Greetings all. You know, me being the stickler for time, the clock shows exactly 4:00, and I will bring this subcommittee to order. Today, we welcome the secretary of the Department of Housing and Urban Development, the honorable Scott Turner, a Big Ten champion from a long time ago. Mr. Secretary, thank you for appearing before this subcommittee to discuss HUD's fiscal year 27 budget request. This is your second appearance before us, and I look forward to hearing about the progress you've made in the past year reforming HUD's programs and putting the department on sounder footing. We share a common goal: constraining costs, promoting housing affordability, and serving our most vulnerable citizens. HUD's fiscal 27 request is $62,000,000,000 in new budget authority, a reduction of about $15,000,000,000 below the enacted fiscal 26 level. A significant portion of the proposed savings come from eliminating programs like CDBG, HOME, and self sufficiency initiatives programs that enjoy strong bipartisan support among our members. Our markup may reflect some differences with the budget request as we weigh member input. The bulk of the HUD budget is in rental assistance programs serving more than 5,000,000 households. Many of these are elderly, disabled, and working families who depend on contract renewals and vouchers to keep a roof over their heads. You've described your approach as common sense compassion, but I think that's exactly the right spirit. My commitment is to make sure this subcommittee gives you the tools and the funding to make that principle real for the families who are counting on it. Some of the savings in the budget request depend on authorizing proposals that will require action from the Financial Services Committee. I trust that your team will engage with that committee and my colleague, French Hill of Arkansas, on those reforms. Our shared goal is to make HUD's programs as effective as possible, creating opportunity for citizens to prosper while ensuring a responsible safety net for those who need it. Mr. Secretary, the work you're doing matters. This subcommittee is a partner in making sure that we get it right. So with that, I'd like to now recognize my dear friend from South Carolina, the ranking member of this subcommittee, Mr. Jim Clyburn, for any opening remarks he would like to make.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Let me join you in welcoming the secretary here, Mr. Secretary. Just got off the plane from Dallas. My grandson in law's just moved to Plano, and so I hope to get more acquainted with your section of the country.

I think we all agree that housing is a basic human need. It serves as a foundation for education, health, and financial outcomes for nearly every family in America. Without a safe and stable place to live, it is difficult for families to improve educational outcomes, maintain good health, or increase their earnings and build wealth. Across the country, more than 771,000 people are experiencing homelessness and 75% of low income renters spend more than half of their income on rent. According to the center on budget and policy priorities, more than 17,000,000 low income renters need federal rental assistance but do not receive it. This includes more than 4,000,000 seniors and 1,000,000 people with disabilities and more than 5,000,000 families with children. Despite these challenging realities, your department's 2027 budget request proposes to cut HUD funding by nearly $11,000,000,000. In order to achieve such draconian funding levels, your budget proposed to eliminate programs that help families achieve self sufficiency, build wealth through home ownership, and construct new housing. This is not only unacceptable but unrealistic given the dire need to lower the cost of living for Americans. Your budget request also includes so called reforms that would shift HUD program costs onto low income residents. This doesn't help families who are already working multiple jobs, to become self sufficient. Instead, it creates chaos, financial uncertainty, and pushes these families into more severe trade offs. A choice of feeding your family, paying for medications, or paying rent.

Lastly, I would be remiss if I did not highlight the cuts to Fair Housing Enforcement and your department attempts to deregulate long standing civil rights laws. Mr. Secretary, let's remember the long and painful history that led to the creation of the fair housing law. The Federal Housing Administration, banks, and insurance companies literally drew red lines on maps around neighborhoods where they refused to provide home loans and insurance to otherwise qualified homebuyers. I'm not relying on research here. I served on 3 of the predecessor boards to what is now Bank of America, and I chaired our community reinvestment act committee. So I'm telling you what I know, what I experienced, and the hard job I had on that board getting them to change their ways of doing business. I think we had some success, but not enough. This discrimination extended to black veterans returning from World War two, Korea, and Vietnam. These men and women had served their country yet were excluded from the GI Bill's housing benefits that were transformational for white families. Black veterans were denied VA backed loans of the first 3,350 VA housing loans in the state of Mississippi, only 2, not 2%, only 2 went to black people. Not even fighting for our country abroad earned them a fair shot at the American dream here at home. Black families were denied the primary path to building generational wealth and that created a racial wealth gap that still persists to this day. The Fair Housing Law of 1968 represented a simple but crucial promise that every American would have an equal opportunity to secure safe, decent housing. Unfortunately, since the start of this administration, we have seen an attack on long standing laws that were enacted to stop excluding black people from the greatnesses of this country. The current state of housing and the cost of living in America calls on us to question our national priorities. Unfortunately, Mr. Secretary, this budget proposal ignores far too many realities and is an exploitation of our most vulnerable. Mr. Chairman, I implore my colleagues on this panel to work together on a bipartisan basis to find real solutions to the housing crisis and drive down the cost of living rather than increase the economic burdens of everyday Americans.

Thank you, Mister Chairman, and I yield back.

Thank the gentleman from South Carolina. I will now recognize the full committee chairman, Chairman Cole, for his opening remarks.

Thank you very much, Mister Chairman, and thank you Ranking Member Clyburn. I'm also pleased to be joined by my good friend, the ranking member of the full committee and each and every member here. This is a very important subcommittee. Welcome, Secretary Turner, and thank you for appearing before us today and for your continued service to the American people. This subcommittee oversees a portfolio that touches every American from roads and bridges to the rental assistance that keeps a roof over the heads of our most vulnerable neighbors. Few areas of government operate in a more direct and community focused level. Whether through housing assistance for our elderly and disabled or economic development programs like CDBG, HUD's reach into the daily lives of Americans is profound. That's why the subcommittee takes its oversight responsibility so seriously and why we expect accountability from our agencies. One area that has long been a priority for me is how HUD fulfills its trust and treaty obligations to tribal communities. When I chaired this subcommittee, I worked to elevate tribal housing programs, and I'm grateful that Chairman Womack has continued to build on those investments. And to be honest with you, I do have concerns, which we'll discuss during the question period, about your budget in those areas. These obligations represent commitments made to sovereign domestic nations that have waited far too long for fed the federal government to make good on its promises. I'm pleased that, you've been engaged. You've engaged tribal leaders directly, including the tribal intergovernmental advisory council, which you hosted last September, and I appreciate that very, very much. That kind of meaningful consultation reaffirmed HUD's commitment to its government to government responsibilities, and I trust you'll continue to prioritize it. Mister Secretary, we have important work ahead of us. The American people deserve a HUD that is well managed, responsive, and funded to meet its mission. This subcommittee intends to do its part. I look forward to a candid and productive dialogue today. With that, Mister Chairman, I thank you and yield back.

Thank you, Chairman Cole. Now recognize a full committee ranking member, Ms. DeLauro, for her opening remarks.

Thank you very much, Chair Womack and Ranking Member Clyburn and my colleague, Cole. Good to be with you today. And Secretary Turner, welcome. It is no secret that the American people are facing an affordability crisis despite the president's insistence that affordability is a, and I quote, con job or a quote hoax. I can assure you it is very real for working families today. One of the largest contributing factors to the cost of living crisis is the rising cost of housing. According to census data, more than 43,000,000 households are cost burdened, meaning they spend more than 30% of their income on housing. Roughly half of all renters in The United States fall into this category. In order to afford a single family home at the current median price, you would need to earn more than double the current median household income. But the Trump administration has failed to take any action to bring down costs. In fact, they are making it worse. A report from the National Association of Home Builders estimated that Trump's tariffs on whole building materials increased costs by $10,900 per home, almost $11,000 per home increasing costs. At the same time, the Trump administration is proposing to slash funding for programs that support American families struggling to navigate these high costs. The president's budget proposes a $1,300,000,000 cut to housing construction at a time when more than 750,000 veterans, unaccompanied youth, people with disabilities, victims of domestic violence, and other struggling Americans are experiencing homelessness. HUD is also attempting to drastically upend the continuum of care program, ignoring decades of evidence based research and federal courts stepping in. The administration's intentional delay to issue grant awards last year threatened to put 140,000 people out onto the street. That does not inspire confidence in this administration's ability to make positive changes moving forward. The president's budget proposes eliminating community development block grants, one of the most widely used HUD programs entirely. Mr. Secretary, you note in your testimony that this is because of objections to DEI, equity officers and an equity lens. Really? You plan to eliminate the entire program, strip more than 1,000 mayors, governors, local leaders of federal support for street, water and sewer improvements because you do not like the word equity? How will that help to make life more affordable? This program supports local projects like the city of Tucson's residential rehabilitation program, a lead hazard removal program in Missoula, Montana and residential radon testing in Indianapolis. These are not partisan projects that push an agenda. They're investments. Investments that support our communities and our constituents. You know, the American people do not need more culture war talking points. They need relief from high costs. Instead, the Trump administration is adding pressure on families on American families on all sides. They are pushing costs up through tariffs and pulling back aid through cuts. It is the worst of both worlds. The president's budget proposal, if enacted, would evict tens of thousands of seniors, veterans, and people with disabilities, even as more than 771,000 people are experiencing homelessness across this country. At a time when millions of Americans are struggling to afford even the most basic necessities, The Trump administration's plan is to make the situation even worse. Working families deserve a leadership that looks after their interest, not just the billionaires who can afford to buy an audience with the president. I look forward to your testimony, Mister Secretary, and to hearing your answers to our questions. I thank you, and I yield back.

I thank the gentlelady from Connecticut. Mister Secretary, your prepared comments will be inserted into the record. Right now, we will give you an opportunity to briefly summarize those comments before we go to our Q and A part of the hearing. And so at this time, I would recognize you for five minutes.

Well, thank you, mister chairman. Really appreciate that. And, all the distinguished members of the subcommittee, Ranking Member Clyburn, Chairman Cole, Ranking Member DeLauro, thank you, all for having me. I appreciate this opportunity to testify on the president's 2027 budget and what it means for the Department of Housing and Urban Development. At HUD, we remain focused on a simple principle. The American dream of home ownership must be within reach for all Americans. That requires affordability, stewardship, and a shared duty between HUD and congress. Taxpayer dollars are finite, but our responsibility is not. The president's proposal reflects that approach. It reins in wasteful spending, stops the ballooning of federal welfare programs, and continues HUD's mission, our mission minded focus on serving the American people. The budget proposes to end the community development block grant program, which was created to revitalize urban communities but has lost focus and often supports activities like equity officers in Chicago, equity lens framework in Denver, and requirements in Massachusetts tied to DEI initiatives. Ending CDBG allows us to focus funding on results that are directly impacting housing affordability.

The president's proposal also reinforces HUD's commitment to the statutory intent of the Fair Housing Act rather than on activities that are anything but fair. We will continue to enforce the law as written because fair housing is about equal rights and not extra rights. On homelessness, the data is very clear. By the end of the Biden administration, HUD spending on continuum of care surged more than 50%, yet street homelessness rose 20% since 2020. Despite record funding, communities reported record homelessness. Since serving as secretary, I've raised concerns about the Housing First approach, which failed to address underlying causes of homelessness such as substance abuse and mental illness. Housing First feeds a homeless industrial complex that simply warehouses the homeless. Compassion requires results, not just resources, and HUD will focus on addressing root causes and pathways to self sufficiency instead of trapping Americans in government dependency.

The president's plan reinforces HUD's commitment to stewardship of tax payer dollars and prioritizes that serve our nation's most vulnerable people. The budget secures $30,000,000 for the Melania Trump foster youth to independence initiative. There are roughly 20,000 young Americans who age out of foster care annually, and nearly one in four experience homelessness soon thereafter. I have heard directly from foster youth, they are not asking for handouts. They are asking for tools to become and achieve independence. They're fighting to stand on their own two feet, help their peers break the cycle, and build brighter futures for themselves. Earning a paycheck is indeed empowering. Getting a handout is not. That is why the president is proposing work requirements of at least 20 hours per week along with 5-year limits for able-bodied Americans in HUD's rental assistance programs. This helps individuals graduate from government assistance that makes room for vulnerable Americans on the wait list. The budget also includes a $100,000,000 of federal housing administration contracts to help Americans access affordable and sustainable homeownership opportunities.

Across HUD, we are strengthening program integrity. In December, we published the FY25 agency financial report that uncovered over $5,000,000,000 in potential payment errors under the Biden administration. This is unacceptable. Accountability is not optional. It is a fundamental to public trust. We're also making HUD more efficient by relocating from the Robert C. Weaver Federal Building to Alexandria, a move that reflects a broader commitment to modernization. The Weaver Building had deteriorated beyond cost effective repair with more than $500,000,000 in deferred and delinquent maintenance and over $22,000,000 in annual operating costs. By relocating, HUD is saving taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars while providing employees with a safe and collaborative workspace.

The budget also secures $30,000,000 for our program integrity initiative, also known as Project HUD's Unified Grant System, which will build on HUD's subrecipient reporting pilot to support data analysis to identify improper payments so we can better combat waste, fraud, and abuse. Under this administration, HUD has delivered. Since January 2025, HUD has supported homeownership for over 1,200,000 American households, with more than 70% being first time homebuyers. That is what focused discipline policy can achieve. The President's plan builds on that progress. It brings discipline to federal spending and regulation, strengthens accountability, and reinforces HUD's mission. We'll focus on results at HUD and not just rhetoric. This vision positions HUD to lead a renaissance of housing revitalization, one that increases supply, expands access, and delivers real opportunity for the American people. It's my privilege to share this vision with you today, mister chairman and distinguished members. I look forward to our discussion.

I thank the secretary for his opening comments. We will proceed now to the questions. I will recognize myself for five minutes and remind all of my colleagues that we will enforce the 5-minute rule. So please get to your questions as soon as possible so as to allow time for a reasonable response.

Secretary Turner, I know you've been busy this past year implementing both an internal and external transformation with the goal of, as you often say, getting HUD's fiscal house in order. This begins, of course, with your ongoing efforts to identify risks and direct staff resources to mitigate those risks. These efforts will help ensure that HUD can successfully deliver rent subsidy payments, maintain mortgage operations, and execute grants. The work your team has undertaken won't be easy, and it cannot be more important. What can you tell me about these programs and payment integrity efforts?

Well, yes, sir. Thank you, mister chairman. We're very excited at HUD. You know, we came in, there was a lack of financial controls. And during the Biden administration, there's really a negligence as it pertains to stewardship. And so Irv Dennis, who is our CFO, who this is his second tour at HUD. He and his team have done a tremendous job, as I mentioned in my opening statement, with HUD's unified grant system, which will help us to be very transparent and hold PHAs accountable, especially at the subrecipient level. And so this is a revolutionary dashboard, if you will, to bring all of our systems into collaboration so that we can track where our taxpayer dollars are going and make sure that they are held accountable and achieving a mission that they're supposed to achieve. And so we're excited about Project HUD and the innovation and the new technology that we've never been done before, and this pilot is almost done and ready to be deployed hopefully by the end of the fiscal year to help not only HUD but really across the agencies and our government as it pertains to good stewardship.

In particular, I know I'm interested, I'm sure all of my colleagues are interested in how this work will bring additional transparency into how public housing agencies, the PHAs, use their funds. Will the way the PHAs across the nation report grant expenses and program outcomes to HUD be affected by these new systems and processes?

Yes, sir. And there will be more accountability and transparency because prior to this, it was hard to see once the money went out the door, and particularly at the sub recipient level, what happens to the money. And so this will help the way that it's reported, but also help us to track it in a way that's good stewardship for taxpayers.

How are we working with the PHAs to help prepare them, coach them through this?

We've had extensive conversation with PHAs. I myself travel across the country, but our team at HUD has extensive conversations to help PHAs in understanding that we need better policy making, better decision making, and more transparency. And this Project HUD would help us to achieve that mission.

I understand that the fiscal 2025 in that timeframe, HUD could not assure that its own financial statements were accurate. Well, that's kind of a sad commentary for the greatest country on the planet. This resulted in auditors issuing a disclaimer of opinion stating that they can provide no opinion on the quality or accuracy of HUD's own financial statements. That was back in fiscal 2025. What is your team doing to improve HUD's internal procedures, financial controls and management oversight within the department?

Thank you, sir. And I'll go back. During the first Trump administration, when Irv Dennis and his team were here, HUD had four years of clean audit. But, unfortunately, during the Biden administration, there was a lack of proper stewardship and negligence as it become as it pertains to the finances at HUD. And so Irv and his team have been working tirelessly to make sure that we get them back in compliance, make sure that we have a clean audit, and they have assured me, that in the coming, months that we will have a clean audit. But really, we were trying to clean up what happened in the previous administration, which, you know what, we're not afraid of. We wanna make sure we're good stewards over taxpayer dollars. And so, better days are coming as it pertains to, stewardship of taxpayer dollars at HUD.

I know my time is about out, but Secretary Turner, HUD has indicated it wants to shift the continuum of care program away from housing first toward models that emphasize self sufficiency, transitional housing, and wraparound services like job training and addiction treatment. As HUD prepares to release a new finding notice or new funding notice on June 1, can you kind of walk us through very briefly the evidence and research that informed this policy direction and how HUD plans to measure whether that new approach is actually reducing homelessness over time?

For sure, sir. The housing first model is a failed model. It's been around, as you know, for for years, and, homelessness is at an all time high with record funding. And so we have to run a new play. We have to do something different, not just housing people, but really getting to the root cause of homelessness, mental addiction, drug addiction, mental illness, and help people to get transformed and healed and back to a life of self sufficiency. And we will include the wraparound services and the collection of data to make sure that it is efficient and achieving the results we want.

Good. Thank you. I yield now to, the ranking member, mister Clyburn.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Mister secretary, was there an administration before the Biden administration?

Indeed.

What administration was that?

The Trump administration, sir.

How many clean audits y'all had?

Four.

Trump administration, sir?

Four.

You had four clean audits when when Trump for HUD when Trump was there. You're on the record. Okay. This question is coming back again. Now you say in your budget or your proposal that states and local governments are better positioned to serve their communities than CDBG. Last I checked, CDBG is a block grant that goes to the states, isn't it?

Sir, CDBG has not accomplished the mission that it's supposed to accomplish. There are some

Will you please answer the question?

have used CDBG for its intended purpose, but at large, CDBG has not been used overall for what is intended to be used for as I made record of and notice of in my statement.

Well, I'm asking you again. Who makes decisions on how CDBG money is spent?

Yes, sir. It is the states, but the money is coming from the federal government.

So if it's not used properly, then the states are not using it properly.

I'm asking the question.

Indeed. Yes, sir. And the and the results have spoken for themselves.

So then you are saying to me, you take all this money away, and then the states will get the money from where to meet the needs, that are laid out, and give you some of it. In one year, unsheltered homelessness rose by nearly 7% overall, but increased by 19% in largely suburban communities, but 18% in rural areas. How am I to meet the needs of the rural areas in South Carolina with your budget?

And sir, that's a great question. When you look at record funding for homelessness and yet homelessness goes up significantly, then something, there's a problem. It's not a money problem. It's a stewardship problem. It's a fundamental problem of the way the program is ran. It's not just housing people. It's not just creating a homelessness industrial complex. We have to treat the real root of homelessness, be it rural, be it suburban, be it urban, and that is could be mental illness, it could be drug addiction, but we have to treat these illnesses, get people transformed, and back to a life of self sufficiency. Housing first is a failed model, and we can't keep running, losing plays, and that's the whole it's a paradigm shift, if you will, ranking member Clyburn. We care for people, our homeless neighbors that are on the street. No matter if they're in rural areas, if they're in suburban areas, tribal areas, but we can't keep just housing people. We have to treat people to get them healed.

And I matter of fact, sir, I've I've experienced this in my own family. We my uncle was homeless. Okay. And and we found him and we were able to put wraparound services around him. Okay. Yes, sir.

Yeah.

So am I to understand that if we treat mental illness, we treat mental illness in the outdoors somewhere or under a tree?

No, sir. I said it's not just housing. Yes, we have to house them but then we have to treat them. It's continuum of care. It's in the name. We got away from the model. We just house people instead of treating them and getting them transformed.

Okay. If you are mentally ill, in need of housing, then because you have not been treated by the appropriate agency, we're gonna render you homeless. Sir. That's the natural conclusion to your statement.

It it actually is not. My statement is saying we can't just house people. We have to continue to care for them to get them healed. Housing them. We are housing firm. We gotta house them first, second, and third. It doesn't just stop.

If you take all the money away.

Housing first, housing first is a failed motto, sir.

I know slogan there. So, I'm not dealing with slogan there in here. I'm not even sure how you're supposed to house people when you took the money away. I yield back. Okay. Thank you, sir.

Mister Cole.

Thank you very much, mister chairman. Mister secretary, as you know, this is the 30th year of the anniversary of the HASDA, the Native American Housing Assistance and Self Determination Act. NAHASDA authorized also the Indian Housing Block Grant program. So pretty important milestone. When I was fortunate enough to chair this subcommittee, I just asked our committee staff to go back and look what was the percentage of the HUD budget devoted to Native American housing when we passed NAHASDA and what was it today? And we found, of course, the absolute number had gone up, but it had dropped pretty dramatically as a percentage. It's not a large portion of the budget. It was less than 3%. I think about 2.8% of HUD funds devoted to tribal housing, but it had dropped down to about 1.5 or six in that kind of neighborhood. So we saw really and it wasn't associated with any particular administration, one party or the other. It was just out of sight, out of mind, declined for 30 years. This subcommittee, frankly, had not had a hearing on Indian housing in over 20 years. So I asked to go back and take a look at it. And when I was fortunate enough to be here, we had a substantial increase to get back to where not to replace all the intervening lack of investment, but to get back up to where we had been in the late 1990s as a percentage of the HUD budget. And that, resulted in a 32% increase in spending on Indian reservations and in particular. So right now, the budget that you're bringing before us would basically undo that. I mean, we would drop from about a $101,350,000,000 in FY '26 to 887,000,000. So that's a 34% reduction. Indian housing block grant formula program, which received again 1,100,000,000 in FY 2026 would drop to $8.72, about a 21% reduction. Did we make so much progress that we could afford those kind of reductions in literally a couple of years?

Well, you, mister chairman. As you know, we are, maximizing the budget that we have. And as you know, I'm very supportive of our tribal nations both in the first administration, having traveled to many of our tribal nations and also in this one, having also traveled. And as you stated, it's about almost 900,000,000, 887,000,000, I believe. And my goal and our goal at HUD is to really maximize that to help our tribes. We have made significant process progress, and I know there's there's work to be done and we'll continue to make progress. But you do have my commitment that, you know, whatever budget is appropriated, that we will maximize that to help our tribal nations.

Well, and I appreciate that and and I I believe that you will do that. I don't have any doubt about it, but it's important for this committee to remember that the power of the appropriations committee is here, and we will make those decisions. And I can assure you, we're not going to, sustain cuts of that kind of magnitude in these programs. And again, I know you submit a budget to OMB. They have their concerns. I recognize that. We work with them as well. Yes, sir. But, and you and your job is to defend the budget that you're given. So, again, I respect that. I will just tell you upfront, we're not gonna have those kind of cuts in tribal housing, grants. I suspect that'll be true in some of the other areas that this committee on a bipartisan basis will expect. So you're actually a lucky guy. You're probably gonna walk out of here with more money at the end of the day than you walked in with. And a lot of people aren't gonna be able to say that. But, again, I recognize your job, but I want you to understand the reality. I am also worried about Section 184 program, and I'm very happy to see the program's requested the president's requested authority and necessary resources to operate that essential program. But as you know, it ensures mortgage capital flows to areas that have long been forgotten and ignored by banks. And that's a real problem on Indian reservations. The the legal challenges of how you secure a loan in Indian country and dealing with sovereign entities is a real problem for banks. But by providing a financial guarantee, you make it possible for home mortgage loans, for an 80 borrowers to be repaid in full, and that actually frees up a lot of private capital that otherwise just simply wouldn't be there. So I wanna commend you for that. I wanna commend the president's recognition of doing that. But again, back to the basic program, and I'm running out of time here. I just want this committee to understand as we work through this process, one way or the other, we're not gonna have cuts of the order of magnitude that we're talking about in tribal home program. We just and we're not going back to where we were three or four years ago. And I know you've visited some reservations, worked with some tribes. I am very appreciative of that. I think if more Americans went to places like Pine Ridge and saw the housing conditions, they wouldn't believe it. They would think they were in a third world country. The federal government has a special obligation there, a trust and treaty obligation, and this committee is gonna do its best to fulfill it under mister Womack's leadership. But, again, thanks for what you're doing. Look forward to working with you through the process.

Thank you. Yield back.

Thank you, Chairman. Let me translate, Mr. Secretary, what the wise chairman just said. This committee is gonna make your job a lot easier. No need to thank us now. Ms. DeLauro.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Just a point on what the chair of the full committee was talking about. You've proposed completely eliminating the self sufficiency program at HUD. And because you wanna try to promote self sufficiency, but we're gonna eliminate this program used by public housing agencies and tribes to incentivize residents to increase their income, build savings, and achieve economic independence. You would eliminate more than 1,600 service coordinated jobs that support over a 136,000 families across more than 800 tribal and affordable housing developments. So there we go. Continuum of care program designed to promote the end of homelessness. It is the homeless assistance program authorized to pay for permanent supportive housing. Not gonna ask you to comment on any litigation regarding, 2025. I'm gonna remind you that this committee expects the agency to award quarter three and quarter four renewals by the deadlines that are mandated in the 2026 T-HUD appropriations act. Mr. Secretary, how many beds of permanent supportive housing are funded by this program?

Well, thank you, Ms. DeLauro. I really appreciate that. I'm gonna run. You know, the housing first model, as you said, and as I said before, is indeed a failed model. With with all due respect. We we need to change the way we approach

The answer to the question is it's roughly 170,000 beds of permanent supportive housing funded by the program. How many permanent supportive housing beds are proposed to be eliminated in the fiscal year 2027 budget request?

Ma'am, I believe that we'll be able to serve more people.

It's gonna be a 170,000 people. To do COC. Do you know how many formerly homeless people could lose their housing under this budget proposal?

What are you what are you saying?

I'm asking you. What do you what can you tell us? How many formerly homeless people could lose their housing under your budget proposal?

What I can say is that we'll be able to serve more people.

Okay. It's estimated to be more than 217,000 people including children who currently rely on Continuum of Care funded housing that would not be continued under this proposal. Mr. Secretary, do you know what is the fastest growing population among people experiencing homelessness is?

Ma'am, what I do know is that we have record funding that we have

Tell me about the fastest growing population among people experiencing homelessness. This is your job to know that.

Here to listen. My job is to make sure that we're actually serving the people that are homeless.

The answer is 146,000 seniors who are experiencing homelessness in the most recent data. As many as 40% of people assisted in permanent supportive housing funded by the Continuum of Care program are older adults who are formerly homeless and now have achieved some stability. Do you know which communities would suffer the most permanent supportive housing losses if COC, Continuum of Care, is eliminated?

Well, ma'am, I think a lot of communities are suffering right now under the housing first model, to be honest.

Well, let me just let me just answer the question. It is primarily rural and suburban communities where more than 50% of beds are paid for by federal dollars. Let me just tell you, my colleagues might be interested in this. In Oklahoma, 100% of permanent supportive housing beds are paid for by federal funds. 98% in Arizona, 98% in Montana, 82% in Kentucky and Indiana. So so people can understand the supportive services component of supportive housing. Can you provide some examples of these supportive services?

Well, ma'am, what I can provide is that when I came in the HUD, I learned that we had almost 800,000 people that were homeless with record funding. And that the housing first model was not taking care of these.

Services? Do you know what services?

As secretary, my job is how do we take care of more homeless people to get them treated and transformed?

Tell us what services so that you don't know the answer to that. It's case management, child care, employment assistance and job training, life skills training, mental health services, outpatient health services, substance abuse treatment services, transportation and utility deposits, permanent supportive houses, increases housing stability, decreases arrest and jail stays, decreases time spent homelessness or in shelters, decreases the use of the emergency room, increases outpatient mental health, and addiction treatment, and frankly most important, improves people quality of life. You provide no evidence that your proposal will work, but we know for certain that you're gonna push thousands of people out of stable housing, and it is just really unconscionable, that communities will pay the price. Eliminating permanent supportive housing is foolish. It is more expensive in the long run, fails our most vulnerable constituents. I yield back.

Mr. Rutherford.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Secretary, it's great to see you. And I and I wanna highlight a comment in your written remarks where you said compassion requires results and not just resources. And and I could not agree, more with that. And one one of the things that I wanna focus on in my questioning is prevention of homelessness. We focus a lot of times on those who are homeless, but we don't look at those who are about to fall into homelessness. And so I wanna focus on housing affordability and whether enough housing is being built to meet demand. Builders I can tell you, builders and housing providers continue to raise concerns about construction costs, permitting delays, and regulatory, requirements that have slowed development and as a result made projects much more expensive. In fact, in Florida, we are also seeing, significant growth in build to rent housing with more than 13,000 new single family rental units currently under construction in cities like my hometown of Jacksonville. So my question is, how is HUD working to reduce those regulatory barriers and help increase the supply of attainable housing for our working families out there who risk falling into homelessness? And then secondly, how does HUD view the role of built to rent communities and how that plays into increasing housing supply and or expanding housing options in fast growing states like Florida?

Yes, sir. Well, thank you, Congressman Rutherford. Appreciate that, and it's good to speak with you again, sir. You know, as I've traveled and as you've alluded to, as you talk to industry experts and you talk to builders and developers, the regulatory environment really has crippled the construction and the development industry in our country. Open borders, illegal immigration, all of these things have stifled home building and raised the cost of housing. And so what we've done at HUD is really, you know, take the lead in bringing down the affirmatively further and fair housing rule, which made Washington a national zoning board, and we restored that flexibility back to localities. Localities know their unique needs better than, you know, bureaucrats in Washington's, to be honest. And we've also encouraged, as we've traveled around, localities, mayors, economic development corporations to take a look and take inventory of their regulatory environment and see how they can ease that environment so that builders can build and buyers can buy. The president just signed two new executive orders, as you know, one to reduce the barriers to building, constructing affordable homes and others to bring more competition to the mortgage industry to get the hometown lenders back into the game. And so reducing these barriers from a federal state and long and a local standpoint will help builders to build and also you know taking down the international energy conservation code which added almost $30,000 to every project you know to help builders. Builders are already building to these codes and so the regulatory environment has really crippled development in our country And when you look at the build to rent, when you look at single family home, multi family home, we need about 7,000,000 units of housing in our country of all sorts, manufactured homes. And so I support developers and builders to build affordable housing, for the American people. But the regulatory environment has to come down. Bureaucracy has to be erased.

Thank you for those comments. And and I I I wanna follow-up with this because it is about not only having adequate resources but making sure that we're using those resources wisely as you've indicated. Last time we spoke, we talked about some improper payments and how they're identified. How how is HUD working to ensure those cases are resolved and funds are recovered? And and how is HUD holding individuals accountable when fraud, misconduct, or oversight failures occur, including among HUD employees who fail to go look at the no pay list? And and how do are we recovering those dollars when they're improperly paid out?

Thank you, sir. And we've mentioned almost $5,000,000,000 in improper payments. And Irv Dennis and his team and I met with them have assured me that they are working very hard to make sure that those things don't happen in days ahead and to hold people accountable. Have Irv and his team have a great partnership with the OIG to make sure that we're going after waste, fraud, and abuse internally and externally. And I will say, sir, you know, that makes me very proud, you know, of our team, political, and career at HUD to make sure that we're being good stewards over tax taxpayer dollars because it's my job, you know, as a fiduciary off my But I do wanna say that, I look forward to the improvement in that.

Thank you. Thank you.

Mister Quigley.

Thank you, mister chairman. Mister secretary, your testimony, with all due respect, would be would be, entertaining if it wasn't so dark. I've heard of big oil. I've heard of big pharma, the military industrial complex. Today, I've heard of the homeless industrial complex. Because, yes, the YMCA, the Salvation Army thresholds, they're all making small fortunes off the homeless, and and that's why we do this, just to keep them operating. If that's how you look at this, you are wildly distanced from reality. Because the same way you're slow rolling us and filibustering us and not answering questions is exactly what the advocates are telling us that you're doing to them. You're slow rolling their application, putting more requirements in them that are only burdensome, and they're having to float money they don't have. And as a result, they can treat less people. So, well, what you can tell them apparently is, well, we're getting you out of this cycle by not even putting you in the cycle. You know very well that they are trying to provide a continuum of care. And the fact that they're more homeless isn't because they're not doing their jobs correctly. Right?

Mister Quigler, I would have to push back on you, sir.

I'm sure.

And say, and this is with respect, sir. But the housing first model—

You can forget that because we put people out on the street. We can just—

Mrs. Herrmann, I'm trying to answer them.

The housing first model is a failed model. I care about homeless people.

You just said earlier that housing homeless first model is a failed model.

Found my uncle homeless. He was a veteran. He was beaten. He had a life debilitating disease. And when we found him, we didn't just house him in a veteran's home. We put wraparound services around him—

I'll to help treat reclaim my time.

And so I've seen this work in in my own family. And so this is not just a a soliloquy or or a phrase. This is actually what I've seen work in my own, personal family.

Money for homelessness, you're helping them. So let me let me jump on. You said something else there. It's something like equal rights, not extra rights. Can I ask who what group you're referring to for extra rights?

Equal rights, not extra. When you talk—

Who's getting extra rights?

When you talk about the Fair Housing Act, it's our job at HUD to uphold and to enforce the fair housing—

Respectfully, who's getting extra rights?

So you're worried about We wanna go after real discrimination and not phantom discrimination.

Who's getting fan who's being phantomly discriminated against?

We wanna go after real discrimination, sir, not random discrimination.

This question. Who's actually being discriminated against?

We're going after real discrimination.

Who? Okay. Does that Equal rights. I I guess it's fair housing act. This is why you got HOPWA. Because you think—

that classes. It's seven classes. You know mean? What—

Yes, sir. I'm going to take a wild guess that you think LGBTQ people are getting extra rights and privileges, which is why you cut HOPWA despite the fact that NIH has said that many studies have shown that access to housing is associated with better outcomes. That's why HOPWA, that you cut completely, 90% and 95% of the people in HOPWA supportive housing are meeting their HIV medication goals. It's well below half for people who are homeless. So you cut housing HOPWA grants. Is this because you think LGBTQ people are getting extra rights?

Sir, I did not say LGBTQ are getting extra rights.

Asking you who you think is getting extra rights.

Job is to enforce the Fair Housing Act. Job is to have a paradigm shift for all people that are homeless.

Why cut HOPWA?

Our job is to make sure that we're treating people that are homeless, to transform people.

Alright. I got that answer. So not in every particular group. Cut so disproportionately cut in HOPWA, why cut HOPWA?

Sir, we're on a budget. This is a budget. HOPWA is part of the budget. All American people are part of the—

We're not we're not singling out HOPWA.

You single them out. You just cut them to zero. That's pretty much the definition of singling them out.

We propose it to go to emergency solutions grant, sir. It's in the budget. You saw it.

You know you can't look yourself in the face and answer that. Absolutely. The fact that that you're cutting this disproportionately impacts the LGBTQ community. You and and you put that together with extra rights for some groups, which you refuse to name, which is a really chicken way of not answering the question and not telling the American people you're discriminating against gay and lesbian people.

Mister Cherniken.

Thank you, sir.

Well, I thank you, mister chairman. That's direct back to what number one, I appreciate your service.

Yes, sir.

Thank you. As a former secretary, I know it's difficult. There's a lot of tasks in there, but I greatly appreciate you stepping up to the plate.

So from just a Montana perspective. So your budget your total budget is what?

Thank you.

It's about 70 the proposed budget? Yes. About 73,000,000,000.

73,000,000,000. And of that 73,000,000,000, how much actually goes to the frontline housing? I'm talking about what what it actually you know, bureaucracy aside, these different programs, what are the $73,000,000,000 this congress has given you? Yeah. How much actually goes to frontline and houses people?

Well, we can you sir, you have the budget in front of you as I do. And, you know, we wanna make sure that as you saw from PIH that most of this budget is for housing.

Two thirds is for housing?

Yes, sir.

All right. So of the two thirds, how much goes into just just inform me. How much goes into rural versus urban? Because I'm sitting out in Montana, you know, and as the chairman has described, not a lot of the housing dollars goes into our American Indians. Yes, sir. Not a lot of it goes out to, I don't think, rural Montana. So how much of the budget is concentrated on cities, where where there's a dense population of housing, of homelessness and housing need.

Yes, And congressman Zinke, we can get the exact numbers for you, sir. My staff will be happy to get that to you. As you know, I don't have that in front of me, but we're happy to get it to you. But dealing with the tribes, as we were talking with chairman Cole, I'm very much in favor, of our tribes. I've traveled to many tribes around our country the first term and this country. You know, we just had our 1,100,000 grant for our Nehazda.

Oh, and I appreciate it. So we're gonna continue to prioritize that.

Yes, You're looking into it. I appreciate you coming out and looking.

For sure.

Secondly is well, thirdly is demographics. So how how much housing is if we had to break it down to, let's say, US citizens. Let's just get right to the point. How much how much housing is US citizens and how much housing is non US citizen, whatever category you wanna put it in? Right. Green card, illegal, work visa. So what what do we spend on US citizens?

Well, what I can tell you, sir, and that's why we're doing a feverish job of data collection in our MOU with, Department of Housing and and, Homeland Security to make sure that those that are receiving, HUD funds as it pertains to housing are indeed American citizens or eligible tenants.

Yes. I mean, we prioritize If we have of housing, I would I would imagine. Yes, sir. It's housing for everybody, But it seems like we have a deficit in housing. We have a true deficit. Be US citizens first. Would you agree with that?

We are prioritizing American people and American people always—

How do you know? I mean, it I I've heard. I don't know because I was not in administration during this last Biden administration. But I understand it loosened up the requirements to be a US citizen. So how are you making sure they're US citizens?

And so well, one, we took down the mixed status rule. We our new proposed rule for mixed status to make sure that those that are receiving HUD funded housing are indeed American people, with verification. We have our SAVE verification, which is our systematic alien verification enterprise, and we have our MOU with Department of Homeland Security to make sure that HUD funds, American taxpayer dollars are going to house American people.

And so the data is very important. Trying to do the same thing on voting, by the way.

Yes, sir. So we both have a challenge. And right now, mister Zinke, if you would, HUD only serves one out of four eligible people eligible families as it is. And so we wanna make sure that American taxpayer dollars are going to serve the American people.

Shift over to affordability. Yep. So talking to the contractors out in Montana, they would say permitting is about 40%. And by permitting, it also includes regulation. Yes. I gotta that include washers that are low energy. They don't actually clean clothes and things like that. And we we've taken care of a lot of those under this administration. So permitting is about 40%, then you got labor, materials. You know, not not a lot of profit margin when interest rates are so high. Right. So the cost of borrowing money is high. And I spending, I I would think they would be related. So looking at if you're trying to get into a house and you're as part of your job is to prioritize homeownership. Right. Right? And you got you got variables. So things you can change are permitting and and interest rates. So and interest rates, the president has said that he would be supportive of a 50-year mortgage. Now it's a lot of interest on that, but also it lowers payments over time. So is there a position you have on on the viability of a 50-year mortgage? Because up front, you have a cost of a house. If you if you if you work on permits, you're great. You're gonna get, you know, maybe 20% approval of that. If we work hard on interest rates, but maybe a payment of mortgage would be would be good. You can give it to me in writing if you want.

Yes, sir. I'll send it to you.

Thanks.

Miss Torres.

Thank you.

Broke the mic.

That's fortuitous.

We'll send a statement.

Start my clock again.

Give her back 15 seconds.

It's not my fault.

Or a broken mic.

Thank you, Chairman Womack. I appreciate you making my time whole. Secretary Turner, it's really nice to see you again. Welcome back to our committee.

Yes, ma'am. Thank you.

Last December, I sent a letter to the White House laying out immediate steps the administration can take to address the housing crisis. The letter, by the way, was cosigned by 53 other members of Congress. But Secretary Turner, that was 5 months ago, and we are anxiously waiting for a response. Can you commit to me today to responding to my letter?

And great to see you, congresswoman. You said you sent a letter to HUD or to the White House?

To the to the White House, but we also send it to your office.

Okay. Yes, ma'am. We will make sure that our staff works with your staff to make sure we get you an answer.

Thank you. Chairman, I request to submit a letter for the record just so that we have it.

Without objection.

Secretary Turner, the January 2025 fires in Los Angeles displaced over 100,000 Californians and many small to medium sized businesses. But here we are a year later, 7 out of 10 survivors still haven't been able to return. And thank you, by the way. You took the time with your staff to walk the walk and go out there and talk to the victims and see for yourself how terrible that damage was. As a survivor of a fire, let me tell you how much that means to people like myself that have experienced that.

This is a life changing disaster that shouldn't be a political issue. Democrats and Republicans led by this committee have time and time again worked with Democrats and Republican presidents to pass supplemental funding to help communities rebuild and recover. The CDBG disaster recovery program, which you oversee, is one of the key pieces for the long term recovery, providing flexible grants to state and local governments. But in order to have these funds, the first step that is required is that the administration must submit a supplemental request to this committee. But it's been over a year and a half, and this administration has not requested a single dollar of the $34,000,000,000 that California needs.

Secretary Turner, when Hurricane Harvey struck your home state of Texas in 2017, I voted in support of that supplemental package that included disaster for Texas. And I looked up the vote, not a single Californian voted against that support, and not a single Democrat voted no. 6 Texan Republicans voted in opposition, you know, to providing that funding, but Democrats did not vote to hold that funding from a state that needed to recover. You and I both know how important CDBG-DR grants are for long term recovery. You've been to these sites, as I mentioned. These communities have already been told by the federal government that, yes, it is a disaster and yes, they deserve the help. When is the administration going to submit a disaster package for California?

Well, you, ma'am, and thank you for your question. As you have alluded to, I have been there. We visited Altadena, and we visited the Palisades, and I had an opportunity to talk with the family members and pastors that lost churches, families that lost schools, and these families do want to rebuild, as you know.

Yes, but when is the administration going to submit that request?

Yes, ma'am. Well, as you know, you know, you all are the appropriators of that.

I know. But my question is to you. When...

I understand.

Is the White House going to do that?

I understand.

If you're not able to answer that question today...

Well, that's okay. I do have just one thing to say is that, you know, a lot in large part the problem, part of the problem, from what I understand and talking to the locals is with local leadership.

and the stewardship of those dollars...

Okay.

I would like to have an opportunity to discuss with you and your staff at length since you're not able to give me an answer here today.

There shouldn't be any mention of any supplemental like the Iran war, illegal Iran war, without giving California what it needs. California pays $275,000,000,000 more in federal taxes than it receives in federal funding. Every single program, every agency in this government is subsidized by hardworking Californians that have been injured, no fault of their own, and they deserve a government that is responsive to them in their time of need.

I would also like to include for the record a March 2025 and January 2026 requests requesting disaster assistance.

Without objection.

Thank you. And I yield back to the chairman.

Thank you. Ms. Bice.

Thank you, ma'am.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you, Mr. Secretary, for being with us this afternoon. HUD provides critical funding and oversees many agencies that are hardworking in addressing housing affordability. A recent example is HUD continues the work that President Trump initiated during his first term when he signed the Credit Score Competition Act into law. Updating credit scores associated with FHA insured mortgages was long overdue, and I want to thank you for introducing modern credit scoring models that recognize things like on time rent, utility payments, self-employment payments, etcetera. This builds on the enacted FY '26 legislation, which included a pilot program to help affordable housing providers report those rent payments when renters choose to opt in. I'm curious, can you give us a timeline of when the FHA approved lenders will begin delivering the insured loans that are scored upon these new credit models?

Yes. And thank you, Vice Chairman Bice. It's good to see you again. Our team, as you know, we did make this announcement for the credit score competition and we're confident and this is a vague timeline, but hopefully by the end of this year that we can make that announcement and get those running. But I think this will add not only competition but help those first time homebuyers to be able to potential to be American homeowners. So we're excited about that.

As the mother of a child who just purchased her first home, I appreciate this focus. Young people do need the opportunity to be able to have their credit scores reported on these important things. And so thank you for that. I also want to applaud your work with the First Lady on the Fostering the Future initiative and the budget requests supporting this effort. I know you've been traveling across the country hosting roundtables with foster youth to understand which HUD programs are working and where improvement is needed.

And I think those conversations as you mentioned in your opening statement are invaluable. I've had constituents reach out about the Foster Youth to Independence Initiative vouchers that assist youth transitioning out of the foster care system. And I want to highlight the work of a great organization in my district, Pivot, which serves foster youth ages 12 and up with programs and services focused on stability and opportunity. They have also invested and built tiny homes that are providing stable housing for displaced youth and offering those wraparound services that you mentioned previously. One of the services is Pivot Preserves, where youth are employed and supported as they transition into full time employment by creating jam that they actually sell at Cane and Sell.

Mr. Secretary, I would like to know what other innovative programs that you have seen across the country that are having great success in helping these foster youth who are aging out of foster care system.

Well, thank you for that. And I have had the honor of traveling to several states and hosting these foster youth to independence programs and hearing from the foster youth around our country will give you a perspective that you may not have unless you hear from them directly. And the things that they go through the foster care system through multiple placements to being dependent on people who they just met, to having gone through trauma, certain types of trauma. And so what I've seen that's been remarkable is really the nonprofits and the wraparound services that come alongside of these foster youth to help them with financial literacy, to help them with education, know, the furthering of their education, to help them to understand how do you use, you know, the housing voucher. And so I think the partnership between public and private and faith based entities has really helped our foster youth to thrive. We have a lot of work to do. As you know, the child welfare system has a lot of brokenness in it, which has created a lot of broken young people. But I will say the drive and the heart that I've seen in our foster youth around the country is very encouraging to me. They just want help to be able to land on their feet and then to be self dependent, you know, and independent. And so I'm encouraged by what I've seen. There's still a lot of work to do, but thank you also for your care for this and your involvement with this. I look forward to visiting pivot when I come to your great state.

And well, if I may, Mr. Secretary, also mention another incredible organization at home, Positive Tomorrows, which is actually a school for homeless children. And they are providing services to the parents of these children to help them get back on their feet. Margaret Creighton and her team at Positive Tomorrows do incredible work as well. So two great entities. I would love to host you in Oklahoma City and showcase the great work being done there.

The last thing, I'm kinda running short on time, but I do have some questions about the department's proposed changes to the claims without conveyance of title program at the FHA. Happy to follow-up in writing on that, but I think there are some concerns around that. I know that you have a tough job. This is not easy. These are difficult and emotional things that you are working with and dealing with. But I appreciate the fact that you are looking to spend taxpayer dollars wisely. It is not always throwing more money at the program. Sometimes it's taking a step back and looking and evaluating and recognizing that doing the same thing over and over again, and expecting different results, is a failure. And looking at this with a fresh set of eyes and being able to identify where the challenges are and try to rectify those is commendable. So thank you for your service. And with that, Mr. Chairman, I yield.

Thank you, Mrs. Bice. Mr. Aguilar.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Clyburn. Mr. Secretary, thank you for being here. I wanted to start by sharing a letter, with you from the city of Fontana, in my district. Actually, Representative Torres and I, both represent portions of Fontana, and, they submitted a community funding project, that I helped secure for an apartment project. I wanted to ask if, we can work together on, seeing if there's a resolution to this to this issue, and I'm happy to give you the letter from the mayor.

Sure.

I think they've they've been in communication with you as well.

Yes, sir.

So I I appreciate that. For sure.

I wanted to turn to FY27. A budget, as we all know, is a statement of our values, and you have heard some of our disappointment with affordable housing programs, continuum of care, family self sufficiency programs, home investment, all of these that have been proposed dramatic cuts under what you've submitted to us. The West End Regional Navigation Center, which is a local success story that we have was only possible through a combination of of this funding. You're likely aware of the bipartisan momentum on housing affordability legislation as well that is surrounded, this congress. Your FY27 budget request, however, does not align, with that focus. This morning, we sat through FY27 hearing with secretary Hegseth where we heard a record proposed $1,000,000,000,000 in defense, a $500,000,000,000 increase to support in part an ongoing war of choice with Iran. We have talked about, not doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. I I hope we can take that logic, to the Pentagon budget as well. The budget that they are increasing would dwarf HUD's entire budget, as you well know. Meanwhile, you've testified that we don't have enough money for these housing programs. We need to do everything we can to ensure access to affordable housing for Americans, and that means American citizen children as well.

And I wanna pick up on a thread, that you had with, Representative Zinke. I'm extremely concerned about HUD's new proposed mixed status rule and that it will result in the displacement of families and children from their homes. In my district, we know of 61 such American citizen children at risk, in my district, California's 33rd. What safeguards do you propose to implement to avoid the displacement of minor children, including eligible citizen children that your rulemaking leaves them out? It takes away funding that is eligible for US citizens. Mr. Zinke asked you when you said it it should be US citizens and you engaged in that. If that is the priority, why engaged in a mixed status rule that goes after that funding and hurts that entire family, including the US citizen aged children.

Well, thank you, congressman. It's good to see you. And, again, with the letter that you will submit, we're happy to work with you in your office on that. When you look at the mixed status rule as secretary, it is my job to make sure that HUD funded housing is going to American citizens and eligible tenants. And that's why we have the data collection on SAVE project and other data collections to make sure that that money is going indeed to American citizens. During the Biden administration, there were people who were signing up for HUD funded housing and stating that they were American citizens, yet they were not adding or giving verification that they were American citizens, and this was overlooked. And then there were others who have become a part of that household who marked on their application, I do not contend my immigration status. And so without verification of them being American citizens, I am not required to give HUD assistance to people that are not eligible.

I'll reclaim my time. I will I will submit to you that people on both sides the aisle feel if people fraudulently fill out their information, they should not be eligible. What I am talking about you're conflating these issues. What I am talking about is US citizen children are not being allowed support through your programs if they have a mixed status family. Let me describe how this works. So a US citizen parent with maybe a lawful permanent resident, other parent or an undocumented other parent and and two US citizen children. Our how it has been interpreted, and the law of our country has said that you do not penalize those kids, that you provide that support.

42 U.S.C. subsection 1436 states well, before I read that code, do you believe rulemaking trumps law? Do you believe rulemaking supersedes US law?

Well, what I believe I mean, we have to uphold the law and enforce the law.

Okay. Well well, US law says if the eligibility for financial assistance of at least one member of a family has been affirmatively established under the program and then it moves forward, any financial assistance made available to that family by the applicable secretary shall be prorated based on the number of individuals for whom there is eligibility. Why are you not doing what happened in Trump 1.0, what happened in the Bush administration, what happened in George H. W. Bush administration. Since 1984, this has been the law of the land. Prorate the money. Help the kids. Help The US citizens. Give them resources and support. I'm not asking you to do anything that hasn't been done in other administrations. What I'm asking you to do is follow the law which supersedes your rulemaking and do not hold US citizens, children to a different standard. Do not displace 61 kids in my district because you have a separate interpretation and because you think we just don't have enough resources. The chairman of the full committee said you're gonna get the resources. I would encourage you to revisit this rule.

Thank you so much.

Mr. Strong.

Thank you Chairman Womack and Ranking Member Clyburn for holding this important hearing today.

Secretary Turner, thank you for being here today. It's good to see you once again. I appreciate your continued emphasis on accountability, fiscal restraint, reducing waste and bureaucracy, and promoting temporary assistance that ultimately leads to self sufficiency and economic independence. As someone who served 26 years balancing real budgets, I understand every tax dollar matters. As my colleagues have mentioned, accountability is not optional. It is fundamental to maintaining public trust.

You mentioned in your testimony that HUD uncovered $1,900,000,000 in misplaced funds, cut hundreds of millions in wasteful contracts, and identified more than $5,000,000,000 in potential payment errors, including payments made to nearly 30,000 deceased tenants. Can you elaborate on how HUD is strengthening oversight while also ensuring these reforms do not unintentionally slow down responsible housing development or create additional burdens for local communities that are already good stewards of federal funding?

Yes, sir. And thank you, congressman Strong. It's good to see you again, sir. As I've alluded to, you know, our CFO and his team are creating a revolutionary system to make sure that we are fully transparent and have accountability as it pertains to HUD funds, both internally and externally. We have a great partnership with OIG to make sure that these things happen because $5,000,000,000 is real money that's taxpayer money in improper payments. So you've all have heard me say from my confirmation hearing to my first time here to now, it is our job to be good stewards over taxpayer dollars, and so we're working literally every day to make sure that happens.

Thanks, Secretary Turner. I was proud to support House Republicans' effort in the Working Families Tax Cut Act to invest more than 100,000,000,000 in opportunity zones nationwide and expand the low income housing tax credit to encourage greater development of affordable rental housing. Lumber prices, sheetrock prices under this administration is down to pre COVID pricing. You look at it, if the feds lower the interest rates, we are positioned for a housing boom that we hadn't seen in many years. Another generation can reach the ability of owning their own home. As you mentioned, mortgage rate affordability is improving and median rents are now at a 4 year low. Less government in most cases is better, and almost all cases is better. When building a fourplex, HUD gets involved and creates a more costly effect per door that's built. I think it's obvious in many cases, you want less government in this process. You ought to build 20 of these units before HUD ever gets involved. But right now they get involved at the point that you build 4, and that creates additional cost per door. In high growth communities like in North Alabama, time is money.

Last year, we discussed how delays in permitting, environmental reviews, and compliance can significantly increase house cost and reduce supply. As a result, in some cases, communities themselves are penalized for failing to spend funds on time, even when those delays are originated with HUD. You committed at that time to improve efficiency and ensuring HUD acts as a partner in project delivery. Can you provide an update on what HUD has done over the past year to streamline permitting, environmental review and compliance process so communities can build housing faster and more affordably.

Yes, sir. And you talk about the regulatory environment. When you build a single family home, 25% of the cost is in regulation. When you build a multi family project, 40% is in regulation. When you have these, the Biden era green energy mandates, that adds up to $30,000 per cost of a home, dollars 100,000 in fees to a single family home. So we started by taking down the affirmatively further in fair housing rule, which made HUD or Washington a national zoning board to restore that back to localities. And we've been encouraged at all of our localities. As I've said before, take an inventory of your regulatory environment so to make it easier for builders to build and buyers to buy. When you bring the cost down, you bring the supply up. When you get the government out of the way and you bring in the private sector and build these public private partnerships, which are very, impactful as we see in opportunity zones, It raises the supply in our country. Again, we need 7,000,000 units of housing. And so, bringing down that regulatory environment is crucial.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.

Mr. Espaillat.

Thank you, chairman Womack and ranking member Clyburn. Thank you Mr. Secretary for being here today. Mr. Secretary, would you say that part of your mission at HUD is to keep families together by keeping a roof over their head.

So I would say part of our mission at HUD is to provide affordable, safe, and sustainable housing and to help more American people achieve the American dream.

Do you think that it that it is a good thing that it is a fundamental American value to keep families together under one roof?

Yes, sir. I believe that family formation is very important. I believe that having a strong family makes stronger communities and strong communities make a stronger state and so on and so forth. So, when a family is split or for whatever reason, a natural disaster for issues within the family structure, it could very well be that that family is weakened.

Am I correct in saying that?

Well, I wouldn't say that that family is weak.

I came from weakened.

Weak.

I came a weakened.

I came from a broken home, a broken family because of decisions, you know, that were made within the family. Okay. It is my goal and desire, you know, that families can stay together. American families can stay together, because I believe that's best, for the children, but you also have to make good decisions within the family.

Correct. To keep that family together, and and every family doesn't make good decisions, and I understand that. But so you you do agree that a a family that's together under the same roof is a living under a good model that that could help that family move forward. And in fact, part of your mission is to make sure that people have access to affordable housing and live under the same roof.

Well, part of our our mission is to make sure that the American people, people that are here in America legally have access to affordable, safe, and sustainable housing?

Well, on on February, it had released a proposed rule that would alter the reading of the Housing and Community Development Act and essentially force mixed status families to choose between access to rental homes, rental assistance, and staying together as a family. In fact, if a family has a mother who's a US citizen, a dad who is a legal permanent resident or undocumented, and 3 children that are also US born citizens, American citizens. You're saying that this family could very well be split. And be divided and not have a roof over their head. What happens to these US born children that are no longer able to stay under one of your housing development or homes.

Well, sir, you know, in section 214 of the Housing and Community Development Act that you just alluded to, it says that the secretary shall not provide assistance to those that are here illegally or they're not eligible tenants.

Well, are US born during children.

This time, you know, you have to verify that you are an American citizen or an eligible tenant.

These are US born children and the mother is a US born Mhmm. Or an American citizen. What happens to a child if a family is split or they're thrown out of a home because of the status of their dad? What happens to that US born child?

Well, it's almost you think what I say, you know, families have to good decisions within the family.

Do you think that that child has the right to have a roof

over Well, their if we're making a decision that impacts our family negatively, then that's a decision that the family made.

That's So the child should pay. The child should pay for this circumstance that there is one member of the family that is undocumented, yet the mother is a US citizen and they are as well. Do you think that child has every right and privilege that is offered by the US constitution?

Sir, I'm the secretary of HUD, and my job is to enforce and follow the law. If a family is breaking the law and making a decision to do so, then everybody in that family suffers. It's unfortunate.

I reclaim my time. I'll reclaim my time. Mr. Chairman, clearly, the secretary is implementing a rule that is splitting families up including US born children.

Mr. Chairman, I am not surprised.

I claim my time. I am not surprised because I've seen US born children make the decision.

It's as well.

Decision.

To game the system and rest.

So I asked the secretary, I asked the secretary that if in fact he is one that supports family values and keeping families together that he revise this rule and do as such, I yield back.

Now it's my pleasure to welcome our newest member to the subcommittee, Mr. Shreve.

Thank you, Chairman Womack, and thank you, Secretary Turner, for joining us. This is my first hearing on this subcommittee. And so I come to this with a fresh set of eyes and an opportunity to kind of come clean up on some of the questions that have been asked by my colleagues. I represent Indiana's 6th District. I'm from Indianapolis, and the district extends both south and east. And so I have the opportunity as I move around my district to have that housing perspective from an urban, suburban, and rural perspective. I've got some faster growing parts of my district and some slower growing communities. Housing challenges, issues, affordability come up everywhere, as Mr. Laurel said, with our seniors, but most especially with first time homebuyers. Young homebuyers aren't so young, they're average around 40 years of age now. My colleague, Ms. Bice, noted some of the changes that FHA had implemented in which first time homebuyers were able to leverage their good payment history on rent or utilities and the implementation of that program, which I've got to believe is helpful.

But my question for you is, Mr. Secretary, how do we expand access to mortgage credit without repeating the mistakes that have been made in the past? Meaning how do we help creditworthy buyers get into homes, but also maintain sound underwriting and protect our taxpayers?

Yes, sir. And welcome. Thank you. Indiana is a championship state as I visited with the Indiana Hoosiers yesterday, and that coach is for real. He's intense 100% of the time. But you know, when you look at this, with the executive order that the president signed to increase the competition in the mortgage industry to bring back the hometown lender, the community bank, if you will, back to the game. As we know, since Dodd Frank community banks were not really in the mortgage game. And so to bring them back and increase their competition is a very encouraging thing. And this is, you know, when you look at this, it's for credit worthy people and those who can qualify. And when you look at the announcement that we made to expand to bring in VantageScore and FICO 10T to help people who have a long rental history so that they could be potential homeowners. And I have heard, you know, from people, you know, we don't want another 2000, 2008, 2009. It doesn't take away the rigor. It doesn't take you have to be a credit worthy borrower. And so I hope that encourages you and those who are listening. It doesn't take that out, but it does expand it so that more people can potentially be homeowners.

I appreciate that. I've got a practical idea that is going to result in probably an easy answer for you here, but I want to put it on the radar of those that are tuned in, my colleagues. Pattern books have taken hold in Indiana. South Bend, Indiana has been particularly successful in introducing these. And it plays into issues of cost and the and the permitting that challenge so much of the provision of housing and housing affordability. In South Bend, the city created a preapproved set of building plans that help small and medium scale housing developments move faster. These can reduce off costs, shorten the permitting timelines, and give builders more predictability. This is not a federal takeover of local zoning and I serve my hometown as a commissioner on Metropolitan Development Commission and I think it's important that we keep that authority local. But it's a very practical tool that communities can use to speed up housing production.

Mister Secretary, would you be willing to work with my office on ways that HUD can support local pattern books as these preapproved plans, especially in in in communities back home, to increase affordable housing supply and and reduce that unnecessary cost?

Well, thank you, congressman. That's why I'm here to, you know, to be a great listener. Yes, my staff will be happy to work with you and your staff to listen to these proposals, because housing affordability is of top of mind for myself, the president, and I know, our colleagues here on this committee.

Mister chairman, I yield back.

Mr. Ciscomani.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Secretary Turner, great to see you again, sir. Thank you so much for the visit to my district a couple of weeks ago. Enjoyed having you there. Mike Sitchins did as well. You certainly have one of the toughest jobs in our federal government right now. It's it's tough for a lot of reasons. I think it's obviously a hot topic for so many families right now, which is affordable housing, housing overall. You're also dealing with, as it was mentioned before, very highly emotional issue for a lot of families and rightfully so. And it's also a path to the American dream for so many families, whether they they have generations in this country or they or they have pursued the American dream through naturalized citizenship, whichever way homeownership is a big sign, would say, of of that American dream and and and part of that journey.

So this is a a big a big deal that that you're working on. I you know, when we were in in Tucson, we talked about strengthening opportunity zones, increasing housing affordability, and expanding access to quality housing across Arizona's Sixth District and and the entire country. We also spoke extensively about the importance of cutting red tape at every level of government and the need to streamline the approval process for housing projects. Yet another reason why the job that you have is is quite challenging because there are a lot of things you can do at your level that we can do at our level in the federal side, but it's highly impacted by what happens at the local level, county level, and state level as well. The layers of bureaucracy of of regulation that many areas have, you know, adds to that cost. And then of course, the responsibility is cast solely on you and your team, in spite of really local communities having responsibility on that as well. So I look forward to working with you on this.

So let me let me start with a quick question here. Hopefully, we can get to a couple of these. In your testimony, you mentioned that the the main goal of HUD is to ensure that the American dream of homeownership is is within reach. For years, the US has failed to build enough housing to keep up with today's demand. This shortage has created a significant need for additional affordable housing in Southern Arizona and communities across the country. We see a common theme. Costs are higher, making it more difficult for families to enter the marketplace. So as as you know, earlier this year, I introduced the FAST Housing Act, which directs HUD to launch a new pilot demonstration program for up to 50 communities in need of affordable housing to compete for federal funding. To qualify communities, we need to pull back regulatory barriers for affordable housing developers to be able to build these with less barriers. And is this legislation something that would align with the priorities that you have at HUD?

Well, Congressman Ciscomani, it's great to see you again, and thank you for hosting me in your district. Wonderful people there in Arizona. And you know, we're happy to work with you, as I've said before, with you and your team to go through this legislation and see how we can work together because housing affordability, the increase in the supply of housing and bringing the cost down, again, is of utmost importance to me and a priority to me.

Yes, sir. Great. And I look forward to doing that, as well.

You know, I'd like to highlight also an effective organization in my district. You met with them, the Gospel Rescue Mission, who you had the chance to meet with. Their Gospel Rescue Mission Center for Opportunity is one of the most effective homelessness providers in Arizona, offering not only shelter for homeless individuals, but also substance abuse services, faith-based counseling, employment training and placements, and more. They even have a mobile cafe, where their program participants are able to gain on-the-job training. Since 2019, they have helped 747 people make a full recovery from addiction, 2,598 people obtained permanent stable housing, also assisted 2,138 people with finding a job, and have provided over a million meals for those in need, all without a single dollar from the federal government or any entity of the government. Let me say that again. All these results without any help from the federal government. That's one of the main points they stressed. What highlights for me this, and I would just like to get your comment on this, is they can track everything. They know their return on investment on what their donors have given and from the land that they've been donated and the donations that they have. They're accountable to the person, to the dollar. They know how many meals they've provided on the dot. They can tell you all this. That's not something that we've been able to get in terms of return for investment, the high dollars that are invested in this in this effort of homelessness and ending it. Can you talk a little bit about the role that a separate nonprofit like this could have in this, and how can we help from where we are promoting programs like this and duplicating them across the country?

Yes, sir. And I was grateful to meet these wonderful people. You know, when you have nonprofits, when you have faith-based entities, faith-based entities have been serving our homeless neighbors and people coming out of addiction and other areas of their life. They've been doing that long before the government. And so I think we need to continue to open up the table and open up the door for faith-based entities and other nonprofits that have results like the entity that you described to bring them in to help. Government doesn't, federal government doesn't have all the answers. We need our private partners and our nonprofit and our faith-based partners to help us to eradicate this issue.

Thank you, sir. Chairman, I yield back.

Alright. Thank you. That completes our round of questions, Mr. Secretary. I'm gonna yield to my friend, the ranking member, for any closing remarks he'd like to make. Jim?

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Let me thank you for having this hearing and thank you for the stewardship that you provide this subcommittee. You know, I have been in government service a long time, and I've developed what I call a triple-A platform of making governmental services accessible, affordable, and accountable. Those are the three A's that I thrive upon.

And I want another—all of us have opinions, some more strong than others. But I just wanna lay out some facts in my closing statement. HUD had a clean financial audit in fiscal years 2024, 2023, 2022, and 2021, and 2020. The four years of the Biden administration and the last year of the Trump administration. From 2021, Biden became president in January. 2024, he left the presidency. All four years, clean audit. Those are the facts. So I just want us—you know, there's enough to disagree over. Let's not just make up the facts. These are the facts. I'll yield back.

Our time has concluded in this hearing. I wanna thank all for being here. There may be some members that would like to submit questions for the record. If you have a question for the record, please submit them promptly so that we can get them to the Secretary. I'd like to remind all of our members that we will be back in action as a subcommittee on Monday at 4:00. We'll have Secretary Buttigieg here representing the Department of Transportation. I hope that we have a full house and can execute that hearing on schedule.

In closing again, Secretary Turner, thank you so much for coming before us. We look forward to working with you as we continue the fiscal year 2027 T.H.U.D. Appropriations process. And with that, this subcommittee stands adjourned. Thank you.