[House Hearing, 107 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
REVIEW OF THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
BLOCK GRANT PROGRAM
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON
HOUSING AND COMMUNITY OPPORTUNITY
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON FINANCIAL SERVICES
U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED SEVENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
MARCH 14, 2002
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Financial Services
Serial No. 107-61
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
78-400 WASHINGTON : 2002
_____________________________________________________________________________
For Sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
Internet: bookstore.gpr.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; (202) 512�091800
Fax: (202) 512�092250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402�090001
HOUSE COMMITTEE ON FINANCIAL SERVICES
MICHAEL G. OXLEY, Ohio, Chairman
JAMES A. LEACH, Iowa JOHN J. LaFALCE, New York
MARGE ROUKEMA, New Jersey, Vice BARNEY FRANK, Massachusetts
Chair PAUL E. KANJORSKI, Pennsylvania
DOUG BEREUTER, Nebraska MAXINE WATERS, California
RICHARD H. BAKER, Louisiana CAROLYN B. MALONEY, New York
SPENCER BACHUS, Alabama LUIS V. GUTIERREZ, Illinois
MICHAEL N. CASTLE, Delaware NYDIA M. VELAZQUEZ, New York
PETER T. KING, New York MELVIN L. WATT, North Carolina
EDWARD R. ROYCE, California GARY L. ACKERMAN, New York
FRANK D. LUCAS, Oklahoma KEN BENTSEN, Texas
ROBERT W. NEY, Ohio JAMES H. MALONEY, Connecticut
BOB BARR, Georgia DARLENE HOOLEY, Oregon
SUE W. KELLY, New York JULIA CARSON, Indiana
RON PAUL, Texas BRAD SHERMAN, California
PAUL E. GILLMOR, Ohio MAX SANDLIN, Texas
CHRISTOPHER COX, California GREGORY W. MEEKS, New York
DAVE WELDON, Florida BARBARA LEE, California
JIM RYUN, Kansas FRANK MASCARA, Pennsylvania
BOB RILEY, Alabama JAY INSLEE, Washington
STEVEN C. LaTOURETTE, Ohio JANICE D. SCHAKOWSKY, Illinois
DONALD A. MANZULLO, Illinois DENNIS MOORE, Kansas
WALTER B. JONES, North Carolina CHARLES A. GONZALEZ, Texas
DOUG OSE, California STEPHANIE TUBBS JONES, Ohio
JUDY BIGGERT, Illinois MICHAEL E. CAPUANO, Massachusetts
MARK GREEN, Wisconsin HAROLD E. FORD Jr., Tennessee
PATRICK J. TOOMEY, Pennsylvania RUBEN HINOJOSA, Texas
CHRISTOPHER SHAYS, Connecticut KEN LUCAS, Kentucky
JOHN B. SHADEGG, Arizona RONNIE SHOWS, Mississippi
VITO FOSSELLA, New York JOSEPH CROWLEY, New York
GARY G. MILLER, California WILLIAM LACY CLAY, Missouri
ERIC CANTOR, Virginia STEVE ISRAEL, New York
FELIX J. GRUCCI, Jr., New York MIKE ROSS, Arizona
MELISSA A. HART, Pennsylvania
SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West Virginia BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont
MIKE FERGUSON, New Jersey
MIKE ROGERS, Michigan
PATRICK J. TIBERI, Ohio
Terry Haines, Chief Counsel and Staff Director
Subcommittee on Housing and Community Opportunity
MARGE ROUKEMA, New Jersey, Chair
MARK GREEN, Wisconsin, Vice BARNEY FRANK, Massachusetts
Chairman NYDIA M. VELAZQUEZ, New York
DOUG BEREUTER, Nebraska JULIA CARSON, Indiana
SPENCER BACHUS, Alabama BARBARA LEE, California
PETER T. KING, New York JANICE D. SCHAKOWSKY, Illinois
ROBERT W. NEY, Ohio STEPHANIE TUBBS JONES, Ohio
BOB BARR, Georgia MICHAEL E. CAPUANO, Massachusetts
SUE W. KELLY, New York MAXINE WATERS, California
BOB RILEY, Alabama BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont
GARY G. MILLER, California MELVIN L. WATT, North Carolina
ERIC CANTOR, Virginia WILLIAM LACY CLAY, Missouri
FELIX J. GRUCCI, Jr, New York STEVE ISRAEL, New York
MIKE ROGERS, Michigan
PATRICK J. TIBERI, Ohio
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Hearing held on:
March 14, 2002............................................... 1
Appendix:
March 14, 2002............................................... 49
WITNESSES
Thursday, March 14, 2002
Meek, Hon. Carrie P., a Member of Congress from the State of
Florida........................................................ 7
Ros-Lehtinen, Hon. Ileana, a Member of Congress from the State of
Florida........................................................ 10
Shays, Hon. Christopher, a Member of Congress from the State of
Connecticut.................................................... 6
Bernardi, Hon. Roy, Assistant Secretary for Community Planning
and Development, U.S. Department of Housing and Urban
Development.................................................... 12
Cohen, Hon. David, Mayor, Newton, Massachusetts.................. 36
Gonzalez, Yvonne, Chief Executive Officer, Rio Grande Valley
Empowerment Zone Corporation, Mercedes, Texas.................. 38
Gramlich, Ed, Research and Community Development Program
Specialist, Center for Community Change, Washington, DC........ 40
Hoover, Greg, President, National Community Development
Association; Manager, Housing and Neighborhood Development
Department, City of Davenport, Iowa............................ 42
McNeil, Josephine, Director, Citizens Affordable Housing
Development Organization of Newton, Massachusetts.............. 37
Oros, George, Minority Leader, Westchester County Board of
Legislators, New York.......................................... 34
Spano, Andrew J., County Executive, Westchester, New York........ 32
APPENDIX
Prepared statements:
Kelly, Hon. Sue W............................................ 57
Diaz-Balart, Hon. Lincoln.................................... 52
Grucci, Hon. Felix J. Jr.,................................... 55
Meek, Hon. Carrie P.......................................... 59
Ros-Lehtinen, Hon. Ileana.................................... 63
Roukema, Hon. Marge.......................................... 50
Shays, Hon. Christopher...................................... 65
Waxman, Hon. Henry........................................... 67
Bernardi, Hon. Roy A......................................... 70
Cohen, David................................................. 81
Gonzalez, Yvonne............................................. 84
Gramlich, Ed................................................. 88
Hoover, Greg................................................. 105
McNeil, Josephine............................................ 111
Oros, George................................................. 115
Spano, Andrew J.............................................. 117
Additional Material Submitted for the Record
City of Palo Alto, CA, prepared statement.................... 124
Community Letters of Support for HR 1191..................... 126
Township of Lower Merion, PA letter March 13, 2002........... 150
REVIEW OF THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT PROGRAM
----------
THURSDAY, MARCH 14, 2002
U.S. House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Housing and Community Opportunity,
Committee on Financial Services,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:36 a.m., in
room 2220, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Sue Kelly,
[acting chairwoman of the subcommittee], presiding.
Present: Chairwoman Kelly; Representatives Miller, Grucci,
Frank, Lee, Jones, Capuano Waters, Clay and Israel.
Chairwoman Kelly. The hearing will come to order. This
hearing of the Subcommittee on Housing and Community
Opportunity is on the Community Development Block Grant
program. And we welcome our first panel of witnesses here
today: the Honorable Christopher Shays, the Honorable Carrie
Meek, and we understand the Honorable Ileana Ros-Lehtinen is on
her way.
The Chairwoman has asked me to take the chair here. She is
on her way to another hearing.
Ranking Member Frank, I want to thank you for agreeing to
hold the hearing today to review this Community Development
Block Grant program.
As we are all aware, the Administration has called for
reforms of the Community Development Block Grant program in the
budget submission. And we all need to give these proposals a
close examination. CDBG grants distribute approximately $4.3
billion to over 1,000 cities, urban counties and the States
each year. These funds support various community development
activities that are required to be directed primarily to low-
and moderate-income persons.
In my home county of Westchester County, New York, these
funds fill critical needs. Seniors, the disabled, low- and
moderate-income working families are dependent on the services
these funds provide. In addition, these funds help strengthen
communities by assisting towns with the proper growth and
redevelopment of their commercial and public areas.
On page 175 of the budget, the Administration calls for a
redistribution of the CDBG grant funds. In an effort to ensure
that these funds are truly targeted to poorer communities, the
Administration calls for a 50 percent cut of these funds to
communities whose per capita income is two times the national
average.
On the list of the towns and cities who qualify for this
proposed cut is one single county, one county and a number of
other locations. But only one county has been chosen for this
cut. That is Westchester County, New York.
Because of this, Westchester would be subject to a $3.5
million cut, which makes up 35 percent of the expected revenues
of the county. This proposal troubles me and my neighbors in
Westchester County. The needs of the county will only grow
larger in the future.
Poor families will still need clean, safe, affordable
housing. Seniors and disabled residents will still need support
services. In light of all these needs, this proposed cut is
unacceptable for Westchester.
Secretary Martinez has assured me he is willing to work
with us on this issue. And I have found him to be a good and
reasonable man. It is my hope the testimony we hear today and
the discussions we will have will give us all a better
understanding of the issues involved.
I look forward to working with my colleagues on this
subcommittee and along with HUD, County Executive Spano and
County Legislator Oros as we seek to ensure that the Community
Development Block Grants continue to be distributed fairly and
equitably in this proposed cut and that the cut does not become
a reality.
At this time, I would like to ask if any other Member has
an opening statement.
[The prepared statement of Hon. Sue W. Kelly can be found
on page xx in the appendix.]
Mr. Frank.
Mr. Frank. Madam Chairwoman, I agree with much of what you
have said. We have two separate proposals in the works here.
One is a proposal, long advocated by the gentlewoman from
Florida, who has been one of the most tenacious and forceful
defenders of social justice to serve in the House and has used
her position on the Appropriations Committee successfully to
block some raids on the Community Development Block Grant
program that would have tapped into funds regardless of any of
the social requirements.
She has a piece of legislation. And I have been asking the
subcommittee leadership for some time to have a hearing on it.
And I appreciate the fact that they have accommodated us in
this regard.
And the thrust of it, I think, is very important. I have
some questions about the details and specifics.
But we have a program that is intended to benefit low- and
moderate-income people. And I think it is reasonable to say
that no Administration in the 22 years that I have been here,
which encompasses both parties, has really enforced that.
And one of the things that we can do is to encourage HUD--a
relatively new HUD, so they come to this with a clean slate--to
enforce better than we have the requirement that low- and
moderate-income people be the beneficiaries. And I hope we can
move in that direction.
There is another proposal that the Chairwoman of the
hearing just mentioned, which is an Administration proposal to
take CDBG funds away from about a dozen communities on the
grounds that they are too wealthy. Now, these two are
interconnected in my mind, because if we did a better job of
enforcing the low- and moderate-income requirement, you would
not have an argument that wealthy people were unduly
benefiting.
That is, I do not think any of these communities has only
rich people. Every one of the communities, as is virtually--
remember, we are talking about communities of 50,000 or more.
So we are not talking about an enclave of 3,000 people. And I
do not know of any communities of 50,000 or more that do not
have some low-income people.
So the remedy that you might, if you think there is a
problem of this not going where it is supposed to, the remedy
is perhaps to strengthen the requirement statutorily, as the
gentlewoman from Florida is trying to do, and certainly to
enforce them administratively. And I know, because I represent
two of the communities that are on the--what we would
technically refer to as the ``hit list''--that have substantial
low-income populations. And they are in the metropolitan area.
And as it will be shown, I think in testimony, they are
both communities that work very hard to try and promote
diversity. They are communities which, in the absence of
Government action, local government action, would be more
homogeneously wealthy than they are. And I do not want to see
us take away from those communities one of the major tools that
they use to promote diversity.
It seems to me, in fact, in Massachusetts there has been a
lot of criticism of communities that are resisting low-income
housing, resisting doing things to make the communities more
diverse. Here, we have two communities that are at the top of
the list in doing that. And I do not want to take the funds
away that allow them to do that.
I am prepared to look at tighter requirements on the use of
those funds, both statutorily and administratively. So I do not
regard these two things necessarily as in conflict. I think
that they can be harmonized.
And the final thing I would say is this. We are told
``Well, after all, we want to give more money to the lower
income communities so we have got to take the money away from
the top communities.''
I congratulate anyone who advances that with a straight
face. If you look at the total amount of money that these
relatively small communities get, it would amount to very,
very, very, very little if it was spread around.
I do think we should be spending more money on the lower
income people. But my own view is that the people in the lower
income areas are, at this point, in far graver danger from a
number of social and other kinds of ills than they are of being
hit by a missile from North Korea.
So if we are looking for a source of funds better to
support these important community services, I have other places
to look than communities that are trying hard to promote
diversity within themselves.
Thank you, Madam Chairwoman.
Chairwoman Kelly. Thank you, Mr. Frank.
Mr. Miller.
Mr. Miller. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. I would like to
associate my comments with yours, Mr. Frank and the Chairwoman.
You have hit on issues that are very concerning for me.
I was a former Mayor of the city of Diamond Bar. And it was
a new city. And from the outside, it might appear to be a
fairly prosperous community, but it is a low tax community too,
because it is a newer one. So the revenues to that city were
very low compared to some of the cities that might seen less
affluent, because they are older cities and they receive a
higher tax generation.
Yet, I look at what Diamond Bar does with their funds on
Meals for Wheels and childcare through the YMCAs and other
functions that really benefit people who are in need. And I am
concerned if we throw the baby out with the bath water here by
just taking a generic look from the outside--this community
needs it; this one does not--yet not looking inwardly at the
funds the cities actually have and what they do with those
funds, especially to benefit CDBG funds to those communities
and people who need people, whether it be seniors, children or
just people who are struggling to get by.
So I am interested in having this hearing, listening to the
testimony and hearing what your proposal might be.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Chairwoman Kelly. Thank you, Mr. Miller.
Mrs. Jones.
Mrs. Jones. I am just coming from one hearing to another. I
am just glad to be here. I am looking forward to the testimony.
The Community Development Block Grants are very important to my
community in the development of opportunities for affordable
housing.
Thank you very much.
Chairwoman Kelly. Thank you.
Mr. Grucci.
Mr. Grucci. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. I have a prepared
statement that I will asked to be submitted into the record.
Allow me to associate myself with the remarks that are being
made here today.
I was a town supervisor. And for those who do not
understand what that is, it was tantamount to being the mayor
of a small city. My town was 450,000 people strong.
And while it may have an appearance of being an affluent
area, there are many pockets of poverty throughout the town who
benefited from the Community Development Block Grant program.
And in fact, every time the Federal Government would cut it
back and less money would come into those areas, the less we
could do.
I always looked at this program as the conscience of
Government, where we were able to do those things for people
who really and truly needed the help--whether it was youth
programs, youth interventions, whether it was to help the
elderly with Meals on Wheels, whether it was to do things to
improve the quality of life in communities that had been
forgotten for many a year, whether that was to improve a park
or put a pool into an area that allowed people to enjoy a
quality of life. Everyone in America should be able to enjoy
the riches and the beauty of this country and be able to know
that their Government is there to help and support them.
I support the concept of taking money and putting it where
it can do the most good. I am a little apprehensive about how
this program is going to be implemented. I see that the
Chairwoman's district is one of those districts that have been
targeted. I am fearful that the county I represent may be
another one, because it does have the pockets of affluence in
it that could have a detrimental effect on the computations of
whether or not it should or should not receive the funds.
I can assure you that, without the Community Development
Block Grant funds, many people will not have the help that
Government ought to provide for those who are less fortunate.
And so, Madam Chairwoman, I appreciate the opportunity to
be here at this hearing. And I am eager to hear the testimony
of the esteemed panel. Thank you.
Chairwoman Kelly. Thank you very much, Mr. Grucci.
Mr. Clay.
Mr. Clay. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. I too am eager to
hear from this esteemed panel. I am really interested in the
proposed legislation that Ms. Meek is proposing because,
representing the city of St. Louis, I know of projects that
have gone to higher income neighborhoods, to light bridges.
And I do not think that was the original intent of the CDBG
programs and would like to tighten the rules and regulations.
And hopefully, that is what her bill proposes to do.
I am also interested in hearing from Mr. Shays in coming up
with another way to reward those communities that spend funds
in accordance with the letter of the law. So I will stop there
and look forward to this panel's testimony.
Chairwoman Kelly. Thank you very much, Mr. Clay.
Ms. Lee.
Ms. Lee. Thank you very much, Madam Chairwoman. I look
forward to hearing the testimony from the panel. I think it is
very important, at least for some of us, to look to be sure
that Community Development Block Grants are really benefiting
those that I thought it was intended to help, and that is low-
and moderate-income communities.
It is a pot of money. It is an instrument that we use very
aggressively to ensure not only housing, but economic
development, which creates jobs for those who need these types
of jobs. So I just look forward to the testimony.
Thank you very much for the hearing.
Chairwoman Kelly. Thank you very much.
I appreciate the statements from the panel members. I also
would like unanimous consent to insert into the record the
statement of Chairwoman Marge Roukema, Congressman Henry
Waxman, Congressman Lincoln Diaz-Balart, the city of Palo Alto,
California and 22 other community letters that we have received
on this issue.
Mr. Frank. Madam Chairwoman.
Chairwoman Kelly. Yes?
Mr. Frank. May I also get unanimous consent? I know our
colleague, Mr. Waxman of California, has a statement. And there
is a statement submitted through Mr. Hoeffel of Pennsylvania
for Lower Merion, Pennsylvania. So I would ask unanimous
consent that those and other statements on this be also part of
the record.
Chairwoman Kelly. Yes, thank you. I had included Mr.
Waxman. But I am glad we did it twice.
[Laughter.]
With that being said, we turn now to our first panel. We
have Honorable Christopher Shays from Connecticut, the
Honorable Carrie Meek from Florida and the Honorable Ileana
Ros-Lehtinen from Florida. We welcome the three of you.
We begin with Mr. Shays.
STATEMENT OF HON. CHRISTOPHER SHAYS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT
Mr. Shays. Thank you, Chairwoman Kelly and Ranking Member
Frank. And thank you, other Members of this subcommittee. I am
impressed that you have such a large number of Members
participating and appreciate it a great deal.
I am here to ask that you evaluate the CDBG based on how
communities spend their funds and to encourage you to
reconsider the Administration's proposal to cut 50 percent of
the CDBG funds from the top one percent of the eligible
communities. CDBG is the largest source of Federal community
development assistance to State and local governments, as you
know.
Frankly, I would add a third request that you increase the
amount from $4.3 billion and let it at least go up with the
cost of living. It is a very valuable program.
It is one of the most flexible and most successful programs
the Federal Government administers. And I would say to you that
Mr. Frank knows this in particular. My predecessor, Stewart
McKinney, was a strong believer in this program, a strong
architect of it. And I think we have seen tremendous good
happen from it.
The Administration's proposal includes, obviously, the
recommendation to reduce the size of the grants for communities
with income two times the national average. But it begs the
question: many of those communities have three or four times
the cost of living.
As a Congress, we are committed to helping those in need
and those who are not in a position to help themselves. And I
think the message of this proposal is that those in need in
communities of wealth should not get the kinds of attention
they need. For instance, in one community impacted in my
district, Greenwich, Connecticut, bordering your district, Ms.
Lowey--excuse me, Ms. Kelly; Ms. Lowey as well touches that
district.
Greenwich has used this money for homeless shelters, for a
food bank, for drug liberation programs and for two youth
homes. And also, it has used this money for neighboring
communities.
Chairwoman Kelly. Excuse me, Congressman Shays.
Mr. Shays. Sorry.
Chairwoman Kelly. Could you pull the microphone closer? We
are having a hard time hearing you up here.
Mr. Shays. Thank you very much. I am at a conclusion here.
[Laughter.]
Let me then just be as wise as I can be and say I thought
your statement, Ms. Kelly, was awesome. I thought your
statement, Mr. Frank, was awesome. I totally concur with it.
And would just ask ultimately that we design a program
based on the merit of how the money is spent. And I can just
tell you, a wealthy community in my district, which gets some
of these funds--Greenwich--is spending this money on homeless
shelters, on food banks and so on and is spending a good chunk
of it in the surrounding areas where they have partnered.
And it has helped draw Greenwich into the rest of the area.
And this money has been spent well.
Where it is not spent well, then take it away.
[The prepared statement of Hon. Chris Shays can be found on
page XX in the appendix.]
Chairwoman Kelly. Thank you very much, Mr. Shays.
Mrs. Meek.
STATEMENT OF HON. CARRIE P. MEEK, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS
FROM THE STATE OF FLORIDA
Mrs. Meek. Thank you very much, Madam Chairwoman. And I
want to thank the Members of this subcommittee.
Chairwoman Kelly. Please get that microphone close to you.
Mrs. Meek. Sorry.
Chairwoman Kelly. We do not have the new wonderful
microphones here. So you really have to get them pointed at
you.
Mr. Frank. And our ears are not so good either.
[Laughter.]
Chairwoman Kelly. Speak for yourself, Barney.
Mrs. Meek. I am really grateful to the subcommittee for
hearing us today. And I really agree with everything I have
heard so far regarding Community Development Block Grant funds.
And I want to thank my colleague, Ileana Ros-Lehtinen. We
are almost like the gold dust twins. We go together in most of
our programs to benefit the people of our area. And I must say
that we do fairly well--pretty well--in meeting those needs.
I do not need to lengthen this presentation by talking
about the needs of low- and moderate-income people. But I do
not want you to confuse the Administration's proposal with this
bill. They are quite different, with two different concepts in
mind.
We know that we have an affordable housing crisis. And each
of you has spoken to that.
But you must realize that Community Development Block Grant
funds follow the people, the lower income people. The real
purpose of the Community Development Block Grant funds. It does
not mean that high-income communities do not have low-income
people and do not have needs to that point.
But if you have distressed areas and you do have
unemployment in your areas and you have deteriorating areas,
urban and rural as well, that is why it is so important that we
ensure that the funds are used for the intended purpose of
helping low- and moderate-income.
Since 1974, this has been going on. It is a very good
program. It is a flexible source of Federal funds.
You know, it is not revenue sharing. All people like me
remember the revenue sharing program. This is not revenue
sharing. It is not meant simply to redistribute money from the
Federal Governments to the States and local government for any
purposes whatsoever.
Rather, the primary purpose of the CDBG program is to build
housing, to provide safe, healthy housing for people who cannot
afford market rents. It is meant to provide economic
development and jobs. I do not need to tell this subcommittee
this. You know more about this than I do.
I introduced this bill because I am very concerned that,
while many jurisdictions--and I must underline, Chris, many
jurisdictions--comply with both the spirit and the letter of
the CDBG law, many other jurisdictions are using CDBG funds for
purposes far removed from CDBG's intended goal, to
principally--and I must emphasize to principally--benefit low-
and moderate-income persons.
At a time when community development corporations,
individuals and other agencies are focusing on trying to
develop these poorer neighborhoods, they are inadequately
funded. Jurisdictions should not use their poor neighborhoods
to justify and obtain CDBG funding, but then use these funds in
their wealthier neighborhoods. That is not the intent of the
CDBG legislation.
Many of you may be familiar with recent reports of CDBG
funds being used to develop United States Post Office
facilities, to repair airport runways, renovate museums, build
sports arenas and pour miles of concrete in many jurisdictions.
These may well be wonderful projects. But they are not projects
that should be funded through CDBG.
It is time to do a better job to manage these scarce CDBG
funds. My bill, H.R. 1191, would seek to amend the statute to
reflect and to solve some of these problems and to go back to
the original intent of the law by focusing the grant program on
low- and moderate-income. It is sponsored by 59 Members of
Congress who want to see more of their monies used for low-
income Americans.
And then, as a just cause, Madam Chairlady, let me
highlight some of the provisions of H.R. 1191. It would require
grantees to spend at least 80 percent of their CDBG funds to
directly benefit low- and moderate-income people, instead of
the current 70 percent threshold. That gives you a little bit
better target than the 70 percent.
My bill would require grantees to spend at least 40 percent
of CDBG funds to directly benefit low-income persons, those
with incomes between 30 percent and 50 percent of the median
income. These are the people who are really low-income people.
And they need these funds.
Currently, there is no mechanism that HUD uses to prevent
jurisdictions from spending all or most of their CDBG monies
for households at the relatively high income of 80 percent of
the area median income. Now I go way back with HUD to some of
the people who really, really put all of these things in. As
they say in my district ``back in the day.'' And they have
never really, really, really had an accountable way of
measuring how CDBG monies are spent.
Finally, my bill would require proportional accounting so
that CDBG guarantees would calculate the benefits to low- and
moderate-income people by using the actual percentage of lower
income persons residing in the census tracts that would be
served by the grant. And that highlights what some Members of
this subcommittee have already indicated.
The reason that many jurisdictions can claim that over 90
percent of their expenditures benefit low- and moderate-income
is because currently, CDBG law allows 100 percent of the money
spent on non-housing activities to count as benefiting lower
income people only if 51 percent of the beneficiaries are low-
and moderate-income. So you see that broad umbrella that is
there.
For an example, if a jurisdiction spends $500,000 on a road
improvement in a census tract where 51 percent of the
households are low- or moderate-income, that jurisdiction can
report to HUD that all $500,000 of that spending benefits low-
and moderate-income people, rather than a proportionate amount
of $255,000, which is $500,000 times the 51 percent of the
population of lower income. This lack of proportionate
treatment inflates the benefit report by 49 percent.
So it just tells you that the benefit inflation is well
documented. In a 1993 audit of the HUD, the Inspector General
reviewed CDBG expenditures of 18 grantees and found that HUD's
low- and moderate-income claims were significantly overstated.
The audit shows that when proportionate accounting was used,
the actual benefits to low- and moderate-income individuals
were approximately 65 percent for the individual grantees, even
though HUD continuously reported the annual percentage of low-
and moderate-income benefits as exceeding 90 percent.
Madam Chairlady and Members of the subcommittee,
proportional accounting in the CDBG program is badly needed.
And it will bring out many of the things which each of you has
indicated, that the money will follow the need.
Counting all of the CDBG dollars spent on an activity as
benefiting lower income persons when it is known that a
substantial portion of those benefiting from the activity are
higher income persons is just plain wrong. The absence of
proportional accounting greatly exaggerates the CDBG program's
achievements in serving low- and moderate-income.
The reforms included in my bill, H.R. 1191, have been
around for some time. As I said, I have been around. Starting
out with Jack Kemp, who was probably the guru of housing, under
the first Bush Administration, tried to pass these provisions
into law.
These changes to the CDBG program raise the fundamental
issue of fairness. The Federal resources----
Chairwoman Kelly. Ms. Meek.
Mrs. Meek. I could put the rest in the record.
Chairwoman Kelly. Could you do that?
Mrs. Meek. I know I am going on and on. But I just wanted
the subcommittee to understand that this concept is quite
different from the one that has been presented by the current
Administration. It is one that is asking for a proportional
accounting so that low- and moderate-income people, that the
money will follow where they are.
Thank you very much, Madam Chairwoman.
[The prepared statement of Hon. Carrie P. Meek can be found
on page XX in the appendix.]
Chairwoman Kelly. We thank you. We also know that----
Mrs. Meek. I also forgot to put in the record----
Chairwoman Kelly. With unanimous consent, we will insert
your statement in the record.
Mrs. Meek. Thank you, ma'am.
Chairwoman Kelly. I also know you have family that live in
my district.
Mrs. Meek. That is true.
Chairwoman Kelly. So you know how hard Westchester County
is.
Mrs. Meek. You better be good to me, Madam Chairlady.
[Laughter.]
Chairwoman Kelly. You know how hard we are going to get hit
if Westchester County has to take this on the chin, because you
have been all over my district. I know that.
So I really appreciate your presence and your testimony
here today. And we will include that with unanimous consent.
Mrs. Meek. And I want to be excused. I have a hearing.
Thank you.
Chairwoman Kelly. We turn now to Ms. Ros-Lehtinen.
STATEMENT OF HON. ILEANA ROS-LEHTINEN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF FLORIDA
Ms. Ros-Lehtinen. Very few people, Madam Chairwoman, are
able to get Carrie Meek to stop talking. So I congratulate you.
[Laughter.]
We have never done it in the Florida House and in the
Florida Senate. It is the first time I have ever seen it. What
a sight to behold.
But thank you so much. I am here to testify on behalf of my
very good friend, Congresswoman Carrie Meek, on her bill, H.R.
1191, the Community Development Block Grant Renewal Act. As you
know, this Act concerns one of the most significant sources of
Federal funding for housing, economic development, job creation
and community revitalization.
The Community Development Block Grant Renewal Act would
target funds to low- and moderate-income communities by
providing affordable housing, suitable living environment and
expanding economic opportunities. The CDBG--it sounds like one
of the clubs in my South Beach District. Not that I have ever
been there, but I hear it gets really good about 3:00 in the
morning.
Mr. Frank. I think that one closed.
[Laughter.]
Ms. Ros-Lehtinen. That one closed. You know, they close.
They open. You know? I do not know, I heard you were the one
responsible for closing it down, but I do not know.
[Laughter.]
But it was originally established as Title I of the Housing
and Development Act of 1974. The Act served to improve
communities by providing State and local governments with an
elastic source of money to use for the benefit of low- and
moderate-income communities. Title I assured that, at minimum,
70 percent of the allocated funds would be used for those
people earning low- and moderate-incomes.
H.R. 1191 looks to improve the ``Primary Objective'' of
CDBG to ensure that at least 80 percent of such funds go
directly to aid those individuals and their families. The Act
specifies even further that at least, as has been testified
before, 40 percent of the appropriated money is earmarked for
people of lower income. And this ``Primary Objective'' will
help bring needed aid to a suffering housing industry and will
help fill the gaps of the current law.
H.R. 1191 also enables the CDBG to give monies to non-
profit organizations whose sole purpose is to help low- and
moderate-income people. This non-profit funding will promote
greater public participation and will provide a better forum to
monitor the use of CDBG funds. According to H.R. 1191, any
business which receives funds from CDBG still has to make sure
that at least 51 percent of any new or retained jobs would
target lower income people.
It has strong support from several groups, such as the
National Council of La Raza, the National Low Income Housing
Coalition, the National Alliance to End Homelessness and our
Miami-Dade Board of County Commissioners. I would like to
encourage all of our colleagues to please support H.R. 1191,
the Community Development Block Grant Renewal Act, and help end
the current housing crisis that so many of our communities are
suffering.
So thank you very much, Madam Chairwoman. And I ask to have
it be entered in the record.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Hon. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen can be
found on page XX in the appendix.]
Chairwoman Kelly. We thank you very much, Ms. Ros-Lehtinen.
I have no questions of this panel.
Mr. Frank. Just one point to reinforce what I hope is going
to be a consensus here, which is rather than exclude particular
communities, the answer is, for us, both statutorily perhaps
and certainly administratively, to do a better job of enforcing
the low-moderate requirement for every community. And I think
we can all work together on that.
Chairwoman Kelly. That is right.
Mrs. Meek. Thank you very much.
Ms. Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you very much.
Chairwoman Kelly. We thank you very much for appearing.
This first panel is excused. We now will seat the second panel.
The chair notes that some Members may have additional
questions and may wish to submit those in writing of this
panel. So without objection, the hearing record will remain
open for 30 days for Members to submit written questions to the
witnesses and place their responses in the record.
We thank the panel for appearing with us today. We thank
the second panel.
On our second panel today is Mr. Roy Bernardi. He currently
serves as the HUD Assistant Secretary for Community Planning
and Development. Prior to this, Mr. Bernardi served two terms
as Mayor of Syracuse, New York, the first Republican to serve
in that position in 24 years. Previous to being elected in
1993, he served five terms as Syracuse City Auditor.
We welcome you, Mr. Bernardi. And we look forward to your
testimony. Please proceed.
STATEMENT OF HON. ROY A. BERNARDI, ASSISTANT SECRETARY, OFFICE
OF COMMUNITY PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF
HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT
Mr. Bernardi. Well, thank you, Madam Chairwoman. Good
morning, Ranking Minority Leader Frank, Members of the
subcommittee. My name is Roy Bernardi. I am Assistant Secretary
for Community Planning and Development at the Department of
Housing and Urban Development.
And I have with me today two members of my staff. To my
left is Deputy Assistant Secretary Nelson Bregon, who directs
grants programs. And to my right is Dick Kennedy, who is the
Director of the Office of Block Grant Assistance in our
Department and has great institutional knowledge.
On behalf of Secretary Martinez, I want to extend our
commitment to work with you to improve the effectiveness of the
Community Development Block Grant program and to ensure that
America's neediest communities receive adequate Federal
resources to meet the local development needs. We are certainly
appreciative of the additional $95 million proposed for the
Department's CDBG formula programs for fiscal year 2003.
The increased funding will provide for larger allocations
to our grantees and result in more assistance being made
available to those that are most in need. These communities
have fewer resources for addressing housing, community and
economic development needs and are consequently in greater need
of Federal financial assistance.
The lowest income residents of these communities deserve to
share in Congress' vision of viable urban communities. The CDBG
program, authorized by the Housing and Community Development
Act of 1974, as amended, is one of the most successful
Government aid programs to have ever been created. A testimony
to this success is the longevity of the program and how it has
adjusted over the years in response to changes in public policy
over the nearly 28 years since its inception.
The CDBG program remains one of the most flexible local
tools for revitalizing neighborhoods and encouraging economic
development. Since its inception, the CDBG program has provided
approximately $100 billion to our Nation's cities, towns,
counties and States, so they may undertake a wide range of
activities that are locally determined.
The imprint of the CDBG program can be seen in nearly every
jurisdiction of this great country of ours. As a former mayor
and municipal worker, I can attest to the significance of the
CDBG program. Each and every year, when Syracuse received its
grant--when I talk about flexibility and when I talk about
local determination, that is the beauty of the program. And I
was just very proud, each and every year, to utilize those
dollars to help the people that were most in need.
Immediately prior to accepting my current position at HUD,
as Madam Chair indicated, I served as the Mayor of Syracuse,
New York. And that provided me firsthand knowledge of the
usefulness of the CDBG program as a tool for housing and
economic development, and to providing a better quality of life
for our people.
More than that, however, was the appreciation I developed
for the devolution of this wonderful Federal program back to
the community level. I also appreciate the insightfulness of
the designers of this program in recognizing the basic truth
that people know what their needs are better than Government
officials. I was also old enough to remember revenue sharing,
and I think this program provides more opportunity for people
in every jurisdiction.
As Mayor, I often interacted with other mayors and
officials on issues related to community development and the
dwindling availability of resources. The CDBG program, however,
has remained one of the most useful and dependable sources of
funding for municipalities.
In fact, our proposed reduction--not elimination--of
funding to the more fortunate communities will still provide
those communities with a steady annual funding stream, albeit
it at a lower level. There are currently 865 cities and 158
counties entitled to receive CDBG funds directly from HUD.
These are entitlement communities.
In addition, 49 States and the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico
award more than 3,000 grants to smaller cities and counties
from CDBG funds allocated to the State by HUD each year. Those
are all non-entitlement communities, the smaller cities and
rural areas.
I am very pleased to say we cover the entire spectrum of
the country. HUD also administers CDBG funds to Hawaii's three
non-entitlement counties.
Within this vast number of grantees exist a wide variety of
recipients. Some are quite wealthy, especially when compared
with the poorest grantees. It is therefore quite understandable
that calls would be made to reevaluate the method of allocating
the limited resources of the CDBG program.
The continually increasing number of grant recipients has
resulted in CDBG funds being stretched further and further
with, in some localities, a continually increasing number of
grand recipients. This has resulted in some localities, a
lessening of the impact CDBG dollars can have on local housing,
neighborhood development, public facilities, economic
development and the provision of social services.
Even though the CDBG formula funding has grown 11 percent
since 1980, many large cities have seen a decrease in their
CDBG funds, while some of their wealthier suburbs have received
increased funding. For example, New York City's 2002 CDBG grant
was 16 percent less than its 1980 grant, while over this same
time period, Greenwich, Connecticut's CDBG funding increased 43
percent and Westchester County's increased 51 percent.
Likewise, Boston's funding decreased five percent, while
Newton, Massachusetts' CDBG funding increased 11 percent over
the same period of time. Even some distressed cities have seen
substantial decreases in their CDBG funding over the past 20
years. St. Louis and Cleveland, each with per capita income
less than three-fourths of the national average, receive 21
percent less CDBG dollars today than they did in 1980.
This proposal represents a small, but important step in
redirecting CDBG dollars from areas with sufficient fiscal
capacity to meet their housing and community development needs,
to those communities with greater needs and fewer resources.
While the CDBG program may be heralded as the dependable
flagship of Federal financial resources, the Department clearly
recognizes that current economic realities require at least
some rethinking of how we do business.
The Department supports targeting of CDBG funds to provide
assistance to lower income persons to the greatest extent
permissible under the Housing and Community Development Act of
1974.
H.R. 1191, a bill introduced to amend this Act, proposes a
fairly stringent targeting of CDBG funds in an effort to assure
that the needs of the lowest income communities are met. With
respect to H.R. 1191, it would be premature for the Department
to respond to this bill at this time, since it has not yet been
voted out of committee.
We recognize that there is some concern with this bill
because while it will demand more targeting, it will
significantly limit, for many communities, the very flexibility
that has been the cornerstone of the CDBG program. In addition,
the Department was asked by Congress to submit a study of the
targeting of CDBG funds and HUD's administrative oversight of
the program.
This study was delivered to the House Committee on
Appropriations yesterday, and emphasizes three things. First,
targeting of CDBG funds is accomplished by the formulas used in
determining allocations. Second, the program requires that 70
percent of a grantee's CDBG funds principally benefit low- and
moderate-income persons. And third, activities identified as
principally benefiting persons of low- and moderate-income
generally assist persons of whom at least 51 percent are low-
and moderate-income.
Chairwoman Kelly. Mr. Bernardi.
Mr. Bernardi. Yes.
Chairwoman Kelly. The lights here indicate your testimony
time. And you have gone well over the 5-minute allocation. If
you could sum up, please know that your written testimony is
included in the record. It is a matter of our record. So we
have the written testimony and we are interested in having you
sum up.
Mr. Bernardi. Madam Chair, I will be happy to do that.
Chairwoman Kelly. Sorry for interrupting you.
Mr. Bernardi. I feel very strongly that the written
testimony will answer the questions that you are possibly going
to have.
In closing, the Administration looked long and hard at ways
in which we can provide additional dollars to the most needy
people in our country. As a matter of fact, when it comes to
providing CDBG funds, we are doing better than the 70 percent
that is statutorily required. We are at 84 percent.
I think that the program works well. The flexibility of the
program is very important.
Right now, from the 1990 census, the population numbers and
growth lag have been entered into the formula for the 2003
year. However, poverty and overcrowding and pre-1940 housing
data will not be available until the summer or fall of this
year.
And so the formula will be changed. We will be conducting a
study which will be completed at some time next year.
Also, we have a comprehensive plan. Today, there is a
meeting in Washington. We are taking a look at the overall
comprehensive plan, how to streamline it, make it more
effective, and eliminate some of the red tape that the
communities go through. There were two of these meetings held
around the country.
And the meeting that is being held in Washington today
includes providers. It includes local government. It includes
HUD officials and institutions that deal with CDBG.
In closing, we are here to answer any questions that you
may have. I appreciate your time.
[The prepared statement of Hon. Roy A. Bernardi can be
found on page XX in the appendix.]
Chairwoman Kelly. We thank you very much.
Mr. Bernardi, I have a question about that formula that you
were talking about. The fact that the Administration is
proposing a redirection of the CDBG money and you are talking
about doing a study and coming up with a comprehensive plan
next year, it indicates to me that you have a lack of
confidence in the grant formula that was created back in 1974.
Now I want to know why the Administration has not simply
proposed a new formula right now for Congress to consider that
will account for the new needs in our communities.
Mr. Bernardi. Well, we feel the formula works very well.
And the formula is looked at in a constant way, especially
after the census numbers are in. The 2000 census numbers,
including population and the growth lag are in; however,
poverty and pre-1940 housing have not yet come in from around
the country.
That is when the formula is looked at. And then proposals
are made, in conjunction with yourselves, as to any changes
that might take place to improve the formula.
As you know, there are two formulas. There is a formula
that helps cities that are growing. There is also a second
formula that helps cities that have population lag and
increased poverty.
Chairwoman Kelly. Well, I would beg to differ with you,
sir. I think when you lop off 50 percent of these communities,
in these communities, that is a formula problem. And I question
the criteria in the formula. And I think that it is time that
we take a look at the criteria that you are using in that
formula and make sure that the criteria actually are reflective
of what is within the communities themselves.
And so perhaps Congress should be working with you in
setting the criteria for evaluating who gets the CDBG grants.
Mr. Bernardi. Well, this is just a work in progress, Madam
Chairwoman. These communities are at two times the per capita
income, and we are talking about $17 million. And with a
reduction of 50 percent. And that money would go to other CDBG
communities.
The fact of the matter is there are communities that are
better able, that have the capacity building, the
organizations, and members in the community that perhaps can
assist more. There are other communities, communities that I
visit when I travel this country, the colonias for example,
where people have absolutely nothing.
Chairwoman Kelly. I understand what you are saying about
the fact that your assumption is that certain communities can
better handle their own things. And that is probably so, in
some instances. But I think where you have a blanket cut in
some communities that perhaps are based on inappropriate
criteria, it is time to change the criteria.
We need to take a look at the criteria before you decide
how you set this formula. And I would look forward to working
with you. I am very concerned about that.
HUD's identified projects that I think that they think, for
instance in Westchester County, should not have been funded. I
would like to know what you think they are. I would like to
know what criteria you used to identify those.
Mr. Bernardi. Which projects are you referring to?
Chairwoman Kelly. I understand that there are certain
projects in the Westchester Urban County Consortium that you
have decided were inappropriate. I would like to know what you
think they are.
Mr. Bernardi. I do not know the projects that you are
referring to, Madam Chair.
Chairwoman Kelly. Why are you cutting funding?
Mr. Bernardi. Well, it is to provide funding to communities
that are more distressed than Westchester County.
Chairwoman Kelly. If they are inappropriate, sir. Why cut
the funding if they are doing their job?
Mr. Bernardi. They are not inappropriate, Madam Chair. I
have not looked at Westchester in particular, but I am sure
they are used according to the statutory regulations and for
the needs that the CDBG program was established.
The fact of the matter is that we are looking at ways,
together with you, to perhaps redo the formula in a way which
would provide monies. Our goal here is to take the very low-
and moderate-income people and to provide them with more
services and a better quality of life.
Chairwoman Kelly. Are you planning to send us legislation
with these proposed changes in the formula so that we can take
a look at what criteria you are using on the formula?
Mr. Bernardi. To make any proposals on a formula change, we
have to wait until the statistics come in from the 2000 census.
So that will be approximately 2003, by the time we have the
information.
Chairwoman Kelly. So you have no intention of changing the
formula?
Mr. Bernardi. No.
Chairwoman Kelly. Changing the criteria, until after this
year?
Mr. Bernardi. That is correct.
Chairwoman Kelly. Until next year. Why not?
Mr. Bernardi. The formula has been changed already.
Chairwoman Kelly. Why are you proposing these changes? With
the 50 percent cut?
Mr. Bernardi. It is a 50 percent reduction.
Chairwoman Kelly. Yes, why? Why are you proposing that if
you do not even have the statistics to back up what you are
saying? I do not mean to put you in the hot seat here, but we
need to work together if we are going to be efficient and get
that money to the people who need it.
Mr. Bernardi. Those statistics could change with additional
information. Westchester County may not be in the top nine.
Chairwoman Kelly. But you are not sure. That is precisely
my point.
Mr. Bernardi. There is a starting point. This is a
proposal. There is a starting point.
Chairwoman Kelly. It is a starting point? I think that for
you to cut 50 percent from these communities, without having--
coming here and being able to speak to us with the criteria
that you have used, show us what criteria and talk to us about
the appropriateness of this formula.
Mr. Bernardi. Well, the criteria is two times the per
capita income.
Chairwoman Kelly. It is not just Westchester County that
has been cut. That is why these other people were here. That is
why these women were here from Florida and that is why Mr.
Shays was here. Mr. Frank has somebody that is being cut in his
area.
Westchester happens to be the only county. You have cut an
entire county with Westchester County.
My concern is that these people have been cut and you are
sitting here telling me that you are not comfortable with the
formula, because you are going to study it and come up with
something you feel is more appropriate.
Mr. Bernardi. The entire formula.
Chairwoman Kelly. But then if the entire formula is being
applied to these areas that have been cut, why are you applying
it this way now? Why not wait and do what you have done before?
Mr. Bernardi. When we have all of the information in from
the census, the proposal will be ready to implement, in
conjunction with this subcommittee and Members of Congress.
Chairwoman Kelly. My time is over. I have several other
questions. If we have a second round, I will ask those
questions. In the meantime, I want you to know that I am going
to submit to you a group of questions in writing. And I am
going to hold this hearing record open for 30 days so that we
can get those answers and put them in the record, sir.
Mr. Bernardi. Sure. Be happy to respond to your questions.
Chairwoman Kelly. Mr. Frank.
Mr. Frank. Mr. Secretary, first, I was kind of struck by a
rare, if you will accept this, example of deference by the
Administration to the Congress. With regard to H.R. 1191, if I
heard you correctly, you said it would be, quote:
``premature''--to comment, because the bill has not yet been
voted on by committee.
Is that a new Administration policy, that you are not going
to comment on legislation until the committees have acted? I
would welcome that.
[Laughter.]
Do I accurately understand you, sir?
Mr. Bernardi. Well, that is an OMB policy.
Mr. Frank. That you are not to comment?
Mr. Bernardi. Well, I can comment on it. But until we have
the particulars of the bill, it would be premature to make
those comments.
Mr. Frank. So in other words, until--no, you did not say
the particulars of the bill. Particulars of the bill have, in
fact, existed before the committee process. Is this HUD policy
now that you are not going to comment on legislation until it
has been voted on by committee?
Mr. Bernardi. Well, OMB would prefer that I not comment on
that legislation.
Mr. Frank. A lot of people would prefer a lot of things.
Mr. Bernardi. Well, I follow the company line.
Mr. Frank. My question is: is this now HUD policy? Can we
expect that there will be no HUD comment on pending legislation
until it has been voted out of committee?
Mr. Bernardi. I can only speak for myself, sir.
Mr. Frank. OK. Let me suggest, Mr. Secretary, that what we
have got here is a duck on a controversial issue. And it is
particularly troublesome to me for this reason.
You say in your testimony that cities like St. Louis and
Boston have lost money because of the formula. But you are not
yet proposing any change in the formula, which is what caused
them to lose money. Correct?
I mean, the money that Boston, St. Louis, the other
communities lost, they lost that because of the existing
formula. Is that correct?
Mr. Bernardi. Yes.
Mr. Frank. OK. And you are proposing, as of this point, no
changes in that formula?
Mr. Bernardi. The census tract takes population into
consideration. Each year, the formula changes based on
population.
Mr. Frank. Did they lose money because of population
shifts, do you think?
Mr. Bernardi. In some instances, they did lose money
because of population shifts.
Mr. Frank. Frankly, I think you gave a somewhat contrary
suggestion here because the suggestion was that they were
losing money because other communities were gaining the money,
the wealthier communities. That is the juxtaposition.
The total amount of money that would be saved by your
proposal to knock off the communities at two times and above is
how much money?
Mr. Bernardi. It is $17 million.
Mr. Frank. No, the total amount saved.
Mr. Bernardi. About $8.6 million.
Mr. Frank. $8.6 million. The total CDBG appropriation for
this year will be what?
Mr. Bernardi. $4.4 billion.
Mr. Frank. So you are going to alleviate some of these
problems by applying $8.6 million to a total of $4.4 billion.
By my arithmetic, that is .05 percent. I have never seen----
Mr. Bernardi. It is a little less than that.
Mr. Frank.----wielded as a weapon before in the battle
against poverty. But that is what you are doing.
[Laughter.]
In fact, having resolved .05 percent of this problem, have
you any proposals to do the rest? I mean, you make a good
point. Boston should not be losing money. Cleveland should not
be losing money. St. Louis should not be losing money.
And you are going to give them .05 percent of that back.
You got any ideas for the other 99.95 percent? Or do we have to
wait until the committee acts before you can comment? Would it
be premature for you to comment, in other words?
Mr. Bernardi. When all of the census information is in and
the formula is looked at again, in conjunction with all of the
Members here, I am sure there will be proposals in how the
formula should be changed.
Mr. Frank. OK, so then in other words, we should tell the
nine communities that are now on the list that they are only
the early ones? Because if you are going to hold the amount
constant, you are going to have to take money away from other
communities as well. Is that correct?
Mr. Bernardi. There is a limited amount of dollars that are
going to be available, Congressman.
Mr. Frank. So you contemplate, once you get the census and
you change the formula, do you contemplate taking money way
from other communities that are maybe at 1.8 times the median
or 1.7, to make up for these problems with Boston and St.
Louis?
Mr. Bernardi. The extra $95 million that is proposed for
this year is welcomed. There are additional monies that are
always needed for many programs. But dealing with reality and
what we have to deal with and what our charge is and what
Secretary Martinez----
Mr. Frank. My guess----
Mr. Bernardi. No, can I finish please?
Mr. Frank. At this point, it looks to me like the thing you
lament, the lack, the loss of money for some of these big
cities, is going to be unchanged, certainly for this year.
Correct?
Mr. Bernardi. I am sorry. Could you please repeat the
question?
Mr. Frank. You have talked about how Boston has lost money
and St. Louis has lost money. And I know they appreciate your
sympathy. But can they expect to get any more than your
sympathy in the current year?
Mr. Bernardi. No.
Mr. Frank. In the 2003 budget? Boston and St. Louis and the
others?
Mr. Bernardi. Depending on the formula. The formula that
they utilize, whether it is formula A or formula----
Mr. Frank. Do you contemplate that they will be getting any
of that cost back in the next fiscal year?
Mr. Bernardi. No. The answer is no.
Mr. Frank. OK. Frankly, I am a little troubled that you
invoke their plight on behalf of your proposal to knock out
these other communities but now acknowledge to me that that is
all they are is kind of props, frankly, in the effort.
Mr. Bernardi. I think it shows a comparison of communities
that have benefited to those that have not.
Mr. Frank. It does. But it also shows that you are not
going to do anything about it. And I think it is an
inappropriate invocation of their plight when you are going to
wind up with $8 million.
Last question I have is this: with regard to the
communities you are going after, I would think----
Mr. Bernardi. Congressman, we are not going after anyone
really. It is a proposal.
Mr. Frank. Well, the communities who will lose funding as a
result of your beneficent actions. It would seem to me--and I
would just recommend this to you and then I have one other
question that I would ask for in writing--that what is relevant
is not simply the overall income, but the distribution within
the communities. Certainly, the Federal Government is not
suggesting that a community which has a large number of wealthy
people and a large number of poor people should be one in which
the wealthy people are individually taxed locally to pay for
certain kinds of services.
So if you were going to try and reallocate, I would urge
you to take in a formula. And statistical techniques can do
this. You do not simply look at the overall amount. A community
in which everybody is making $70,000 probably needs the money
less than a community in which a number of people are making
$150,000, but a number are making $30,000 and $20,000.
In other words, even on your own terms, this is simplistic
beyond what we ought to be doing. You need to take some kind of
matrix approach.
Last point I would make is this. And I am touched by your
concern for the failure of the funds to reach the intended
recipients.
You have been Assistant Secretary for how long, Mr.
Bernardi?
Mr. Bernardi. Eight months.
Mr. Frank. During that period--and, in fact, during the 14
months of this Administration--would you submit in writing
examples of interventions by HUD against inappropriate uses of
CDBG funds by recipient communities? That is, how many cases
have you found in which money was not being spent
appropriately? It was being spent other than----
And in general, if you could give us a record of your
enforcement of the low- and moderate-income requirements, I
would be pleased.
Thank you for your indulgence, Madam Chairwoman.
Chairwoman Kelly. Thank you, Mr. Frank.
Mr. Grucci.
Mr. Grucci. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Mr. Bernardi, welcome. Good morning.
If I am correct in what I thought I heard, that there is
going to be a 50 percent reduction in the CDBG funds. Did I
hear that correctly?
Mr. Bernardi. On the nine communities in question, yes.
Mr. Grucci. Low-income and moderate areas, low-income to
moderate communities that are adjacent to, in picking up from
what Mr. Frank was saying, let me give you an example. In the
district that I represent, I have a very affluent area known as
the Hamptons. South Hampton, East Hampton, they have very
wealthy areas, million dollar homes, multimillion dollar homes
along the oceanfront.
Go about six blocks away from the oceanfront and there are
people struggling, who are living in what would be considered
poverty. They are struggling to make ends meet because the high
cost of living in that region causes the prices of houses to go
up. The taxes are hurting people. And one thing after another.
These areas should not be punished as a result of living
next to a community that has been blessed with affluence. And I
see that is what is going to take place.
And I said in my opening statement that as a supervisor,
you understand this. That Community Development Block Grant
money, when it comes into your town or into your city, was
enabling us to do some great things for the people who were the
least fortunate.
In infrastructure, it helped us to build the roads, the
drainage, the signage in communities where people did not even
have signs up on their blocks that tell law enforcement or
emergency vehicles what street they were coming down. Bringing
fresh, clean water into areas that had been polluted.
It built parks and it built ball fields and it built pools,
as well as the teen crisis centers and senior centers, as well
as programs like the teen pregnancy program, the battered women
programs and nutritional program centers. And the list just
keeps going on.
If these communities are going to lose their money simply
because they are fortunate--or misfortunate--enough to be in a
census tract that would demonstrate that that area is affluent,
where are they supposed to get their money from? Where are they
going to get their help?
The local government--and I do not know about the finances
of Syracuse, but I can tell you that the local finances of our
local governments are the least capable of helping these
people. They have the least amount of resources. And county
governments are already being besieged with burdens of mandated
programs coming down upon them. They cannot keep up with the
mandates.
Are these people to just fall by the boards because they
have the misfortune of living next to an affluent community?
How do they get the help?
Mr. Bernardi. Congressman, communities that have a
significant number of affluent people, as I mentioned earlier
in my statement, have the capacity, have the wherewithal, if
you will, the technical assistance. You look at city
governments, town governments and county governments.
In certain areas, obviously, there are more people. There
are more people who do the work. There are more resources.
And this is just a proposal. We are not going to take any
unilateral action here on the part of HUD. Looking for ways,
quite generally, to find ways in which we can help those that
are less fortunate, the people that you talked about, that live
out on the water in those mansions, in those other areas.
How can we provide them with additional assistance? That is
the proposal.
Mr. Grucci. I would encourage you to do as much as we can.
I would encourage you to restore more money into the CDBG
program. Let's do the things that that money can do.
I have watched as it has helped teenagers get a fresh start
on life. And I have also been there when the Federal Government
has cut those programs and as a supervisor and a town board had
to make the decisions as to what programs could not get funded.
And we watched as programs that were helping the community fell
by the boards.
And there was no place for these people to get help.
Instead of looking to cut CDBG, I think we should be looking to
increase it. It is the conscience of Government that does the
best for the people who are least capable of helping
themselves.
Mr. Bernardi. Well, as I indicated, there is an
appropriation of $95 million more for the CDBG entitlement
program, which is welcomed.
Mr. Grucci. But if areas of the country that were once
receiving these funds--and I am not sure my county will be part
of that county cut that was talked about. We will know that
when the new census tract numbers come out and all the
information comes out.
But the fact of the matter is, if it indeed does, and it
has been getting cut year after year as a result of whatever
reasons HUD has been cutting that money, people have been
hurting and programs have been falling by the boards. And this
money ought not to be--we ought not to take from this program
to find monies to help balance budgets or to put things into
perspective. This area is where Government ought to shine its
best.
And I would encourage you to do all that you can to not
just put $95 million in, but also to make sure that the areas
that were receiving these funds are not asked to take a bigger
cut and be asked to make the sacrifice so that other areas of
the country can be helped. It would be wrong to ask the poor
people of one region to be impacted even further so that they
can help poor people in other areas.
And I yield back the remainder of my time.
Chairwoman Kelly. Thank you, Mr. Grucci.
We go now to Mr. Clay.
Mr. Clay. Mr. Bernardi, in your testimony, you extolled the
virtues of benefits to a community of flexibility in the
program. I know, for instance, in St. Louis and in my
neighborhood in particular, they have used CDBG funds to erect
gates, close streets, special lighting. I think that may be
where the problem exists in the program is that this
flexibility allows communities like where I live, which is
probably one of the better parts of St. Louis, to use those
funds in a manner which I do not think they were initially
intended to be used for.
Don't you see some areas where that flexibility could allow
for abuse in the program?
Mr. Bernardi. Well, the eligible activities that are
statutorily required between headquarters and the field offices
and our integration disbursement information system, we do
track how communities use that money and that they reach that
70 percent threshold. And the average is even more than 70
percent. About 84 percent of the dollars spent each year by the
grantees, on an average, go to benefit low- and moderate-income
people.
But I am sure there are situations that occur where that
money could be utilized in a different way. But I think to take
away that flexibility, you would really hamper the local
decision-making process. The decisions are made locally, as
they should be, with the community development boards in each
locale.
Mr. Clay. OK, what about what Representative Meek talked
about in her testimony, that the original intent is to build
decent and affordable housing? We know that home ownership
creates wealth. We know that.
Can you point to many instances in cities such as mine
where the dollars have actually gone toward building decent and
affordable housing? Giving people the opportunity to own a home
for the first time?
What I know about in St. Louis City is that these funds
have gone to benefit supporters of the mayor and have not
necessarily gone to create housing. Of if they have created
housing, it has been substandard. I mean, can you point to
instances where they have actually gone to build affordable,
decent housing?
Mr. Bernardi. Mr. Kennedy indicates to me that St. Louis
has a very good record in housing and will be happy to get that
information to you.
Mr. Clay. Would you be willing to point that out?
Now also in your testimony, you point to the fact that St.
Louis and Cleveland, with per capita incomes less than three-
fourths the national average, received 21 percent less CDBG
dollars today than they did in 1980. Can you tell me what are
the reasons for this?
Mr. Bernardi. The population decrease.
Mr. Clay. The population shift.
Mr. Bernardi. Primarily. Yes, the shift.
Mr. Clay. I know in St. Louis, that population has
decreased. However, what is left are that you have more and
more poor. So don't you think maybe the formula may need to be
tweaked in order to address the increased amount of poor?
Mr. Bernardi. It is a very complex formula. But the fact is
is that the decrease or the shift in population primarily led
to the reduction. But there are other factors as well, I am
sure.
Mr. Clay. The other factors are?
Mr. Kennedy. If I could just comment generally that, with
respect to the formula changes, HUD simply cannot launch a
study of what is happening with the 2000 census data until we
have all the data in. We expect to have that in by the fall.
And then we can do a complete study that will look at the
effects of the 2000 census changes. And we expect those changes
to be fairly substantial.
We want to be able to present to Congress a thought out
evaluation of what those effects are and allow you to perhaps
make some suggestions regarding changes to improve the formula.
Certainly, that is a congressional activity. We want to be able
to present the facts to you, once we have the data in, with
respect to the overall formula.
Chairwoman Kelly. Excuse me, sir. But you are not a listed
witness at this hearing.
Mr. Kennedy. I am sorry.
Chairwoman Kelly. I would like to have you identify
yourself for the record, please.
Mr. Kennedy. I apologize, Madam Chairwoman. My name is
Richard Kennedy. I am the Director of the Office of Block Grant
Assistance. And I work for Assistant Secretary Bernardi and Mr.
Bregon. I apologize.
Mr. Clay. In conclusion, Madam Chairwoman, let me also ask
that when you do give me that information on St. Louis housing,
would you also look at the fact that the fact that the funding
was used to build a convention center and hotel and tell me if
that is proper or not.
Mr. Bernardi. That was economic development. Section 108
monies, I believe, were involved in that.
Mr. Clay. But would you put that in writing?
Mr. Bernardi. Of course.
Mr. Clay. Thank you.
Chairwoman Kelly. Thank you.
Ms. Lee.
Ms. Lee. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Mr. Secretary, let me just ask you about the proposed cut
and at least where the budget summary says you intend to put
the revenues that you receive from the cut. The comments
indicated that the savings would fund a regional initiative to
enhance affordable housing, economic opportunities in the
colonias? Is that accurate, in terms of where you intend to put
the money?
And I just want to find out where these colonias are. It
says they are within 150 miles of the U.S.-Mexican border. And
they lack infrastructure. And all the descriptions of what
these colonias are.
The criteria and the lack of infrastructure appears to be
already late to qualify for existing funds. So why would you
have to cut any to put the money there? Why couldn't you fund
them with existing funding?
Mr. Bernardi. The money from the proposal would go back to
the formula for redistribution to the remaining entitlement
communities. The colonias is 150 miles of area along the Texas-
New Mexico-California border, where there are communities that
are really not communities.
They are basically outside of the towns in that particular
area. They have tremendous poverty and no infrastructure.
The Secretary is very committed to putting together a
proposal to help those people. There is money earmarked for
that purpose that is separate from what we are talking about
here. We have $16 million earmarked for that.
Ms. Lee. Is it coming from CDBG though?
Mr. Bernardi. No.
Ms. Lee. At least the budget summary indicates that the
savings from, as a result of the cuts, would go to fund this
regional initiative. And I am just asking that because it seems
to me that we should fund that anyway.
Mr. Bernardi. It will give us more room in the budget to
have the $16 million to help the colonias. But it is not coming
from the CDBG program.
Ms. Lee. It is not coming from the CDBG?
Mr. Bernardi. No, that money will go back to be
redistributed amongst the remaining entitlement communities, as
I understand it.
Ms. Lee. It is in your budget proposal, where it indicates
that the savings from this proposal, which we are talking about
today, would go to fund these colonias. Unless I am misreading.
Chairwoman Kelly. Mr. Bernardi, what she is asking, I
believe, is for clarification, because in the proposal, while
you talk about it--in basically the information you sent out
about what you are proposing, you do not define the colonias.
And it just says, actually let me read from this: ``The savings
from this proposal will fund a regional initiative to enhance
the availability of affordable housing, economic opportunity
and infrastructure in the colonias.''
We do not know where that is. We do not have a definition
of that. And we are sitting here wondering why you are not
talking about things like the Appalachian region, the
Mississippi Delta region. What is the colonias?
In other words, we need a geographic definition. That is
what she is asking.
Ms. Lee. And also, Madam Chairwoman, in addition to the
geographic definition, what I am also asking is why can't these
communities access CDBG funding now? And why do we have to
establish a new pot of money for these communities?
Mr. Bernardi. They are not entitlement communities. And
with the redistribution of the dollars, they would go to the
remaining entitlement communities.
Communities within those States could provide assistance
and some already have. I know that the Texas legislature has
passed money to help the colonias.
Ms. Lee. OK. So then you are saying again--I need to
clarify this, as we move forward--you are saying this money,
the proposed cuts that you are presenting to us today do not go
to fund, the savings do not go----
Mr. Bernardi. No. They go back to the formula and will be
redistributed to the remaining entitlement communities.
Mr. Frank. If the gentlewoman would yield?
I think it is very clear. First of all, there appears to
have been a change from the budget proposal where it talked
about putting the money into the colonias. But I think what you
have here is one more effort to get some sympathy for this
proposal by invoking a very worthy, but legally, quite
irrelevant issue.
Ms. Lee. Thank you very much, Mr. Frank.
Thank you, Madam Chair. I understand now. I get it.
Chairwoman Kelly. Thank you.
Mr. Bernardi, we need a definition. And we need a
geographic definition, a better definition of what this is
because you have not defined it. And it is necessary if we are
going to seriously pursue----
Mr. Bernardi. It is not part of the program and the
reduction. But I will get you the definition, all of you.
Chairwoman Kelly. Thank you.
Mrs. Jones.
Mrs. Jones. Am I the last one?
Chairwoman Kelly. No, no.
Mrs. Jones. Let me pass.
Chairwoman Kelly. All right. Then we go to Ms. Waters.
Ms. Waters. Thank you very much.
I do not know, Mr. Bernardi, you have not been around here
very long maybe. You have not been doing this very long.
You have to understand that we decide to support efforts in
various ways. For example, it would be very attractive--it
would seem very attractive--for me to accept the idea that you
are doing something to give more money to the poorest areas of
the country. It would be easy for me to grab hold to that.
But I have learned to be very selective about doing that
kind of thing because we all define these needs in various ways
at various times. For example, when I look at your proposal
where it says, ``Our 2003 budget proposes reducing the annual
CDBG allocation to the wealthiest one percent of eligible
grantees.''
Now, I use that kind of language with tax cut when I talk
about who should be given a tax cut and who should not be given
a tax cut. And I say that the wealthiest people in this country
should not be given a tax cut.
But the Administration rejects that kind of thing. They
believe that the tax cut that they have given, that the
wealthiest people should benefit from it. So, on that occasion,
we differ.
On this occasion, where you are using that same kind of
argument, I differ with you because I have learned that once
you give somebody some money, you are not going to get it back.
And when you have, in this case, Republicans who come from
wealthy communities who like this money and they are accepting
this money and they honestly believe that, despite the fact
they have a wealthy community, there are pockets in those
communities that benefit.
And as was described, maybe even more when you have a
community where you may have $150,000 incomes and pockets of
$30,000 incomes than where you have everybody getting $70,000.
So, you are going to lose that one.
And I think what we are all saying is this. And I use that
argument too with Social Security. I am selective. And Social
Security, when they try to make the argument that wealthy
people should not benefit from it, I say, ``No, no, no, no, no,
no. I reject that because I want to keep everybody in the loop
so that we join hands and get as much money as we can.''
So, you find yourself in a position where the
Administration's argument will not work with one. What we are
going to do is we are going to join hands and we are going to
all say, ``Well, we need more money. We need more money. We are
not going to let you cut out these wealthy communities. They
are our friends on this one.'' OK?
[Laughter.]
We are going to support them. We are not going to let you
separate us out.
Mr. Bernardi. I am so happy I could bring you all together.
[Laughter.]
Ms. Waters. So my advice to you is number one, first of
all, it is not enough money that you are going to take from
them to really spread out to do anything. And you got caught
talking about the colonias and some other places that are not
going to benefit at all. So, we caught you.
And having caught you, I hope this is a nice little, you
know, beginning lesson for you. What you should be doing with
all of this now is recognize that we all love CDBG. It is
extremely important.
We depend on it. We love it. It works in poor communities.
It works in not-so-poor communities. We are all together on
this.
We need more money for CDBG so that we can have more money
to spread around. Now, there may be some places that do not use
this money appropriately. And it is OK. You go look for those
and find those and try to extract those. And then, we will all
join hands, perhaps, on that one.
But on this one, uh-uh. Nope. It is not going to work.
So, take the message back. Do what you have to do. But I am
going to support Westchester.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Bernardi. If we took more, could we change your mind?
Ms. Waters. Huh? Nope, will not work on this one.
Mr. Bernardi. Thank you. Thank you for your comments.
Ms. Waters. And understand, there are some times when what
appears to be logic does not fit. And this is one of them.
Sorry.
Mr. Bernardi. Thank you. Thank you for your comments.
Chairwoman Kelly. Thank you very much, Ms. Waters.
We go to Mr. Capuano. Oh, I am sorry.
Mrs. Jones.
Mrs. Jones. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. I talk loud so I
do not really need a microphone.
Mr. Secretary, thank you very much for appearing here
today. I was reading through your testimony. And at page four,
it says: ``St. Louis and Cleveland, with per capita incomes
less than three-fourths the national average, receive 21
percent less CDBG dollars today than they did in 1980.''
I represent the great city of Cleveland. Can you be a
little more specific? Or could you have your staff submit to me
information with regard to the city of Cleveland and CDBG
grants and why our grants have gone down?
Mr. Bernardi. Yes, I will be more than happy to get you all
that information.
Mrs. Jones. I would deeply appreciate it. Let me ask you
another question. At page five of your testimony, it says:
``With respect to H.R. 1191, it would be premature for the
Department to respond to this bill at this time, since it has
not yet been voted out of committee.''
Even though the bill has not been voted out of committee,
we are here to discuss conceptual things, what would best work
for the CDBG community. Could you discuss with me conceptually
some things that would either support or not support the
legislation and on and on and on that would be great to improve
the CDBG?
Mr. Bernardi. If we had a copy of a bill that is in final
form, we would be happy to. We want to work with you on it. If
there are things in the bill that would be of a benefit to
especially low- and moderate-income people, of course. We are
all working toward the same goal.
But that is a proposal that you had. And we will look at
it. And we will get back to you on it.
Mrs. Jones. But you do not have any responses for me this
morning?
He can talk for himself. You do not have to bug him. He is
a big guy, he can handle it.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Bernardi. Well, the----
Mrs. Jones. Who is this guy whispering in your ear?
Mr. Bernardi. This is Nelson Bregon. I introduced him
earlier. He is the Deputy Assistant Secretary for the grants
program, the CDBG program that we are speaking of.
Mrs. Jones. Well, pass him the microphone.
Mr. Bernardi. OK, I would be happy to.
Chairwoman Kelly. Sir, will you identify yourself for the
subcommittee, please?
Mr. Bregon. Yes, honorable Chairwoman. My name is Nelson
Bregon. I have been a career HUD employee for over 22 years.
And I am the Deputy Assistant Secretary for the Office of Grant
Programs.
Mrs. Jones. So are you permitted in your capacity to
respond to that question I just asked?
Mr. Bregon. No, not without the permission of my boss.
[Laughter.]
Mrs. Jones. Well, what good are you?
[Laughter.]
I am joking. Really, I am. I am just having fun this
morning.
Mr. Bregon. I understand.
Mrs. Jones. I do not want you all to take me too seriously.
OK, Mr. Secretary, let's go to another page of your
testimony. You are going to get something back to me so that we
can have a real discussion about CDBG programs?
Mr. Bernardi. Yes.
Mrs. Jones. In your statement, you say that just yesterday,
you submitted to the Appropriations Committee--this is at page
five: ``In addition, the Department was asked by Congress to
submit a study of targeting of CDBG funds and HUD's
administrative oversight of the program. That study was
delivered yesterday.'' Did you happen to bring a copy along for
us?
Mr. Bernardi. Yes, we have copies here.
Mrs. Jones. OK. It says the report emphasized three things:
targeting of funds, the program that requires 70 percent and
activity. I am not reading all of this, this is for the record.
``And three, activities identified as principally benefiting
persons of low- and moderate-income generally assist persons of
whom at least 51 percent are low- and moderate-income.'' This
is page six of the report.
I do not want to spend all of our time--because I probably
do not have any time left actually--on this. But for future, it
would be nice for us to have something like that before the day
before the hearing so we could spend some time reviewing it to
be able to make some reasoned inquiry into some of those
things. Is that something you could facilitate for us, sir?
Mr. Bernardi. We would be happy to do so. The Congress
asked us to give it to the Appropriations Committee.
Mrs. Jones. I understand.
Mr. Bernardi. Double check with the Appropriations
Committee. If they are fine with it, we are fine with it.
Mrs. Jones. OK.
But this is the Housing Subcommittee on Banking, over which
we do have oversight.
Chairwoman Kelly. Financial Services. You are fined $1.
Mrs. Jones. Right. Financial Services Committee. And this
is the Housing Subcommittee. And we do have jurisdiction over
HUD. So I do not think you have to get the Appropriations
Committee approval to give us information that is applicable to
that department.
Somebody else is whispering in your ear. Go ahead, tell me
your name.
Mr. Frank. He has already identified himself.
Mr. Bernardi. That is OK.
Mrs. Jones. OK. Great. Thank you very much.
Chairwoman Kelly. Ms. Waters, have you a question?
Ms. Waters. Yes, I guess I do. And I guess what I am saying
to you is what is the likelihood of us--is it too late? Well,
no, it is not too late--of us working at some formula changes
to accommodate the loss of population, so that we can make up
for the dollars that are lost in these cities where they have
lost money, maybe due to population changes? And at the same
time, not touching the communities where you are talking about
taking this meager amount anyway, that will not really make up
for that loss?
I mean, I think that is where we need to be going with
this. Increase above and beyond what appears to be about a two
percent increase in CDBG, so that that increase will
accommodate the population losses that are changing the formula
and leave those other communities alone.
What is the likelihood that we may be able to advocate in
that way?
Chairwoman Kelly. We spoke with Mr. Bernardi just now. And
he indicated he would work with us. Because part of the problem
is not just the formula, but the criteria used within that
formula. And we need to work together.
That is part of the reason why I am very happy to have him
here in front of us today, because I think it is very clear,
from what we have all heard in this room so far, that there is
a need for us to take a look at the criteria, take a look at
the formula. And based on the 2002 census figures, then they
will come up with a new formula.
The problem is they are trying to do something now without
that new formula, without the new criteria. And so that is
where we are going. That is exactly where we are heading. And
your question is very appropriate and a good one.
Mr. Bernardi. When we look at the formula, and have all of
the information from the 1990 census, we will come back to you
to discuss what the information is, what it shows and look for
your input as well as to how we can improve it.
Ms. Waters. I guess what I am saying is, just my initial
review of this, it may require a small increase to cover what
needs to be covered. So that I do not want to see anything that
is done to try and not support an increase so that it would
leave those communities intact.
Chairwoman Kelly. Mr. Israel, we have been called for a
vote. I am going to ask Mr. Israel to present his questions,
then I will recess.
Mr. Israel. Thank you, Madam Chair. In the interest of time
and because we have a vote, I will be very brief.
Mr. Bernardi, did you have a chance to read Secretary
Martinez' testimony to this subcommittee on the budget several
weeks ago?
Mr. Bernardi. Yes, I looked at it.
Mr. Israel. You did read it? Do you recall reading that
portion of the testimony where I asked him if HUD would
reevaluate the formulas that are being used as a basis to
reduce CDBG allocations in so-called wealthy communities with
pockets of poverty?
Mr. Bernardi. The Secretary is committed to working with
the Members of Congress on this. This is not unilateral. We are
just making a proposal here.
Mr. Israel. Do you recall that in the testimony, the
Secretary did, in fact, commit that he would work with my
office and other offices to revisit that issue?
Mr. Bernardi. I did not see the testimony. But I know the
Secretary, the person that he is. Of course, he would do that.
Mr. Israel. He did, in fact, commit to that. I would just
comment to your attention that my office has been trying to
contact the Secretary's office in order to begin to shape that
dialogue. And we have been rebuffed every step of the way. Was
the Secretary being inconsistent when he pledged that he would
meet with us?
Mr. Bernardi. No, not at all.
Mr. Israel. Can we get a meeting with him?
Mr. Bernardi. Let me get back to you as to working with
that particular program. I think you have some of the gentlemen
right here at the table that we would be happy to meet with
you.
Mr. Israel. Can we get a meeting with somebody at HUD to
discuss this? A human being?
Mr. Bernardi. Sure, I will meet with you.
Mr. Israel. You will?
Mr. Bernardi. Yes.
Mr. Israel. Thank you. I appreciate it.
In the interest of time, Madam Chair, I will yield back.
Chairwoman Kelly. Thank you, Mr. Israel.
Mr. Bernardi, as you can see, there is a tremendous amount
of concern and a strong need that we feel to be able to be a
part of the process. So I would urge you to please meet with
all of us. You could meet with people as requested. But more
importantly, I think that what we are asking for is a certain
amount of transparency in the process of what you are doing
with regard to this formula and the criteria that are being a
part of the formula.
You have withstood our questions very well. This has been a
tough panel. And you are new at the job. And we appreciate very
much the fact that you were here, you were open, as honest as
you possibly could be.
And with that, I am going to excuse this panel. And I am
going to ask the third panel to be seated. We are going to go
for our vote. We have a 15-minute vote and then a 5-minute
vote. So we will be back in approximately 20 to 25 minutes.
Mr. Bernardi. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Chairwoman Kelly. And I will keep this record open for 30
days for the written questions and statements by the Members of
the subcommittee.
[Recess.]
Chairwoman Kelly. Will people please take their seats?
We welcome our panelists for this panel. We have before us
the Honorable Andrew Spano, who was elected in 1998 as County
Executive for Westchester County, New York. Prior to his
election, he was the Westchester County clerk.
As County Executive, Mr. Spano has streamlined government
services by restructuring the county's department of social
services and creating a new Office of Economic Development. He
believes that state-of-the-art technology can be used to
deliver more services at less cost.
Next, we have the Honorable George Oros, who was elected to
the Westchester County Board of Legislators in 1995. He chairs
the board's Special Committee on Economic Development. Known as
a determined tax cutter and fiscal reformer, Mr. Oros has a
long record of community service, having served as Cortland
town councilman, chair of the Cortland Zoning Board of Appeals
and as Cortland's Assistant Town Attorney.
They also happen to come--both of them--from Westchester
County, where I reside. And I welcome both of them.
We follow that with Mr. David Cohen, currently serving in
his second term as Mayor of Newton, Massachusetts, having
previously been a member of the Massachusetts House of
Representatives for more than 20 years. Since becoming Mayor in
1998, Mr. Cohen has promoted efficient and cost effective
delivery of public services. He has a strong interest in
affordable housing.
We have next Ms. Josephine McNeil. She is the Executive
Director of CAN-DO, an affordable housing development
organization in Newton, Massachusetts. As a real estate
attorney, Ms. McNeil's practice focused on affordable housing.
She also served as the project manager for a for-profit housing
development.
Following her is Yvonne Gonzalez, the CEO of the Rio Grande
Valley Empowerment Zone Corporation in Mercedes, Texas. The
corporation was founded in 1994, one of only three rural
empowerment zones in the Nation.
Following that, we have Ed Gramlich, who is a Research and
Community Development Specialist with the Center for Community
Change in Washington, DC. He joined the center since 1979 and
since then, has become a noted authority on the CDBG Block
Grant program and other programs at HUD, providing low-income
community organizations with technical assistance. He has
lectured widely and written numerous guidebooks for local
organizations on UDAGs, enterprise zones and CDBG.
Following him, we have Mr. Greg Hoover, who is the Director
of Development of Davenport, Iowa's Housing and Neighborhood
Development Department. He currently serves as President of the
National Community Development Association. The association is
a national, non-profit organization comprised of more than 550
local governments across the country that administer federally-
supported community and economic development housing and human
services programs.
I want to welcome this panel. We look forward to your
testimony. And we would begin with you----
Mr. Frank. Madam Chair, just before you do, let me
particularly welcome the Mayor of my hometown, David Cohen,
with whom I had the pleasure, 24 years ago, of serving in the
Massachusetts Legislature before I came here. And he and
Josephine McNeil have both distinguished themselves by their
advocacy in a generally wealthy community, on average, for the
kind of inclusive housing and other policies that I believe are
at issue here.
So I am particularly pleased that Mayor Cohen and Ms.
McNeil were able to join us. Thank you.
Chairwoman Kelly. Thank you. If there are no other opening
statements, we are going to begin with our witnesses on our
first panel. We thank all of you for joining us here today to
share your thoughts on these issues.
Without objection, your written statements will be made
part of the record. You will each now be recognized for a 5-
minute summary of your testimony.
There is a light here in front of you that will indicate
how much time you have. The green light means that you have 4
minutes in your summary. The yellow light means you have 1
minute remaining. When the red light turns on, it means your
time has expired and we would appreciate your ending the
testimony.
We will begin with you, Mr. Spano.
STATEMENT OF HON. ANDREW SPANO, COUNTY EXECUTIVE, WESTCHESTER
COUNTY, NY
Mr. Spano. Madam Chair, Congressman Frank, Members of the
subcommittee, I would like to thank you for the opportunity to
testify here today on the importance of retaining the Community
Development Block Grant formula as it is. As you know, a
proposal has been made to cut Westchester County's CDBG grant
in half to $3.5 million and use the savings for infrastructure
improvements near the Texas-Mexican border, at least that is, I
thought, where that was going.
It has been suggested that we in Westchester, New York
City's northern neighbor, are too rich to deserve this money
and should have our CDBG funds cut. If this proposal goes
through, we would be the only county in the United States and
the only municipality in New York State to be so cut.
Indeed, only nine of 1,000 entities nationwide that receive
money from the $4.75 billion CDBG program are targeted for
cuts. And our consortium of 40 Westchester communities is being
asked to shoulder the burden of more than one-third of the
total cut.
I have a quick way to make sure that funding for
Westchester's consortium is not slashed. I can ask three of our
wealthiest communities--Scarsdale, Bronxville and Pound Ridge--
to leave our consortium. If you take them out of the group, we
are no longer double the national average in income. But to
omit from the consortium our longtime partners make no sense
and punishes people in those communities who need our help.
I am talking here about senior citizens on fixed incomes,
whose homes have been rehabilitated with the help of this
money, who without this help would be forced to either live in
an unsafe home or move. The CDBG funds that have gone to these
communities have been used to help people who need this help.
I do not think omitting these three communities from our
program is just a solution. Instead, it is a Hobson's choice:
which needy people should you cut? I believe that forcing
Westchester to bear the cuts being proposed unfairly singles us
out and would severely hurt people in our county, people of
limited or modest means who need and rely on the kinds of
neighborhood revitalization, housing and job creation programs
that these funds go to.
It will hurt our senior citizens, thousands of whom each
day use senior centers that have been built with the help of
these funds. Without this money, some of these seniors would
have to place to go for companionship and a hot meal, or help
with housing, counseling and other referral services.
It will hurt our youth, about 1,000 of whom have a safe
place to go for daycare after school because this money has
helped build youth centers and playgrounds. Without this money,
some of these teens and preteens would be out on the streets in
trouble.
It will hurt our families, thousands of low- and moderate-
income households that have been helped by these funds that
have rehabilitated dilapidated housing units to make them
decent and safe. Without this money, some of these people might
have been homeless.
It will hurt our low- and mid-income workers, many of whom
are working today because of economic opportunities created by
these funds that have revitalized neighborhoods and business
districts or because of daycare, senior centers and subsidies
that have allowed them to feel comfortable, knowing their
children and their elderly parents were in safe places while
they worked. Without this money, some of these people might be
on welfare today.
People who do not know Westchester think we have the
proverbial streets of gold. And the proposal to cut our funding
reflects this false notion.
Let me give you the facts. Eighty-seven thousand people in
Westchester live below the poverty level. And that number
increased by 50 percent since 1990. Almost 40,000 of these
people are children. Our average salaries may be high relative
to much of the Nation, but so too are our housing costs.
Take a two-income Westchester family of four with a
moderate income of $73,000. With that income, the family could
qualify for a $200,000 mortgage in Westchester. Elsewhere in
the Nation, that might buy a luxurious home. Here in
Westchester, where the median cost of housing last year was
$450,000, that home might be nonexistent. And if that house is
found, the chances are it will be in great need of repair.
And it is just not our houses that are costly, but our
rental units as well. Someone working minimum wage has to work
27 hours a day to be able to afford a two-bedroom apartment at
fair market rent.
It is no surprise to us that the National Low Income
Housing Coalition gives us the dubious distinction of being
sixth on the list of the least-affordable places to live. Maybe
that is why we have the highest per capita rate of homelessness
in the United States. And almost 30 percent of the housing
stock in our consortium was built before 1940; meaning unless
we renovate, our housing shortage will get even worse and
possibly our homeless population even larger.
Our population is aging as well. One in every five of our
county residents is over 60, putting us 50 years ahead of the
national average, placing us on an increased demand for
services. And while yes, we have perhaps more of our share of
millionaires, we also have 17,000 families with low-income
enough to qualify for food stamps and over 40,000 families
receiving medical assistance. And last year, there were five
million visits by our residents to local food pantries and soup
kitchens.
Our consortium is made up of 40 diverse communities, some
of them very urban, some suburban and others more rural. But
our poverty is dispersed within them all. And our anti-poverty
programs must recognize this.
Our county is composed of 15 percent African-American and
16 percent of the people are of Hispanic origin.
Chairwoman Kelly. Mr. Spano.
Mr. Spano. Yes?
Chairwoman Kelly. I am going to have to ask you to sum up.
Mr. Spano. That is our fastest growing segment of the
population. If you withdraw these funds from us, which
represents half of the money we are getting now, it will cause
a severe hardship on the people of Westchester County. And I
urge you not to do that.
Thank you very much.
[The prepared statement of Hon. Andrew Spano can be found
on page XX in the appendix.]
Chairwoman Kelly. Thank you very much.
Next we have Mr. Oros. And please gentlemen and Mr. Cohen,
Ms. McNeil, just make sure that the microphone is very close to
your mouth. These are not particularly good microphones.
STATEMENT OF HON. GEORGE OROS, MINORITY LEADER, WESTCHESTER
COUNTY, NEW YORK, BOARD OF LEGISLATORS
Mr. Oros. Chairwoman Kelly and Ranking Member Frank, thank
you for this opportunity to share with you and the subcommittee
a perspective of what Community Block Grants mean to the
communities I represent as a member of the Westchester County
Board of Legislators. During my tenure on the board, I have
served as Chairman of the Board and now Minority leader. During
the 1998-99 session, I was appointed Chair of our Committee on
Community Affairs and Housing, which oversees and votes on the
annual CDBG appropriations.
Now earlier, I was struck by Congresswoman Waters and
Congressman Frank and Congresswoman Kelly joining hands and
saying this joins hands. And I want to point out, the county
executive is here. He is the executive branch. I am the
legislative branch.
He is a Democrat. I am the Minority leader, the Republican
Minority leader of our legislature. So clearly, in our county,
we have crossed and joined hands as well on this issue.
In this limited timeframe, allow me to focus on several key
points. The vernacular of a block grant is somewhat of a
misnomer. These funds are more of an investment than a grant or
an expenditure.
And they are an investment not only in housing,
infrastructure and services, but an investment in people. The
City of Peekskill, one of three municipalities I represent, was
the only city in New York State to actually gain population in
the last census, after losing population in the 1980s and 1990s
as business and industry left.
That growth in population was due in part to the wise
investment over the past 20 years of almost $12 million in CDBG
money. That investment, leveraged with other Federal, State and
county funds and matched with Peekskill's own dollars, is
improving a community that has a median income of $16,589, a
minority population of 25 percent, substantial unemployment and
stagnant economic growth.
In two of the block groups, the low- to moderate-income
population exceeds 70 percent. Unemployment in this area
amongst adults over 16 is 45 percent. And 72 percent of the
housing is rental.
CDBG has made Peekskill a more desirable community. People
have stopped fleeing and are actually moving into the city and
investing their future there. In making that choice, they
continue to revitalize an economy and become more productive
citizens. But more needs to be done.
Peekskill is a HUD-approved Neighborhood Revitalization
Strategy Area, having in place a 5-year plan to undertake
comprehensive infrastructure and community projects with CDBG
funds. These projects include housing, streetscapes, a
neighborhood facility and park improvements for the 7,108
residents that live in the strategy area.
This strategy includes a gateway off the Hudson River
leading into the downtown. The uninhabitable houses, boarded up
stores and vacant lots will be turned into affordable homes,
busy shops where people can work and a safe community center to
keep our children off the streets.
But that will happen only if you in Congress decide to
continue this important investment in CDBG funds. Should
Congress approve the proposal that is on the table here, this
strategy would be stopped dead in its tracks.
Another example. The Hudson River Health Center used a
$125,000 Community Development Block Grant and a $300,000 CDBG
loan to fundraise another $580,000. And this is only the second
phase of a $3.2 million dollar project. This investment will
allow the Hudson River Health Center to expand its service
beyond the current 40,680 patient visits it handles each year.
These are people who otherwise could not afford appropriate
healthcare or would needlessly clog emergency rooms at area
hospitals.
Fifty nine percent of the population they serve is
uninsured. The preventive medicine, counseling and drug
rehabilitation programs run at this facility ultimately save
all taxpayers by improving the quality of health and life. But
again, CDBG is crucial to the success of this project.
Peekskill is only one community that I represent. And I am
only one of 17 county legislators. If time permitted, each my
colleagues could tell you firsthand the needs of the other 39
municipalities that utilize the investment dollars of CDBG.
Earlier, I referenced that CDBGs and the word grants is a
misnomer. I think another misnomer is the idea that Westchester
is a wealthy community.
On behalf of my constituents and all the taxpayers of
Westchester County, it is respectfully requested that you do
not adopt this proposed change in the CDBG formulas. Thank you
for your time.
[The prepared statement of Hon. George Oros can be found on
page XX in the appendix.]
Chairwoman Kelly. Thank you, Mr. Oros. And thank you for
watching your own time.
[Laughter.]
Next, we go to Mayor Cohen.
STATEMENT OF HON. DAVID COHEN, MAYOR, NEWTON, MA
Mr. Cohen. Chairwoman Kelly and Ranking Member Frank and
Members of the subcommittee, thank you very much for this
opportunity to speak before you today. My name is David Cohen.
I am the Mayor of Newton, Massachusetts, which is a community
of approximately 82,000, just west of Boston.
I want to urge you to oppose the proposal to cut CDBG
funding to communities whose per capita income is twice the
national average. Newton is such a city. And over the past
decade, the low- and moderate-income people living in the city
of Newton have benefited greatly from the generosity of the
Federal Government.
Since 1991, the city has used $3.7 million in CDBG funds
and $1.3 million in HOME funds to help leverage construction of
605 units of affordable housing. Now I know that 605 units over
10 years may not seem like a lot. But Newton is a community
with almost no vacant land.
In excess of 99 percent of the land is in use. And the
construction of 600 units represents a huge effort in terms of
finding sites and putting together packages.
And it has made a difference. Some 1,000 people are living
in good homes in Newton. Many of those people might otherwise
not have a place to live at all. And almost all of those people
would not have a place to live in Newton, but for your program.
The City of Newton cares very much about diversity. The
diversity of its population enriches all of us, giving a
greater understanding and respect for the traditions of our
neighbors and a deeper appreciation of our own heritage. The
availability of affordable housing is critical to our
maintaining a degree of income diversity.
And over the years, the city of Newton has taken many steps
to increase that diversity. In the early 1970s, when I was a
member of the Board of Aldermen, we enacted the first
legislation in the State to require developers to provide 10
percent of their units for low- and moderate-income housing.
And this past fall, the city of Newton people, in a
referendum voted on by the entire city, chose to increase their
annual taxes in order to build more affordable housing. And
last year, the city approved the largest ever affordable
housing development in its history. And it was passed
unanimously and with the active support of the residents in the
surrounding neighborhood.
The city of Newton has also put CDBG money to use over the
years in making sure that eligible residents in housing lived
in housing that meets applicable building codes. Since 1991, we
have used some $5 million of your money to do 220 major rehabs
of substandard units and 750 minor ones.
I think it is very important that those people needing
affordable housing have access to a wide range of communities
in our metropolitan area. Low- and moderate-income individuals
should not be restricted to living in the core cities for lack
of affordable housing elsewhere.
The best tool that we have available to us in order to
achieve this very important end is the CDBG program. And I hope
our access to these funds will not be reduced.
Although Newton is a community that is well-off--indeed,
wealthy by many standards--not every individual living in the
city of Newton is wealthy. In fact, there are many low- and
moderate-income people who live in our city. According to the
1990 census, of the 29,000 households, some 7,500 fall below 80
percent of the median income.
If you are the State or a private funding source not from
Newton, it is easy to overlook these families. After all,
Newton has so much.
So in the competition for these funds, we have not fared
well. The one place Newton's low- and moderate-income
population has received support has been from the Federal
Government in CDBG. We have tried to expend those funds wisely
in order to provide suitable living environments for low-income
people.
We believe that our full participation in this program
furthers the purposes of this Act in an important way. We ask
only that we be allowed to continue at that same level of
participation.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Hon. David Cohen can be found on
page XX in the appendix.]
Chairwoman Kelly. We thank you, Mr. Cohen.
Next we move to Ms. McNeil.
STATEMENT OF JOSEPHINE McNEIL, DIRECTOR, CITIZENS AFFORDABLE
HOUSING DEVELOPMENT ORGANIZATION OF NEWTON, MA
Ms. McNeil. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman Kelly, Ranking
Member Congressman Frank, who is--I am happy to say--my
congressman. I am thankful for the opportunity to speak to you
today about the issue that is before us with respect to
reducing the allocation of monies to so-called wealthier
communities.
We live in an area in metro Boston where housing costs are
beyond belief. A person would have to make $50,000 in order to
afford a two-bedroom apartment in metro Boston. And in Newton,
I would daresay that they have to earn even more.
So people in our community are very concerned about the
issue of affordable housing. Newton has had a history--as the
mayor mentioned--of supporting affordable housing in many ways.
I am the director of an affordable housing organization
known as CAN-DO. And we were created by the city as part of the
HOME program, which requires municipalities that receive HOME
funding to establish what is called a CHDO, which means that a
third of the people on our board are people who could be
recipients of the housing which we create.
We started off in 1994 and developed our first project with
the help of consultant in 1996. When the city began to realize
how the increase in the real estate market, the detrimental
impact that was having on the community and, in terms of
maintaining the economic diversity, which the mayor has
referred to, the city decided that one way that they could use
the CDBG funds, which is an acceptable use, is to increase the
capacity of our organization.
And in 1999, I became the executive director of that
program.
In the subsequent years, we have continued to advocate and
to try to develop housing. The real estate market is so hot
that it is very difficult for us to compete with private
developers. And there has been a lot of development going on in
the community.
And indeed, as I said, the community has become very
concerned. And 2 years ago now--it is hard to believe it was
that long--Congressman Frank actually came to a meeting that we
sponsored. We, CAN-DO, is a part of an advocacy group called
Uniting Citizens for Housing Affordability in Newton.
We had standing room only. We had people outside of the
doors. And the information we shared with people, people were
just utterly surprised. People who had lived in the community
for a long time had no idea that it was so expensive to live in
the city.
I would like to share with you some information about one
program or project that we are currently engaged in that uses
CDBG money. And we are renovating an existing historic property
to create five units of housing for single mothers and
children.
And we are working with one of the social service agencies
in the city, known as the Young Parent Program. And that
program provides some supportive services and we will provide
supportive services for the women and children who will be
living in the house.
So we are providing housing and helping people to become
more self-sufficient so that, in the future, they will not need
assistance. And for me and my board, one of our goals is to
move people out of the need for subsidized housing and into an
environment where they will be able to take care of themselves.
So funding for CDBG is important. And I guess my biggest
concern is that we are going to, if this proposal is enacted,
we are relocating poor people from a wealthy community, where
there are good schools, where there is a good quality of life,
into perhaps poorer communities and exacerbating the conditions
for the people who are living in those communities.
And I thank you for the opportunity.
[The prepared statement of Josephine McNeil can be found on
page XX in the appendix.]
Chairwoman Kelly. I thank you, Ms. McNeil.
Ms. Gonzalez.
STATEMENT OF YVONNE GONZALEZ, CEO, RIO GRANDE VALLEY
EMPOWERMENT ZONE CORPORATION, MERCEDES, TX
Ms. Gonzalez. Thank you and good morning. Chairwoman Kelly,
Ranking Member Frank and Members of the subcommittee, who
apparently are not quite here this morning. They are voting and
out.
Chairwoman Kelly. They went to the vote and there are many
other hearings.
Ms. Gonzalez. Right. Right.
Chairwoman Kelly. So that is where a lot of people are.
Ms. Gonzalez. Yes, ma'am.
Mr. Frank. Right. And there are also airplanes.
Ms. Gonzalez. I am sorry?
Mr. Frank. And there are also airplanes.
Ms. Gonzalez. Oh, yes, yes. I currently serve as the Chief
Executive Officer of the Rio Grande Valley Empowerment Zone
Corporation. And I have been with the Empowerment Zone
Corporation since 1995. The Rio Grande Valley Empowerment Zone
Corporation is a 501c3, a non-profit corporation. And we are
one of what I call the ``original old fogies.'' We are one of
the original Round I Rural Empowerment Zone designations.
On behalf of the RGVEZC and other numerous public-private
partner sectors, I would like to thank you for the opportunity
to address this subcommittee. I also serve as one of the co-
chairs of a group called the Southwest Border Region
Partnership. This is a network representing over 84 counties
along the U.S.-Mexican border, from Brownsville, Texas to San
Diego, California.
The SBRP, the Southwest Border Region Partnership, realized
that in order to have true sustainable community economic
development, the private sector needed to be at the table. And
I will speak to you about our relationships in leveraging those
dollars with the private sector.
There is a group that is called the Border Trade Alliance.
And they have relationships with both borders. Actually, they
like to say they have relationships with one border, which is
one border around the United States. But they have
relationships in the northern border and in the southern
border.
They are a trade and commerce advocacy organization. And
they have worked with grass roots communities to address the
issue of sustainable economic development.
You know--I am not saying anything new--the Community
Development Block Grant program works largely to ensure decent
affordable housing, provide services to the most vulnerable of
our communities, to create jobs and expand business
opportunity. CDBG funds have made considerable differences in
the lives of generally distressed communities, as so witnessed
by these witnesses this morning.
The RGVEZC itself, the Empowerment Zone Corporation, does
not receive CDBG funding. But the communities that we work
with, in our specific census tracts, do.
The housing and economic development work that we engage in
is structured so that the original SSBG dollars are only a seed
investment. We busily go about creating partnerships. We
believe very strongly--very strongly--that communities
themselves must feel a sense of ownership and accountability to
the project in order for it to succeed and be sustainable.
With the Empowerment Zone dollars and leveraging CDBG
dollars and private investment dollars, we have implemented and
have expanded on water wastewater treatment plants, boys &
girls clubs, health clinics, rural health clinics, have
assisted in revolving loan programs so that we have businesses
that have been created. Noted in our successful record is the
fact that out of the original $40 million, we have contracted
and/or allocated $38.5 million and have leveraged an additional
$416 million dollars into these communities.
Through the support of Senator Hutchison and Congressman
Hinojosa, the Border Trade Alliance and the Southwest Border
Region Partnership came together, created an assessment of
communities and centered on best practices in these
communities, identified two issues: small business development,
affordable housing and looking at bridging the digital divide.
I cannot speak to all or about all of the communities on
the border. I am only the CEO of the Rio Grande Valley
Empowerment Zone. But I can tell you that the work that we do
as a corporation is centered on some very key principles:
community participation, a bottoms-up approach; establishment
of public-private partnerships; fiscal and programmatic
accountability; leveraging of other dollars; and
sustainability.
In a time of limited resources and critical community
challenges, we do not have the luxury of reinventing the wheel.
It is our belief that these common issues can be addressed by
continued investment in programs and organizations that have a
proven track record.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Yvonne Gonzalez can be found on
page XX in the appendix.]
Chairwoman Kelly. Thank you, Ms. Gonzalez.
We go now to Mr. Gramlich.
STATEMENT OF ED GRAMLICH, RESEARCH AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
SPECIALIST, CENTER FOR COMMUNITY CHANGE
Mr. Gramlich. Good afternoon. I am Ed Gramlich. I am from
the Center for Community Change, which is a national non-profit
organization that provides free technical assistance to low-
income community organizations all around the country.
Since the beginning of the CDBG program, both CCC and I
have helped to inform low-income community groups all about the
CDBG program--the law, the regulations and HUD policy.
Based on the CDBG problems that CCC observes in its daily
work with low-income community groups, we know that these CDBG
problems exist in jurisdictions large and small all across the
country. Therefore, we fully support endorse H.R. 1191.
We think that H.R. 1191 is an excellent bipartisan approach
to addressing CDBG problems; bipartisan because two of the
important features of H.R. 1191 are redolent of changes that
were suggested in 1989 by HUD Assistant Secretary Anna
Kondratas.
The modifications that H.R. 1191 seeks are not radical.
They are firmly rooted in CDBG's primary objective which, as
you have heard today, is to principally benefit low- and
moderate-income people.
But the CDBG program has diverged from the primary
objective. It has become too place-based, forgetting the law's
goal of making places better principally for low- and moderate-
income people.
CDBG is a great potential resource for helping to address
the affordable housing and other needs of low- and moderate-
income people. But it is too often used in ways that do not
benefit low- and moderate-income people. It does not meet their
needs.
One of the key provisions of H.R. 1191 would raise the
primary benefit to low- and moderate-income people from 70
percent to 80 percent of the funds. Since most jurisdictions
have reported that they already meet a 90 percent benefit
level, there should not really be any objection to making this
simple change now.
In addition to the jurisdictions not taking low-income
benefits seriously, there are five technical reasons why 90
percent of CDBG money does not really benefit low-income
people. These technical problems give the impression that low-
and moderate-income people are benefiting.
My written testimony goes into great detail about these
technical things. But I would especially urge you to read about
the proportionate accounting provisions. Without them, low-
income benefit reporting is greatly inflated.
H.R. 1191's fixes to the statute are not dramatic. Three or
four of them actually use existing language from HUD's own
regulations.
Probably the most important provision of H.R. 1191 is the
introduction of a second tier of targeting; that is, ensuring
that, at a minimum, 40 percent of CDBG funds go to directly
benefit people whose incomes are below 50 percent of the
median, roughly $27,200 this year. Jurisdictions consolidated
plans universally identify the needs of those with incomes
below 50 percent of the median as being by far the greatest.
Yet, advocates all around the Nation note that CDBG money is
not allocated to low-income households commensurate with their
needs.
Now some opponents of H.R. 1191 might worry that a second
tier of targeting would destroy the flexibility of the CDBG
program. We disagree.
Jurisdictions will still have 60 percent of their money to
use for meeting the housing and community development needs of
those whose incomes are $54,400 a year. Even within that second
tier of targeting, that 40 percent, jurisdictions will have a
great deal of flexibility. The types of activities that could
be funded remain largely unchanged.
And then finally, some might argue that a second tier of
targeting would convert the CDBG program into an anti-poverty
program. Our response to that is that the law has always sought
to principally benefit moderate and low-income people. However,
low-income people have not seen their fair share of the
program's funds.
A second tier of targeting would not be a fundamental shift
in the program. On the contrary, a second tier would help to
reestablish a kind of balance within the program, a balance
which is consonant with the primary objective and as well as
with the program's weighted allocation formula.
Thank you very much.
[The prepared statement of Ed Gramlich can be found on page
XX in the appendix.]
Chairwoman Kelly. We thank you.
Mr. Hoover.
STATEMENT OF GREG HOOVER, PRESIDENT, NATIONAL COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT ASSOCIATION; DIRECTOR, HOUSING AND NEIGHBORHOOD
DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, CITY OF DAVENPORT, IA
Mr. Hoover. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman, Ranking Member
Frank.
I am Greg Hoover, Manager, Housing and Neighborhood
Development for the city of Davenport, Iowa, which is--until
recently with redistricting--the home of Congressman Leach and
will be the district of Congressman Nussle, should he be
successful in next year's elections.
I am here representing the National Community Development
Association as their president, but also here on behalf of the
U.S. Conference of Mayors, the National Association of
Counties, the National Association for County Community and
Economic Development and the Council of State Community
Development Agencies. I am here to speak in strong opposition
to H.R. 1191.
I dispensed my remarks to a few sheets here, but I am even
going to divert from that.
I want to give a very quick history lesson, because what
you have heard this morning is some informed and a lot of
misinformed conceptions about CDBG. CDBG was not an anti-
poverty program that grew out of the 1968 Johnson
Administration. It began in 1974 with the Model Cities Program
and of the Nixon Administration.
It is a program that is designed to benefit communities--
yes, principally low- and moderate-income people. And there
seems to be a disagreement on the definition of what
principally means. But I will tell you that in our city and the
communities that NCDA represents, it has been a tool for
economic change. It has been a tool that will allow us to move
people, to de-concentrate those folks who are low- and
moderate-income people from those areas in which they currently
live to other, better, more affluent areas and also to bring in
people of higher and moderate income into those poorer,
distressed neighborhoods.
If you would continue and pass this bill, I can tell you,
as a practitioner, the real-life effect will be that you will
concentrate low- and moderate-income people in the
neighborhoods in which they are currently living. And that
flies in the face of other Federal legislation of affirmatively
furthering fair housing. So this bill would put us in conflict
with another--and I think higher--authority bill.
Excuse me. I would like to also address the issue of
raising the aggregate amount of CDBG. In Davenport, we have
done an excellent job, I believe. And 50 percent of our people
over the last 5 years--or 3 years--have been at those 50
percent or below. So we can do those things.
But what you are doing is decreasing the flexibility of the
local governments. Additionally, in H.R. 1191, there is a
provision that would disallow claiming of low-mod benefit to
areas that are not primarily residential. That would hurt
downtown redevelopment.
In Davenport, we have approximately $113 million
revitalization project going on, of which CDBG will be a small,
but important part. And the downtown is right now the locus of
a lot of elderly housing and a lot of services that are down
there. So if you are telling me that the city of Davenport
cannot use our funds down there, then what you are telling me
is we cannot serve the low- and moderate-income people that are
intended to be served by the program.
I would like to quickly address the what I call ``anti-
wealthy community'' proposal by HUD. I think that is very much
akin to saying to wealthy people, ``Sorry. When you get to the
age where you can get Medicare, you cannot participate in that
because you have enough money to provide that yourself.'' It
just does not make sense.
As Lewis Carroll said at one time, ``If it were so, it
might be. If it was so, it would be. As it is not, it ain't.''
And that is logic. And I do not think there is any logic to
HUD's proposal.
We would also strongly endorse what I have heard here today
by the subcommittee of increasing HUD's budget. That is the way
to get a lot of these changes.
And lastly, I would conclude by saying you have already
received--albeit late--a report from HUD. There is another
study that is coming out on the formula. We would encourage you
to delay any action on these two proposals until you get those
studies, have a chance to review them and make informed
decisions.
And NCDA and the other groups that I am representing would
pledge our support to working on that formula committee. In
fact, NCDA--and I hope your communities are members; Mr. Frank,
I know that Newton is--that they would join with our committee
that we have in NCDA on the formula allocation.
Thank you for your time.
[The prepared statement of Greg Hoover can be found on page
XX in the appendix.]
Chairwoman Kelly. We thank you, Mr. Hoover.
Mr. Hoover, what you testified to just now was somewhat
contrary to what Mr. Gramlich said. And Mr. Gramlich, I wonder
if you would like to focus on a response of some sort with Mr.
Hoover. I know I am sort of catching you unawares here. But I
would like some clarification.
Mr. Frank. Oh, I do not think you have caught him unawares.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Gramlich. We could do this in our sleep because our
organizations have been battling.
Mr. Frank. Yes, just do not do it in our sleep.
Mr. Gramlich. Are you saying I am boring? Having done CDBG
for 27 years, I think I probably am boring.
One of the misconceptions that he talked about was the
notion that one could no longer use CDBG money in downtown
areas. First of all, HUD--in its regulations--has long
proscribed the use of the area-wide benefit test in areas that
are not primarily residential in character, precisely because
some downtown areas might--they have few people who live there.
They are primarily business oriented. But in terms of the
census tracts, they are low-income.
So what you have are decorative lighting, fancy brick
streetscapes and things of that nature, which do not really
benefit low- or moderate-income people. So HUD, at least as far
back as 1988, said, ``Well, in those cases, that does not meet
the idea of benefiting low- and moderate-income people. We will
not allow that in an area that is not primarily residential in
character.''
Now there are a lot of neighborhood commercial strips, and
small town central business districts that do serve lower
income people who live around that. And HUD's service area test
would certainly allow the use of the area-wide benefit test in
those cases.
Mr. Hoover talked about housing in a downtown area. I got
my start in CDBG in 1974 in Davenport. I recall 202 down there.
I cannot remember the street anymore, however.
You could use CDBG money for housing. That is not a part of
the area-wide benefit test.
So there are a whole lot of misconceptions that I think if
one carefully looked at the proposed statute, H.R. 1191, you
would find that things are not quite as scary and dire as has
been proposed here. And of course, if you read my lengthy
written testimony, you will find that out.
Chairwoman Kelly. Thank you very much.
It sounds to me as though what we are coming out with here
is a need for the people who are allowing the CDBG grants to go
forward to assess exactly what they are doing with regard to
their intended purpose.
That takes me to Mr. Oros, because I know the City of
Peekskill well. This is a poor community in many ways.
The way that the city has been able to bring itself back
has been able to allow loft living above commercial development
there. It has been extremely important to try to bring this
almost moribund city back into play as a modern city, to allow
that intermix between housing--and that is low-income housing,
some of it--and a better downtown. And actually, in fact, in
this instance, the repaving of the streets and providing better
streetlights stopped the types of things that were going on on
the streets and allowed people to be able to live in the lofts.
And I am wondering, Mr. Oros, if Peekskill is forced to
apply for the CDBG grants as an individual municipality, what
effects on Peekskill would you anticipate?
Mr. Oros. Well, thank you. I think the simple answer to
that is something that many of you in Washington hear all the
time, is the money will not get to the use it needs. Instead,
what we have been successful in doing in Westchester County
with our consortium is having a central administrative office
so that, for every dollar we get from this program, more of it
gets to the programs to be spent on the bricks and mortars and
the other things it needs to be spent on, rather than--dare I
say this word here?--bureaucracy.
So I think what would happen is that you would end up
having many of the communities of Westchester County having to
build their own internal staff and bureaucracy and planning
departments and so forth to do this, rather than relying on the
county where we have a central staff. They are well attuned to
everything that is going on. They are able to work with the
local communities. But to keep up with all the Federal
guidelines, to make sure all the things are being filed
properly would be an administrative nightmare for Peekskill.
Peekskill is a city of 20,000. You know, ``city'' may be
another misnomer here because only 20,000 people live in
Peekskill. Most of them are under the median income. Most of
them are in need of this.
And the problem is you cannot have the type of--you do not
have the type of tax base there to have a huge city government
bureaucracy to take care of these things. So they do rely on
the county.
And that is, I think the county executive alluded to how he
could take some of these communities out of here to fool around
with this formula proposal. But that really does not serve a
purpose, I do not think, for any of these communities.
Chairwoman Kelly. Thank you.
I have one other question, and that is for you, Mr. Spano.
The HUD people spoke in their testimony of a 51 percent
increase in Westchester County CDBG funding since 1980. I
wonder if you would like to talk about that a little bit. Can
you explain that?
Mr. Spano. Well, they are going back to when there were
about 21 communities in the consortium. We have increased our
consortium from 21 to 40. So you can pick it up right there.
Subsequent to the 1990 census, in the new census, we have
also increased our population of minorities in Westchester
County. So that would account for a lot of it.
Chairwoman Kelly. Thank you. I have no more questions.
Mr. Frank, have you a question?
Mr. Frank. Yes, let me begin. And Mr. Spano understandably
checked himself because HUD has changed its position. When you
referred to the argument that this money was going to go to the
colonias. Not that $8 million would go very far.
Apparently, HUD has changed its position because there were
two documents. The earlier document said it would go to the
colonias. They reconsidered that. And in Mr. Bernardi's
testimony, the colonias were involved only in the sense that
the ankle bone is connected to the shoulder bone.
[Laughter.]
I mean, there was no direct transplant in that regard.
I just want to make a couple of observations. First of all,
I want to congratulate the most 5-minute observant witness
panel we have ever had.
[Laughter.]
But you also showed collectively that you can within the 5
minutes if you do not waste a lot of time, get a lot of meat on
the bones.
Yes, Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Spano. We were intimidated.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Frank. But it is a good lesson for me.
Mr. Spano. At least I was.
Mr. Frank. But I just want to make a couple of comments.
First of all, one of the problems we run into is because so
many of the Government's other housing programs have been cut
back, CDBG has been forced to be more of a low-income housing
program than it was originally intended to be.
Mr. Hoover alluded to the origins of CDBG. It was special
revenue sharing. There was general and special revenue sharing
back in the Nixon days.
And part of the problem has been that CDBG has been forced
to bear more weight in a different area. And I am hoping that
we can get the Federal Government back in the business of some
specific housing production programs, which would take some of
this distorting pressure off CDBG.
So I agree with Mr. Hoover's description there.
Second, I do think--and we have gotten two proposals here.
One which says take some money away from wealthy communities;
another which says focus more on low-income legislatively. My
view is--and I had a chance to speak with Ms. Meek about this,
who has been a very staunch advocate of social justice.
Part of the problem has been that HUD--and I do not mean to
point to this HUD. No HUD in my memory, 22 years, has enforced
these restrictions. And then I want to give some of the blame
to us. Frankly, what would happen if they did try to enforce
the restrictions is that the city would complain to their
Representative or Senator.
And I think one of the things that we need to do, Madam
Chair, is I am ready to ask HUD to be tougher. And I am ready,
among ourselves, to say we will back HUD up if they are
tougher. And when some of our colleagues come complaining to us
and say, ``Penalize HUD because they are doing this,'' that we
have to be willing to say no. That is, I think if you looked at
the rules--now, the one question I think we need to debate is
the question of the accounting and whether or not you should do
proportional accounting.
It would seem to me that proportional accounting should not
be objectionable, depending on what the requirements are, that
if it is not in the service. You know, proportional accounting
in the service of a 90 percent low-income requirement is going
to be strongly resisted. But, proportional accounting in the
service of this orientation to low- and moderate-income, in
general, would be different.
But I would like to say out of this--and it has been a very
useful hearing. And I am grateful to the chair for the way she
has conducted it and to all the participants, the HUD people
and others.
I see, on a tough issue frankly, the potential for
consensus, which says we will agree at least to try for a while
better enforcement than we have ever had of the existing low-
and moderate-income restrictions, some better accounting that
more accurately looks at that. At the same time, a recognition
that this is not meant to be primarily a housing program or
exclusively certainly a housing program, but that it ought to
be able to provide some of the amenities that would go along
with the housing.
And our part in that would be to say to HUD, ``OK. And if
and when you start enforcing this, we will be there to protect
you against the inevitable complaints that are going to come
from some of the members.'' And I frankly hope that maybe out
of this whole set of kind of proposals could come that
approach.
And I want to say I appreciate that the Deputy Assistant
Secretary is remaining, seriously. Because sometimes, you know,
we get some hit and run. The Deputy Assistant Secretary has
remained and has listened. And we appreciate that.
So Madam Chairwoman, I look forward to all of us working
together. Because I think out of this one, we may get some
consensus.
Let's be honest. I do not think any of the legislative
proposals are going to pass. The Administration's bill is not
going to pass. Carrie Meek--I strongly support a lot of what
Carrie wants to do--that is not going to pass.
I think my colleague, Ms. Waters, gave everybody a very
good political science lecture in about 3 minutes. She ought to
go on the internet for distance learning with it.
[Laughter.]
But I do think we could come together on at least a much
better enforcement than we have ever had of the existing rules
and work on that.
Mr. Hoover, you wanted to comment on that?
Mr. Hoover. Yes, thank you very much. I would just like to
pledge the support of NCDA and the members that I am
representing today to that effort.
As you know, we work very closely with the Department of
Housing and Urban Development to get the spend-down rate more
in line. And we are committed to doing that.
Mr. Frank. Good. Let me throw in here, both for NACO and
for the Conference of Mayors, if we could get--and you, of
course, NCDA is the primary advocate for this. If we could all
agree that when HUD enforces, in fairness to HUD, they just do
not just get jumped on and they are left alone, because they
had the temerity to enforce the rules.
If we could all agree to try and support such enforcement,
I think we may be able to advance this.
Madam Chair, I am finished. And I thank everybody for
helping.
Chairwoman Kelly. Thank you very much.
Mr. Frank. Mr. Hoover had one more.
Mr. Hoover. Just one more thing. In a quick aside, when we
ask for money, I will tell you that what would be very
beneficial would be technical assistance money directly----
Mr. Frank. OK, Mr. Hoover. I have got to tell you this. If
my district, if my community was about to go into the district
of the guy who is now the Budget Chairman, I would not waste
time talking to me and Kelly. So why don't you go there and go
talk to him?
[Laughter.]
Mr. Hoover. I intend to do that.
Chairwoman Kelly. If there are no more questions, then the
chair notes that some Members may have additional questions,
which they may wish to submit in writing. Without objection,
the hearing record will remain open for 30 days for Members to
submit written questions to these witnesses and place their
responses in the record.
This panel is excused with our great thanks for your
patience and your testimony. And we appreciate your time.
[Whereupon, at 1:37 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.]
A P P E N D I X
March 14, 2002
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8400.001
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8400.002
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8400.003
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8400.004
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8400.005
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8400.006
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8400.007
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8400.008
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8400.009
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8400.010
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8400.011
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8400.012
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8400.013
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8400.014
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8400.015
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8400.016
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8400.017
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8400.018
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8400.019
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8400.020
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8400.021
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8400.022
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8400.023
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8400.024
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8400.025
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8400.026
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8400.027
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8400.028
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8400.029
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8400.030
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8400.031
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8400.032
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8400.033
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8400.034
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8400.035
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8400.036
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8400.037
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8400.038
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8400.039
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8400.040
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8400.041
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8400.042
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8400.043
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8400.044
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8400.045
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8400.046
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8400.047
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8400.048
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8400.049
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8400.050
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8400.051
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8400.052
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8400.053
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8400.054
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8400.055
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8400.056
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8400.057
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8400.058
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8400.059
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8400.060
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8400.061
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8400.062
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8400.063
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8400.064
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8400.065
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8400.066
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8400.067
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8400.068
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8400.069
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8400.070
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8400.071
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8400.072
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8400.073
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8400.074
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8400.075
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8400.076
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8400.077
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8400.078
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8400.079
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8400.080
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8400.081
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8400.082
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8400.083
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8400.084
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8400.085
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8400.086
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8400.087
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8400.088
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8400.089
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8400.090
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8400.091
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8400.092
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8400.093
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8400.094
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8400.095
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8400.096
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8400.097
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8400.098
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8400.099
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8400.100
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8400.101
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8400.102