And Senator Gillibrand is en route. She is on her way. We're gonna wait a minute for her, but I can be doing my opening remarks until she gets here.

Welcome, and thank you all for being here. We certainly want to thank the secretary for being here, and we'll get started and try to stay on schedule for everyone today. But I'm pleased to be joined by the Chair Collins and Vice Chair Murray will be here soon and Gillibrand will be here soon and the subcommittee members as we review the fiscal year 2027 budget request for the Department of Housing and Urban Development. Secretary Turner, thank you again for being here and hopefully we can get you down to Mississippi for an SEC football game in the near future. I certainly want to extend that invitation to you.

But as we kick off the FY27 appropriations process, the committee finds itself in a familiar position of uncertainty. There is no top line agreement in place to set the parameters for overall spending across the subcommittees yet. But we're also waiting to see if CBO will share OMB's optimism regarding FHA and Ginnie Mae receipts as well. Adding to this year's uncertainty, the subcommittee will no longer be able to rely on funding from IIJA to help address some of the transportation needs facing our nation. This means the housing challenges and the economic development needs of communities across the country must be balanced against competing demands in the transportation space especially the aviation safety space. To begin funding that balance, we will today focus on the Department of Housing and Urban Development.

The administration's HUD request is $73,500,000,000 compared to $842,000,000,000 for the current funding levels. Within this proposed lower funding level is the elimination of the popular CDBG and home programs. The CDBG programs enjoy strong bipartisan support because it provides flexible funding for critical investments serving low and moderate income communities across the country. This essential resource for state and local government lies at the heart of HUD's community development mission. And at a time when there is a need to increase the supply of affordable housing, the home program serves a critical role as both gap financing in partnership with tax credits and supporting home rehabilitation for low income homeowners. I again find myself disagreeing with OMB over its proposal to eliminate the Section 4 and shop programs which grow local nonprofit capacity and use sweat equity models to promote homeownership.

Mister Secretary, you have previously spoken of the importance of patient capital. Capital in the context of opportunity zones. I believe HUD's self-sufficiency programs are another example of this belief. The investment in breaking cycles of poverty and government dependency through the family self-sufficient and ROSS programs is a patient capital. That is transforming lives. I'm disappointed to once again see OMB propose the elimination of these important programs.

Within the overall FY27 request, the underfunding of existing rental assistance maintenance costs will also need to be addressed. It should be noted that the majority of households benefiting from these programs are seniors, the disabled, and single parent households. Setting aside the question of funding levels, I appreciate that the budget request begins a conversation around how to best maintain the viability of the rental assistance programs. The administration's rental assistance proposals largely fall outside the jurisdiction of this subcommittee and it remains to be seen how the authorizing committees will incorporate those ideas into ongoing work.

However, there are program improvements HUD can undertake now. The lessons of the Moving to Work program are not just around big policy ideas. There is a body of work on streamlining programs, operations, and management, the back office work that I encourage HUD as quickly as possible incorporate into the larger pool of PHAs that do not have MTW status. I also continue to encourage the department to move quickly to resolve the policy direction around the COVID era 30-day notice to vacate proposed rule.

Despite the proposed funding reductions, I am pleased to see that the request continues to support the Melania Trump Foster Youth to Independence Initiative. An initiative first funded by Chair Collins. This crucial funding ensures that when youth exit foster care are at risk of homelessness, they have access to a Section 8 voucher to help stabilize their housing situation. The request also continues funding for the HUD payment integrity initiative to help ensure that taxpayer funds are used appropriately.

I understand and share the administration's concern about rising costs across government spending. Funding decisions should be guided by both fiscal responsibility and careful thought and deliberation. Within the constraints placed on us, the committee stands ready to work with the department to identify a path forward to improve program efficiency and its effectiveness. Reducing undue regulatory burdens and lowering housing production costs are two examples of where Congress and the administration can identify early successes to build on. Too often environmental review requirements differ just enough to require multiple reviews for the exact same projects. Where the department has flexibility, it should use it. And HUD should bring to our attention that any solutions it identifies that require congressional action, the BABA waiver process needs to be clarified and it needs to be improved. This will require coordination between both HUD and OMB, but clear timelines and reasonable data requests as part of that process can result in more affordable housing being built rather than disappearing into the black hole of the federal bureaucracy.

While there's no single right approach to increasing housing production, facilitating the increased use of non traditional building processes and materials such as mass timber that I'm a big fan of is a critical component of any solution's success. I look forward to working with ranking member Gillibrand and our colleagues to write a fiscally responsible THUD bill this year, one that best serves the needs of Americans across the country. Secretary Turner, once again, thank you for appearing before the committee today. I look forward to your testimony and to continuing these important conversations.

I'll now turn to Ranking Member Gillibrand for her opening statement.

Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. I've really enjoyed working with you over this past year for the 2020 bipartisan appropriations bill early this year, and I look forward to continuing our strong working relationship. Thank you, Secretary Turner, for joining us today to discuss your fiscal year 2027 budget and your request for the Department of Housing and Urban Development. I don't have to tell you because you've traveled around the country. Working people are doing everything right. They're working longer hours. They're raising their families and they're serving in their communities. And yet, more and more Americans can't afford a safe place to live. Young people cannot afford to buy their first home. Seniors are being priced out of communities they helped build and showing up in shelters at record rates. Teachers, nurses, firefighters, and veterans are struggling to pay rent in the neighborhoods where they work. Unfortunately, your proposed budget only makes the problem worse. It would result in less affordable housing around the country for hundreds of thousands of families. The budget eliminates key programs that our states, local governments, and faith-based not-for-profits rely on each day to house, feed, and protect our most vulnerable neighbors. Housing affordability is not just an economic issue, it's a moral issue. Stable housing affects everything: your child's education, your health, your safety, your ability to build wealth, and your faith in the future. But under this administration, HUD has too often been treated as an afterthought.

Instead of investing $200,000,000,000 on a war that Americans never asked for, instead, we could provide housing for every American living in a shelter and fully repair and modernize every single public housing unit in New York and build over 100,000 affordable housing units in New York City. Instead of meeting this crisis with the seriousness and work that is needed, this administration has chosen cuts and chaos. Whether it's through intentional administrative dysfunction or dismantling core programs for the most vulnerable people, the ripple effects of that chaos alone is hurting our ability to do the one thing we all agree on: building more housing. As if this weren't enough, the president's continued pursuit of tariffs has increased the cost of building homes. These policies are driving up prices and delaying projects. We already did not have enough skilled workers to meet demands, and now the administration's immigration policies are reducing the workforce that literally builds American homes. Drilling further down, every developer and provider that I've met with tells me that they're experiencing more uncertainty than ever before. There's nothing banks and investors like less than uncertainty. Affordable housing projects are getting more expensive and they're stalling. Investors and underwriters are requiring reserve funds, costly lines of credit, and adding other real costs all because they no longer have faith in the administration and HUD.

So what should we be doing instead? First, we need a massive, a massive national commitment to building more housing: affordable housing, workforce housing, starter homes, and supportive housing. We need HUD rental assistance, HOME, and housing trust fund dollars to continue to build the deeply affordable housing that is most scarce in our country. We need to support local governments that are committed to reducing barriers to building more housing so that our constituents can live near transit, jobs, and schools. Second, we need a fully funded and fully functional HUD. When HUD cannot process grants or Build America, Buy America waivers efficiently, affordable housing projects stall and get more, not less, expensive. When HUD can't quickly turn around the funds that Congress appropriates, thousands of New Yorkers agonize over falling into homelessness in a matter of just a few short months. When HUD ignores the law, nonprofits are left waiting for funds for months, faced with a host of terrible choices: taking out costly loans, cutting back services, laying off staff, or closing altogether. When HUD can't properly enforce anti-discrimination laws, families, seniors, and individuals with disabilities suffer. When HUD is falling down on its responsibility to address the mold, vermin, lead paint, and other health hazards in assisted housing, the health, education, and future of our children are jeopardized.

Housing is foundational to a strong economy. If people can't afford to live where they live—if people can't afford to live where they work—the economy weakens. If families spend half their income on rent, they can't save, can't invest, certainly can't start a business. If young Americans believe homeownership is permanently out of reach, we erode faith in upward mobility and the American dream itself. America is capable of solving these big problems. We've done it before, but it requires leadership grounded in competence, compassion, and facts, not division, scapegoating, or dismantling the very institutions and programs that are responsible for helping people. This requires investment, ones that this committee are willing to make. I want to work together to solve these problems. But your fiscal '27 HUD budget does not meet this moment. Mr. Secretary, I look forward to hearing from you and thank Chair Hyde-Smith for her leadership and dedication.

Thank you, Senator Gillibrand. And now, we're going to turn to Mr. Secretary.

Well, good morning, everyone. And thank you, Chair Hyde-Smith, Ranking Member Gillibrand, and Chairwoman Collins and this distinguished committee of members. I really appreciate you and this opportunity to testify on the President Trump'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. 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 reigns in wasteful spending, stops the ballooning of federal welfare programs, and continues HUD's mission-minded focus on serving the American people.

The budget proposes to end the Community Development Block Grant program, also known as CDBG, which was created to revitalize urban communities but has lost focus and often supports activities like equity officers in Chicago and equity lens framework in Denver and requirements in Massachusetts tied to DEI initiatives. Ending CDBG allows us to focus funding on programs 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 indeed about equal rights, but it's not about equal rights.

On homelessness, the data is clear. By the end of the Biden administration, HUD spending on Continuum of Care surged by more than 50%, yet street homelessness rose by 20% since 2020. Despite record funding, communities reported record homelessness. Since serving as secretary, I've raised the concerns about the Housing First model, an approach which fails 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 taxpayer dollars and priorities that serve our nation's most vulnerable people. The budget also 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 1 in 4 experience homelessness. I've already directly heard from foster youth. They are not asking for handouts. They're asking for tools to achieve independence. They're fighting to stand on their own two feet and help their peers break the cycle and build a brighter future 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 per week along with 5-year time limits for able-bodied Americans in HUD rental assistance programs. This helps individuals graduate from government assistance and makes room for vulnerable Americans that are on wait lists. The budget also includes $160,000,000 for 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 error under the Biden administration. This is unacceptable. Accountability is not optional. It's a fundamental public trust. We're also making HUD more efficient by relocating our 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 delinquent and deferred 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 carries $30,000,000 for our program integrity initiative or HUD Unified Grant System Project Hugs, which will build on HUD's sub-recipient report and pilot to support data analysis and identify improper payment so we can better combat waste, fraud, and abuse.

Under this administration, HUD has indeed delivered. Since January 2025, we have supported home ownership for 1.2 million American households with more than 70% being first-time buyers. That is what focused and disciplined 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, Madam Chair, 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 honor to be here with you all this morning. Thank you, ma'am.

Thank you very much. Now, we're going to go to questions and I recognize Senator Collins.

Thank you very much, Madam Chair. Mr. Secretary, welcome.

Thank you.

All of us agree that we should collaborate toward the goal of increasing housing supply. The lack of affordable housing holds back both community and economic development as well as affects family stability and workforce availability. In Maine, there are far too many of our police officers, firefighters, teachers, nurses, and others who cannot afford to live in or near the communities in which they are employed. Economic development is also strengthened, I realize, by the objectives of the Build America, Buy America Act, or BABA. Unfortunately, HUD's implementation of BABA stands in the way far too often of building affordable housing. In March, a Maine newspaper reported that 10 Maine projects that would add more than 400 units of affordable housing were fully permitted and ready to go except that they lacked HUD BABA waivers. Although OMB's guidance excludes privately owned homes such as multifamily housing properties from BABA's definition of infrastructure, HUD's guidance continues to find projects with five or more units as public infrastructure. HUD's waiver process relies on the individual project-based waivers rather than product-based. A review of the waivers submitted to HUD reveals multiple waiver requests for heat pumps and HVAC systems. Cases where there simply are not BABA compliant production. Developers in Maine have shared with me that while it would be a great use of a product specific waiver. They are instead required to resubmit waiver requests for the very same parts and components for each individual project. So, that results in months long delays and it leads to unmanageable cost increases and it can place financing especially through tax credits at risk. So it feels like HUD's waiver process for BABA is a black hole where affordable housing dies. What can you do to streamline and improve this process so that it is not an obstacle to building affordable housing?

Yes, ma'am. Thank you, Madam Chair and as you know, when we came in to this administration, we really did inherit a a broken system as it pertains to BABA. There were no processes in place so that we could process these waivers and streamline this system and so our team has been working very intentionally and hard every day to make sure we can streamline this process and we're happy to take your input as I'm here today to listen, to your input and work with you and your office and members of this committee. You know the president's commitment, obviously, as I do, you know, that we, source materials here in America. But from the HUD standpoint, we want to streamline this process. And we're working very hard to get these systems in place for the waivers. So thank you for your input, and I I will happy to work with you and take your advice on this.

Thank you. I think real progress could be made in that area.

Yes, ma'am.

Mr. Secretary, enabling seniors to age in place is critical for their health and well-being and accommodating their preferences. It also helps the stability of local communities and it is much less expensive than moving an older adult to an assisted living facility. Maine is the oldest state in the nation by median age. And for these reasons, I authored the program where I when I held the chairwoman's position years ago at HUD for low-cost, low-barrier, high impact home modifications that simply would allow seniors to remain in their own homes and often times, these are minor low-cost modifications such as grab bars and railings and replacing doorknobs and faucets as well as in some cases, bigger modifications such as replacing an existing bathtub with a walk-in tub or building an outside wheelchair ramp.

All of these, however, are far less expensive and far more accommodating to the older person's wishes than moving into an assisted living facility. They want to remain in their own homes if possible. Unfortunately, in the case of replacing tubs in homes I'm talking about or anchoring wheelchair ramps on existing property footprints. HUD has determined these activities require environmental reviews. Once again, that results in time delays, cost increases, and discourages proven strategies to help our seniors remain in their own homes. To correct this problem by included language in the FY26 bill to ensure that the improvements were not subject to unreasonable environmental reviews. I also included working with my colleagues including the chair and ranking member to adjust the cap on the cost of home modifications to account for annual changes in the cost of labor, materials, and supplies. Mr. Secretary, do you support these important common sense improvements and will they be fully implemented as part of the next funding competition?

Well, thank you Chair Collins and you know, I understand and do appreciate your priority and your care for our senior citizens as we've talked about before. We want to make sure at HUD that we providing as much flexibility as you alluded to as we can to make sure that our seniors are taken care of and give this flexibility to builders that are building these senior projects and again, we do look forward to continue working with you on this to make sure that our senior citizens is around our country. In particular, in your great state are taken care of.

Thank you.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you. Now, Senator Gillibrand is recognized for her questioning.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Secretary Terry Turner, you and I have a lot of shared values. We also have a lot of shared goals and I listened to your opening statement about those shared goals and I just don't agree with how you're getting there because I don't know I mean, I get it to say, we don't want to fund programs if they're not working well enough. We don't want to fund programs if they're creating dependency and they're not moving people to where they need to be in society. I fully understand that but I'd like to see the results. If your way not funding all these programs is better than the way this committee has tried to address homelessness over decades. I want to see the results. Where is the homeless data report? It is over a year late and that would give us the data to see if your theory about how to address homelessness actually works.

Actually, well, you, Ranking Member Gillibrand. And you're right. We do share, some of these values. The way that we get there, I think, differ at times, but we're happy to continue. And we've had a great working relationship. And what I will say and I offer this is number one, the point in time report in the Biden administration HUD said that we had 770,770 people in America that were homeless at one given time. And this is what record funding. So, we have record funding but yet we have an increase in.

Right. So, what your, what is your record?

Yes, sir.

You've had this job for well over a year. I just want to know. Did you get the number down? Do we have 700, zero homeless still? Or is it a million or a 0.5? So I get you wanna do things differently.

And this committee will support you as long as the goals are good. Okay. Where's the results? The report is delayed over a year. Over a year.

Indeed.

Can I can I offer this to you?

Yes. But we are no. I just don't wanna hear about what you don't like about the Biden administration. You're in charge. You have a vision. Let's see it. Let's see the results.

And you know what? I do. I thank God that I'm in charge so we can do something different. Because the plays that were ran before I got here, they failed. I've been here. Let me speak, if you will. I got here. You said I have been here a little bit over a year, but you all had, during the Biden administration, four years.

Stop talking about Biden. Talk about your This is so this is so up. This is so inaccurate Ranking member, you're brain. And doesn't let this committee do our job.

Chair, if I may, the point in time report would be out by now if we did not have an unprecedented government shutdown. It would be out by now. If we weren't in constant litigation, it would be out by now. HUD has a great form. We have a great team, and we move very expeditiously.

In what way does litigation not Okay. Mister secretary shutdown.

I think you're obfuscating.

I'm not What way I'm just taking the facts.

Your report?

A government shutdown helps us to not be able to work.

Was a government shutdown. But tell me about the litigation.

Point in time report would be out right now if we did not have a government shutdown.

Irregardless of all of that, during the Biden administration, record funding.

Oh my god. If you talk about it's like Record funding. Like two children saying, I didn't do it. My brother did it. Stop with these excuses.

That's what I have to go off of.

Explain. Record funding. Your record. Record homelessness. We have to do something different.

Switch topic. If after I'm gone Switch topic.

I I'm gone, if it's still record funding and record homelessness, you're going to same thing.

Late for the families that are suffering in New York It is gone. It's gone. It's homeless little girl who has to have a girl scout troop just for other homeless little girls because that's all they have. That's the only consistency they have in their life.

So I get. Have a different vision.

It's happened in my family. Yes, ma'am. I do understand.

To know.

I'm not talking about what I heard. I'm talking to you about what I know. And what I do know, the housing first model failed. Record funding and record homelessness. I don't care what administration it is. You would not run your own household budget this way.

You would not run your business

I get it.

I just wanna see results.

Run your business this way. You would not have a business. So why is this okay for the American taxpayer? It's not okay.

Here's another question. Another question. Totally different topic.

We agree that the one of the programs that we think does work is being able to provide vouchers, tenant protection vouchers. Tell me, will HUD issue guidance for these tenant protection vouchers?

Senator Gillibrand, I have talked to my team, and they have ensured me that we will take care of those tenants that are in need for their voucher situation.

You issue the guidance for the vouchers? Yes or no?

Take care of those that are in need. My team has assured me.

Okay. And we're happy to work with you. If you want more information

I do want more information. I want much more information.

Care of those tenants that are in need.

So here you go. You've made a promise. You're gonna take care of keep it. You wanna take a different tact. You don't wanna use the vouchers is what I hear you're saying.

I didn't say that. I did not say that.

Well, let me know because we would like the vouchers to be used, number one. And if you're not gonna use them and you're gonna take care of them, I would like to know within the next few months that you have done so.

Done.

Thank you, ma'am.

Thank you.

Secretary Turner, you know, I've always been interested in mass timber and across the country, we obviously, we've discussed many times insufficient housing and rising cost have created housing challenges and contributed to the growing housing crisis. Tackling housing affordability successfully requires producing more housing which in turn involves a combination of local zoning decisions as well as scaling up the use of non traditional building materials especially when it comes to the use of mass timber. Mass timber multifamily housing is demonstrating an ability to lower construction cost and reduce the time it takes to build which makes an ideal approach for helping increase affordable housing production throughout the country. However, I'm concerned that most of the thinking around mass timber is happening as a resource management issue at USDA Forest Service and that we are missing an opportunity on the housing side to promote and incorporate the actual use of mass timber and getting this started. Mister secretary, how can HUD better collaborate with the Forest Service, University Research, State Forest Commission, and mostly important builders and developers to make mass timber multifamily housing a more mainstream building choice?

Well, thank you, Chairwoman Hyde Smith. And as you know, I'm familiar with the mass timber to CLT project product, I'm sorry, and working with the Secretary of Agriculture and Forest Service and your office were more willing to do so to make sure the use of this mass timber, which is a great product that I'm familiar with in building multifamily. So happy to hear your suggestions and working with USDA and our Forest Service program.

Thank you for that. And I, like you, was very proud to join the First Lady in supporting the housing needs of youth exiting foster care so they're not forced into homelessness. We've seen this so many times across college campuses and many other places. And I would be remiss not to acknowledge the truly transformative role that Chair Collins has played in this initiative and the broader response to youth homelessness. Ensuring successful partnerships with child welfare agencies providing housing support without creating housing dependency is certainly an approach that we should try and replicate as often as possible.

Mister Secretary, your budget request includes proposals to clarify eligibility and to allow for the reallocation of funds that no longer have an identified need. Based on the conversations and roundtables you have had with youth, could you explain why these changes are needed?

Yes, ma'am. And it has been a great privilege to travel around and meet with our foster youth and partner with yourself and and other members, Senator Collins and the First Lady, in taking care of our foster youth as they age out of the foster care systems. As I said, you know, many of them end up homeless, a quarter of them, if you will, end up homeless after aging out. And so we wanna make sure that those foster youth that are in need of these housing vouchers to land on our feet have them. Every state is different. Some states use more. Some use less, as you know. But we have been working in great collaboration across the country and continue to work with your office and the first lady to make sure that our foster youth are taken care of.

Thank you for that. And Mr. Secretary, as you know, successful affordable housing projects often need to take advantage of multiple funding and financing resources to get the overall picture done. There's many ways to get there and it can look different in every circumstance. This could take the form of grants, loans, tax credits, and other incentives. As a former executive director of the White House Opportunity and Revitalization Council during president Trump's first term, I know that you are deeply familiar with one of the better ways to incentivize investments, opportunity zones, an idea championed by Senator Tim Scott. These opportunity zones are almost exclusively census tracks that include low income communities with higher poverty rates, lower medium incomes, and a greater need for economic revitalization. Mister Secretary, there are 100 opportunity zones in Mississippi. And while I do not expect you to know the particulars of any specific one in my state, I am curious to hear from you how an opportunity zone designation in combination with other funding financing sources can increase the affordable housing supply for states like mine.

Yes, ma'am. Thank you for your question. So, opportunity zones, as you know, have been very transformative in our country and the simple of it is that public private partnerships really are what make Opportunity Zone successful and so I'm looking forward to the continuation and the permanent seat of Opportunity Zones in our country as it pertains to operating businesses and creating more affordable homes. So, public private partnerships are crucial and key in opportunity zones.

Thank you for putting those pieces together because that is so critical as we well know. Thank you for that answer. Now, Senator Murray, you're recognized for your questions.

Thank you very much, madam chair, mister secretary. You know, addressing the homeless crisis is a top priority for my state and for many states across the country and I am really concerned because your department has ignored the law and done the opposite. HUD is required to prioritize proven strategies to reduce homelessness, including permanent housing, permanent supportive housing, and rapid rehousing. But last year, you limited our local government's use of federal grants for those exact proven solutions, at least until a federal judge and congress stopped you. And in my state, you could have cut the federal funding to to house people who are homeless by more than half. Nationwide, your changes could have put more than a 170,000 households on the streets. So we required you to renew grants and get this money out the door. And I have to tell you, communities are still waiting far too long. Can you commit to us that you will move quickly to renew every continuum of care grant that expires this year as required by the language in our '26 appropriations bill?

Well, thank you, Senator Murray, Vice Chair Murray. It's good to see you again. And as you know, we have got quarter one and quarter two funds out and quarter three and quarter four funds also will go out but I will say. From last year. Yes, ma'am. I will say that we do have a different approach to this And I believe that the housing first model is a failed model. I believe that the housing first model, part of it, to house people, is important, but we can't stop there. We have to get the root of housing and homelessness, and that is mental addiction, drug addiction, domestic violence, and things of this nature. So I believe we have to treat people, get them transformed, and back out to a life of self sustainability.

Well, mister secretary, our bill requires you to get this money out. And I'll just tell you all of the data, all of the research shows that economic factors are driving homelessness. It's not because of housing first. If every American is feeling the strain on housing, it's really hard to believe that those with the least struggle the most, which is what's happening. And Housing First isn't housing only. There's case management. There is substance use. There's mental health. There's employment services. That's all part of the housing first model too, which you're ignoring. So I think it's really important that we don't demonize the people who are struggling today in this country for very real reason and work on building more housing.

So let me move on because I want to ask you about another thing. Under your leadership, local governments and nonprofits in my state and actually in the country have been left to navigate illegal and in many cases, really bizarre new grant conditions like requiring a housing provider to say they don't believe trans people exist. Last year, as you know, a federal court prohibited you from requiring or enforcing the grant conditions, but you are continuing to insert illegal conditions into every grant agreement and entities cannot access these grant funds until agreeing to illegal terms. So how exactly is that complying with the court's order?

At HUD, ma'am, we will, being in accordance with every order from the court, we will enforce and uphold the law. We will work with congress, but we also will enforce the Fair Housing Act in a way that we've been called to enforce it as the laws are written on the book. And that's my job as secretary to ensure that we are enforcing the Fair Housing Act.

Well, I just have to tell you, I don't see how these conditions are complying with the court order. So, I have a big disagreement that but I also so want you to know that our nonprofits who are trying to serve these communities, it is their goal are wasting a lot of time today trying to understand the shifting legal landscape and the bizarre requirements out there. And you have refused to sign agreements or release notices of funding opportunities for funds that expire five months from now. Running down the clock, it's what it feels like to everybody out there. And all of this comes after you pushed out over a third of the HUD employees last year, so there's less people to be able to get this grants out. And it appears to a lot of people who are talking to me that you're breaking the department, not making sure that people get housing.

Well, I'm, if I may, ma'am and I have to correct you. We did not push out anyone.

Okay. Well, we're looking at semantics. A lot of people at your department will disagree about why.

It was voluntarily the DRP program and people took it to people that want to be at HUD or at HUD and I'm happy.

Would you agree that you have a lot of people that

had to do the government shutdown has kept us from getting these NOFOs out. Our team is working tirelessly every day to get these NOFOs out and we will get them out and we have an adequate, sufficient, well working team at across our agency.

People at your department.

We're doing whatever reason. To work at HUD. We have a winning formula. At HUD.

A lot people to not get their grants along with all this confusing language.

No, ma'am. It's not because of our people. We have the right people in the right place doing the right thing.

disagreement. Okay. You said in your opening statement that taxpayer dollars are finite, but president Trump's budget, his old budget, actually sends war funding through the roof as we all know. So instead of blowing a half $1,000,000,000,000 more on war funding, I wanna ask you, if we weren't doing that, how many more units of housing could we build?

Vice chair Murray, the president is very intentional and very precise on what his national security directors are. My job is to run HUD.

No. Yep. I know.

I'm focused on is housing affordability with all due respect. The president is clear on what he wants to do. My job is to run HUD and to take down the regulatory environment, which I hear from the industry experts as I travel, the regulations and the regulatory environment are crippling building in our country.

You you have a different view than I do. And I just want you to know that if we use that money for housing, we could build 1,100,000 affordable housing units. That is a huge dent in the 7,000,000 units of housing that you yourself say that our country needs. But your budget actually cuts housing. So let me ask it a different way. Can you help more families with housing with 84,000,000,000 or with 73 and a half billion?

Here's what I'll say.

Here's what I say.

In the previous years before we got here, housing affordability.

Well, Okay. This is the go to answer for every industry. Go back to my

As a secretary, I'll be giving you the facts.

Your administration, sir.

Interest rates were up. Inflation was up. Regulatory environment was crippling.

It doesn't matter the administration.

These are the facts, ma'am. And so I'm dealing with these facts now.

To for every secretary.

Mortgage.

Asking you about what you could do.

Yes, ma'am.

with this housing and how we address the number one issue facing many of my constituents and many people in the country? And the answer is you could do a lot more work and help families with housing with funding that went to housing and not 1 and a half trillion dollars for a war. Thank you very much.

Thank you, ma'am.

Senator Capito.

Thank you. And and thank you, mister secretary. I've met with you personally. I know your, compassion for all kinds of people, but particularly those who can lease afford, don't know how, and and need need assistance and so I know you're working day and night to make sure.

that that those folks were taken care of. So, you you kind of teed me up here for bureaucracy and regulatory issues. I want to talk about the FHA. Within your existing authority, without new legislation, mister secretary, are there changes, maybe three changes that you could implement in the next twelve months to make FHA multifamily financing faster, simpler, and less costly.

Yes, ma'am.

Yes, ma'am and as you know, we are taking inventory of every program at HUD including FHA. Our number one deal is to secure, you know, the market and make sure the FHA is not only solvent but that it's strong, that we anticipate any delinquencies, any foreclosures that come up to make sure that our staff is up to date and our Ginnie Mae and FHA for that for that matter and we have a team that's done a tremendous job And what we're doing now too, and I just talked to our team this morning, is really streamlining. This is the number one thing, streamlining the processes in FHA for our constituency and clients that use FHA to make sure that the process is streamlined to make sure that we're taking out any regulations and fees that make it harder to get a FHA loan and so I would say those are the top three things that we're working on currently in FHA.

Well, many stakeholders are continuing to advocate for an FHA mortgage insurance premium reduction which there that would take out some of the cost. What is, what are you doing to evaluate the possibility of that?

We're doing. We are evaluating that and I've heard the arguments on both sides. As you can imagine.

Mhmm.

I get the arguments for keeping it the same and the arguments for changing it. And as our team, we have a a brilliant team in FHA. And so these are things that we talk about, as a team. A decision has not yet been made. As I said before, my number one priority is to make sure that the market is secure and that FHA is strong, not only towards statutory limit, but to be prepared, you know, for the fluctuations in our market in our country.

Mhmm. And then last question at FHA. Services are servicers, mortgage servicers are facing liquidity constraints and the question is, are there funder funding or operational or a technological constraints that are limiting your ability to get those outstanding taxes and insurance advances out quicker so they can recycle?

Well, no, ma'am. I wouldn't say that. I'd we like I said, we are streamlining our processes and we're being very deliberative in this process, but I'm happy to work with you and hear more about what you're hearing from the industry so that we can get our team on board.

Yes, ma'am. Thank you. Now, I want to talk about CDBG. You mentioned in your opening statement, well, it's zeroed out. You mentioned fraud and ineffectiveness. I can tell you from where I sit in West Virginia, it has been a very effective program. We've used it for infrastructure upgrades and and I I think it's interesting here. It was it says, this program was created to in your comments to revitalize urban communities. I don't think I have one urban community. I do have one or two that are above 50,000 but it we're barely there. So, I'm talking rural America here and the and the use of those funds. We've used them to help the community directly and it creates jobs and drives long term growth. So, how do you think that you're going to replace this funding and I know we want to be good stewards of the American taxpayer dollar here but from my viewpoint, this has been an effective program.

And then and yes, ma'am. I do hear you and I've talked some of your colleagues and some of your colleagues in the house. Some states do better than others. But overall, at large, the CDBG program has not been used for its intended purpose either urban or rural and so at HUD, we do have a lot of complex programs that we work with on a single everyday basis. And so we want to focus on those programs that actually carrying out that mission. And what I've encouraged our colleagues to do is to really work with the state and local entities in your state to not just replace CDBG, but to work on infrastructure and building in rural and urban areas. And so we want to focus on those programs that are actually carrying out the results overall.

Yeah. I mean, I would rather see rather than throw the baby out with the bathwater here, what I'd rather see is sort of what you're just saying. Focus on the ones that are working. I do like the initiatives on waste fraud and and you cite some pretty stunning figures in terms of what what $3,030,000,000 dollars let's see, or money that went out to to people that weren't 30, zero deceased tenants. I mean, that to the taxpayer is tough to see but on a program like CDBG which has been very helpful in our state and in our communities and maybe it is because we're doing it exactly right and I hope that's the case. Take the good lessons, the good and and translate those to the rest of the country where you see things are falling short.

Thank you for what you're doing and thank you for being here with us today.

Thank you.

Thank you, ma'am.

Senator Schatz.

Thank you, Chair and Ranking Member. Mr. Secretary, I want to thank you for your support for Maui specifically with the community development block grant, disaster recovery funding.

Yes, sir.

And we really are grateful for your help, and for initiating the contact. I mean, we were going to call you in any case. I'm, as you know, I'm not shy about advocating for the needs of disaster victims, but you were right on it, and I just appreciate that.

This is the easiest softball you're going to get all morning. Do I have your commitment to continue to help the people of Maui?

Yes, sir. Happy to work with you. I've enjoyed working with you thus far and we'll continue.

Thank you.

I want to talk about the pro housing program which was also zeroed out. Now, look, lots of things get zeroed out and lots of things get restored via this committee and I anticipate this is also going to be one of those, but I just want to make the case. You said to Senator Murray that there is a regulatory environment that is stifling the construction of new housing. I agree with that. And because we're not an authorizing committee and because we don't do county ordinances regarding zoning and restrictive covenants and all the rest of it, the only thing we can do is use some federal resources to incentivize states and counties to deregulate. And that's what this program is for. And so I'm hoping we can work together to modify the pro housing program as it is currently operating. I know you had a concern about racial equity being one of the criteria for grants. That's fine, that's your prerogative, you get to change the grant criteria. But this is still a very smart use of federal resources. If we have all decided, and it seems to me in the last four or five years on a bipartisan basis we've decided, there is a national housing shortage and the federal government is not blameless in this. It's maybe not primarily our responsibility, but we're not blameless in this. And to the extent that we fund all these programs, the throughput problem ends up being we can't construct anything because of all these rules. So here we got this bipartisan program enacted on a unanimous basis to try to nudge states and counties to like get it together. So I'm hoping we can work through whatever objections you have to the sort of current iteration, and get to a place where it's consistent with your goals, with the President's goals, because this is one of the very few areas where we are not in disagreement as the two major political parties. So I would hate for this to get swept up in the sort of anti DEI stuff, or any other sort of culture war stuff. You have been very effective in avoiding all that nonsense, and I'm afraid that this thing is going to get swept up in that. Can you comment on how you think the pro housing program may continue to be effective?

Well, I appreciate that, Senator Schatz, and I assure you I'm not going to get swept up in anything but my job and the priorities that I do have. And you're right about the DEI part of it. But the biggest concern that I have, as I said before to you and your colleagues is, you know, we have a lot of complex programs at HUD. And when I first came in, as I sat before the confirmation committee and I sat before you all last year, you know, my job is really to take an assessment of all of these programs and make sure that the money that you all as appropriators, that you appropriate, that we're being good stewards and that we're using it for the intended mission.

Sure.

And that's—

your— that's your point. Then and then I'll finish and let you go, sir.

I'm sorry. But pro thus far has been awarded about a $185,000,000, but only 8,000,000 has been spent. And to me, that's not a good use and a good stewardship of taxpayer money. We could refocus really working with the locals and states. And so 185,000,000 awarded, but only 8,000,000 spent. I don't think is a good stewardship at this point.

Yeah, I think some of that has to do with the delay in NOFOs and RFPs and executing on the federal government side. Then the counties get the— mostly counties get the money, and the fact that this money hasn't been spent is a pipeline problem, not a policy problem.

The other thing I'd say is that I just want your commitment, it is your prerogative to determine the administration of the program, it is your prerogative to propose changes to any program or any budgetary level. It is our prerogative to enact what we want, and after that, you still have to implement.

Are we in agreement on that?

For sure.

Indeed.

Okay, thank you.

And then just finally, can you talk about the need for CDBG Doctor authorization? We have this program which we definitely run, right? But there's no authorizing statute and as a practical matter, that means that communities that want to recover have to wait for an act of congress, and that could be a political matter, or I have to wait for a red state or a blue state to have a sufficiently damaging disaster before I get my Doctor money for my constituents, and everyone's starting from scratch every single time. The House Financial Services Committee in their new Road to Housing draft removed the unanimously passed CDBG Doctor authorization from their bill, and I'm just wondering, can we keep the CDBG Doctor thing separate and apart from whatever other fights are happening about, you know, hedge funds owning housing or crypto and the federal reserve. Like this is just something we should do because it's not as though we're not spending money on CDBGDR. We're just doing it in the stupidest possible way because we have no statutory framework to do it in a smart way. So, you please agree with me?

Happy to work with you and this committee. You know, as a steward of HUD, you know, I've traveled to many places that have experienced disasters. And so however we can get the resources to the people in those disasters in efficient appropriate manner, I will carry that out.

Thank you.

Senator Hoeven.

Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. Secretary, good to see you again. Thanks for coming out to our great state. Really appreciate you being out there.

Yes, sir.

In the FY26 THUD approps bill, I was able to secure language directing HUD to restructure or forgive the Grand Forks Housing Authority's $2,000,000 loan for La Grave Place. And doing so will free them up to make improvements at that facility which is a 66 unit affordable housing project in Downtown Grand Forks and the Grand Forks Authority has been working with your staff to implement that FY26 language. So, my question is, will you commit to working with the Grand Forks Housing Authority to implement the language we passed in a timely manner so that we can provide this much needed updated housing for the Grand Forks community?

Well, Senator Hoeven, it is good to see you again, sir and thank you for having me out to your great state and as you alluded to which is very simple. We have been working very closely with your staff and we'll continue to do so to make sure that this is done appropriately.

Yes, sir.

I just have to say as an aside, at that press conference when you were with the president and RFK and our former governor now Secretary Doug Burgum, all of who are in great shape and they were talking about who could go 50 miles and who would win that deal. I mean, hands down. I mean, it would not I mean, you played professional football for 10 years, and these guys are all standing around like they could even, like, stay there with them. I mean, come on. Right? And you were so good, but you didn't say, come on, guys. I mean, really, I just I just was laughing as I watched you.

It is always fun. You know, I'd rather let the film do the talking.

No kidding. But you know, say, hey. There's a professional football player, guys. Come on. Anyway, I couldn't resist bringing it up.

Continuum of Care Grants. You guys have been really good now getting those going again and I want to thank you for that.

Thank you, sir.

You were out and saw some of the incredible programs. For example, that we have in Fargo that provide housing for victims of abuse and and so it's not only the housing but the additional services. You know, they're saving lives and they're saving lives of of women who've been battered and and and they're saving lives of children who, you know, have faced a terrible abuse and so you know how incredible those programs are. As you continue to to approve those grants and and we appreciate that your your work on getting that done. Renewals for quarter three and quarter four as required. You know, we we passed legislation to make sure this gets done. Update me on approvals for quarter three and quarter four of this year.

Yes, sir. We I did talk to our team at HUD and they have assured that quarter three and quarter four will go out in a timely manner in a manner that it's supposed to go out.

Good.

Yes, sir.

And and then going forward, if if you are looking at changes to the continuum of care grants, would you commit to ensuring that providers like the ones we visited in North Dakota will be able to continue effectively serving these vulnerable populations. Some of which I described, you know, without disruptions in their funding from Pfizer.

Yes, sir. As you know, I I can only speak about it to a certain point because it is in litigation but we will continue to focus on those wraparound services as those, in your great state are given to help make sure that people are transformed and in self sufficiency.

Well, and and I think this is why it's so important that you've been good about getting out and seeing these programs because I know you have a real heart for what you're doing here and seeing it really helps you understand, you know, the programs that are doing a great job. Yes. But then also probably understanding where we need to do better and and that goes to my last question which is just in dealing with combating waste, fraud, abuse. Can you discuss how, you know, the proposal that you've got, the 30,000,000 you've got in the budget here would be implemented to and and how you kind of track, you know, the savings and making sure you're you're finding the fraud where it it and stopping the programs that should be stopped. Just kinda give us a a summary of how you're going emerge.

And you're alluding to our, our HUD Unified, Grant System with Irv Dennis. And what this will do is help us to be very transparent and track. It's in particular at the sub recipient level, so that we are good stewards over taxpayer dollars, and holding PHAs and others accountable. But also, with this, it's the first time that a dashboard such as this, has been created and the pilot program is done. And we also were able to help other agencies to do the same to make sure we're rooting out waste, fraud, and abuse. We have a great partnership with our OIG office, to make sure that we're carrying this out.

Again, thanks, secretary. Appreciate your work.

Thank you, sir.

Thank you, madam chair.

Okay. Senator Coons?

Thank you, Chair Hyde-Smith and Ranking Member Gillibrand. I'm grateful for your leadership and proud of the FY26 bill that this subcommittee passed that makes strong investments in critical housing programs and rejected proposed drastic cuts and reauthorization and madam chair, I I agree with you that CDBG is a critical part of HUD's mission and look forward to working with you to ensure that whatever cuts OMB may be proposing around programs like shop that I've seen effectively implemented in my community are rejected again.

Secretary Turner, thank you for being here today.

Yes, sir.

My my colleague was very gracious about the continuum of care. My community, all the different organizations that benefit from continuum of care have been thrown into chaos and disarray, and it was ultimately only because of federal litigation that you released the continuum of care grants, wasn't it?

So we will continue. As you know, yes, we're gonna follow the law.

But the paradigm that I

But you had to be sued in order to follow the law.

Well, the reason why we're following the law is because I'm supposed to follow the law, and I will continue to do so.

But those grants came out a year late because you refused to follow the law.

It doesn't mean that I agree with the way that the current continuum of care is because it is indeed a failed model in my

you disagree with a variety of things. CDBG, home, shop, continuum of care. That's your prerogative to say these are all failed and in a

exchange with my colleagues. Were all failed. I said COC.

Okay. Can we count on you to actually implement what we appropriate in a timely and professional manner?

Well, I think you've seen that. Of course, I will. Whatever you appropriate you all are the appropriators.

We are, not you.

And I am the implementer and the executor. So whatever you appropriate, I will maximize the appropriations to fulfill the mission of HUD.

My concern is that over and over across several different programs, you're only implementing them once ordered to by a federal court and the consequences for the grassroots community organizations I've worked with for most of my adult life have been very disruptive.

Let me focus on home for a moment. I think your testimony suggested that CDBG and Home were ideologically motivated programs which I I didn't quite grasp.

Mhmm.

As county executive, I worked hard to streamline the affordable housing production process. My successor is county executive and our governor, a former county executive, both just released a permit streamlining and approval processes that would improve how quickly we can move towards the market.

Right.

But I was able to use funding from both home and CDBG to help clear roadblocks in terms of putting together the funding stack. I'll give you one example. Okay. Ministry of Caring, a very well respected faith based organization in Wilmington that does a lot of affordable housing. They were building a 74 unit affordable housing development for seniors. Lots of funding from different sources, from a CDFI, from low income housing tax credit, about a $28,000,000 project in total. A home grant of about $400,000 was the final piece of the puzzle, put the capital stack together, and finally got affordable housing built. Why would you cut funding for affordable housing construction in the middle of a housing supply crisis and in particular, why go after home and CDBG when you've heard from senators of both parties both today and directly in our appropriations choices last year that these are programs we support and want to see extend.

Yes, sir and Senator Cruz, I do. I appreciate your question.

And your comments but as I alluded to before, we have many complex programs at HUD and if your state is doing it well, that is not the case for every state and locality around our country and so as we take inventory of these things, we want to make sure we're focusing taxpayer funds which you all appropriate on those programs that actually carrying out the mission as a whole and so that's why you see the budget before you as it pertains to home and other programs but also as I've traveled around the country and we talk about affordable housing. The biggest issue across our country as I hear from industry experts and those inside of localities is our regulatory environment and to take down regulations helps us. Yes. To increase housing supply but also to bring down the cost.

Thank you.

I'll go back to Senator Schatz's point.

About the pro housing program.

Yeah.

Yeah, but in my community at the county level and the state level, yes, we are working to streamline the production of housing.

Would you agree, mister secretary, that the most universal foundational contributor to homelessness is the lack of housing.

It's the lack of quality affordable housing.

Well, I would say that there's a myriad of contributors.

Yes.

Other than.

Housing is the one. The lack of affordable housing is the one thing.

It is one.

It's in every instance.

But it's one. But it's also drug addiction, it's mental illness, like in my own family, my uncle

Sure.

Who was found homeless, a veteran, had substance abuse, life debilitating disease, beaten and battered, and we were able to get him and get wraparound services around him. It wasn't because that he didn't have an affordable house. It was other factors.

Understood.

That is so I would say yes. That's one, but there's many.

Mister secretary, I'll just urge you to open your heart to the possibility that folks have worked in housing for decades. And have seen the very broad range of contributing causes to homelessness have developed programs over time that provide wraparound supportive services and funding for the production of quality, affordable housing. I'm concerned that I'm looking at a budget that cuts 922,000,000 out of homeless support programs at a time when our president is asking for a billion dollars to build a ballroom. I just think the priorities here are out of whack and I hope that this committee will again work on a bipartisan basis to fund programs that in our experience, in our communities over many years, we've seen work.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you. Senator Van Hollen.

Thank you, Madam Chairman. Secretary, good to see you.

Great to see you, sir.

When we spoke during your confirmation hearing before the Banking and Housing Committee, we agreed that the rising costs of housing were a major contributing factor to the lack of affordable housing. You would agree with that, right?

Yes, sir.

And we spoke specifically about how policies adopted by the Trump administration have contributed to pushing up costs. So, for example, we talked then about the Trump tariff tax which was first imposed on what he called Liberation Day in April. The National Association of Home Builders estimates that those tariffs increase the cost of constructing a new house by over $10.00. Do you dispute their determination?

Well, sir, what I will say, obviously, the President is very clear about tariffs. You know, my job, as you know, is to run HUD. And tariffs are not run out of HUD.

Mister Secretary, I know, I get that. I know. But you obviously have dealings with the National Association of Home Builders. I mean, we all talk to all the stakeholders here. They have indicated that those tariffs made houses cost more, which makes your job harder, doesn't it?

Well, what makes my job harder is high interest rates, high mortgage rates, a debilitating regulatory environment, runaway illegal immigration in our country. Those things are really what make housing costs go up and really bring the supply down for the American people.

Well, you mentioned higher interest rates. We've also heard from the builders that interest rates have been pushed up since this administration started its illegal war in Iran. As you said, those are contributing factors, of course, to the cost and the higher cost of mortgages. The numbers we have here indicate that they've gone just since the beginning of the war in Iran. Mortgage interest rates have shot up from below 6% to way up over 6.5%, adding $30,000 to the total cost of a mortgage. Do you dispute those figures?

Well, what I do know is that our President—

Mister Secretary, I'm just asking, will you dispute those figures?

And we all see the figures that are out, but I will say the President is securing the safety of our country, and I'm grateful for that to keep a nuclear weapon out of the hands of an illegal and evil regime, but also very focused, if I may, sir, very focused on domestic policy and making sure that housing affordability is for all Americans here. And because of this, I'm grateful for that and to carry out this mission. And so we will continue to bring the regulatory environment down and to get our fiscal house in order because it was not in order when we first came in.

Mister Secretary, actually, under this administration, our fiscal house has gotten in much bigger disorder. The so-called big beautiful bill that was built beautiful for billionaires added $4,000,000,000,000 to our national debt. It added— but let's not suggest that we got our fiscal house in order. It actually drove up our debt.

I'm grateful for the big bill.

Okay.

Well, I will say it's in better order now than it was during the Biden administration.

Actually, that's just a factually untrue statement.

Okay.

Look, I appreciate it when you said your lane is housing, right? But in response to my question about higher interest rates, and I asked it because you said that higher interest rates made it harder to afford a home. We all agree with that. Mortgage rates have gone up. And yet, your response actually was in support of the President's illegal war in Iran. He didn't say that's a different lane. And the fact of the matter is, and I think most Americans are aware of this because Americans overwhelmingly reject the decision of the President to launch an illegal war on Iran.

is that I think America is not gonna be safe, sir.

It's not— this is not making Americans—

I think it actually is.

It's actually making us a lot less safe. Didn't the President tell us, Mister Secretary, last year that he'd already eliminated all the nuclear weapons? Their capacity, didn't he say that?

Well, you're on there. Well, what I do know is Americans want to be safe in their homes. They want to be safe in their cities. They don't want an evil regime having a nuclear weapon. If an evil regime has a nuclear weapon, you and I as adults can both agree with a lot of issues.

As I'm sure you're aware, this President ripped up the agreement with Iran to prevent them from getting a nuclear weapon. Let me just— this cost issue is important, right? Because it does make your job harder when the tariff tax drives up costs or when the war in Iran drives up costs. But I think then you need to really make sure that you're asking for the resources you need for programs. Can you explain why you cut by 7% the budgets for Section 202 and Section 811 housing?

Sir, the disabled and seniors are a priority for HUD. No matter what the budget is that you all appropriate to us, because you are the appropriators, no matter what that budget is, we will continue to prioritize seniors and disabled, whatever our budget may be. That priority has not changed and it will not change.

I appreciate that, Mister Secretary. Madam Chair, just in closing, it doesn't look like you're prioritizing seniors and people with disabilities when you propose a 7% cut.

We'll maximize.

That's certainly not my definition of prioritizing.

We'll maximize the budget, sir.

Thank you.

Thank you. I think this concludes the hearing today, and the hearing record will remain open until Tuesday, May 26 for senators to submit any additional questions you may have. Mister Secretary, thank you for appearing today, and we request your responses to any additional questions within 30 days. The hearing is now adjourned, and the subcommittee stands in recess subject to call of the chair.

Thank you.