Transportation, Housing and Urban Development, and Related Agencies Appropriation Act, 2015

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. Chairman, this bill appropriates $40 million less to the Community Development Block Grant program in fiscal year 2015 than it did last year.

I would have offered an amendment to maintain CDBG funding at last year's levels, but we know there is insufficient funding throughout this bill due to the budget caps.

The CDBG program provides direct grants to 1,209 State and local governments. Since the start of the program in 1974, CDBG has invested over $135 billion in local economies, creating jobs, supporting local businesses, improving infrastructure, providing housing--including housing repairs and home ownership assistance--and services to low-income veterans, seniors, children, special-needs populations and working families.

The CDBG program grows local economies and improves the quality of lives for low and moderate-income citizens.

Over the past 10 years, CDBG-related funding is estimated to have sustained 400,000 jobs in local economies across the country. In 2012 alone, nearly 21,800 permanent jobs were created or retained using CDBG funds, and more than 32.5 million people benefited from CDBG-funded public facilities.

The total amount appropriated to CDBG has declined almost every year since 2000. When measured in inflation-adjusted constant dollars, total program funding declined by 46.4 percent since fiscal year 2000.

The CDBG program is essential for the functioning of more than 1,200 cities and counties of all shapes and sizes across the country, and there continues to be an increased need for investment in job creation, essential services for vulnerable populations, and economic and infrastructure development.

It is unfortunate that, due to an insufficient allocation of funds for projects throughout this bill, we must make cuts to vital programs like CDBG. We need to stop these cuts to our communities.

Mr. Chairman, I would also like to speak in favor of the amendment that was proposed by the ranking member, Ms. Waters, in support of the Multifamily Housing Office, which contributes to the development and preservation of healthy neighborhoods and communities. A core part of its mission is to maintain and expand home ownership, rental housing, and health care opportunities.

In an effort to achieve cost savings, HUD plans to consolidate 50 multifamily field offices organized into 17 hubs into just 12 locations organized into five regions. This would result in a severe loss of HUD's local presence in communities throughout the United States.

This means that for constituents living in Las Vegas, the closest hub location would be over 500 miles away, and that hub would simultaneously be responsible for 73 million people in 14 States. Hundreds of HUD employees would be forced to relocate, accept a buyout, or take early retirement. This drastic consolidation of HUD locations would compromise the quality of services that HUD's multifamily office provides.

It is, therefore, this reason that would create a problem at a project site in my district. There would be no local HUD employees to monitor and address the situation directly, or in a timely manner. Only if the situation rises to the level of an emergency would a HUD employee be able to send someone to investigate the issue, which would entail costly travel expenses on the taxpayers' dime.

It is also difficult to believe that, under these circumstances, HUD would somehow still be able to deliver the same quality of services that it currently delivers today.

HUD's plan to completely overhaul the multifamily office is both ill-conceived and poorly timed, and that is why I support the ranking member's amendment. I am pleased that this body has adopted it, to ensure HUD's multifamily staff remains locally-based and connected to communities who are on the ground.

Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source