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

24–795 PDF 2005

OVERSIGHT OF THE DEPARTMENT OF

HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT

AND ITS FISCAL YEAR 2006 BUDGET

HEARING

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON FINANCIAL SERVICES

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED NINTH CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION

MARCH 2, 2005

Printed for the use of the Committee on Financial Services

Serial No. 109–5

(

(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: 

March 2, 2005 ................................................................................................... 1

Appendix: 

March 2, 2005 ................................................................................................... 53

WITNESS 

WEDNESDAY, MARCH 2, 2005

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

Development ......................................................................................................... 7

APPENDIX 

Prepared statements: 

Oxley, Hon. Michael G. .................................................................................... 54

Baca, Hon. Joe .................................................................................................. 56

Frank, Hon. Barney .......................................................................................... 57

Gillmor, Hon. Paul E. ....................................................................................... 58

Hinojosa, Hon. Rube ́n ....................................................................................... 59

Matheson, Hon. Jim ......................................................................................... 63

Ney, Hon. Robert W. ........................................................................................ 65

Scott, Hon. David .............................................................................................. 68

Velazquez, Hon. Nydia M. ............................................................................... 70

Jackson, Hon. Alphonso ................................................................................... 72

ADDITIONAL MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD

Hinojosa, Hon. Rube ́n: 

Written letter to the Hon. George W. Bush, President of the United 

States of America .......................................................................................... 80

Jackson, Hon. Alphonso: 

Written response to questions from Hon. Joe Baca ....................................... 82

Written response to questions from Hon. Jim Matheson .............................. 83

Written response to questions from Hon. Stevan Pearce .............................. 88

Written response to questions from Hon. Wm. Lacy Clay ............................ 92

(1)

OVERSIGHT OF THE DEPARTMENT OF 

HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT 

AND ITS FISCAL YEAR 2006 BUDGET 

Wednesday, March 2, 2005

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

COMMITTEE ON FINANCIAL SERVICES, 

Washington, D.C. 

The committee met, pursuant to call, at 10:15 a.m., in Room 

2128, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Michael G. Oxley 

[chairman of the committee] Presiding. 

Present: Representatives Oxley, Lucas, Ney, Biggert, Shays, Miller of California, Tiberi, Kennedy, Feeney, Brown-Waite, Renzi, 

Pearce, Neugebauer, Fitzpatrick, Davis of Kentucky, McHenry, 

Frank, Waters, Sanders, Maloney, Velazquez, Watt, Ackerman, 

Sherman, Lee, Capuano, Hinojosa, Clay, Israel, McCarthy, Baca, 

Matheson, Lynch, Miller of North Carolina, Scott, Davis of Alabama, Green, Cleaver, Wasserman Schultz, and Moore. 

The CHAIRMAN. The committee will come to order. Pursuant to 

Rule 3(F)(2) of the Rules of the Committee on Financial Services 

of the 109th Congress, the Chair announces that he will limit recognition of 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. 

Today, the Financial Services Committee welcomes Secretary of 

the Housing and Urban Development Department Alphonso Jackson. We offer our congratulations on your successful first year as 

Secretary. 

Over the past few years, this committee and the administration 

continue to seek bipartisan ways to extend homeownership to make 

existing housing programs work better. For example, the committee passed the American Dream Down Payment Act that benefits 45,000 new homeowners annually. 

The committee passed the Hospital Mortgage Insurance Act of 

2003, which streamlined the process for local community hospitals 

to insure mortgages, thereby enhancing the quality of life and 

health care, particularly in rural communities. 

The committee enacted legislation to increase FHA multifamily 

loan limits, which addresses the acute issue of affordable rental 

housing in high-cost areas. 

In rural areas, the committee passed legislation that would allow 

the Government National Mortgage Association to securitize Rural 

2

Housing Service multifamily loans, as well as providing new homeownership opportunities for Native Americans. 

This year the President’s fiscal year 2006 budget proposal would 

strengthen the core of certain housing initiatives, including rental 

housing assistance and public housing. The proposal advocates 

homeownership, which endures as an important goal for most 

Americans. The administration has also proposed an overhaul of 

the way the Federal Government funds and administers community and economic development. The administration has not yet offered legislation describing how these 35 programs will collapse 

into grant programs. 

Mr. Secretary, I am looking forward to the opportunity to have 

you and Secretary of Commerce Gutierrez address this committee 

on the details of this proposal, and how we can reach common 

ground to promote homeownership, community development and 

economic opportunity. 

President Bush has inspired us to make homeownership happen 

for even more Americans, even at a time when our homeownership 

rate is the highest ever at 68 percent. Since last year, homeownership for African Americans and Hispanic homeowners has now exceeded 50 percent. 

Mr. Secretary, I also want to congratulate you on your leadership 

in creating and sustaining rental housing opportunities for families 

not yet ready to pursue homeownership. This year’s budget provides an increase in funding for rental housing through housing 

choice vouchers. 

To address another aspect of HUD’s oversight responsibility, over 

the past 2 years we have learned of accounting errors at Fannie 

Mae and Freddie Mac, and also discovered that Fannie Mae sold 

fraudulent loans to Ginnie Mae. 

Chairman Baker has been diligent in his goal of reforming the 

GSEs. Many of the issues that have come to light can be directly 

attributed to his efforts. As we consider proposals for the reform of 

the GSEs, it is my hope that the committee can work with the administration to craft a regulatory structure that protects the taxpayers, ensures their safe and sound operation, and maintains 

their housing mission. 

Last year, your Department determined that the enterprises 

were not meeting underserved markets. As mission regulator, HUD 

raised the affordable housing goals that the GSEs must meet. This 

committee is interested in any update you can provide related to 

the progress the GSEs have made in meeting these new goals. 

I would also like to mention reform of the Real Estate Settlement 

Procedures Act. We will all support the goal of simplifying the 

home-buying process, making it less expensive for consumers. I am 

hopeful that you will address the Departments’ future intent regarding the development of a new proposed rule. 

Let me also take this opportunity to thank Housing Subcommittee Chairman Ney for his work on housing issues and recognize the gentleman from Massachusetts for an opening statement. 

Mr. FRANK. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And the most significant 

thing that has happened with regard to the budget within the jurisdiction of Secretary Jackson, I guess the analogy here is the 

Sherlock Holmes story in which a dog did not bark. This committee 

3

is the dog that will not be allowed to bark or make any other sound 

with regard to that budget submission. 

In the past, we have had committee markups in which, under the 

Rules of the House and the procedures of the House, traditionally 

we have voted on our opinion of the budget and have submitted 

those views to the Budget Committee. There is a procedure whereby committees are asked to do that. 

This year we are doing it in writing with no opportunity for there 

to be any collective discussion, and the reason is very clear. My colleagues are, on the other side of the aisle, very reluctant to vote 

on the budget submission you have made. My guess is that when 

the time comes, many of them will vote against it, but they hope 

by then some of them will have been forgotten. Because I think it 

is striking that people should understand, a year ago we did vote, 

and we voted in this committee by majority to disagree with the 

budget submission on HOPE VI and on Section 8. 

I believe that if the committee would have voted on a whole 

range of issues here, it would have voted ‘‘no.’’ I think the majority’s position was very, very clear: Better no vote than voting ‘‘no.’’ 

So I think people should understand the absence of that. 

And the reason for the unpopularity, I think, however, is not 

fully understood. 

There are cuts in most of the programs that HUD administers 

that would help deal with inequality in our society that goes beyond what we ought to tolerate. Obviously, some inequality is essential economically to make our system work. 

And I think it is important to make this point. In this area, with 

regard to a whole range of programs, housing for the disabled, community development block grants, even by the way of homeownership—and the Secretary talks about homeownership, the chairman 

talked about homeownership. Last year, this committee voted on a 

bill that I thought was an administration-supported proposal, zero 

down payment for FHA. This committee voted it out with great bipartisan support, and the Congressional Budget Office killed it because they said it was going to cost money, and we need the money 

for war and tax cuts and other things. 

So, while we have this commitment in principle to homeownership, the FHA zero down payment bill that passed this committee 

was—it passed this committee, it didn’t pass any further. The Republican leadership, presumably with the cooperation of the administration, said ‘‘no’’ to it. 

So all of these wishes about homeownership apparently weren’t 

enough to overcome this, and I think what we have here is a general position that needs to be articulated in a number of areas. Certainly here with regard to CDBG, housing for the disabled, public 

housing, the FHA zero down payment, the administration is, in the 

name of budget deficit reduction, asking us to make a number of 

decisions which members think are unpopular. 

I think people need to understand, it is not simply a series of 

random decisions to do unpopular things here or there. The things 

that the administration is asking Congress to do, that Congress 

even on the Republican side is reluctant to do, are not accidental. 

They are the products of a philosophy. They are the products, I believe, of a philosophy which the administration has tried to kind of 

4

make more attractive by calling it the ‘‘ownership society.’’ But a 

lot of people in this society are going to be too poor to own a lot 

or to own very much. 

And I think, as we look at how this works specifically in a whole 

range of areas—in Social Security, to housing, to veterans’ health, 

to a number of other areas—what we are really being told is that 

this is the ‘‘you-are-on-your-own society.’’ you are on our own; no 

help is on the way. We do not have any kind of common responsibility to work together. 

And, unfortunately, this HUD budget reflects that you-are-onyour-own society, and in almost every area, not every area, but in 

almost every area where we felt we had some responsibility to 

come together, the administration asks us to do less, asks us to do 

less in the name of perpetuating its tax cuts. 

You know, I will just note, the CDBG program, that will be a big 

controversy. There are proposals for substantial cuts in it. One 

month of the war in Iraq costs more than the entire CDBG program for the whole country. And people can have their views on 

the war in Iraq one way or the other, but it does seem to me very 

odd to tell us that we cannot afford 1 month of the war in Iraq for 

a program that is as important to the cities as the community development block grant. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank the gentleman. 

The chairman of the Housing Subcommittee, the gentleman from 

Ohio, Mr. Ney. 

Mr. NEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to welcome the Secretary here once again to the House and to the committee, and 

thank Chairman Oxley for holding this very important hearing 

that examines both the programs and budgets specific, of course, 

to HUD. 

Those of us on the committee are acutely aware of the many difficult management challenges that are inherent to the Department 

and have been over the years. 

I take this opportunity to pledge to obviously work with you and 

members of our Housing Subcommittee to continue to create new 

opportunities for families and individuals seeking to find their part 

of the American dream. 

I do want to mention, last Congress—and our ranking member 

is here, Congresswoman Waters of California, and we surely appreciate her support, Members both sides of the aisle of the subcommittee—we passed 15 housing-related bills, I think 12 didn’t 

even have a roll call. And we shared thoughts and ideas on these 

bills. And I think through cooperation on a bipartisan basis with 

the ranking member and members on both sides of the aisle, and 

through the support of our chairman and also Mr. Frank, we were 

able to enact legislation, I think, that has worked in a lot of different ways to make a good situation for housing. There is always 

more room to grow, as we all know, in it. 

I also see the President’s commitment to homeownership. I think 

that is fantastic, and is something that he has pushed with the 

American Dream Down Payment and other pieces of legislation 

that have come through here. 

5

But, as far as minority households, we need to constantly realize 

and state that their share of the American dream is substantially 

lower. The homeownership rate among white households is about 

74.2 percent, while the percent for minority households is substantially less. 

So lagging minority homeownership rates are, I think, a serious 

problem. Obviously, we have got to deal with it; we need to constantly improve the ability of people to have homeownership. 

Now, I have talked about the owning of a home, but—that is a 

desired goal, but of course we deal with Section 8. Not everyone 

can own a home, and the housing assistance program has been the 

major vehicle for providing rental assistance to low-income families, individuals. The Section 8 program has become the largest 

component of HUD’s budget. 

Rising costs of providing rental assistance is due in varying degrees—and we are proposing something. We have run this by the 

chairman’s staff, and we are working with the ranking member of 

our Housing Subcommittee and our vice chairman, Mr. Miller, and 

others, but some roundtables—and we discussed this with you, Mr. 

Secretary, and we appreciate HUD’s input in it; and we are talking 

with Mr. Knollenberg, who is the appropriator—but a series of 

roundtables, so that we can really bring in people across the country. And those will take place soon and we will be able to have a 

dialogue on where we are going. 

Mr. Frank mentioned about the fact of, you know, what happens 

after these situations? But I think—I notice my time has expired. 

But I think these will be good ways to approach this. GSEs is a 

great concern, keeping the housing goals intact. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank the gentleman. The gentlelady from California, Ms. Waters. 

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

Good morning, Secretary Jackson. Let me just piggyback a little 

bit on what Chairman Ney has shared with you. 

This committee has worked very well from both sides of the aisle 

to try and create more housing opportunities for people all over 

this country. And I had great hopes because of the American dream 

that this administration was going to really do something substantial in this budget. So you have to know I am just very disappointed. 

And I have to tell you, I have gone through your testimony, and 

I am even more disappointed with your testimony and with the 

huge budget cuts and the massive program transfers away from 

HUD that the administration has proposed in funding the fiscal 

year 2006 budget. 

The funding year 2006 HUD budget accelerates, it appears, a 4-

year effort by the administration to dismantle critical HUD programs, to make deep funding cuts in these programs and, regrettably, to target these cuts to our most vulnerable low-income families, seniors and disabled persons. 

Mr. Secretary, I hope to find out in the questioning whether 

these are really your budget proposals, or whether you just simply 

are being a good soldier and you have to defend them. In any 

event, however they have happened, whoever is responsible for 

6

them certainly cannot take credit for caring about the poor and the 

most vulnerable in our society. 

Mr. Secretary, I regret to say that after reading your prepared 

testimony, it appears that you have your head in the sand. It has 

that kind of quality to the testimony, and it simply is stunning to 

me. You lead an agency that is being decimated by this administration, an agency whose budget will fall by $3.85 billion, a 12 percent 

cut, if the President’s funding year 2006 budget is enacted. This is 

the largest cut of any Cabinet agency. 

The President’s proposed budget would eviscerate CDBG flexible 

block grants to States and localities, thereby resulting in a loss of 

affordable housing investments of $1.16 billion, cut the disabled 

housing budget by 50 percent, continue an assault on the rental 

housing assistance safety net programs—that is, Section 8 of public 

housing—eliminate future funding for the HOPE VI program, rescind $143 million in funding year 2005 HOPE VI funding that was 

only appropriated a few months ago, and cut funding for housing 

programs for Native Americans by 16 percent. 

Funding for critically needed capital repair of public housing 

units is cut another whopping $252 million, and operating assistance is cut by 17 million. The overall funding year 2006 public 

housing request is 9 percent below last year’s level, and 30 percent 

below the level when the administration took office after adjusting 

for inflation. 

Home block grants and the housing for people with AIDS program are also cut. The proposed CDBG cuts, if enacted, would have 

a devastating impact on housing, neighborhood improvements and 

social services for the elderly, the disabled, families with children 

and the homeless. The proposal also would reorient CDBG away 

from its traditional HUD focus of affordable housing and community development and—I can’t understand why—stick it in Commerce. And I just do not now how they would administer this program in that Commerce caters to business interests. 

We are talking about taking a program that is dealing with all 

that I just alluded to and putting it in a place that has no understanding of how to administer it. And particularly with its being 

cut in the way it is, so far as I can tell, not only did you not resist 

these cuts and program transfers, it appears that you encouraged 

them or are at least are indifferent to them. 

Mr. Secretary, you may not see it or you may not be willing to 

acknowledge it, but let me tell you, we have an affordable housing 

crisis in most of this country. Just 2 weeks ago, the Los Angeles 

Times reported that police had to disperse a crowd of about 3,000 

people who were vying for 150 income housing applications in Hollywood, California, when some people rushed the line and a riot ensued. I think you can find a similar scene in many, many communities. 

Mr. Secretary, you have an impossible task before you and I 

await with interest your attempt to defend this patently inadequate budget. 

I thank you and I yield back the balance of my time. 

The CHAIRMAN. The gentlelady yields back. 

7

Now I am pleased to recognize the Secretary of Housing and 

Urban Development, the Honorable Alphonso Jackson. Mr. Secretary, welcome back. 

STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE ALPHONSO JACKSON, SECRETARY, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT 

Secretary JACKSON. Thank you, Chairman Oxley and Ranking 

Member Frank and distinguished members of the committee. 

Thank you for inviting me to be here this morning. 

I am honored to outline the fiscal year 2006 budget proposal by 

President Bush for the Department of Housing and Urban Development. Mr. Chairman, in order to save time for questions, I would 

like to focus my opening statements on HUD’s key priorities, new 

initiatives, and ask that I be allowed to submit my full statement 

to the committee. 

The CHAIRMAN. Without objection. 

Secretary JACKSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Over the past 4 years, HUD has expanded homeownership, increased access to affordable housing, fought housing discrimination, 

tackled homelessness, and renewed the commitment to those in 

most need. 

HUD’s $28.5 billion budget for fiscal year 2006 seeks to build on 

our success and to lend a compassionate hand to individuals in 

need, while also using taxpayers’ money more wisely through government reforms. 

In June 2002, the President challenged the Nation to create 5.5 

million new minority homeowners by 2010. In 2004, more Americans achieved the dream of homeownership than at any time in our 

Nation’s history. Today, nearly 70 percent of all American families 

own their homes, an all-time record. 

Since President Bush’s challenge, 2.2 million minority families 

have become homeowners. This represents a 40 percent increase of 

the 5.5 million goal. As a result, minority homeownership has surpassed 51 percent for the first time in the history of this country. 

Despite this progress, we have more work to do. For many families, high down payment and closing costs represent the greatest 

barrier to homeownership. Since President Bush signed the American Dream Down Payment initiative into law in December of 2003, 

HUD has distributed $162 million in funds to over 400 State and 

local governments. These funds have already helped thousands of 

families purchase their first home, and more than 50 percent of the 

buyers were minorities. 

The 2006 budget requests $200 million to fully fund the program 

and help the estimated 40,000 families to become homeowners. The 

budget also proposes a $40 million housing counseling program to 

assist more than 700,000 families to become homeowners and to 

avoid foreclosures on their homes. 

To remove one of the largest barriers to homeownership, high 

down payment costs, the fiscal year 2006 budget proposes a new 

mortgage program. The zero down payment mortgage program will 

allow first-time buyers with strong credit records to finance 100 

percent of their home purchase price and closing costs. In 2006, 

8

this program could assist more than 200,000 families to achieve 

homeownership. 

The President is also proposing a new single family homeownership tax credit that could increase the supply of single-family affordable homes by adding 50,000 homes annually. Under the President’s plan, builders of affordable homes for moderate-income purchasers would receive a $2.5 billion tax credit over the next 5 

years. If Congress approves these funds requests, HUD will be able 

to help an estimated 500,000 families realize the American dream 

of homeownership in fiscal year 2006. 

The fiscal year 2006 budget will make government a better steward of taxpayers’ money through reform of the Section 8 housing 

choice voucher program. In fiscal year 2001, the three Section 8 

programs consumed 43 percent of HUD’s annual budget. That percentage has increased 57 percent in fiscal year 2005. The rate of 

increase, combined with the extremely complex set of laws and regulations, has resulted in a program that is difficult to sustain. 

In the past, funds were distributed to public housing authorities 

for a specific number of vouchers based upon the number of units 

leased. Congress recently converted the unit base allocation system 

to a budget-based system. However, for the budget-based system to 

work, program requirements must be simplified and PHAs must 

have greater decision-making flexibility. Building on the changes in 

the 2005 Consolidated Appropriations Act, the administration will 

submit authorized legislation to this committee to implement this 

reform. 

The Section 8 program fulfills an important component of HUD’s 

mission. I am committed to it and to its success. 

Throughout our budget, HUD will strengthen its efforts to assist 

those most in need—adults and children from low-income families, 

the elderly, those physically or mentally disabled, victims of predatory lending, and families living in housing contaminated by leadbased paint hazards. 

This administration is committed to ending chronic homelessness 

and has aggressively pursued the policy to move more homeless 

families and individuals into permanent housing. The budget provides for a record-level resource of permanent, supportive housing 

for homeless individuals. This budget provides $1.4 billion for 

homeless assistance grants; 25 million will go to the prison reentry 

program. 

The budget also proposes 39 million in funding for the HUD fair 

housing program to ensure that everyone has accessibility to living 

environments that are free from unlawful discrimination. 

The President’s budget also proposes new initiatives in a consolidated program such as the CDBG program into a more targeted, 

unified program that sets accountability standards in exchange for 

flexible background use of funds. This new initiative will be housed 

within the Department of Commerce. 

All of us share the goals of creating housing opportunities for 

more Americans. We have done great work over the past 4 years, 

and we should be proud of everything that we have accomplished 

together. But we should not be satisfied because our work is far 

from completed. 

9

I look forward to the challenge ahead and will seek to have open 

communication with everyone on this committee. I would like to 

thank the members of this committee for your support, and I welcome your guidance as we continue to work together. 

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

on page 72 in the appendix.] 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Mr. Secretary. 

Mr. Secretary, let me first begin by thanking you for all of your 

efforts over the last few months and cooperating with the committee on a number of issues. 

Let me begin with the overall question on the CDBG and the 

transfer of that program to Commerce. How do you envision that 

working? That is, what kind of changes—if it was enacted, what 

kind of changes would we expect other than the program itself 

being moved over to Commerce? 

Secretary JACKSON. I would say, Mr. Chairman, that all of the 

legislation has not been worked out yet. From our perspective, the 

budget was $4.2 billion that will be shifted to Commerce. We will 

keep certain programs, the home programs, the shop program, the 

homeless program. 

What will be entailed once it comes to Commerce, right now I am 

just not in a position to be able to discuss that with you. I think 

that they are working out the legislation at this point. 

The CHAIRMAN. Well, the figure you cited, the 4.2 billion, is that 

correct? 

Secretary JACKSON. Yes, that is what we are zeroing out of our 

budget to go to Commerce. 

The CHAIRMAN. And what was the number for the last fiscal 

year? 

Secretary JACKSON. I think it was just about 4.2. 

The CHAIRMAN. It was about the same? 

Secretary JACKSON. It was 5-point something with all of the programs. But all of the programs are not going over, just the 4.2. 

The CHAIRMAN. So counsel informs me it is 3.7 billion is the 

number that would go to Commerce. And that would reflect, then, 

some of the programs that you would retain? 

Secretary JACKSON. No. We are zeroing 4.2 out of our budget. I 

can’t tell you what is being sent to Commerce. We know that we 

are taking 4.2 out of our budget. 

The CHAIRMAN. Counsel informs me that when you add all of the 

programs together and move it to Commerce, it is 3.7. So it appears to be a significant cut in the service. I just wanted to get that 

clear in my mind. 

Do you find, in your experience, an overlap or duplication of Federal efforts to fund community development? My sense is that the 

effort by the administration to make these structural changes was 

at least what appeared to be a recognition that there were some 

duplicative efforts between HUD and Commerce, or at least among 

the programs at HUD. Is that your sense? 

Secretary JACKSON. If you are talking about community development, no, there is not duplication. If you are talking about economic development, that was the purpose for consolidation, and the 

economic development programs were being shifted to Commerce to 

better coordinate it. 

10

It is important to understand that, yes, there were duplications 

in the economic development programs—some in Agriculture, some 

in HUD, some in Commerce. And so, in an effort to consolidate, the 

decision was made that the best place to consolidate the program 

was at Commerce. 

Now, it is important to understand that we made our logical argument as to why it should be at HUD, but I do agree with the 

administration that the program should be consolidated in one 

spot. And the decision was made to consolidate it at Commerce. 

The CHAIRMAN. Let me ask you about RESPA reform. That has 

been an issue that has been on and off the table at HUD for some 

time. Your predecessor got inside the red zone, I think, and ran out 

of time or fumbled or got sacked, but—I sound like George Allen—

it was handed off, right. 

Since you are now the heir apparent, what kind of plans do you 

have in terms of that RESPA reform? 

Secretary JACKSON. We believe that we will be starting—we have 

been doing some analysis over the last 90 days. As I committed and 

promised you and Chairman Shelby, we will be coming to you within the next 60 days to get your input and the input of the ranking 

members as to what is the best approach. Once we get that input, 

we will go back to the industry and let the industry group make 

their comments on that. 

I can assure you that once that is done, we will not hold the bill 

in abatement as we did last time; we will get it out very quickly 

with the help of—with your help and support and your input. I still 

stick to that. I don’t think that we should in any way deliver your 

bill in a vacuum; I think that your input is important. 

My basic belief is that if we can get a consensus of 75 to 80 percent of the people in the industry and your consensus, we can get 

a bill that will pass and address the needs of making sure that the 

closing cost is resolved very quickly. 

The CHAIRMAN. I would hope so. There is clearly a need for drastic reform in the closing process. Any of us who have practiced law 

and been involved in closings can cite chapter and verse about the 

complexity and the total confusion by the client, by the homeowner 

to be a homeowner. And anything we can do to simplify it and to 

make it more transparent and to have kind of apples-to-apples 

comparisons on costs would be incredibly important for the consumer. 

And I think by your effort to work with the Congress, it improves 

the chances dramatically that we can get a good proposal out there 

that can pass muster and have a very, very positive influence on 

the home-buying market. So we thank you for your efforts, and we 

are glad that you are pursuing that in that regard. 

The gentleman from Massachusetts. 

Mr. FRANK. Thank you. 

Mr. Secretary, on the details—not even the details, the specifics—when are we likely to get them on this moving and consolidation of all of the programs? 

Secretary JACKSON. I think, Mr. Ranking Member, we have—as 

stated by Chairman Oxley, we are going to have a hearing with 

Secretary Gutierrez. At that point, I hope we will have some of the 

details as to——

11

Mr. FRANK. That hearing is in the middle of April, and you hope 

we will have some of details. If you are serious about this, it is to 

go into effect October 1st. I guess I would—if gambling were legal, 

because I am very law abiding, I would have a pool. What are we 

going to see first? The details on this or the specifics on Social Security? 

The only problem is nobody would join the pool because nobody 

would win. 

Let me just also say, I think you are talking about major changes 

affecting many, many departments—Health and Human Services, 

Treasury, Agriculture, HUD and Commerce—and it is to be in effect by October 1st. This does not have, to me, the ring of seriousness when we are being told that we may have some of this specifics in the middle of April. 

By the way, on the point that the chairman raised, the total of 

all of the programs that the budget proposes to consolidate and 

send to Commerce in the current fiscal year is 5.66 billion. They 

are budgeted in Commerce at 3.7 billion, so that is a 34 percent 

cut, if it were proportional. 

It includes not just the CDBG, but the community service block 

grant, which is generally known as the poverty program, Economic 

Development Administration, so we are talking about a very, very 

substantial cut. 

But now, on homeownership, you talked about a plan for zero 

down payment. Is that the one that we passed last year that the 

Republican leadership wouldn’t let come to the floor? Do you know 

something we do not know about a change of heart? Is Mr. Delay 

becoming somewhat—you know, you guys get together in Texas 

and chat about that? 

Secretary JACKSON. Congressman Frank, no, it is the one—we 

did bring it to you last year. 

Mr. FRANK. We passed it last year in a bipartisan way, and the 

Republican leadership—the chairman put it up and the leadership 

of the House of Representatives wouldn’t let it come to the floor. 

So we ought to be clear about that. 

I don’t know, have you spoken to the majority leadership about 

this in the House? 

Secretary JACKSON. We know that last year——

Mr. FRANK. Have you spoken to them? 

Secretary JACKSON. Not yet. 

Mr. FRANK. I am seeing a pattern, frankly, that doesn’t impress 

me with your seriousness. 

We passed a bill; the Republican leadership wouldn’t even let it 

come up, and you do not talk them about it. 

Secretary JACKSON. I think the Congressional Budget Office had 

disagreements with us, and we are speaking with them now. 

Mr. FRANK. So you weren’t allowed to talk to the House leadership because the Congressional—but now, this is part of the President’s budget? 

Secretary JACKSON. Yes. 

Mr. FRANK. Did it go through the Congressional Budget Office? 

Secretary JACKSON. No. 

Mr. FRANK. So this budget submission is not approved by the 

Congressional Budget Office? Were they——

12

Secretary JACKSON. It is a proposed budget that must be approved by Congress. 

Mr. FRANK. Yes, but I assume it is also submitted through the 

CBO. 

Are you telling me that CBO has not signed off on this particular 

proposal? I would find that very odd. Is that the answer? 

Secretary JACKSON. Yes. 

Mr. FRANK. They have not. So you have sent us a budget submission that was not cleared with the Congressional Budget Office? 

How about OMB? Have they cleared it? 

Secretary JACKSON. Yes, they have. 

Mr. FRANK. So your problem is still going to be CBO. And you 

think they were just wrong about the number? 

Secretary JACKSON. We had a disagreement. We think it is a viable program. They perceive that it is not. 

Mr. FRANK. But couldn’t you ask the Republican leadership to do 

it anyway? I don’t understand why you didn’t talk to them——

Secretary JACKSON. I was asking all of the leadership in the 

House to pass it. 

Mr. FRANK. We did it. It is being blocked by the Republican leadership in the House. 

Let me ask you now on housing discrimination. That continues 

to be a serious problem. 

Secretary JACKSON. I think housing discrimination is a serious 

problem, and we will continue to address it. I don’t think that 

housing discrimination is as rampant as it has been in the 1940s, 

1950s, 1960s; but, yes, I think it is still a problem today. 

Mr. FRANK. Well, has it gone down substantially from—do you 

expect it to go down substantially because you are cutting the 

budget for the fair housing budget? The fair housing budget is 46 

million in the current fiscal year, and you are proposing 38 million. 

Now, 8 million is not a lot of money, but neither is 38 million, 

to be honest with you. And I do not understand in this budget of 

so much money, why you are cutting—why are you asking us to cut 

the budget for fair housing? You are asking us to cut both the 

amount that goes to the local groups that do these initiatives, that 

work with us, and you are asking for a cut in your own budget for 

administering fair housing. 

What is the basis for that? Do you expect a 15 percent reduction 

in discrimination? That troubles me. 

Secretary JACKSON. No, Congressman Frank, we do not expect a 

reduction. But I will say this to you we are prioritizing, and clearly 

one of the priorities is the Section 8 voucher program. As I have 

said to you before and to the chairman, it is eating away at our 

budget. In 2001, it was 43 percent of the budget. It is 57 percent. 

We added $1.1 billion to make sure that the Section 8——

Mr. FRANK. I am asking you why you are cutting $8 million out 

of fair housing. Do not blame Section 8. 

Secretary JACKSON. I am not. 

Mr. FRANK. Why are you cutting——

Secretary JACKSON. I am telling you the facts, if I may speak. 

Mr. FRANK. You may speak to my question. What is the justification for cutting $8 million out of fair housing? 

13

Secretary JACKSON. I am saying to you that you will see cuts in 

a number of programs at HUD because we are in the process of 

prioritizing Section 8. 

Mr. FRANK. So what you are saying then is that you are cutting the $8 million out of fair housing not because it is not needed, but 

because you are—it is not high enough on your priorities to get 

spent? 

Let me ask you a similar question about housing for the disabled; 

this one troubles me. And the President talks a lot about faithbased. Faith-based groups already are doing a lot in the housing 

area. 

This notion that somehow they cannot get money, only people 

who do not know anything think that faith-based groups are not 

terribly active in housing. One of the big programs to them is housing for the disabled. You are proposing to cut it by more than half. 

What is the justification for cutting construction of disabled housing? I know people believe in the market. Do people really believe 

that the market is going to be able to take care of all of the need 

for disabled housing? 

Secretary JACKSON. First of all, Congressman Frank, there are 

40,000 people we are serving right now. Units we are serving, we 

will continue to serve. There are others in the pipeline that we will 

serve. We are cutting 1,500 out of this budget. 

But, again, I will reiterate to you that we had to make very hard 

decisions, and one of those decisions was, were we going to fund 

the Section 8 program fully? Were we going to fund the operating 

subsidy more fully? And we made a decision that those were critical. 

Mr. FRANK. I do have to say one last thing: But that is assuming 

that the tax cuts stay in place and the money to go to Mars stays 

in place, so that what you are then telling me is that the administration gave you too little money, because of its commitment to 

spending money elsewhere, send people to Mars and these major 

tax cuts, and as a result—and I will close with this—I thank you 

for not trying to defend these on the merits. 

You are not saying on the merits that you are cutting fair housing or on the merits you are cutting housing for the disabled, but 

what you are saying is that within the budget the administration 

gave you, you do not have enough money to meet all of these needs. 

I think that is probably true. 

Secretary JACKSON. That is not what I am saying. I am saying 

that the Section 8 budget is overwhelming the HUD budget. 

Mr. FRANK. That is because you got too little. 

Secretary JACKSON. We could debate this all day, Congressman. 

The budget is clear that——

Mr. FRANK. The budget that you were given by the administration, they gave you too little money to take care of all of these 

things. 

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Ney. 

Mr. NEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Secretary, I wanted to see if you had a comment on why you 

believe that Commerce could—this is something that is asked quite 

a lot in the district I represent and across the United States—that 

Commerce could provide better direction or assistance to CDBG? 

14

Secretary JACKSON. Mr. Chairman, as I said to the ranking member, we made our case. We believe that clearly Housing and Urban 

Development could manage the program. The decision was made, 

and we agreed, that the programs must be consolidated. And the 

decision was made to consolidate it at Commerce. 

I think that our handling of the community development block 

grant program has been good. Are there problems? Yes, there are 

problems. But I think we have handled the program in economic 

development very well. I am in agreement that it should be consolidated, and the decision was made to consolidate it at Commerce. 

And clearly I think it should be consolidated, without a doubt. 

Mr. NEY. I just wonder, you know, if it will stay intact. I mean, 

if it went from HUD as it is over, some of the philosophy of Commerce might be strictly in the job creation. The CDBG is used in 

other areas beside the creation of a job, as you know. And sometimes people might criticize why it is used, but some communities 

need a fire truck which is available, the paramedics, you know, the 

units save lives. 

Some people say, Well, why do they buy it? Well, some communities, that is what they need. Some communities need infrastructure, some communities need water, other things. 

I just wonder, if this goes over with no detail or direction, it 

might get caught in a different flavor of a different agency. That 

is why I wondered if that had been talked about, if it went—if it 

is a matter of consolidation or went intact. That was one concern 

I wanted to raise. 

Due to the limited time, I just wanted to ask about the housing 

goals for the GSEs. Do you think that it provides enough flexibility 

for Fannie and Freddie to be able to respond to the task, housing 

goals, and to the market? 

Secretary JACKSON. Yes, Mr. Chairman. I have had the opportunity to meet with the acting CEO and the chairman and CEO—

acting CEO of Fannie Mae and the chairman and CEO of Freddie 

Mac. We have had extremely positive discussions, and what we 

have said is that we believe that these goals are attainable. 

But if it is clear that they are not, we are flexible and we will 

work with them. But until it is demonstrated that they are not attainable, we believe that they are; and in fact, we took input from 

the industry and from professional groups. And initially we had the 

goals set at a higher percentage; we lowered that percentage because clearly it was demonstrated to us by the industry group and 

the professional group and Fannie and Freddie that they might be 

out of line with the ability to accomplish those goals. 

So we feel very comfortable that those goals can be accomplished. 

But if we are wrong, we are flexible and will work with both agencies. 

Mr. NEY. We all know the controversy of Fannie and Freddie and 

that will be twisted and bandied and thrown about this country, I 

am sure. But putting that aside, as this committee eventually, you 

know, takes on the job of regulators, et cetera, we have got to 

watch the housing goals, make sure that the system is not all in 

chaos and that people can still, you know, be able to be part of 

what the Congress has supported for years, which is, you know, to 

have the housing. 

15

So I think—as we go along the process, I think it has to be carefully, always watched and analyzed as to what we are doing. 

Another question I had—you may not be able to answer this 

maybe; with the section that handles Native Americans you could, 

but last year we passed the Homeownership for Native Americans 

Act. It was sponsored by Mr. Renzi of Arizona, supported by Mr. 

Matheson, and also our ranking member, Congresswoman Waters. 

That act made changes to Title 6 of the Native American Housing 

Assistance and Self-Determination Act of 1996, and it tried to improve the tribes’ access to capital by increasing the guaranteed authority for the Title 6 loans. 

Now, I am glad to see the President’s budget does include an increase in the request for that credit subsidy for this program. I 

think it is a vital program. The increase in the credit subsidy, 

though, is a bit puzzling. This came as a result of a meeting with 

some of the tribes that are dealing with this issue. 

The increase to an already high credit subsidy rate reduces the 

amount of available guaranty authority that would otherwise be 

available for building desperately needed housing units. 

We went out to the reservations. It is unbelievable. I don’t think 

there have been any defaults, to the best of my knowledge, in the 

last decade. So I wonder what the basis would be for the high and 

increasing credit subsidy rate. 

So, on one hand, we acted, and on the other hand, that increased 

subsidy rate may not allow the program to work as good. 

If you cannot answer this, I will follow up with you. 

Secretary JACKSON. I will be happy to get back to you to answer 

that. 

Mr. NEY. Thank you. 

The gentlelady from California. 

Ms. WATERS. Secretary Jackson, I think you can conclude, based 

on my testimony, that I am very upset about CDBG for a lot of reasons. Not only is it the last standing block grant program from the 

Federal Government for these 501(C)(3)s and nonprofit agencies 

that are providing services for at-risk youth and seniors, et cetera, 

et cetera; we have got housing money, and in a district like mine, 

you have small cities who depend on this for some of their infrastructure support. 

I know that you talked about setting priorities, but why did you 

allow CDBG to be consolidated in the way that you are proposing 

to do it and to be transferred and cut? Was it because you had too 

much money and you didn’t need any more money? I mean, they 

cut you because you had more than you needed? Or was your 

money mismanaged? Did you do a good job? 

And can you say to this committee that there is not a need for 

all that you had, plus more? I mean, explain to me this decision 

to cut and transfer. And what did you do? Did you fight for CDBG? 

Was this one of your priorities? What did you say to those people—

I don’t know who they are—who did this? 

Secretary JACKSON. Thank you very much for the question, Congresswoman. 

As I said to the ranking member, we made, I think, a very strong 

case as to where the economic development should be. The decision 

16

was made that it would be consolidated. We agreed. We think the 

program should be consolidated. 

Ms. WATERS. Are you talking about programs like Section 108? 

Secretary JACKSON. Section 108? 

Ms. WATERS. I am talking about CDBG. Are you putting that in 

the category of economic development programs? 

Secretary JACKSON. Yes, because if you realize, the community 

development block grant money, even that 1.1 million is for housing, 1.4 million is for infrastructure, it is still always related to economic development. That is why we tacked with the empowerment 

zones, the RC zones, we felt that clearly it is there. 

We believe, as I said to you before when you asked the question, 

we made our case. Do we believe that consolidation of all of the 

economic development programs as they relate to developing communities should be in one place? Yes, we do. 

Did we think that we should be the agency that administered the 

program? Yes. We made our case. 

But I do believe in the final analysis that the key was consolidation, not that we had not done a good job, not that the program 

was not working. You can ask the people in the industry; you can 

ask professionals. 

Are there problems with the program? Yes, there are problems, 

and we were in the process of correcting those problems, but the 

key to it is, I still believe——

Ms. WATERS. You had problems with CDBG? 

Secretary JACKSON. Of course, we had problems. 

Ms. WATERS. Well, the first thing that I would differ with you 

on is allowing anybody to categorize the programs as economic development programs, because that makes it easier for them to talk 

about going into Commerce that is responsible for economic development. 

But as I look at CDBG, these funds are used for a wide array 

of activities, including housing rehab loans and grants to homeowners, landlords, nonprofits and developers, new housing construction, down payment assistance, other help for first-time home 

buyers, lead-based paint detection and removal, the purchase of 

land and buildings and construction—on and on and on. 

This cannot be categorized simply as economic development, 

which would make it more likely to be transferred, and that argument certainly should have been resisted. 

And I don’t know why this consolidation someplace else—they 

were already consolidated in HUD, were they not? 

Secretary JACKSON. We had all of the programs there in HUD. 

Again, Congresswoman, I understand what you are saying. I 

can’t disagree with you that the programs were there, but I do believe, in the final analysis, that many of the programs, if you see 

the name of the programs going over to Commerce and strengthening America’s economy and communities, so it is taking into account community development. 

My position is still the same. We made what we thought was a 

logical argument. But in the final analysis, I still believe that all 

of those programs which are spread out over three or four different 

agencies should be consolidated, and the decision was made to consolidate it at Commerce. 

17

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from California, Mr. Miller. 

Mr. MILLER OF CALIFORNIA. Thank you, Chairman Oxley. 

Welcome. It is good to have you here; it really is. I know you not 

to be a shy man; let’s put it that way. Having had numerous conversations with you, you are creative. One thing I do know you understand is there is an affordable housing crisis in this country, 

and I think you are doing a good job. 

Secretary JACKSON. Thank you. 

Mr. MILLER OF CALIFORNIA. I know you get beat up by a lot of 

people, but I really think you are doing a good job. But there is a 

difference between economic development and community development. When you go talk to your cities and they talk about economic 

development, they are looking for Wal-Marts and Costcos and those 

types of things. When we talk about community development, we 

are talking about housing. There is a difference. As far as I am 

concerned, there is a huge difference. 

When you talked about GSE oversight, I think you do a great 

job. I don’t think you should be removed from that authority; you 

should have it. If they want to do something with fiscal oversight, 

we will talk about that. 

But CDBG funds, I look at what my city uses them for: for home 

improvement programs, rehabilitation programs, senior programs, 

independent living programs. I mean, they will use them, and I 

think they are really, really necessary for that. 

Now I am going to ask you a serious question here, and it is not 

meant to be teasing you, but do you believe in your mind you are 

doing a bad job encouraging basic community development? 

Secretary JACKSON. Absolutely not. 

Mr. MILLER OF CALIFORNIA. I agree 100 percent. That is the 

problem I have. You know, if we look at the issue, in your view 

there is currently overlap. But is there currently significant overlap 

or duplication of Federal efforts in community development? I am 

talking about significant. There is always overlap of some form, but 

do you think they are really significant? 

Secretary JACKSON. No, There is not significance in community 

development per se. 

Mr. MILLER OF CALIFORNIA. Exactly. I think you are doing a good 

job at it, and I don’t see any reason at all to send it over to Commerce. 

Consolidating programs makes sense if there is significant overlap, but you are always going to have some form of overlap. The 

benefits of CDBG programs is the flexibility with which the communities use the money. Do you think there is going to be a change 

in that flexibility if it goes over to Commerce rather than from 

HUD and the oversight? 

Secretary JACKSON. Congressman, I cannot honestly answer that 

question. I think that the legislation is being written as we sit. The 

decision, as I have said to Congresswoman Waters, was to consolidate. And I do believe—can you hear me? 

Mr. MILLER OF CALIFORNIA. I hear you fine, sir. 

Secretary JACKSON. Okay. I do believe that they were overlapping in certain programs and that we should consolidate. As I said 

before, we made a——

18

Mr. MILLER OF CALIFORNIA. You are stuck. You are stuck on this 

one, my friend. But there is not significant overlap. And the biggest 

problem I am having is you are doing a great job, and I just don’t 

want to look at somebody doing a good job and say we are going 

to take it away from you and let somebody else mess it up. And 

I know you understand the development needs of this country. I 

know you do. You understand what communities are going 

through, although some people beat you up like you don’t know. 

You do know, and that is the real problem. 

Why is the Department of Commerce more able to provide efficient and effective community development assistance to our communities than you are? Give me one or two reasons why they are 

better able to do that? 

Secretary JACKSON. I don’t think it is a matter of whether they 

are better. It is a matter that a decision was made to consolidate, 

and I agree that the programs must be consolidated. 

Mr. MILLER OF CALIFORNIA. Okay. Let’s not use consolidate anymore. I am going to talk to my friend. We are not going to talk 

about consolidation. 

But I am just having trouble here, Secretary Jackson, because 

you are doing a good job, and I am particularly talking about programs that are significant for our community, CDBG. From our 

community leaders, those elected city council members who are trying to provide for the needs, they are the people who have to face 

the community twice a month, at least, in public hearings, and 

they know what the community needs. I have not heard a greater 

uproar than the concept of what is happening today. And what I 

don’t want to have is a perception created that you are the one 

causing this problem, because you are not. I think we need to look 

at this issue because there is not a better use of Federal dollars 

locally than, I think, CDBG when it comes to trying to help people 

who need the help out there. 

So I am having a real problem understanding why we are doing 

what we are doing. You are doing a real good job trying to cover 

yourself so you don’t say the wrong thing because you are kind of 

stuck, but we need to stop talking about consolidating and talk 

about quality, and I think you are doing a quality job. 

I am glad you are the Secretary. I think you are very capable. 

Looking at your history and having talked to you and understanding your expertise, you are doing a tremendous job. I think 

we need to seriously look at retaining the current oversight that we 

have and not throw the baby out with the bath water because 

somebody thinks it might be a good idea. 

I yield back. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. CHAIRMAN. The gentleman yield backs. 

The gentleman from Vermont, Mr. Sanders. 

Mr. SANDERS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman; and, Secretary Jackson, 

thanks for being with us today. 

Mr. Secretary, in my view, my view, we have a major housing 

crisis in this country. More than 14 million Americans are paying 

over 50 percent of their limited incomes in housing; 3.5 million people in this country will experience homelessness this year, including 1.3 million kids and a half a million veterans. One-third of the 

entire country lacks safe, decent or affordable housing. On average, 

19

families across the country must earn more than $15 an hour—almost 3 times the national minimal wage—to afford a two-bedroom 

apartment. So my first question to you: In your judgment, do we 

have a housing crisis? 

Secretary JACKSON. I will say this to you, Congressman, I think 

that reasonably in certain areas we have a housing crisis. If we 

talk about the east coast, where you are from, or the west coast, 

where Congresswoman Waters—we do have a serious crisis. I think 

if we talk about middle America, southwest, southeast——

Mr. SANDERS. Fair enough, thank you. And I would agree with 

you. Certainly there are some parts of this country where there is 

not a housing crisis. But given the fact that in the west coast, in 

the east coast, in many parts of our country there is a major housing crisis, why, in your judgment, will the President of the United 

States give hundreds of billions of dollars in tax breaks to the 

wealthiest 1 percent and yet slash the overall housing budget by 

more than 11 percent? 

Secretary JACKSON. Congressman, if you look at the budget, tak- ing into consideration the shifting of the $4.2 billion to Commerce, 

we are up $800 million in this budget overall. We have increased 

the Section 8 program by $1.1 billion, the operating subsidy by $1 

billion. And, yes, we have had to cut in other areas, but overall the 

program is up. So the President is very, very concerned, and he has 

demonstrated that by adding additional money to the——

Mr. SANDERS. Well, Mr. Secretary, in all due respect, I don’t believe that is accurate. My understanding is the CDBG program will 

be reduced by 35 percent, resulting at a $1.16 billion cut in funding 

for low-income housing, including a $9 million cut from my own 

small State of Vermont. Is that true or is that not true? 

Secretary JACKSON. What I know is that we zeroed out of our 

budget, Congressman, $4.2 billion, from my perspective, to be sent 

over to Commerce to work with Community Development Block 

Grant Economic Development. I cannot comment on what is in the 

present Commerce budget. I don’t know. 

Mr. SANDERS. My understanding is the Public Housing budget would receive a $270 million cut. I don’t want to say anything that 

is inaccurate.That is my understanding. 

Secretary JACKSON. Well, that is the capital budget, but the overall operating subsidy is up by a billion dollars. 

Mr. SANDERS. Well, the capital budget is—I think we have a disagreement of fact here. I would yield to Mr. Frank if he has some 

information that I don’t have. We need to get our facts straight 

here. 

Mr. FRANK. Let me just ask you, on the operating budget, what 

are the numbers—Ms. Schecter, could you tell us, what is the operating budget in the current fiscal year and what is your proposal? 

You said it is up a billion, the operating budget for——

Secretary JACKSON. It is $2.4 billion at this present time, and it 

goes up $1 billion. 

Mr. FRANK. Well, yeah, our understanding is the calendar is 

shifting for public housing funding, isn’t that correct? 

Secretary JACKSON. Yes. 

Mr. FRANK. Now when you say there is a billion dollar increase, 

does that correct for the shift in the calendar? 

20

Secretary JACKSON. Yes, it does. 

Mr. FRANK. Not according to our figures. 

Well, I guess we will put this out later, but our sense is that the 

increase you are claiming is based largely on the effect of the shift 

in the calendar, and when you correct for that, we do not have that 

increase. But I think we will ask that that be made public. We will 

put the documents out. 

Mr. SANDERS. Well, I do think it is important that we understand we are talking apples to apples here. But my understanding 

is that in my own small State President Bush’s proposal to block 

grant and cut the Section 8 program, if enacted, would result in a 

thousand fewer families in the State of Vermont who would receive 

affordable housing assistance through Section 8. That is a heck of 

a lot of families in a small State. 

So let me conclude by asking you this, Mr. Secretary. Last year, 

along with Barbara Lee, among others, many others, we introduced 

the National Affordable Housing Trust Fund, which ended up with 

215 co-sponsors and the endorsement of over 5,000 organizations. 

That program would build, preserve and rehabilitate at least one 

and a half million affordable housing rental units over the next 

decade. How do you feel about an effort like that? 

Secretary JACKSON. My position is that if Congress so desires to 

have a program and it is in HUD, I would be happy to implement 

it. 

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman’s time has expired. 

Mr. SANDERS. Thank you. 

The CHAIRMAN. The gentlelady from Illinois, Mrs. Biggert. 

Mrs. BIGGERT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Welcome, Mr. Secretary, and thank you so much for the delivery 

last week to the City of Chicago and its surrounding suburbs of a 

good news flat package. We really appreciate all that it will be 

used for in housing in that area. 

I wanted to address the question of Section 811 being singled out 

for a 50 percent cut in this budget. I have an organization in my 

district, Trinity Services—it is only one of many wonderful organizations that I have—but it has operated since 1950 and provided 

housing and other vital services to disabled residents in the community. I am concerned that—I know that for the past 8 years 

Congress has allowed HUD the discretion to direct up to 25 percent 

of section 811 funding for tenant-based rental assistance, as opposed to capital advanced grants and budget-based assistance 

being administered by non-profits. But my concern is, with the programs like this that really have provided services for those that are 

disabled, that are not quite ready to be off on their own, I am concerned that the only availability will be the vouchers. Does that 

mean that these vouchers will only go to the tenants and not to organizations such as Trinity who really have constructed units and 

group housing for these groups—for these people? 

Secretary JACKSON. I am sorry, Congresswoman. No, we will continue to support all of the units that are in place today and to 

honor the Section 811 vouchers that already exist. 

What we did is in this budget, it was 1,500 units that we zeroed 

out of this budget, but it will in no way affect the ongoing of the 

program. 

21

Mrs. BIGGERT. But does that mean just the 1,500 that were being 

proposed for this year? 

Secretary JACKSON. Yes, the 1,500 of new construction. 

Mrs. BIGGERT. Okay. And does that mean that when money becomes available, the next budget, that you would put that back in? 

You know, I think this is a high priority, the group housing and 

particularly the services, and maybe those are given by other, you 

know, agencies, but still it is like a one-stop shopping where some 

of these—it goes from, you know, the seniors down to children that 

are really taken care of under these——

Secretary JACKSON. Yes, ma’am. 

Mrs. BIGGERT. Well, I would hope that, you know, you would reconsider that, to look at those houses. 

Secretary JACKSON. I would be happy to. 

Mrs. BIGGERT. All right. Thank you. And I would yield back. 

The CHAIRMAN. The gentlelady yields back. 

The gentlelady from New York, Ms. Maloney. 

Mrs. MALONEY. Mr. Secretary, I first would like to compliment 

HUD for the really caring job they have done in the city and State 

that I represent in the past. 

I recall when I served on the City Council after the Carter years, 

with monies put in the budget, and HUD rebuilt 7,000 new units 

of affordable housing in 4 years in my councilmanic district alone—

but looking at this budget, I just don’t see how we can survive in 

New York, and I am sure my colleagues feel the same across the 

country. In looking at what has been put forward, all of the city 

programs in HUD have been reduced by 5 to 10 percent in New 

York City; and since 2001 the funding for public housing has been 

cut 30 percent. 

HUD now provides many, many valuable programs, code enforcement and lead abatement and other functions in New York City. 

So my first question to you about the Strengthening America’s 

Communities proposal which you have put forth, can you offer any 

assurance that the housing code enforcement, lead abatement and 

other functions that my home city of New York currently uses the 

Community Development Block Grants for will be continued or permissible under this new program? These were vital housing assistance programs. 

Secretary JACKSON. Congresswoman, you ask me, can I make an 

assurance? No. I would hope that all of these programs would continue to be enforced, and I do believe that they will be, but I cannot 

guarantee something from another department. We zeroed out $4.2 billion in our budget to be transferred to the 

Department of Commerce. The legislation is yet to be written, but 

it is my belief and hope that, yes, it would continue. 

Mrs. MALONEY. Well, hoping isn’t good enough. What we have 

heard is that some of these programs are going to Commerce, but 

there is absolutely no assurance that they will continue. They are 

still being worked out. Your proposal reminds me of the Social Security proposal we have before Congress. The Bush administration 

is saying trust us, but their proposal—you know, how can we trust 

you? 

You are saying trust me, I hope, but there is no assurance. You 

really need to be more responsible and consistent with this ConVerDate 0ct 09 2002 16:20 Dec 09, 2005 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00025 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 G:\DOCS\24795.TXT FIN1 PsN: MICAH
22

gress, and you have got to assure us that the housing goals that 

are currently being served by CDBG will continue to be served. 

And to sit here and say I hope is certainly not good enough. 

It is just—to me—Newt Gingrich, when he came to power, came 

out and said, I want to abolish HUD. At least he came out and said 

what he was going to do. With this budget you are almost like termites eating away at the foundation of HUD, which has been an 

incredibly valuable program in so many ways to the communities 

that we serve. 

I tell you, housing is so important, and you cannot build affordable housing or public housing without a Federal commitment. Localities and States cannot do it. And I don’t see it in this budget. 

Even in the Section 8 that you talk about that you have maintained at the approximate levels, it is still $50 million short of 

what was expended for Section 8 in 2004 in New York City alone. 

So I find this budget tremendously problematic. 

I would like to also ask you about your Strengthening America’s 

Communities proposal. You consolidate the community development financial institutions and the national community development initiatives. You put those two together. These are the two 

main ways that local governments attract and leverage private capital into their communities. How do you suggest that these private 

funds be replaced? 

Secretary JACKSON. Congresswoman, I cannot, today, discuss the 

intricate details of the Strengthening America’s Communities proposal. That is over at Commerce being developed at this time. 

What I can tell you is what we have done in the past with the community development program, which you know and that in the 

final analysis, as I said before, for consolidation purposes the program is going to Commerce, and we zeroed out $4.2 billion out of 

our budget. 

Mrs. MALONEY. Well, also, you said in your testimony that you 

were going to consolidate these programs and provide more, quote, 

economic development programs over at Commerce. So can you explain what administrative changes and what realignment of funds 

will be great enough to account for the tremendous decrease in 

funding by $1.6 billion? I mean, I am flabbergasted by this budget; 

not only do you flat out cut public housing code enforcement, the 

programs that we use to leverage to get private investment into 

housing—how do you expect that we are going to meet the needs 

of the local communities? 

The CHAIRMAN. The gentlelady’s time has expired. 

Mrs. MALONEY. And you have no proof. It is a disaster. 

The CHAIRMAN. The Secretary may respond. 

Secretary JACKSON. Yes. Congresswoman, as I said, you asked 

for assurance. I cannot give you assurance of what another department will do because I am the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development. What we did was agreed that consolidation is a necessary occurrence, and the decision was made to consolidate at 

Commerce. The legislation is presently being written, and I am 

convinced that it will address many of the issues that you have just 

enunciated. 

The CHAIRMAN. Gentleman from Florida, Mr. Feeney. 

23

Mr. FEENEY. Thank you. And thank you very much, Mr. Secretary. 

I tried to follow the lines of the argument very carefully here, 

and I am afraid I have lost the forest for the trees. Some people 

are very concerned that you are consolidating things, that budgets 

aren’t increasing rapidly enough, that the burden on the American 

taxpayer is not expanding fast enough in housing-related issues. 

As I recall your testimony, American ownership is at all-time historic high. Not just for America, but is there any other nation in 

the history of the earth where as high a percentage of people have 

owned the house they live in or the land that they live on that you 

are aware of? 

Secretary JACKSON. I think that the ownership rate in this country is the highest. There might be another, I think in Singapore. 

But, other than that, we are far ahead of everybody else in the 

world. 

Mr. FEENEY. Well, based on the big picture forest which I am 

very concerned about, that you and your predecessor and the Bush 

administration ought to be very, very proud of what you have accomplished. 

We know that there is more to be done. I work with homeless 

coalitions, for example, in my neighborhood. 

But related to that issue, I recognize you may not be an economist, but I am noticing today in the Washington Post that there 

is concern that in California last year property values increased 27 

percent, 20 percent in my home State, some 36 percent in Nevada. 

Some economists are concerned, actually, about a pricing bubble. 

Do you think if we added some enormous subsidies, handouts 

and other programs that may have been advocated that we do a 

lot more for, that we may actually be inadvertently incentivizing or 

encouraging speculative investment and perhaps a pricing bubble 

that as the Washington Post, in a column by Mr. Samuelson, points 

out traditionally has been the precursor—these are housing price 

bubbles—to serious consequences that ultimately lead to recession, 

perhaps even depression on a global nature? Do you have some 

concern that overly generous subsidies in some areas may have 

that possible effect? 

Secretary JACKSON. Actually, Congressman Feeney, no. Because 

I really believe that we have a prime opportunity, and so does the 

President, to create more little-market housing—some people will 

say affordable housing—in this country; and I think we can do that 

by the American Home Ownership Low-income Tax Credit Act by 

helping developers develop in the urban areas. 

Also, I think, too, that probably within the next 5 to 10 years 

there is still going to be a growing need. What we have seen, since 

we have seen the increase of home ownership in this country, especially with minorities, is that it is so pervasive, as the Congressman said a few minutes ago, that many people are paying over 50 

percent of their income just for rent. So if they can get into a home 

or we can provide ways of getting them into a home, they are used 

to paying 30 to 35 percent, that is usually a 15 to 20 percent reduction from a rental unit. 

Now that does not mean that in any way HUD is getting out of 

the rental business or that rental units will not be used, but I 

24

think if we can give incentives to first-time homebuyers, not only 

do we create good citizens, we create stable environments. We have 

learned, also, that a child coming up in a home reads 9 percent better, does math 7 percent better. 

So if we can, in essence, give a helping hand to those families, 

we effectively keep them from entering the market of maybe the 

homeless or public housing. So we will not need as much public 

housing or as many Section 8 vouchers that we have today. So I 

think it is important to stress that. Now that in no way diminishes 

HUD’s commitment to subsidize apartment complexes or homes. 

Mr. FEENEY. I have got a lot more on this area. We may have 

some disagreements about the potential risk of overly generous 

subsidies. 

But, finally, while I am into economics, is it your opinion—and 

I realize it is not your expertise—some urban areas’ rent control, 

enormous regulatory burdens imposed by the locals, and other reasons that are self-inflicted ruins—have contributed to the high cost 

of affordable or, as you put it, middle cost housing?. 

Secretary JACKSON. You are absolutely correct, and I have asked 

a person on our team to do nothing but look at ways of removing 

those regulatory barriers. 

If you take an example, Congresswoman Waters out of Los Angeles, California, before a home comes out of the ground in California 

through regulatory barriers you are looking at somewhere between 

a hundred and $109,000. My position is that clearly moves it out 

of the middle-market-housing market for fire people, police people, 

teachers, nurses. So our position is that let’s try to remove those 

regulatory barriers, but the first step—and we are about 60 percent 

through—the first step of removing regulatory barriers is we need 

to remove them at HUD; and we are in the process of doing that 

before we insist that cities and counties and States move theirs. 

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman’s time is expired. 

The gentlelady from New York. 

Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Secretary, do you think that $1.3 trillion in tax cut is too 

much of a handout? But that is not my question. My question is 

about the present budget. 

The President’s budget, he proposed cutting funding for public 

housing by 9 percent, bringing the total cost, since the President 

took office, to $1.5 billion. There is currently a backlog of $21 billion worth of physical improvements needed in public housing, including the repair and replacement of roofs, boilers, windows, and 

doors that are jeopardizing the health and safety of residents. With 

cuts to these funds, PHAS will be forced to make extremely difficult budget choices, pitting important priorities against one another while building conditions worsen. 

How does the administration expect PHAS to meet quality and 

safety standards without the adequate resources to maintain their 

properties and make necessary repairs? 

Secretary JACKSON. Well, Congresswoman, as I said before, we 

have added one billion to the operating subsidy of the public housing budget. 

25

Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Yeah, but that doesn’t address the issue that we 

have $21 billion worth of physical improvements. And when was 

the last time that you visited a public housing development? 

Secretary JACKSON. Probably 2 months ago. 

Ms. VELAZQUEZ. And you saw the needs for repairs. 

Secretary JACKSON. No, I did not. 

Ms. VELAZQUEZ. You did not. I welcome you to come to my district in New York City. 

Secretary JACKSON. Well, the public housing development that I 

visited was in excellent shape. 

Ms. VELAZQUEZ. So you think that $1 billion is enough? 

Secretary JACKSON. No. That is for the operating subsidy. I truly 

believe that we have enough in the Capital Fund budget to address 

the needs of many of the issues that you just said. 

Ms. VELAZQUEZ. According to Assistant Secretary Liu, the budget 

only provides 89 percent of what is needed for full cost reimbursement for public housing operating expenses. My question to you is, 

are PHAs supposed to perform only 89 percent of the repairs needed in their developments? 

Secretary JACKSON. Well, Congresswoman, I will tell you that the 

backlog of capital improvements in public housing developments 

are down by about $18 billion over the last 4 years, so I am not 

sure where your figures are coming from. I know, having ran three 

public housing agencies, that the issues that we faced in the 1970s 

and the 1980s and the 1990s are not the issues that we are facing 

today. And my position is that we are doing everything to make 

sure that we address the capital needs of public housing agencies 

in this country. 

And you asked a question. The last time that I can remember 

public housing being funded at a hundred percent, I can’t. Out of 

the three agencies I ran, I can’t ever remember it being funded 

really over 95 percent. So I am not sure, when you ask can they 

operate off of 90 percent, yes, I operated an agency off of 90 percent. 

Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Ninety percent. It is 89 percent. 

A crucial element of the success of the Section 8 program is the 

participating landlords——

Secretary JACKSON. I am sorry. I didn’t understand you. 

Ms. VELAZQUEZ. A crucial element of the success in the Section 

8 program is the participating landlords. With increasingly more 

Section 8 buildings reaching the end of their 20 year contracts, it 

is imperative that landlords feel confident in the program so that 

they will continue to participate and provide a much-needed source 

of affordable housing. New York City alone is short $50 million of 

what is needed to fund all vouchers this year, with expiring contracts for nearly 2,000 units in my district. HUD’s misguided shift 

from unit-based funding to an inadequately funded dollar-based 

system has jeopardized private sector confidence in the Section 8 

program, removing critical incentives for landlords to participate in 

the program. 

Secretary Jackson, what concrete steps is the Department going 

to take to restore landlord confidence in the Section 8 program and 

ensure their participation moving forward? 

26

Secretary JACKSON. Congresswoman, I think we have. We added 

$1.1 billion to the present Section 8 voucher program. I don’t think 

there is anything more resolute than giving monies to carry out the 

program. But the question becomes, can we continue to increase 

the program at its present rate? I do not believe so——

Ms. VELAZQUEZ. My question is about the confidence coming from 

landlords regarding the program. Every time I go back to my district, we have to deal with HUD and landlords who do not want 

to continue in the program because of lack of confidence in the program. And isn’t it true that Judith Kennedy, president of the National Association of Affordable Housing Lenders, was quoted last 

May in a Bond Buyer article saying, and I quote, ‘‘Because HUD’s 

announcement at least partially validated the concerns of rating 

agencies and landlords about the appropriations risks associated 

with the voucher tenants, some of the harm may be irreversible.’’ 

and that HUD, and I quote, ‘‘just in essence validated rating agencies and underwriters’ fears that you cannot trust government subsidies.’’ Irreversible, Mr. Secretary. 

I ask you again, how will HUD attempt to rectify the harmful effects of its poor management decisions? 

Mr. NEY. [Presiding] I should note the time of the gentlelady is 

expired, but if you would like to wrap up. 

Secretary JACKSON. Sure. Congresswoman, I will say this. If it is 

irreversible, you cannot prove it by the number of bond-issuing 

companies coming to public housing agencies today wanting to do 

their bonds, or the number who are willing to underwrite the Section 8 program in many housing authorities. 

Ms. VELAZQUEZ. And there are a number of landlords who do not 

want to continue in the program. 

Secretary JACKSON. Well, I can tell you, in your city alone, you 

have got people at your housing agencies willing to do it tomorrow, 

and I am not telling you what I think, I am telling you what I 

know. 

Mr. NEY. The time has expired. 

The gentleman from Ohio, Mr. Tiberi. 

Mr. TIBERI. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Secretary, thank you for your leadership. Thank you for your 

support of Columbus, Ohio’s unique approach to dealing with 

chronic homelessness. It has been great to see your leadership 

there. And thanks for your support on the Zero Down legislation 

as well. As a realtor, it has been great to see people react the way 

they do in home ownership. It helps communities, and you know 

that, and thanks for your support there. And thanks for your commitment on dealing with an FHA issue in Columbus, Ohio, dealing 

with first-time homebuyers as well. I look forward to working with 

your staff. 

About a year and a half ago, Chairman Ney and I had a field 

hearing in Columbus, Ohio, and out of that we requested a GAO 

report on CDBG, which has gotten a lot of attention here for another reason. Our concern stems from the fact that in Columbus, 

Ohio, the Mayor and City Council testified at that hearing that Columbus was the largest city in Ohio—is the largest city in Ohio and 

was not getting as much CDBG money as some of the other cities 

27

in Ohio that are older cities than Columbus. Columbus has seen 

exceptional growth in the last two decades. 

I will give you an example. St. Louis, Missouri, with a population 

of around 350,000, is the 49th largest city in the U.S. In fiscal year 

2001, St. Louis received over $28 million in CDBG money. Columbus is the 15th largest city in the Nation, population of over 

700,000, double, received about $$8.8 million in CDBG. Similar discrepancies can be found in other cities who are smaller than Columbus and whose funding is greater than Columbus with respect 

to CDBG. 

Why do you think cities that are significantly smaller than Columbus are receiving much more, when Columbus’ poverty statistics are similar to these cities that are half the size? 

Secretary JACKSON. I understand, Congressman Tiberi, your concern, and let me say this. It is because of the formula that was set 

by Congress; and in this formula it is based on poverty, growth and 

age of housing in the communities. When you look at a city like St. 

Louis pre-1940 housing, you have a substantial large number of 

that in that city. If you look at Columbus—which I used to visit 

frequently when I ran the utility company—it is basically a brand 

new city in the sense that you have a very growing market now 

and clearly a very viable—and if I remember distinctly, it is the 

largest city in Ohio. 

Mr. TIBERI. It is. 

Secretary JACKSON. That is why we did an in-depth analysis and 

study—that we have submitted to the public now and to you all—

looking at four different alternates to be able to address the community development needs of each of these cities to be more equitably distributed between the cities. Right now, you are absolutely 

correct. It is just based on poverty, age of housing and the growth 

of the city. 

So there are a number of iniquities that exist in cities, but we 

think that with the study and the proposal that we have submitted 

to you all and at the request of Chairman Ney, I think we have—

the four alternates that we have given will address that issue. 

Mr. TIBERI. That is great. 

One other question, Mr. Chairman. 

The issue of Section 8 has come up, and I don’t know if the statistics are on the top of your head or not, but one of the things that 

we have seen is that, over the last several years that I have been 

here, is the amount of money spent on Section 8 has increased significantly. Can you, off the top of your head, tell us, since you have 

been at HUD how significantly Section 8 has taken a bigger piece 

of your budget? 

Secretary JACKSON. Sure. Congressman, we have gone from funding Section 8 at about 42 to 43 percent to 56 percent; and if we 

include the project-based subsidy, it is about 60 percent. So it is 

taking about 60 percent of our budget, and that is at the perils of 

other programs. I know people have said, well, it shouldn’t be. You 

are underfunded. No, it is not that. The program could not continue 

to grow at the rate that it is growing. That is the real issue. 

Secondly—which some people refuse to deal with—is that we are 

not serving more people on this program. We have an imaginary 

cap that 75 percent of the recipients must be 30 percent or less the 

28

median, which means we are not only paying their rent, we are 

paying all of the additives to that, utilities and others. So we are 

not serving more people. Landlords are consistently going up in the 

rent, and what we found out is that in many of the urban areas 

there is a great disparity between what landlords are charging and 

what the median rent is for that specific area. 

So I am saying, let us go back to where I was the last time that 

I ran a housing authority in 1995, back to budget base. I was given 

a budget, and I had the flexibility of serving as many people as I 

could. That is, some people were at 30 percent of median, some 

were at 50 percent of median, some were at 60 percent of median. 

Now we are over 80 percent. And clearly what we had——

Mr. NEY. The gentleman’s time has expired. 

Secretary JACKSON.—which I think it important, is we had a 

turnover in Section 8 at that point, pre-1998, at about 3 years, 3 

and a half years. Today it is about 8 years, and we are serving less 

people. 

Mr. TIBERI. Thank you. 

Mr. NEY. The gentleman’s time has expired. 

The gentleman from North Carolina, Mr. Watt. 

Mr. WATT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Thank you for being here, Mr. Secretary. 

You referred to some legislation that is being drawn at Commerce on several occasions, and I will just express my hope that 

you are involved in putting HUD and the prior programs of HUD 

in play as part of those discussions and that it is just not Commerce that is doing this. I assume that you are involved in that? 

Secretary JACKSON. Yes, Congressman Watts. 

Mr. WATT. Thanks. Okay. And I would also express my hope that 

that process moves quicker than the process that—you all told me 

a couple of years ago the process was going to lead to some successor legislation that was going to replace Hope VI, which I still 

have not seen. And I am—you know, I am beginning to turn blue 

here, if I keep holding my breath for it. So I hope you all are still 

working on that. Are you still working on legislation that would 

come up with a program that would replace Hope VI and do that, 

or was that going to Commerce, too? 

Secretary JACKSON. No, that is not going to Commerce. We are 

still working on it. 

Mr. WATT. Okay. So I am glad to know you all consider that community development rather than economic development. 

In the meantime, according to the information I have, in 2001 

HUD issued the Hope VI notice of funding availability approximately 4 months after Congress appropriated the funds; and, unfortunately, in 2002, 2003, 2004, the NOFA didn’t come out until 

8 or 9 months after the funds were available, so I am a little worried about what the status of the Hope VI funds appropriated for 

fiscal year 2005 is. 

Is there going to be a NOFA for the funds that were appropriated, even though you all—even though the President’s budget 

proposal confiscates those funds back? Or are you just going to assume that that is going to happen? Can you tell me the status of 

the NOFA for 2005 funding? 

29

Secretary JACKSON. We expect the NOFA to be out in March. 

Clearly, it was allocated in the 2005 budget, and so I intend to put 

the NOFA out and to get responses and to evaluate those responses. 

Mr. WATT. Now what impact will that have, then, on the President’s proposal to reclaim those? I mean, he has rescinded those 

funds in his proposed budget. If you put a NOFA out, will that 

trump his rescission, or will his budget proposal trump your 

NOFA? 

Secretary JACKSON. Congressman, that is a proposed budget——

Mr. WATT. I understand that, but I am just trying to figure out 

which ones—you are putting out your NOFA. I assume if people 

submit proposals in response to that NOFA, that will be funded, 

is that correct? 

Secretary JACKSON. That is correct, until you rescind it, until 

Congress rescinds it. 

Mr. WATT. All right. That is all I want to be assured of. 

Now there was some language, as I recall, in that bill about recapturing some prior money that was in HOPE VI. What is the status of that? How much money is still out there in HOPE VI that 

has not been committed? 

Secretary JACKSON. All of the money has been committed——

Mr. WATT. Except the 2005 funds. 

Secretary JACKSON. Right. But the other part—if I were to answer your question a different way, how much money is out there 

that is not obligated, it is about $3 billion, but all of it has been 

committed to different authorities. 

Mr. WATT. Okay. Obligated and committed being—give me the 

distinction that you are drawing. 

Secretary JACKSON. Committed is that—we have monies now 

that has gone to all those housing authorities—I can give you the 

best example, and I won’t use a city. One authority has the money, 

but they have not drawn down on it for the last 4 years. So the 

commitment is there, but they have not obligated the funds, and, 

unless they obligate it, they are not in a spending mode. 

Mr. WATT. What is going to happen with that? You take that 

money back at some point? 

Secretary JACKSON. No. We send them a notice. We are working 

with a number of cities in that process, trying to get them to spend 

their money. 

One of the things we have done is said, why don’t you get a developer who can leverage the money and develop the project? 

Mr. NEY. The time of the gentleman has expired. 

Secretary JACKSON. In many cases, when the money has not been 

expended it is because they do not have a developer who can come 

in and leverage the money, so we are working with them. 

Mr. WATT. Thank you, Mr. Secretary. 

Mr. NEY. Thank you. 

Mr. Pearce from New Mexico. 

Mr. PEARCE. Thank you, Mr. Jackson. I appreciate your service, 

and I thank you for your willingness to come in today. 

If I am understanding correctly, in the administration of your program you have decreased the fraudulent payments by $1.6 billion. 

30

Secretary JACKSON. Yes, we have. 

Mr. PEARCE. So we have got a certain number of people off the 

program that were there fraudulently. 

Secretary JACKSON. That is correct. 

Mr. PEARCE. Also, then you have increased home ownership by 

2.2 million people, so you have got 2.2 million people less. 

Secretary JACKSON. Right. 

Mr. PEARCE. And you are not asking for less money in this budget, you are asking for more, which means that we have the capability to really expand services significantly. 

Secretary JACKSON. Yes, we do. 

Let me say this to you. We have a backlog now of less than $18 

billion in public housing capital funds, but we have, to date, 80,000 

fewer public housing units than we had just 10 years ago. We are 

working with a number of private developers and private investors 

with the vouchers to make accommodations for low- and moderateincome people. The best example I can give you is Chicago, where 

Mayor Daley, from my perspective, is doing an excellent job of 

leveraging private monies with our housing monies to create housing that is integrated both socially and economically, rather than 

the humongous high-rises that you saw going down the Dan Ryan 

Freeway. And that is what we are looking at. We don’t have the 

same number of units when they say, well, the budget is cut; we 

have 80,000 fewer units in this country. 

Mr. PEARCE. I appreciate that. I guess my point is that when you 

tell me that we are not serving more people, that the landlords are 

going up to above-market rates, that those landlords could be perceived as special interests. And much of the arguments here today 

could be special interests kicking back against a system that is trying to cut housing rental subsidies that are going up faster than 

the market rate, which will represent large blocks of landowners, 

rather than creating an ownership society. 

Secretary JACKSON. I agree with that, but I won’t say it is special 

interests. What I will say is this, is that what I found in running 

three housing authorities, unless you clearly state and make landlords compete, there is no need for them to compete, so they can 

raise the rates at their will. And that is what we are seeing in this 

country. 

I can tell you firsthand. I made a sincere effort, the last housing 

authority that I ran in Dallas, that I had landlords competing to 

make sure that I got the best value for my dollar because I was 

allocated only so much money and I wanted to serve as many people as I could serve. 

Today, based on the unit-base cost, there is really no incentives 

to do that. I think that if you give them budget base and flexibility, 

many of the housing authorities are capable and will do it, will 

make landlords compete, but until then there is no reason. 

So that is why I said that the money is going up that we are allocating, but the number of people who we are serving has not increased any. And you will get debate and they will say that is not 

true. Well, you know, I ran three housing authorities, I think I am 

a pretty good expert, and all three of them were high performance, 

so I know exactly what I am talking about. When you are on budget base, you have to operate flexibly; unit base, it is not required. 

31

Mr. PEARCE. Well, I read in here at one point that you serve 4.8 

million households under one program. Do you have the total number of households that you are serving right now through all the 

programs, just approximately? 

Secretary JACKSON. I know it is 2.2 in Section 8, and it is 4 point 

something in public housing—2 million in Section 8 and about 1.2 

in public housing. I am sorry. 

Mr. PEARCE. So about 4 million. 

Secretary JACKSON. And then the other programs, right. 

Mr. PEARCE. So when you set a goal of 5.5 million by 2006, is 

it 2006? 

Secretary JACKSON. No. That was the home ownership goal set 

by the President. 

Mr. PEARCE. I understand. But home ownership, you are supposedly taking people out of the program, the rental subsidies, and 

putting them over into a program where they never are going to 

have to have a subsidy again——

Secretary JACKSON. Not necessarily so. A lot of people are coming 

out of the program, but a lot of these are just first-time homeowners, period. They are middle-income people, fire people, police, 

nurses, teachers. They are not necessarily either on a voucher or 

in public housing. 

Mr. PEARCE. All right. Well, I appreciate, Mr. Jackson, the efforts 

to change the whole culture, the culture of paying high rents with 

non-competitive leases, the culture of having subsidies rather than 

home ownership. I appreciate those attempts on the part of your 

Department to sort through a very difficult, difficult problem. I 

know it takes a lot of focus, and you are open to criticism from us, 

and we appreciate that. 

Secretary JACKSON. Thank you. 

Mr. NEY. The gentleman’s time has expired. 

The gentlelady from California. 

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

First of all, Secretary Jackson, let me just say I believe that this 

proposed HUD budget really does reflect the values of an agency 

which has decided that it no longer takes on responsibility for caring for the least of these. It reflects priorities that you acknowledge 

rob Peter to pay Paul. Yet—we keep hearing about the religious 

values of the President and this administration. Yet this budget, if 

you ask me, does not reflect any sense of morality. It does just the 

opposite. 

It is really, quite frankly, immoral to shatter the hope out of 

HOPE VI and accept housing that really is subhuman in our country. I can’t figure out what is moral about cutting 15 percent from 

the housing account for Native Americans, allowing, also, families 

to live with lead paint or brown fields. It is my understanding 

there is about a 28 percent cut in lead paint grants. Of course, this 

will lead to sicker children. 

I guess I have got to ask you, where is the morality in a budget 

that leaves those living with HIV and AIDS in a position where 

they have to choose between their healthcare and their housing? A 

5 percent cut is unacceptable. 

So, Mr. Secretary, I can’t figure out how the administration can 

honestly cut these and other essential healthy community proVerDate 0ct 09 2002 16:20 Dec 09, 2005 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00035 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 G:\DOCS\24795.TXT FIN1 PsN: MICAH
32

grams and really say that it cares about the poor and the elderly 

and the disabled. What you are doing is creating blighted neighborhoods which will wreak havoc on the most vulnerable people. 

So I guess I have to ask you, given this—and I call it an unethical budget, what standards of morality did you use in putting it 

together, or was it strictly the accounting kinds of maneuvers that 

you had to do? Did you vigorously fight for additional funds so that 

the priorities wouldn’t have to be what you are dealing with now 

or did you accept this as sort of a fait accompli? 

Secretary JACKSON. I guess, Congresswoman, I am not going to 

debate you about ethics and morality. I think that——

Ms. LEE. Well, I think we should, because——

Secretary JACKSON. No, I don’t think we should. 

Ms. LEE.—your agency is the one that protects, hopefully, the 

most vulnerable of people in our country——

Secretary JACKSON. Well, you have your beliefs, and that is fine. 

I respect your——

Ms. LEE. You don’t believe that? 

Secretary JACKSON. I respect your belief. 

Ms. LEE. You don’t believe it. 

Secretary JACKSON. I believe the budget does address the issue. 

Ms. LEE. Well, how do you do that by cutting all the funds out 

of housing initiatives for, for instance, people living with HIV and 

AIDS? Five percent is terrible, 50 percent cut on the disabled. I 

mean, how do you justify? That is all I am asking. 

Secretary JACKSON. Well, I will say this to you again. You have 

to make choices and priorities, and in this budget I made priorities. 

The priority was to make sure that we fund the Section 8 program 

fully and the public housing operating subsidy, and that meant 

that some areas would be cut. We looked at those areas that would 

be cut and looked around and realized that other people were serving many of those areas, too, and that our service would be augmented by other agencies. So I would——

Ms. LEE. Then can you tell me what agencies are going to augment, for instance, the cuts that address people living with HIV 

and AIDS and the disabled? 

Secretary JACKSON. Health and Human Services addresses it 

every day. 

Ms. LEE. So they are going to get an increase——

Secretary JACKSON. I can’t speak for them, but——

Ms. LEE. But you chose to cut this because of the priorities and 

you didn’t have enough money. 

Secretary JACKSON. I didn’t say we didn’t have enough money. It 

was clear that we have programs that are eating into our budget, 

and until we address the issues of Section 8 we are going to continue to have to look very strongly at other programs. 

I will say this to you in response. I have no great pleasure in cutting any program. It is a matter of looking at where we can best 

serve the people most in need, and clearly those people under the 

Section 8 program are in need, and that is a decision that had to 

be made. 

Ms. LEE. But, Mr. Secretary, what I am saying to you is oftentimes secretaries make a fight within the administration for additional resources because they don’t want to cut these programs. So 

33

I am asking you—you say you didn’t want to cut it. So if you did 

not want to cut it, did you go to the administration and say, look, 

we need not—we don’t want to cut the disabled, we don’t want to 

cut out Native American housing initiatives, we want to increase 

the efforts for cleaning up lead and lead-base grants? I mean, did 

you make that argument internally? And maybe perhaps you could 

have at least maintained some of these initiatives that the most 

vulnerable people need in our country. 

Secretary JACKSON. Well, I think we have maintained those 

issues that the most vulnerable people need. And I am clearly——

Ms. LEE. But Native American housing has been cut by 15 percent. You are cutting the grants to the disabled by, what, about 50 

percent. You are cutting housing for those living with HIV and 

AIDS by about 5 percent. So explain this. That is what I asked you 

earlier, the kind of standard that you used to do that. 

Secretary JACKSON. I think I have said that you have your belief 

and I have my belief. My belief is that we have——

Mr. NEY. The gentlelady’s time has expired. 

Secretary JACKSON. The Section 8 program consistently eating 

into our budget, and I made some very hard and difficult decisions. 

Ms. LEE. So you didn’t fight to protect the others. 

Mr. NEY. Time has expired. 

Mr. Fitzpatrick of Pennsylvania. 

Mr. FITZPATRICK. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Secretary Jackson, thanks for taking the time to come before the 

committee today. I know that I can say that, as a new member, 

your testimony has given me a greater appreciation and understanding for your budgetary issues at HUD. 

I represent a district in southeastern Pennsylvania, Pennsylvania AID. It is some urban but mostly suburban, and we have had 

great experiences in working with your Department, especially in 

economic fields, economic development initiative. There is a lot of 

pressure for businesses to expand and develop in some of the open 

spaces in the county and in our communities, and the ability to 

take those BETI funds and redevelop older, abandoned industrial 

sites. That has been important to us, and I just want to sort of put 

in a plug for the BETI program. 

Secretary JACKSON. Thank you. 

Mr. FITZPATRICK. But I want to talk a little bit about the Community Development Block Grant. 

As a local elected official, county official for 10 years, we really 

appreciate the Block Grant for a couple of reasons, not only for the 

cash assistance to the local community but, just as importantly, for 

the flexibility that it gives to a local governing official to be creative 

and to use those dollars in ways that local communities and local 

governments see them to be the most effective and the most efficient. 

One of the things that we did in Bucks County, Pennsylvania, 

our little spot of the United States, was recognize that it is important for community development programs and economic development programs to work together to understand each other. We took 

our community development office that was in charge of implementing the CDBG program and we created a new department, essentially, a more efficient department called the Office of CommuVerDate 0ct 09 2002 16:20 Dec 09, 2005 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00037 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 G:\DOCS\24795.TXT FIN1 PsN: MICAH
34

nity and Business Development, because we wanted those two 

sides of the equation to be talking to each other. 

So my question is, the CDBG program goes to the Department 

of Commerce, business side. Would you have any comments for 

Commerce on maintaining that level of flexibility for local governing officials? I know that you don’t control the Department of 

Commerce, but what kind of message might you give the Department so they maintain that flexibility so local government can continue to do their job? 

Secretary JACKSON. That the program works, and that if you look 

at the majority of the cities who receive the Community Development Block Grant Program, they are doing a very excellent job in 

being able to juxtapose both the community side and the economic 

development side, as you just said in Bucks County, and that we 

should look very seriously at maintaining a number of the ingredients within that program because they have been successful. 

As I said to the Congresswoman from California, there are some 

issues, but, overall, the program, from my perspective, works very 

well. And I would hope that it would continue to work well because, clearly, it addresses the needs of many of the urban areas—

well, not only the urban areas, many of the county areas, too. 

Mr. FITZPATRICK. I think it goes without saying that, you know, 

when you send dollars to a local community there is always the capacity, always the ability to use those dollars more effectively and 

to get greater benefit by stretching the dollars. Doing more with 

less sometimes is possible. I know that working in the local government sector. 

Secretary JACKSON. I think most of the cities have done a very 

excellent job of leveraging the block grant monies that have been 

sent to the cities. I have seen it. 

One is—there is a commercial development within I think either 

yours or Congresswoman Waters’ district where they built a Home 

Depot and a whole shopping center, and that was leveraged with 

Community Development Block Grant money. So I am a believer 

that it served a very, very excellent purpose. 

Mr. FITZPATRICK. And you do you believe the Department of 

Commerce will maintain that level of flexibility for local governing 

officials? 

Secretary JACKSON. I would hope so. As I said to Congressman 

Watts, they will have our input because we believe that they are 

valuable and good programs. 

Mr. FITZPATRICK. Thank you, Mr. Secretary. I yield back. 

Mr. NEY. The gentleman yields back the balance of his time. 

Mr. Green of Texas. 

Mr. GREEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to thank the ranking member, Mr. Frank, and I would like to thank you, Mr. Secretary, for appearing today. 

Mr. Secretary, when I ran for Congress I indicated that I would 

be a representative for the least, the last and the lost. Reverend 

Kirby John Caldwell referenced the least, the last and the lost 

when he gave the prayer at the State of the Union Address. The 

least, in my opinion, are those who have not. They cannot afford 

affordable housing. The last—many times those who are the last to 

be hired, first to be fired. The lost, those who are victims of AIDS, 

35

the mentally ill. And, Mr. Secretary, it is my belief that this budget 

adversely impacts the least, the last, and the lost. 

And, Mr. Secretary, my comments are not addressed to you, but 

rather they are addressed to us, because we live in a world where 

it is not enough for things to be right, they must also look right. 

And while it may be right to grant trillions in tax cuts to the 

wealthiest, depending on who is counting, about 3.4 trillion, while 

we are cutting AIDS housing 5 percent, $14 million, lead paint 

abatement 29 percent, $48 million, disabled 50 percent, fair housing 16 percent. Now, while that may be right to do that, it doesn’t 

look right. And history is not going to be kind to us as it evaluates 

us. Not you, Mr. Secretary, but us. Because it is not enough for 

things to be right, they must also look right. 

It may be right to cut community development block grants and 

yet spend enough in 1 month to cover those cuts; it may be right, 

but it doesn’t look right. And history is not going to be kind when 

it evaluates us. 

Mr. Chairman, Mr. Secretary, I am very concerned as a person 

who comes out of the human rights civil rights movement, about 

the cuts in fair housing, approximately $7.3 million, 20 percent in 

the fair housing initiatives program, 15 percent in the fair housing 

assistance program. And I am concerned because every time we 

have tested, we have found that discrimination still exists when 

persons are seeking housing opportunities. 

And for us to have complaints that average more than 3 million 

annually in housing violations, and to cut these programs that can 

be so beneficial, I think it is going to hurt the least, the last, and 

the lost. 

And I want to make one more comment. And I am really not begging for a response, Mr. Secretary. As I said, my comments are not 

directed to you, but rather to us, because we are all going to be 

judged. On the question of faith-based initiatives, HUD—this is a 

quote: ‘‘HUD has removed all discriminatory barriers to participation by such organizations.’’

Mr. Secretary, I went to the colored water fountains. I sat in the 

back of the bus. You may have as well. And I am not demeaning 

you. Let’s say we did these things. And, Mr. Secretary, I think that 

what we are doing with this faith-based initiative is opening the 

door to discrimination. I think we are rolling back the clock to a 

time that I don’t care to revisit. I find that right now, faith-based 

organizations have the same opportunities to government grants as 

any other organizations. What appears to be the desire of some is 

to discriminate in hiring practices, which is invidious to the Constitution of the United States. 

Those of us who value the distance that we have traveled and 

the Constitution of the United States are shocked with the whole 

concept of allowing discrimination to sew its seeds in the church. 

So, Mr. Secretary, I want to thank you for coming. And again, 

my comments are not directed toward you. We all are going to be 

judged in terms of how we allow this situation to continue, because 

it is not enough for things to be right; they must also look right. 

And this doesn’t look right. 

I thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. NEY. [Presiding] Mr. Shays. 

36

Mr. SHAYS. Thank you, Secretary Jackson. I believe that you do 

the very best you can with the resources you have. I also believe 

that you wouldn’t be Secretary if you do not agree to the reductions 

that were asked of you, and then you try to make the reductions 

as acceptable as possible. 

But still, now the bottom line is that we have a budget that I 

think is very harmful to our cities. I represent three urban areas, 

and I am going to be wrestling with whether I can even vote for 

the budget resolution if we aren’t able to solve the problem. And 

the problem is that your budget needs to be larger. 

I took tremendous pride in the community development block 

grant and the community services block grant in HHS, because I 

thought they allowed for flexibility. They allow for focusing where 

we need to. And you know, I fear that this Republican administration, of which I am proud to be a part of in terms of working with 

them, but I am concerned they are giving block grants a bad name; 

because really what we are doing, whether it is 5.6 billion down to 

3.7 billion, or whether it is 5.3 billion down to 3.7 billion, the reduction is $1.6 to $1.9 billion. 

And I guess what I am just saying to you is that what we do in 

block grants, instead of taking what makes sense about them, their 

flexibility, and expand them, we put a lot more into it and then we 

cut it, and then we say fight over what remains. And so I don’t 

have a difficult time understanding why we give our Democratic 

colleagues a chance to rightfully criticize what we are doing. 

So I guess my message is, because I have heard your comments, 

I do not need to ask more about what I have already heard. I wanted to wait, hear your testimony, and express to you publicly that 

I think of all of the things to cut, to cut community development 

block grants and community service block grants is just really a big 

mistake. And now it is on our shoulders to resolve it. But it is 

going to be difficult. 

I yield back. 

Mr. NEY. Mr. Scott from Georgia. 

Mr. SCOTT. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

Secretary Jackson, I really am so concerned about what is happening to your Department and the budget cuts that I am not sure 

where exactly to begin. But let me begin with HOPE VI. I am so 

continuously baffled with this administration. 

HOPE VI is arguably the Republican’s foremost program in housing. It was created by Republicans, supported by Democrats. It has 

gone down to the abject poverty level as far as housing is concerned 

in public housing. 

It has reinvigorated the whole concept, brought in mixed income, 

and more than any other program has leveraged the money we 

have given to them for millions and millions of dollars’ worth of 

economic development in surrounding communities. 

In my hometown of Atlanta, Georgia especially, the impact has 

just been tremendous. And when you were here before the committee before, I asked you to go back and talk with President Bush 

and ask him not to cut HOPE VI. It is the paramount virtue of 

what he is all about in an ownership society, opportunity society, 

it is there. And yet with all of that success, the rewards that HOPE 

37

VI seem to be getting can best be captured in the words ‘‘cruel and 

unusual punishment.’’

Let me just give you an example. Amazingly, the administration 

has proposed cutting the funding for HOPE VI in fiscal year 2006, 

which we have already appropriated for HUD to spend this year. 

Worse, the administration is proposing to cut that very same funding at the same time that it is supposed to be spending that funding. 

It is such a schizophrenic situation here that it is just mind-boggling. And on top of that, HUD has a notorious history for spending 

HOPE VI money late. As a matter of fact, fiscal year 2004 HOPE 

VI funding still hasn’t been spent. Now, I want to ask you a few 

questions about that, because I know you to be a very decent person, a very caring person about this. 

But we need you to be a fighter for these programs, to fight for 

your Department. You should not take these cuts lying down. Your 

agency has the most significant cuts of all, and I encourage you to 

fight for this. This budget is here. We haven’t voted on it. There 

is still opportunity. 

But in HOPE VI, let me ask you about this schizophrenic funding here where we have proposed money. You are holding onto fiscal year 2004 money. Are you deliberately holding onto that money 

until the fiscal year 2006 congressional appropriations bill is 

passed? That is my first question. 

Secretary JACKSON. No. We are not holding onto fiscal year 2004 

moneys. We have fiscal year 2005 moneys. As I said to Congressman Watts that No File will be out in March. 

Mr. SCOTT. What specific steps are you taking to ensure that the 

fiscal year 2005 HOPE VI money will be spent in a timely fashion? 

Secretary JACKSON. Once we sent the No File, we expect to get 

it back within 60 days. And we expect to evaluate and allocate the 

moneys to those cities who rank the highest. We usually, I think, 

go to about 20 cities with the amount that we have. So clearly we 

will allocate the money once the proposals come back in. 

Mr. SCOTT. What are you telling to folks like the Atlanta Housing Authority, the Fulton County Housing Authority, Clayton 

County Housing Authority in Georgia, where, as you know, we are 

the poster child for success with HOPE VI? 

Secretary JACKSON. You are absolutely correct. There is no question that Atlanta is the poster child. And there are a couple of 

other cities, Dallas, Charlotte. 

If, Congressman, if every city was like Atlanta, like Dallas or 

Charlotte, the HOPE VI program would be virtuous. Right now we 

are setting on about a little over $3 billion that has been unspent 

somewhere between 3 to 10 years. We have only completed a little 

over 30 of those projects that we have funded, almost 200 of them. 

The money is being unspent. 

You have asked me to speak to the President. But as I told you 

when we discussed it last year, as I told you when we discussed 

it individually, I was part of the organization that created the 

HOPE VI, that wrote the legislation. I believe in HOPE VI, but I 

do not believe in funding a program that is not working. Right now 

we have over 150 cities who have not in any way started the process of their HOPE VI. And some of them go back to 8, 9, 10 years. 

38

So my position is, we cannot keep funding something that is not 

working. As of today it is a little over 30 out of 200 projects. 

Mr. SCOTT. But can’t we find a way to work with those programs 

that have proven successful, rather than throw them out with everything else? 

Secretary JACKSON. Well if we look at your city—I will close with 

this—you have done an excellent job. I was just in your city about 

2 or 3 months ago. I think that all of your HOPE VIs have been 

done very well. You do not have the same problem that faces most 

cities. 

Mr. NEY. Mr. Renzi of Arizona. 

Mr. RENZI. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Secretary, thank you for coming over. I want to ask you to 

travel with me out west now to the Colorado plateau. Red dirt everywhere. When the wind blows, it makes a pink snowstorm up 

there, a pink sandstorm. They have got rattle snakes and scorpions, and we are too young Navajo brothers growing up in a 

hogan. A hogan is a mud hut with sticks. And we grow up in that 

hogan. And if we are lucky enough to go out and harvest wood, we 

have firewood that heats our home at night. And the elders who 

grew up out there, since they do not have the ability to walk half 

a day to get firewood, they bring the sheep in at night and they 

heat their homes with animal heat, like the cavemen used to. 

And that sounds like a story that I made up. But Maxine Waters 

from California came out there in her high heels and she saw it 

was true. And so we grew up in that hogan together, you and me, 

Mr. Jackson. And we pull ourselves up by our boot straps and we 

get a job up in Window Rock, Arizona making $25,000 a year, just 

above the poverty line, which is about what 50 percent of the people up there make. 

And we apply to get a loan. We are the first people in our family 

to ever apply for home ownership. And we apply to get a loan, on 

line maybe, because we have access to the local Internet and the 

computer. And when we do that, the Bureau of Indian Affairs decides whether or not the title and the search methods on the plot 

of land that you and I are buying together is a clear title, it doesn’t 

have a cloud on it. It takes a year and a half for that title search 

to get done, because while we call them sovereign people, the Federal Government in trust decides whether or not they can have 

ownership of that land or not. A lot of talk about ownership society. 

So the Bureau of Indian Affairs hasn’t been able to get it right. 

So what we did a couple of years ago is we reached out to you 

folks over at HUD and said, do us a favor, hold these guys by their 

hand and shake up the Bureau of Indian Affairs because young 

men, young people, up-and-comers, should not have to wait a year 

and a half to have a title search. Right? 

Secretary JACKSON. That is correct. 

Mr. RENZI. So they went to this technology fix over at BIA, this 

STAR system they call it. And that is supposed to be the cure-all. 

But in essence, out there on the Native American computers, you 

have got a piece of paper that has to be stitched and has to be carried around. 

So my first question, my friend, my Navajo brother, what is it 

that the HUD has been doing to help hold BIA’s hand? Where are 

39

we on making sure that this repressive nature of title searches is 

being broken so that we can bring some hope out there? 

Secretary JACKSON. Congressman, I——

Mr. RENZI. You didn’t like my story? 

Secretary JACKSON. No, I thought your story was excellent. And 

I know it is true. We have signed a memorandum of agreement 

with the Bureau of Indian Affairs in September. And it is our effort 

to try to provide the title search for no more than 30 days, to have 

it done within 30 days, because I too agree with you that it is not 

right. It is not right for that to occur on a year, a year-and-a-half 

basis. We are trying to make sure that at this point it is always 

under 60 days. That was the memorandum of understanding. 

Mr. RENZI. Do me a favor, because I know you are a good man 

of compassion. We have heard a lot of discussions here today. Take 

your leadership and your passion and your pointed spear and get 

after those guys over there at BIA, please, okay? Make them follow 

you, all right? 

Let me talk to you about another issue. When we talk about Native American housing has the funds, this is the third year in a row 

we are looking at cuts. One of the reasons we are looking at it is 

because we gave $33 million back last year that we didn’t access, 

because we are dealing with Native Americans who don’t know the 

best way to navigate through the system, who aren’t used to being 

able to get on line on the Internet, they are not used to breaking 

down the walls of application process as it relates to lenders. 

You are talking about people who have never done this before, 

who do not have an uncle that is going to put a little money in the 

bank account so they can get the down payment like my kids will 

have. And a lot of these folks—we all know you borrow a little 

money here from the relatives. That is how you get the down payment. Well, they do not have that. 

So when you look at the amount of money in particular that you 

are having to prioritize, and you look at last year, under section 

184 that we gave back $33 million because we didn’t use it. As a 

friend, I would say to you, that when you look at the HUD technical assistance and training area, and you look at the money that 

is going to be pulled out of there, that is where we best counsel and 

train and help people navigate through the system who have never 

been able to do it before. And of all of the areas that we do not 

want to cut, we do not want to cut the counseling that you guys 

provide that helps people navigate through the system. 

Thank you for your leadership, especially as it relates to BIA. 

Mr. NEY. Mr. Cleaver, the gentlemen from Missouri. 

Mr. CLEAVER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Secretary, thank you for being here. I will try to ask a number of questions quickly. The first of them is on page 7 of your 

statement, in the fourth paragraph, bottom line, you said: More importantly, there has been a 50 percent reduction in improper payments amounting to $1.6 billion. If HUD is saving $1.6 billion dollars, congratulations. But, sec- ondly, why cannot that $1.6 billion go to CDBGs? 

Secretary JACKSON. Because all moneys basically that we save 

reverts back to the Government. I mean, we——

Mr. CLEAVER. CDBG is the government. 

40

Secretary JACKSON. To the Treasury. We do not have control 

once the money is saved. It does not—we have a budget that is approved by you every year, so we do not have a carryover from savings. It goes directly back to the Treasury once we save the money. 

Mr. CLEAVER. So no matter—but that money was allocated, 

though? 

Secretary JACKSON. Well, you are absolutely correct. But I can 

tell you other moneys that we save in Ginnie Mae and FHA, Federal Housing Administration, that once we save it goes directly to 

the Treasury. 

Mr. CLEAVER. But does it not give HUD a more powerful argument about funding CDBG when you can talk about the fact that 

you saved 1.6 billion? I mean, is that not a powerful argument? 

Secretary JACKSON. I think clearly. 

Mr. CLEAVER. You are not asking for new money. 

Secretary JACKSON. It just does not work that way. I mean, we 

save money. And now, there is no question that I will always defend and make an argument for all of the programs that we fund 

because I think they are important, but at the same time, Congressman, I have to prioritize. And clearly that is what I have done 

in this budget. 

Mr. CLEAVER. Okay. I disagree with all of that. But I served as 

mayor of Kansas City all through the 1990s. And we have an annual housing survey. We did 240—we identified 240,000 homes in 

Kansas City, 55,000 of which were in serious need of serious rehabilitation, 5,000 of which we needed to demolish. And we used the 

lots on which we tore down the houses to build affordable homes. 

And we did that using one-third CDBG, two-thirds private sector 

participation. And as a result, we were able to make some significant progress; 12,000 properties were rehabilitated in our community. 

I am going to have a 10 o’clock town hall meeting on Friday with 

a number of poor individuals in Kansas City at the Bruce R. Watkins Center. One of the questions that may come up, and certainly 

one of the things that I would like to deal with, is the fact that 

48,000 families are in homes with rehabilitation needs. Is there 

something I can communicate to them from the HUD Secretary 

with regard to the fact that those dollars are no longer going to be 

available? What can I tell them to make them feel better? 

Secretary JACKSON. Well, the dollars are still available now at 

HUD. Those dollars are allocated to the respective areas. Kansas 

City is one. I am very familiar with the work that you did as mayor 

and what the present mayor is doing. I think it is absolutely laudable. 

The key to it is the funds are still available, the CDBG funds, 

the home funds, all of the funds are available. And as the Congresswoman asked, again, from California, I would hope that once 

we have the legislation written, and with my input, that many of 

the programs that exist now still exist. 

Mr. RENZI. [Presiding] The gentleman from Kentucky, Mr. Davis. 

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

Mr. Secretary, I think the diverse lines of questions that you 

have received here today really reflect assumption on many of our 

parts about what the role of government ought to be. And I want 

41

to applaud the Department for finding $1.6 billion in waste. I think 

if we viewed this as our money that we were spending, we would 

not pour good money into ineffective processes that do not meet 

standards. 

Housing is a big issue with me personally, and in my own experience our Congressman cut through government bureaucratic red 

tape 35 years ago to help my mom get into a little two-bedroom 

starter house that literally changed our lives. So home ownership, 

especially at the entry level with poor families, is a big priority to 

me. 

I think that we have millions and millions of dollars in lost opportunity. My question is not about spending—or asking for more 

money, but is more from a perspective of leverage that you have 

as the Secretary, the Department has with dollars that are coming 

into our local communities. 

In Covington, Kentucky, for example, in the heart of our district, 

we have many hundreds and hundreds of small two-bedroom starter homes, some that are nearly 100 years old. Those could not be 

built today according to local regulation and State regulation for 

code and regulatory compliance, much of which has absolutely 

nothing to do with sound engineering, with safety, and environmental adherence. And frankly, it becomes a barrier to those most 

in need of housing. I have seen this over and over again, even to 

a degree in our rural areas, but especially in the urban areas. 

I was wondering if perhaps you could consider looking at a different rule set in application, not only on compliance with your 

stated standards. I think you are well put and correct to not give 

money to regions that are not in compliance because of their internal difficulties. Yet at the same time, I am wondering if you might 

beable to use that leverage on local government that does have 

need for that, to perhaps relax or simplify these regulations that 

don’t add value to the citizens. 

I think in the end, not only would it increase opportunities for 

ownership, it would dramatically reduce the cost of housing in 

urban areas. We are finding entry-level folks have to move out of 

their neighborhoods or out of the community to buy a house if they 

get to that point. And it would keep neighborhoods together. In the 

long run it might even increase the ability of HUD to service our 

citizens with a higher level of service at a lower cost. 

Secretary JACKSON. I agree with you, Congressman. And let me 

say this, Congressman Davis. I think it is imperative that we remove the regulatory barriers. And as I said a few minutes ago, that 

is why we started with HUD, because when I walked in, there were 

probably more regulatory impediments that we insisted that cities 

and counties follow than necessary. We are about 60 percent, or a 

little over, through with that. Then I think I have the authority to 

say to people, us mayors, county administrator in Covington, Kentucky, you need to remove these barriers because they are an inhibition to people owing homes. 

And many of these barriers are put up because people think that 

their community has been developed enough and they make a decision: not in my back yard. Well, you know, my position is the people we are talking about building the homes for, people we are 

talking about getting into homes are teachers or fire people, police 

42

people. These are people who serve us, who teach our children. Yet 

we are keeping them out with these regulatory barriers. 

As I said just a few minutes ago, just using California as an example, Los Angeles, before a home ever comes out of the ground 

you spend somewhere between 100,000 and $109,000 on permits. 

That to me is just unacceptable, because that effectively removes 

a person—a family of four, both teachers, from being able to afford 

a home within the boundaries of the city of Los Angeles. 

So I think if we can get past these regulatory barriers and give 

incentives to developers, you will begin to see that. That is why I 

asked you all to pass the Affordable Housing Tax Credit Act which 

will give $2.5 billion to developers to come back into the urban 

area. I am a firm believer that counties can thrive, but they cannot 

thrive as well as they can if they have a viable urban area. I think 

the urban area is extremely important. 

Mr. DAVIS OF KENTUCKY. In closing, there has been a lot of talk 

about compassion. And having spent the last 25 years of my life 

working in the inner city, giving back to, in a sense returning to 

the next generation, folks who had a big impact on my life, there 

is a great deal of compassion in the building community and the 

entrepreneurial community, folks who have come from these neighborhoods who want to come back and make a tremendous difference in the long term. 

I have heard it over and over again from folks that if some leverage can be put on the local government in a positive sense, a 

proactive sense, where there was incentive to bring some common 

sense to regulations, they would make the investments right now 

in the home building and real estate development area. They want 

to keep our communities together. I think this will be laudable. 

If you would share with us or with my office, we can work with 

you, we would be glad to do that. Thank you. 

Secretary JACKSON. I will be happy to work with you because, 

you know, I too believe that my effort to work at HUD is extremely 

compassionate. And I—as the Congressman said a few minutes 

ago, Congressman Jefferson, it is very important to me. Like him, 

I was brought up in a very segregated environment in Dallas, 

Texas so I know about noncompassion. 

Mr. RENZI. Thank you. The gentleman from the show-me State 

of Missouri, Mr. Clay. 

Mr. CLAY. Thank you. And welcome back to the committee, Mr. 

Secretary. It is always a pleasure to see you. 

Like most Members of Congress, I am deeply concerned by the 

drastic budget cuts of the CDBG and the proposed shift of this jurisdiction from HUD to the Commerce Department. I additionally 

have questions about whether the efficiency of targeting revenue 

from CDBG grants will be enhanced or diminished if such a transfer does take place. 

Now, we have heard mention of St. Louis, the area that I represent. And in St. Louis, the stack of poverty and lack of housing 

in north St. Louis qualifies the city for quite a large amount of 

money from HUD through the CDBG program. Yet much of this 

money is never seen in north St. Louis, and is sent downtown and 

to other parts of the city for other projects. We bring money into 

the city, yet the problems still exist. How do we better effect methVerDate 0ct 09 2002 16:20 Dec 09, 2005 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00046 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 G:\DOCS\24795.TXT FIN1 PsN: MICAH
43

ods to get the money to the areas that produce the justification for 

the CDBG grants? 

Although I do not favor sending the program over to Commerce, 

would this result in much more efficient targeting of the moneys 

than is presently practiced? What suggestions do you have? What 

are in your plans to make this process more efficient so that it actually targets those populations that the money is intended for? 

Secretary JACKSON. I think that is a fair question, Congressman 

Clay. We have sent to the Congress four new proposals of how we 

will address the CDBG allocations. We think it is more equitable. 

We will let the Congress look at those four proposals. 

Secondly, I think it is important what you said. I have heard this 

on a number of occasions. If moneys are not being allocated to 

where they are—where they should be, we need to know that, and 

then we can address that with the mayor of your respective city 

and the city council who we allocate moneys to, because it is clear 

in the community development block grant proposal and legislation 

what the money is to be used for. 

If it is not being used for that—and I have had a number of occasions since I have been here to address cities on that issue—we will 

be happy to address that to make sure the money is allocated and 

spent where it should be. 

Mr. CLAY. Let me just have a restatement of that so that everyone is clear about the fact that you have gotten complaints in the 

past from other jurisdictions; that the money that comes in directed 

towards poor communities somehow doesn’t get there. And so I just 

wanted to——

Secretary JACKSON. And we have corrected that. It has not been 

a lot, but we have had cities where that occurs. 

Mr. CLAY. Okay. On another issue—thank you for that response. 

Many public housing authorities in Missouri still have not received their year-end settlement reports from HUD for the fiscal 

year ending June 30 of 2004. They have no way of knowing their 

financial position until they can reconcile their finances. This sometimes results in recapturing of reserves and sometimes charges of 

administrative fees. Why is the process taking so long? Can it be 

speeded up? 

Secretary JACKSON. We will make every effort to speed it up. But 

the reason that the delay is there, because you know that they 

sued us based on administrative fees, and we were in the process 

of trying to resolve the lawsuit. 

Mr. CLAY. So there is pending litigation on that matter? 

Secretary JACKSON. Yes. 

Mr. CLAY. One other issue. An overlooked problem within housing agencies, which you are very familiar with from your background, is the high rate of personnel turnover. The loss of experienced staff results in efficiencies and costly training for replacements. The turnovers occur due to a lack of proper raises. And how 

do we maintain personnel who have the required knowledge regarding the details of HUD’s complicated procedures? 

Secretary JACKSON. I really do not know, and I can’t answer that, 

because each individual housing authority—that is, the CEO of 

that housing authority—is responsible for the running of the housing authority. So some housing authorities work extremely well, 

44

others do not. I just do not know. That is left up to the management of the housing authority. 

Mr. CLAY. Well, could it be an issue of a proper operating subsidy 

that these housing authorities receive? 

Secretary JACKSON. No. I think housing authorities have to make 

difficult decisions. But each housing authority that I ran had to 

make difficult decisions. I can remember of the three I ran, the 

subsidy was never over, I think, 94 percent. So I think you have 

to operate within a budget. At least that is what I always did. 

Mr. CLAY. Thank you for your response. 

Mr. RENZI. Thank you, sir. The gentleman from Texas, Mr. 

Hinojosa. 

Mr. HINOJOSA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to submit 

for the record a copy of a letter I sent to President Bush dated February the 14th, 2005, expressing my extreme concerns about his 

proposed housing budget cuts, especially the 35 percent reduction 

in the CDBG funds and the elimination of the RHED Program. 

Mr. RENZI. Without objection. 

[The following information can be found on page 80 in the appendix.] 

Mr. HINOJOSA. Thank you. 

Mr. Secretary, thank you for meeting with us today. The President’s proposed housing program budget cuts and other changes 

could cost my congressional district $15 million in community block 

grants, community development block grant program funding 

alone, in the proposed 2006 budget. 

Overall, my district could lose another 19 million in Federal 

funding for the important housing and community development 

programs at a time when Texas, its cities, and localities are 

strapped for cash and in need of Federal funds. 

Your proposal to eliminate the 24 million HUD rural housing 

and economic development program funding would devastate the 

poorest of the poor, such as those living in colonias in my district, 

who rely on the program for affordable housing. 

Secretary Jackson, you issued a press release dated Monday, 

September 13th, 2004, announcing that 14 communities were receiving HUD’s Community Development Excellence Award for their 

outstanding work in using CDBG funding to create better communities and to improve the lives of their lower-income residents. 

One of the recipients of the award was Pharr, Texas, located in 

my congressional district. You recognized Pharr for its outstanding 

work in using this funding to change Las Milpas, which is a 

colonias south of Pharr, changing it from a colonias into—and I 

quote from your own press release—′′a growing community with 

pride.’’

In that same release you state that ‘‘these communities are outstanding examples of how CDBG works.’’ You further note that ‘‘in 

a climate where results and performance count, these communities, 

including Pharr and many others like them, are doing wonderful 

work and building better neighborhoods and creating greater opportunities for their lower-income residents.’’ Those were the words 

of praise that you expressed. 

I find it odd, to say the least, that President Bush would propose 

and that you would defend such cuts to the CDBG fund less than 

45

5 months after issuing such a strong press release praising the 

CDBG program. 

I endorse the comments made by Mr. Scott, that you need to 

fight for areas like ours. You need to make a better case to not 

allow these things to happen. What could possibly have happened 

over these last 5 months to change your mind? I would like for you 

to answer that. 

Secretary JACKSON. Thank you very much, Congressman 

Hinojosa. Nothing has changed my mind. I still believe that the 

CDBG program is an excellent program. And what I said in that 

letter still stands today. I have had a chance to be in Pharr and 

saw the colonias areas myself. I saw them before and afterwards. 

And so I am in agreement with you. 

What I said is that a decision was made to consolidate. And as 

I said to Congresswoman Waters, I made our case. And I will still 

say, I think I made a very excellent case. But the decision was 

made to consolidate. I do believe that the programs, as fragmented 

as they are, should be consolidated. I still believe that today. 

But my personal opinion has not changed. I think that when I 

sent that letter to the mayor of that city, I meant that. I think that 

area is absolutely wonderful. I have seen the transformation. 

Mr. HINOJOSA. Let me interpret you. Time is running out. 

Secretary Jackson, why is this administration proposing housing 

and community development program funding cuts and jurisdictional changes that could cost my district the 15 million in CDBG 

funds? 

Secretary JACKSON. I can tell you about the consolidations, because we have fragmented programs. What I can say to the first 

part is that we sent—we zeroed out of our budget $4.2 billion. I am 

just not apprised of how the 4.2 billion will be spent at Commerce. 

We will get back to you, because we are in the process of developing legislation. 

And as I have said to a number of Congress people, I will specifically keep talking about how well the program has worked, and 

hopefully they will hear my position on this matter. 

Mr. RENZI. Mr. Miller of North Carolina. 

Mr. MILLER OF NORTH CAROLINA. Good morning, Mr. Secretary. 

Your predecessor, Secretary Martinez, now Senator Martinez, testified on April 8th of 2003 before the Subcommittee on Housing and 

Community Opportunity on the down payment grants program, the 

American Home—American Dream Down Payment Act. Have you 

seen his testimony or reviewed it at all? 

Secretary JACKSON. I was there when he testified. 

Mr. MILLER OF NORTH CAROLINA. You were there. Even better. 

I am sure that you recall the administration first said that that 

program—the funding for that would come out of the home block 

grants, and then said no, that that was not the case. And by the 

time of our hearing 2 years ago, that was still very fresh on the 

minds of the members of this committee. 

So when Secretary Martinez testified, Ms. Waters began by saying, I am worried about this idea before us today because there is 

no new money. We already have the home program, I believe it is, 

where the cities are using some of their dollars to reduce the cost 

of down payment, but they have flexibility in the use of those dolVerDate 0ct 09 2002 16:20 Dec 09, 2005 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00049 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 G:\DOCS\24795.TXT FIN1 PsN: MICAH
46

lars so they can use it in any number of ways. If you want a program that is basically going to be a duplication of something that 

is already going on, you have to get more money and not rob from 

Peter to pay Paul. 

Secretary Martinez, just a few moments later in response to 

questions from Mr. Renzi, said, ‘‘So it would not be instead of, it 

would be in addition to all other available programs.’’

Mr. Renzi said, ‘‘So we here have a means to provide over 200 

million?′′ And Secretary Martinez interrupted him and said, ‘‘Of new 

money, by the way.’’

Mr. Renzi said, ‘‘New money?′′ Secretary Martinez said, ‘‘It is totally new money.’’

Mr. Renzi: ‘‘In addition, $200 million of new money?′′ Secretary Martinez: ‘‘Absolutely. Totally.’’

Ms. Waters interrupted. ‘‘Will the gentleman yield?′′ Mr. Renzi: ‘‘I will be happy to yield.’’

Ms. Waters: ‘‘We need to straighten this point out. Wait just a 

minute. We did not see this new money in the budget.’’

Secretary Martinez: ‘‘It is absolutely in the budget. It is 200 million of new money.’’

And on and on. I made the same point in my opening statement. 

The subject of CDBG comes up. And Mr.—Secretary Martinez: 

‘‘this is not a set-aside within the HOME program, it is going to 

be an opportunity for this program to run alone, it does not interfere or conflict with the current things that HOME does, or with 

CDBG dollars, and the continued flexibility of the HOME program.’’

Mr. Ney, sensing that Secretary Martinez wanted to make a 

point, asked him the same question again. He emphasized new 

money. New money. New money. 

Ms. Lee then raised the point, after Secretary Martinez again 

said, ‘‘It would work with the existing home program and the 

CDBG program,’’ said, ‘‘Is that in the bill, because—and the same 

thing with the CDBGs. That is not on the chopping block this year 

at all? You are fully funding that?′′

Secretary Martinez says, ‘‘Yes. CDBG and HOME is full funding.’’

Ms. Lee: ‘‘Is it authorized?′′

Secretary Martinez: ‘‘Of course.’’

Ms. Lee: ‘‘Have you reauthorized it or sent it up as a proposal?′′

Secretary Martinez: ‘‘CDGB, of course. Of course it is. Yes.’’

Ms. Lee: ‘‘And is it reauthorized?′′

Secretary Martinez: ‘‘Reauthorized and fully funded.’’

Secretary Jackson, several members of this committee have 

asked you today for assurances about what this administration is 

going to do in the future about programs that affect low-income 

folks. I am not sure I would place any value on assurances from 

this administration, unless you could square for me what Secretary 

Martinez said 2 years ago and what this year’s budget does to the 

very programs that Secretary Martinez assured us about. 

We have heard a great deal about the CDBGs, the HOME programs would be cut by 66 million, which when adjusted for inflation is a 12 percent cut over the lifetime of this administration. 

47

Can you square what Secretary Martinez said 2 years ago, the 

assurances he gave us about the HOME block grants and the 

CDBG block grants and this year’s budget? 

Secretary JACKSON. I can’t attest to what Secretary Martinez 

said. I was there. But, again, I had to look at the budget and make 

priorities. One of the priorities is clearly home ownership. Another 

was to make sure that we fully fund the section 8 program and 

that we fully fund the operating subsidies for PHAs. In that process, it was clear some things had to be cut. And I looked at it as 

candidly as I could and made those cuts based upon that. 

As I said before, my concern is the tremendous growth of the section 8 voucher program that keeps eating at our budget, Congressman. And I think as long as that is the case, if we do not pass the 

flexible voucher program bill, we will be back next year and I will 

still have to make some very, very difficult and hard decisions. 

Mr. RENZI. The gentlelady from Wisconsin, Ms. Moore. 

Ms. MOORE. Well, thank you, Secretary Jackson. It certainly is 

really a privilege to be here. I am a new member from Milwaukee, 

Wisconsin. And certainly, just to share with you, we have a district 

where we have 59 percent unemployment among African Americans. We are in the middle of the Rust Belt and so we depend tremendously on CDBG funds. 

Many members on both sides of the aisle have peppered you with 

questions all morning about the loss of housing funds. I do not 

envy the hard decisions that you have had to make about where 

to cut; you know, 50 percent cut in disabled housing. I am sure 

that that was not an easy decision to make. And I do believe you 

when you say that you have made a yeoman’s effort to articulate 

your concerns and your competency to run the housing programs. 

But it was decided, perhaps by your boss—we all have bosses—

that we would indeed consolidate these programs and they would 

go to Commerce. 

My question is not a money question. It is something that many, 

members have raised, but they just really haven’t asked the question. It is about jurisdiction. What happens—we have all of these 

cuts in housing. And then when these programs are transferred to 

Commerce, the authority to use them for housing programs will 

also be lost. 

And so I am curious about whether or not you are willing to 

transfer authority. I will give you an example. For example, 

brownfields. You know, in order for a housing project to be developed on land—low-income housing, you might have to have a cleanup. But if there is no authority to use it for housing programs, then 

that is a loss of money. 

The CDBG section 108 loans, very critical in housing development. 

So are you willing to transfer authority? Now that you have lost 

the fight on the money, are you willing to transfer the authority? 

Or is the authority just going to be lost? Because what our Democratic leadership is concerned about is that there is a present value 

of $1.6 billion that is going to be lost because there won’t be the 

authority. And, of course, that will grow exponentially. 

Thank you. 

48

Secretary JACKSON. Thank you very much, Congresswoman 

Moore. I will surely have my input as it relates to transferring the 

authority on all of the programs. Again, my answer is—it is very 

simple. We have all of the programs. They came to the tune of 

about—I have been saying 4.2, but I mean $4.5 billion. We transferred all of the programs or zeroed all of the programs out of our 

budget with the intent to go to Commerce. That is what we did. 

Now—and we would transfer in the new legislation the authority 

to go along with that. But——

Ms. MOORE. I guess that is what I question. Just to expedite this 

discussion, that is my question. My question is, because Commerce 

right now does not—if it works any way like the State of Wisconsin 

State legislature from where my roots are, that there is lots of friction and conflict between Commerce and housing agencies, because 

the mission of the Commerce Department is not to do housing. 

And so that is what I am saying. Is this is not just a loss of 

money. What will you be able to say when you are at the table 

about the Commerce Department now taking on a new role in 

housing development? You say that you agreed with the consolidation, but I do believe that you were saying the programs need to 

be consolidated in HUD, because you would still have the authority, and local communities, as many people have mentioned, would 

have the flexibility to use them for economic development or housing, sort of joint projects. 

And my fear is that once it gets over to Commerce that that flexibility will be lost and gone. So that is why I am not comprehending 

why you agreed with the consolidation, given the fact that the authority will be lost. 

Secretary JACKSON. Hopefully the authority, once the program is 

shifted, will not be lost. As I said before, I will be involved in the 

new legislation. So I expect I will give the input. I cannot, as the 

previous Congress person asked me, I cannot guarantee or assure 

you. I will put my input in. And secondly——

Ms. MOORE. That is your argument for getting the programs to 

stay at HUD. 

Mr. FRANK. Mr. Chairman, before you get on to Mr. Davis, who 

has very patiently waited, I wanted to extend my thanks to the 

Secretary. He has sat here now for 3 hours. None of us asked for 

the committee to be as large as it is, but I really do appreciate your 

accommodating all of the members and staying to the end for the 

questioning. 

I would also comment on the tranquility that you have maintained during this. I know that this is not necessarily your natural 

reaction. So I admire that. 

I do want to thank you for accommodating this large committee. 

I do appreciate it. 

Mr. RENZI. The gentleman from Alabama. 

Mr. DAVIS OF ALABAMA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would echo 

the comments about your patience. 

Rather than spending the last block of questions wading back 

into the details of these programs with you, let me ask you a fairly 

broad set of questions. You didn’t recommend to the President the 

changes in CDBG or the new funding levels. Do you know of any 

49

single mayor in the United States who called the White House and 

recommended the CDBG changes that are happening? 

Secretary JACKSON. No. 

Mr. DAVIS OF ALABAMA. Do you know of any county commissioner or any county commission chief executive or county chief executive who called the White House and requested the changes 

that are happening? 

Secretary JACKSON. No. 

Mr. DAVIS OF ALABAMA. Do you know of any Governor who called 

the White House and requested the changes that are happening? 

Secretary JACKSON. No. 

Mr. DAVIS OF ALABAMA. Okay. So if the President doesn’t listen 

to his HUD Secretary, doesn’t listen to any mayors administering 

the programs, doesn’t listen to any county commissioners administering the programs, doesn’t listen to any Governors, who the 

heck is he listening to on housing policy? 

Secretary JACKSON. I would disagree with you. I think he does 

listen to me. 

Mr. DAVIS OF ALABAMA. No. On that specific issue, on CDBG, if 

he doesn’t listen to you, mayors, Governors, county officials, who in 

the world is he listening to on CDBG? 

Secretary JACKSON. I think the President does listen to me. 

Mr. DAVIS OF ALABAMA. On CDBGs? If you didn’t recommend the 

changes and you didn’t recommend the cuts, and you cannot identify anybody else who did, who in the world is he listening to? 

Secretary JACKSON. No. What I said to you is this: I agree with 

the administration and the President that the program should be 

consolidated. I made——

Mr. DAVIS OF ALABAMA. But you also say they are excellent programs. You agree that they are working. And if they are excellent 

and they are working, most things in my office that are excellent 

and working I do not change. 

Secretary JACKSON. I can’t disagree with you. 

Mr. DAVIS OF ALABAMA. So if that is the case, I am trying to ask 

you a fairly simple question——

Secretary JACKSON. And I am trying to answer it for you. 

Mr. DAVIS OF ALABAMA. I am looking for an answer. If you didn’t 

recommend the changes and nobody else did, who is the administration listening to on CDBGs? 

Secretary JACKSON. I think the administration listened to me. 

Again, I will go back to my original proposal that I do believe the 

program should be consolidated, and I made the logical argument 

where it should be consolidated. The argument was heard and the 

decision was made that Commerce would be the better agency. 

Mr. DAVIS OF ALABAMA. Let me ask you another question. You 

do not dispute that HUD is getting the greatest percentage cut of 

any of the Cabinet departments? 

Secretary JACKSON. No question. 

Mr. DAVIS OF ALABAMA. No question about that. Now, normally 

when—and I recognize that budgets are about priorities, and the 

President and people around him, and Carl Rove and company, 

have to make decisions about what programs get what. 

50

But normally if a program or an agency receives the greatest cut, 

it means one of two things. It means it is the least effective performer, or that it reflects the least priority. 

Now, I assume because you haven’t resigned and you are still in 

your position that you do not buy the first explanation. So what 

about the second one? 

Secretary JACKSON. I do not buy that either. I think the program 

was consolidated——

Mr. DAVIS OF ALABAMA. No. No. I am talk being about HUD. We 

are not talking about CDBG. We are talking about HUD right now. 

HUD receives the single greatest cut of any Cabinet department. 

Usually that means one of two things: It is the least effective performer or it is the smallest priority. Which one is it? 

Secretary JACKSON. I don’t think it is either one. You look at it 

from our perspective, that you are talking about efficiency. I don’t 

think there is any diminishing in the role of HUD. 

Mr. DAVIS OF ALABAMA. Let me ask you this. Are you saying that 

no other Cabinet department has the efficiency issues that HUD 

has? 

Secretary JACKSON. We do not have—I don’t think that this consolidation is about efficiency. I have not said that. 

Mr. DAVIS OF ALABAMA. We are not just talking about CDBGs. 

We are talking about the fact that HUD is getting the greatest cut, 

and you have bemoaned that all morning. 

Secretary JACKSON. Congressman, I do not see it as a cut. I see 

it as a shifting of funds. It is not a cut. 

Mr. DAVIS OF ALABAMA. Didn’t you just agree with me that HUD 

was getting the biggest cut of any department? 

Secretary JACKSON. If you are talking about cuts, yes. But I don’t 

see cuts as a priority when you are talking about removing a program. The program is going over to Commerce. 

Mr. DAVIS OF ALABAMA. But we are not talking about CDBGs, we 

are talking about HUD. You agree with me that HUD is getting 

the biggest cut. 

Secretary JACKSON. That is the cut. There is no question. I am 

not disagreeing with you. 

Mr. DAVIS OF ALABAMA. Let me ask you this question. Since you 

are not going to answer that one, let me try this one. I am a little 

bit curious about how you grade your own effectiveness, Mr. Jackson. I will kind of wrap up with this point. If you argued—and you 

believe CDBGs are a good program—and you argued for their current preservation but you lost out, presumably you asked for more 

money for HUD—you haven’t conclusively said that, but I am going 

to assume that you did—you lost out. Presumably you asked for 

greater spending levels for all of these things and you lost out. 

How do you measure your own effectiveness if you cannot get the 

President who appointed you to follow your suggestions about the 

funding levels for your own department and the priority level to 

keep it from getting the biggest cut of any other department? 

Secretary JACKSON. First of all, that is a presumption on your 

part that I don’t think that we are funded at the level that we 

should be. I do believe that we are funded in the programs. 

Mr. DAVIS OF ALABAMA. So you think that these cuts are good 

cuts? 

51

Secretary JACKSON. I think these cuts have to be made, because 

I think clearly all budgets are restrained. As my father used to say, 

that everyone operates with a budget. 

Mr. DAVIS OF ALABAMA. Let me close on this. This will be my last 

point, Mr. Renzi. 

Mr. Secretary, what I would submit to you—and I absolutely 

think you are a good person, I do not doubt your commitment to 

housing or to poor people or any of that. But if you sincerely think 

that these cuts are appropriate, then it raises the question to me 

of whether HUD would be better off with someone who is an advocate for a higher funding level as opposed to someone who is acquiescent in the cuts. 

I will yield on that note, Mr. Renzi. 

Secretary JACKSON. I think you have a right to your opinion. I 

won’t disagree with you. I think that I am an advocate, but I also 

know that within budget constraints I have to operate. And clearly, 

as I have stated earlier, we cannot have the exponential growth of 

the section 8 program that we have had the last 5 years, otherwise 

it will eat up our budget. It started out 4 years ago at about 43 

percent. It is 56 percent. 

Mr. RENZI. The gentleman’s time has expired. 

The gentleman from Massachusetts. 

Mr. FRANK. Just ask unanimous consent to submit—to have a 

couple of members submit some further questions to the Secretary 

for him to answer in writing and to submit an explanation of the 

point that some of us were making about our interpretation of the 

operating budget. 

Mr. RENZI. Thank the gentleman. 

Mr. RENZI. Mr. Secretary, thank you. This hearing was one of 

those iron-pants hearings that you go to sit through. I thank you 

for your leadership, sir, your resolve. We need you over there. 

The Chair notes that some members may have additional questions for this panel which may be submitted in writing. Without objection, the hearing record will remain open for 30 days for members to submit written questions to these witnesses and to place 

their responses in the record. 

[The prepared statement of Hon. David Scott can be found on 

page 68 in the appendix.] 

Mr. RENZI. The hearing is closed. 

[Whereupon, at 1:05 p.m., the committee was adjourned.] 

(53)

A P P E N D I X

March 2, 2005

54


24795.001
55


24795.002
56


24795.003
57


24795.004
58


24795.005
59


24795.006
60


24795.007
61


24795.008
62


24795.009
63


24795.010
64


24795.011
65


24795.012
66


24795.013
67


24795.014
68


24795.015
69


24795.016
70


24795.017
71


24795.018
72


24795.019
73


24795.020
74


24795.021
75


24795.022
76


24795.023
77


24795.024
78


24795.025
79


24795.026
80


24795.027
81


24795.028
82


24795.029
83


24795.030
84


24795.031
85


24795.032
86


24795.033
87


24795.034
88


24795.035
89


24795.036
90


24795.037
91


24795.038
92


24795.039
93


24795.040
94


24795.041
95


24795.042
96


24795.043