—why were you going to do 

that, how you were going to structure that? 

Ms. CASTRO RAMIREZ. Currently, there is a study that is under 

way that involves five Moving to Work agencies that will enable 

them to test out various rent reforms, including whether or not 

raising the minimum rent would improve and save funds but also 

not impact families. 

Our current policy is—we are at a $50 minimum of rent, but 

local jurisdictions and PHAs, based on the needs, based on the population they are serving, establish whether it needs to be adjusted 

downward. 

I think one of the things that is important to point out, Chairman Luetkemeyer, is that in the programs that we administer, 

both the housing choice voucher program and the public housing 

program, families are contributing to the cost of rent. Thirty percent of their income goes towards rent. And so I just want to reemphasize that there is a 30 percent requirement. 

Chairman LUETKEMEYER. Okay. 

One more question for you, and then we will get to Mr. GarciaDiaz here. Very quickly, what is HUD’s perspective on the stakeholder agreement on Moving to Work that was created in 2012 by 

then-Secretary Donovan with regard to public housing authorities 

and advocacy groups? 

Ms. CASTRO RAMIREZ. Our current proposal is, as I mentioned 

earlier, we are working and in discussions with the 39 MTW agencies to improve the agreements moving forward. We also have in 

the President’s budget a request for a modest increase in the number of MTW agencies— 

Chairman LUETKEMEYER. Can you specifically direct your comments to the stakeholder agreement? 

Ms. CASTRO RAMIREZ. I think one of the important aspects of the 

stakeholder agreement was ensuring that there is proper evaluation and monitoring. And so those elements are included and embedded in the extension agreement— 

Chairman LUETKEMEYER. Does HUD still support the stakeholder agreement, is the question. 

Ms. CASTRO RAMIREZ. We have adopted and included elements of 

the stakeholder agreement in our existing discussions with the 39 

MTW agencies. 

Chairman LUETKEMEYER. Okay. That really doesn’t answer it. 

23 

Mr. Garcia-Diaz, as a GAO oversight specialist here, with regards to the PIH, specifically that group, can you point out the 

weaknesses that we need to be concerned about as a committee? 

Mr. GARCIA-DIAZ. For PIH, the three areas I would focus on 

would be monitoring and oversight of the public housing agencies, 

modernization and streamlining, and performance measurement 

and evaluation. HUD needs to ensure that they are providing the 

support and oversight to ensure that funds are being used appropriately, that the programs at the local level are as effective as possible. 

The other area is modernization and streamlining. A lot of these 

programs are essentially legacy programs, either coming from the 

Great Depression or from the 1960s or the 1970s— 

Chairman LUETKEMEYER. How do you streamline? 

Mr. GARCIA-DIAZ. And then streamlining. 

Chairman LUETKEMEYER. Give me an example. 

Mr. GARCIA-DIAZ. Of streamlining? 

Chairman LUETKEMEYER. Yes. 

Mr. GARCIA-DIAZ. Opportunities exist for streamlining in how it 

is administered. So, in the intake process, there are a lot of requirements in documenting people’s incomes, and that takes a lot 

of time. In fact, a lot of those things take up almost half of the time 

of the PHAs, which is time that detracts from other things that 

might provide immediate supports to the tenant. 

Chairman LUETKEMEYER. Okay. Very good. 

I was curious whether we had in report form some of your comments here. Do you have a study on that, or have you had a report 

out that we could look at? 

Mr. GARCIA-DIAZ. Yes. And I can send you the references. 

Chairman LUETKEMEYER. Okay. Because I think it is important 

that we look at that. 

With that, I am out of time here, so let me be respectful of everybody else’s time and move on. I would like to thank the witnesses 

for being here today. 

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 5 legislative days for Members to submit written questions to these witnesses and to place their responses in the record. Also, without objection, Members will have 5 legislative days to submit extraneous 

materials to the Chair for inclusion in the record. 

With that, this hearing is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 11:58 a.m., the hearing was adjourned.] 

(25) 

A P P E N D I X 

July 10, 2015 

26 


97152.030
27 


97152.031
28 


97152.032
29 


97152.033
30 


97152.034
31 


97152.035
32 


97152.036
33 


97152.037
34 


97152.038
35 


97152.039
36 


97152.001
37 


97152.002
38 


97152.003
39 


97152.004
40 


97152.005
41 


97152.006
42 


97152.007
43 


97152.008
44 


97152.009
45 


97152.010
46 


97152.011
47 


97152.012
48 


97152.013
49 


97152.014
50 


97152.015
51 


97152.016
52 


97152.017
53 


97152.018
54 


97152.019
55 


97152.020
56 


97152.021
57 


97152.022
58 


97152.023
59 


97152.024
60 


97152.025
61 


97152.026
62 


97152.027
63 


97152.028
64 


97152.029
65 


97152.040
66 


97152.041
67 


97152.042
68 


97152.043
69 


97152.044