Transportation, Treasury, Housing and Urban Development, the Judiciary, the District of Columbia and Independent Agencies Appropriations Act, 2007
TRANSPORTATION, TREASURY, HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT, THE JUDICIARY, THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA AND INDEPENDENT AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2007 -- (House of Representatives - June 13, 2006)
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I believe that before this bill is enacted into law we must reverse an unwise pattern of disinvestment in the Nation's public housing. Therefore, I am introducing an amendment to restore the $261 million reduction in the Public Housing Capital Fund.
America's public housing inventory is a $100 billion public asset providing affordable housing to 1.1 million families. Just over half of these families are headed by the elderly or persons with disabilities, and children make up approximately 40 percent of all those we help. Public housing helps families and the elderly in large and small communities across the country in every congressional district.
In addition to safe, decent, affordable housing, public housing agencies connect people to the services they need, services that help adults become economically self-sufficient, provide children safe places to grow and learn, and allow the elderly and persons with disabilities to live independently.
Public housing funding has been declining since 2001. Despite the estimated $100 billion value of public housing assets to our communities, this bill does not provide funding necessary to maintain them for the long run. Total Federal funding for public housing has dropped precipitously over this decade. The bill before us provides $1.4 billion less than provided for funding year 2001, that is, the President's budget for funding year 2007 requests nearly $1.5 billion less for public housing than Congress provided for funding year 2001.
This drop in resources has constrained local agencies' ability to address safety and security needs, provide valuable services to those seeking economic self-sufficiency and independent living, and undermines agencies' ability to meet the recent surge in utility costs. This decline in funding is most egregious in the area of capital repair funding.
Public housing faces an estimated $18 billion backlog of capital repairs. According to a HUD-funded study, an additional $2 billion in capital repair needs accrues each year as buildings age. The President's budget and this bill cuts funding for the public housing capital funds for major repairs by $261 million, that is 11 percent compared with last year's funding. In fact, the capital fund has been cut each year since 2001, declining a total of 27 percent over 6 years if this budget is enacted.
The capital funds provided in this bill are barely sufficient to cover annually accruing needs, let alone address the backlog of need. The National Association of Housing and Redevelopment Officials estimates that $3.5 billion is necessary to begin to address the backlog of need in funding year 2007.
At the same time we are cutting basic capital repair funds, this bill also zeros out funding for the HOPE VI program for comprehensive revitalization of the most distressed public housing communities as requested by the administration. My colleague, John Olver, categorized this approach of cutting annual capital repair funding as, and I quote, ``penny-wise and pound foolish,'' and that is exactly what this is.
Mr. Chairman, I would ask my colleagues to embrace the intent of my capital fund amendment in order to secure the ongoing viability of this valuable affordable housing asset. Unless greater measures are taken by HUD to preserve this affordable asset called public housing, this unique asset and the larger continuum of a sound Federal affordable housing policy will be degraded and eventually lost. And that is a plan that our communities, our seniors, and our families with children cannot afford.
Mr. Chairman, in closing, let me just say that these are our most vulnerable citizens, and they need a safety net. While we want them to improve their lives, we want them to become independent. We are trying to have programs that will transition them to work and out of public housing. It is not going to happen unless we have reasonable and sensible investment to make these safe, sound, and secure places for our citizens to live.
Again, we need this in all of our congressional districts. As a matter of fact, the poor have nowhere else to turn. They are depending on us. I would ask us not to be penny-wise and pound-foolish, but rather to make what I think is one of the most prudent investments we can make.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the time that has been allotted and I move to withdraw the amendment. I have not been able to find the funds to replace that which has been cut. I appreciate the time to at least explain it.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I rise to support the Miller Brownfields amendment. The Amendment provides $15 million in funding for the Brownfields program.
Again, let me thank the Chairman of the Subcommittee, JOE KNOLLENBERG and the Ranking Member, JOHN W. OLVER, for their work on this bill. HUD programs, however, have witnessed major cuts over the past several years. What I find interesting about this bill is that it does not provide any funding for the Brownfields Economic Development Initiatives (BEDI) program, but instead includes Brownfields redevelopment as an eligible activity under the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) program. Of course, this does not take into account the existence of numerous Brownfields sites across the country. These sites are often located in strategically important areas of a city or county, where economic development projects have been planned. Without funding for the Brownfields program many of these projects will not be undertaken.
The estimate of the number of vacant and underused sites around the U.S. is more than 500,000. If we could put these sites into productive economic development uses we stand to increase jobs by 500,000 million, while generating $2.4 billion in new tax revenues. The Brownfields program that I would like to see funded is truly an economic development tool that has been very effective in assisting communities to reclaim important parcels of underused land. To the extent that we eliminate funding for the BEDI program we will seriously undermine economic development efforts across-the-board. In the City of Los Angeles and in Los Angeles County, the BEDI program supports a wide variety of projects, including developments with a strong business attraction, expansion and/or retentions component, as well employment creation.
One example is the use of a $1.75 million BEDI grant that was used to convert a contaminated 130 acre oil production and storage site facility into a warehouse and distribution center, which produced 679 jobs--the City of Sante Fe Springs Golden Springs Development Park.
As many of you know, the House last year unanimously approved an amendment to provide $24 million for Brownfields, and the conference report provided $10 million. In addition, the House recently passed H.R. 280, the Brownfields Redevelopment Enhancement Act to provide greater access to the BEDI program.
Whether you agree with the $15 million funding level is not important. What is really critical is that the program be in place to continue to assist communities to clean-up the mess made by industry, as well as the inadequate federal response. Many communities are at a critical stage in revitalizing themselves. A major tool at their disposal has been the BEDI program. As such, I urge your support for the Miller amendment.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
http://thomas.loc.gov/
Source