    [House Hearing, 115 Congress]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

                          COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK
                        GRANT-DISASTER RECOVERY PROGRAM_.
                            STAKEHOLDER PERSPECTIVES

    =======================================================================

                                     HEARING

                                   BEFORE THE

                           SUBCOMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT
                               AND INVESTIGATIONS

                                     OF THE

                        COMMITTEE ON FINANCIAL SERVICES

                         U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                         ONE HUNDRED FIFTEENTH CONGRESS

                                 SECOND SESSION

                                   __________

                                  MAY 17, 2018

                                   __________

           Printed for the use of the Committee on Financial Services

                             Serial No. 115-93

    [GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                                   __________

                        U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
    31-457 PDF                  WASHINGTON : 2018

    -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing Office,
    http://bookstore.gpo.gov. For more information, contact the GPO Customer Contact Center,
    U.S. Government Publishing Office. Phone 202-512-1800, or 866-512-1800 (toll-free).
    E-mail, gpo@custhelp.com.

                     HOUSE COMMITTEE ON FINANCIAL SERVICES

                        JEB HENSARLING, Texas, Chairman

    PATRICK T. McHENRY, North Carolina,  MAXINE WATERS, California, Ranking
        Vice Chairman                        Member
    PETER T. KING, New York              CAROLYN B. MALONEY, New York
    EDWARD R. ROYCE, California          NYDIA M. VELAZQUEZ, New York
    FRANK D. LUCAS, Oklahoma             BRAD SHERMAN, California
    STEVAN PEARCE, New Mexico            GREGORY W. MEEKS, New York
    BILL POSEY, Florida                  MICHAEL E. CAPUANO, Massachusetts
    BLAINE LUETKEMEYER, Missouri         WM. LACY CLAY, Missouri
    BILL HUIZENGA, Michigan              STEPHEN F. LYNCH, Massachusetts
    SEAN P. DUFFY, Wisconsin             DAVID SCOTT, Georgia
    STEVE STIVERS, Ohio                  AL GREEN, Texas
    RANDY HULTGREN, Illinois             EMANUEL CLEAVER, Missouri
    DENNIS A. ROSS, Florida              GWEN MOORE, Wisconsin
    ROBERT PITTENGER, North Carolina     KEITH ELLISON, Minnesota
    ANN WAGNER, Missouri                 ED PERLMUTTER, Colorado
    ANDY BARR, Kentucky                  JAMES A. HIMES, Connecticut
    KEITH J. ROTHFUS, Pennsylvania       BILL FOSTER, Illinois
    LUKE MESSER, Indiana                 DANIEL T. KILDEE, Michigan
    SCOTT TIPTON, Colorado               JOHN K. DELANEY, Maryland
    ROGER WILLIAMS, Texas                KYRSTEN SINEMA, Arizona
    BRUCE POLIQUIN, Maine                JOYCE BEATTY, Ohio
    MIA LOVE, Utah                       DENNY HECK, Washington
    FRENCH HILL, Arkansas                JUAN VARGAS, California
    TOM EMMER, Minnesota                 JOSH GOTTHEIMER, New Jersey
    LEE M. ZELDIN, New York              VICENTE GONZALEZ, Texas
    DAVID A. TROTT, Michigan             CHARLIE CRIST, Florida
    BARRY LOUDERMILK, Georgia            RUBEN KIHUEN, Nevada
    ALEXANDER X. MOONEY, West Virginia
    THOMAS MacARTHUR, New Jersey
    WARREN DAVIDSON, Ohio
    TED BUDD, North Carolina
    DAVID KUSTOFF, Tennessee
    CLAUDIA TENNEY, New York
    TREY HOLLINGSWORTH, Indiana

                         Shannon McGahn, Staff Director
                  Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations

                        ANN WAGNER, Missouri, Chairwoman

    SCOTT TIPTON, Colorado, Vice         AL GREEN, Texas, Ranking Member
        Chairman                         KEITH ELLISON, Minnesota
    PETER T. KING, New York              EMANUEL CLEAVER, Missouri
    PATRICK T. McHENRY, North Carolina   JOYCE BEATTY, Ohio
    DENNIS A. ROSS, Florida              MICHAEL E. CAPUANO, Massachusetts
    LUKE MESSER, Indiana                 GWEN MOORE, Wisconsin
    LEE M. ZELDIN, New York              JOSH GOTTHEIMER, New Jersey
    DAVID A. TROTT, Michigan             VICENTE GONZALEZ, Texas
    BARRY LOUDERMILK, Georgia            CHARLIE CRIST, Florida
    DAVID KUSTOFF, Tennessee
    CLAUDIA TENNEY, New York
    TREY HOLLINGSWORTH, Indiana

                                C O N T E N T S

                                  ----------
                                                                       Page
    Hearing held on:
        May 17, 2018.................................................     1
    Appendix:
        May 17, 2018.................................................    29

                                   WITNESSES
                             Thursday, May 17, 2018

    Costello, Stephen, Chief Resilience Officer, Office of the Mayor,
      City of
      Houston........................................................     5
    Ellis, Hon. Rodney, Commissioner, Harris County, Texas...........     7
    Lagrone, Heather, Deputy Director, Texas General Land Office.....     9
    Martin, Carlos, Senior Fellow, Metropolitan Housing and
      Communities Policy Center, Urban Institute.....................    11
    McFadden, Marion Mollegen, Vice President, Public Policy,
      Enterprise Community Partners, Inc.............................    12

                                    APPENDIX

    Prepared statements:
        Costello, Stephen............................................    30
        Ellis, Hon. Rodney...........................................    32
        Lagrone, Heather.............................................    36
        Martin, Carlos...............................................    40
        McFadden, Marion Mollegen....................................    52

                          COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK
                       GRANT-DISASTER RECOVERY PROGRAM--
                            STAKEHOLDER PERSPECTIVES

                                  ----------

                             Thursday, May 17, 2018

                         U.S. House of Representatives,
                                      Subcommittee on Oversight
                                            and Investigations,
                               Committee on Financial Services,
                                                       Washington, D.C.
        The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10 a.m., in
    room 2128, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. Ann Wagner
    [chairwoman of the subcommittee] presiding.
        Present: Representatives Wagner, Tipton, Zeldin, Trott,
    Loudermilk, Kustoff, Tenney, Green, Cleaver, Beatty, and
    Gonzalez.
        Also present: Representative Hill.
        Chairwoman Wagner. The Subcommittee on Oversight and
    Investigations will come to order.
        Today's hearing is entitled, ``Community Development Block
    Grant-Disaster Recovery Program--Stakeholder Perspectives.''
        Without objection, the Chair is authorized to declare a
    recess of the subcommittee at any time.
        And, without objection, members of the full committee who
    are not members of this subcommittee may participate in today's
    hearing for the purpose of making an opening statement and
    questioning our witnesses.
        The Chair now recognizes herself for 4 minutes for an
    opening statement.
        The Committee Development Block Grant-Disaster Recovery
    Program, CDBG-DR, provides communities much-needed access to
    resources in order to rebuild in the wake of natural disasters.
    Today's hearing, which is appropriately titled ``Stakeholder
    Perspectives,'' is the second CDBG-DR oversight hearing held by
    this subcommittee in the 115th Congress.
        Members of the subcommittee will hear testimony on the
    challenges that exist with the CDBG-DR Program in its current
    form and discuss actions Congress might consider that increase
    both the accountability of appropriated funds and help to
    deliver them to affected communities.
        While Congress has recently appropriated over $35 billion
    in CDBG-DR funds for victims of storms primarily in Florida,
    Texas, and Puerto Rico, members of this subcommittee should
    demand that any dollar designated for disaster relief is being
    effectively spent on victims.
        In testimony before the subcommittee last November, the
    Acting Inspector General for Housing and Urban Development,
    HUD, noted that, while flexibility is important in the wake of
    disaster, CDBG-DR funds often go toward programs or recipients
    for whom they are not originally intended. The Acting IG
    indicated that HUD faces significant challenges in monitoring
    CDBG-DR funds provided to various grantees under its purview,
    in part because HUD, at times, waives certain program
    requirements, and grantees may have a lack of understanding of
    disaster assistance.
        The Acting IG also testified that victims of disaster may
    encounter a variety of challenges throughout the disaster
    assistance process, which include potential duplication of
    benefits, slow disbursement of the disaster-related funding,
    and delays in funding for low- and moderate-income citizens.
        While HUD has become a primary provider of disaster
    recovery, the program is not codified in statute. Instead, HUD
    uses more than 60 Federal Register notices to issue clarifying
    guidance, waivers, and alternative requirements to both its
    entitlement and State CDBG-DR programs to oversee at least 113
    active disaster recovery grants, which total more than $47
    billion. To put it bluntly, the disaster recovery program is a
    bit of a disaster.
        I am eager to hear testimony today that will discuss the
    value of codifying the program into statute because I strongly
    believe codifying a single disaster recovery program would
    provide a template or a framework for future disasters. It
    would reduce the over-reliance on the plethora of Federal
    Register notices and other informal forms of guidance for each
    disaster and speedy delivery of disaster assistance for
    grantees and, more importantly, for our disaster victims.
        Finally, I just want to take a moment to thank Ranking
    Member Green for his support in legislation that we have been
    working together on for a number of months. I look forward to
    furthering those discussions as well as hearing recommendations
    from our witnesses this morning.
        And, with that, I yield back the balance of my time, and I
    now wish to recognize my friend, the gentleman from Texas, Mr.
    Green, the Ranking Member for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Green. Thank you, Madam Chair. It is indeed a privilege
    to work with you on these projects.
        I also, and I think you will concur, think that we should
    thank our staffs. They have been working tirelessly to make
    sure that we cover all of our bases, and notwithstanding all of
    the effort, I am sure that there will be some things that we
    just won't be able to get to, but I am grateful that you have
    not only worked with me in a very coordinated fashion, but also
    you have embraced this hearing with a great degree of alacrity,
    and that means a lot to me.
        To the witnesses, I am grateful that you are here today.
    This is very important. We need to hear from you because you
    have had a hands-on experience with these events, these natural
    disasters, if you will, and it is important that we hear from
    you about these things.
        I think for the people who may be watching us at home, it
    is important for me to say that this is not, n-o-t, this is not
    a ``how much'' hearing. And I am saying this because many
    times, after hearings, I will have persons who will ask me,
    ``Why didn't you bring up something that was important,'' as it
    relates to them. And there are many people who want to know how
    much money will we allocate, how much can they expect; and this
    is not a ``how much'' hearing.
        This is more about how shall we; how shall we deliver what
    the Congress appropriates? Shall there be a paradigm that has
    reasonable expectations codified within it such that
    municipalities, counties, States, can have a reasonable
    expectation as to how to proceed so that they can have an
    efficacious result.
        This is an important hearing. It is exceedingly important
    that we understand some of the things that victims have had to
    endure, and I am sure some of you will have anecdotal evidence
    about the victims and how they have had to cope with certain
    circumstances over a prolonged period of time. I concur with
    the Chairwoman when she said that we want to make sure that we
    take care of the victims. The money should get to them, and it
    should get to them as expeditiously and efficiently as
    possible, and that is what she and I would like to see, and I
    fully support this.
        I also want to mention one other thing that is important
    that won't be a part of this hearing, and that is how HUD will
    handle things, how HUD handles the dollars. I am saying this to
    you in this sense. I know that HUD will be understaffed when we
    have these natural disasters, and there possibly is a need for
    HUD to staff up to meet the demands that are imposed when we
    have these circumstances, and that is something that we will
    have to deal with here in Congress. But I know, and I want
    people to know that I am concerned about this.
        I also want to mention direct funding. This is an issue
    that I have been grappling with. And in trying to find a way,
    trying to find a way to get the end beneficiary, those who have
    been victimized, how to get to them the dollars, the funding,
    the appropriations as quickly as possible, we have been
    grappling with the question of direct funding and how do you
    get that to a municipality, county, that can actually handle
    the dollars that will be sent.
        It is one thing to receive the dollars, and it is another
    thing to be able to account for them after they have been
    spent. That accounting process requires much more than a good
    many small-to medium-size municipalities can cope with. So we
    want to make sure that we don't impose upon some venues a
    process that they won't be able to manage effectively.
        And finally this: As we proceed with the hearing today, it
    is going to be very important that I, and others, that we give
    a good deal of concern, in my opinion, for those who not only
    live and thrive in the suites of life, but also those who live
    and survive in the streets of life.
        There are people in my city who go home to an overpass.
    There are people in my city who go home to a bed of bedrock.
    There are people in my city who are victimized by these
    disasters, these monsters, that don't have the opportunity to
    benefit to the extent that I think that they should from the
    taxpayer-funded aid. So I will be concerned about how we help
    those that I consider the least, the last, and the lost.
        With this, Madam Chair, I gladly yield to you, and I thank
    you so much for the time.
        Chairwoman Wagner. The Chair now recognizes the Vice Chair
    of the Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee, the gentleman
    from Colorado, Mr. Tipton, for 1 minute for an opening
    statement.
        Mr. Tipton. Thank you, Chairwoman Wagner, and appreciate
    you holding a hearing on today's important topic, and
    appreciate the comments made by the Ranking Member, that it is
    not only the dollars but the accountability of those dollars.
        In my home State of Colorado, Community Development Block
    Grants for Disaster Recovery have been used for flood and fire
    recovery programs. These programs address housing,
    infrastructure, planning, and economic development needs, and
    have proven to be effective tools in responding to the
    aftermath of a disaster.
        However, as effective as these dollars may have been in
    helping to meet the needs of post-disaster communities, we must
    be sure that we must practice the most prudent stewardship of
    taxpayer dollars. I look forward to the hearing and the witness
    testimony about how the CDBG-DR dollars have been administered
    in specific State examples and more generally across the
    country. I look forward to continuing to work with Chairwoman
    Wagner and the Ranking Member toward a solution that provides
    greater accountability. I yield back.
        Chairwoman Wagner. The gentleman yields back. We now
    welcome our witnesses, some who have come from a great deal of
    time and distance. The Chair now recognizes the Ranking Member
    from Texas, Mr. Green, to introduce today's first three
    witnesses.
        Mr. Green. Thank you again, Madam Chair. I see this
    opportunity to introduce the witnesses as a further indication
    of the bipartisanship that we have engendered. I am honored,
    Madam Chair, to introduce first Mr. Stephen Costello.
        Let me start by indicating that Houston, as you know, has
    had many unfortunate circumstances with rain, to the extent
    that he is affectionately known as the Flood Czar. His official
    title is the Chief Resiliency Officer for the city of Houston.
    He is a former city council member at-large. In Houston, we
    have single-member districts, and we have at-large seats. He
    was a person who represented the entirety of the city in his
    city council capacity.
        He is an engineer, civil. I was a person who attended
    school to become a mechanical engineer. It is my understanding
    that a mechanical engineer is a civil engineer with his brains
    beat out; so it is an honor to be in your company today.
        I also further understand that he has done something that
    can benefit all of us. He has worked with the Army Corps of
    Engineers, and of course, he is the cofounder of Costello
    Engineering and Surveying civil engineering firm.
        The next witness is someone that I have known for many
    years. He and I are proteges, if I may say so, of the Honorable
    Mickey Leland, who represented the 18th Congressional District
    from the State of Texas.
        He has worked with Lieutenant Governor Bill Harvey in the
    past. He was a law clerk to Chief Justice John Phillips, of the
    Third Court of Appeals. He has served on city council, having
    been elected at a very early age of 29. He has been elected to
    the Senate of the State of Texas. And he recently left the
    senate to become a county commissioner, one of the most sought-
    after positions in Texas. People will leave Congress to become
    a county commissioner.
        And his name is, of course, Rodney Ellis, a very dear
    friend. Thank you. My chief of staff reminded me that you
    probably ought to mention his name, Congressman.
        Ms. Heather Lagrone, a person that we truly respect and are
    honored to have with us today because she is the person who
    works with the CDBG-DR, a slight tongue-twister for some of us,
    not all, but, in any event, the DR funds. And she works as a
    Deputy Director for the Community Development and
    Revitalization for the Texas Land Commission Office. This is a
    pretty important office in my life right now because they are,
    of course, dealing with the DR funds. And I must tell you, I
    think that they are going to do a great job. And I would like
    for her boss to know that we appreciate his efforts and what he
    is doing in this endeavor.
        She has a degree in urban geography from Texas A&M
    University. We are both Aggies in the sense that I went to
    Florida A&M University in Tallahassee. She has 15 years of
    experience with CDBG and the CDBG-DR programs. She manages the
    day-to-day operations--you can't have any more hands-on
    experience than that--of the program totaling over $3 billion.
        We are honored to have all three.
        And, Madam Chair, I yield back to you.
        Chairwoman Wagner. The gentleman yields back.
        Our final two witnesses for today's hearing are Carlos
    Martin and Marion McFadden.
        Dr. Martin is a Senior Fellow at the Urban Institute, where
    he leads research on the physical quality of housing and
    communities. As a trained architect and engineer, his area of
    expertise includes greenhousing, disaster mitigation,
    substandard housing, and construction work force.
        Ms. McFadden is Vice President of Public Policy at
    Enterprise Community Partners. Before her current position, she
    served as Deputy Assistant Secretary for Grant Programs at the
    U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development from 2014
    through 2016, and oversaw affordable housing and community
    development programs, including the Neighborhood Stabilization
    Program, NSP, and the CDBG Disaster Recovery funds.
        The witnesses will now be recognized for 5 minutes to give
    an oral presentation of their testimony.
        And, without objection, the witnesses' written statements
    will be made part of the record following their oral remarks.
    Once the witnesses have finished presenting their testimony,
    each member of the subcommittee will have 5 minutes within
    which to ask questions.
        With that, Mr. Costello, you are now recognized for 5
    minutes.

                     STATEMENT OF STEPHEN COSTELLO

        Mr. Costello. Good morning, Madam Chair, and honorable
    committee members.
        My name, for the record, is Stephen Costello, and I am the
    Chief Resilience Officer for the city of Houston, and I am here
    today on behalf of our mayor, Sylvester Turner. Thank you for
    the opportunity to share my perspective regarding the Community
    Development Block Grant-Disaster Recovery Program.
        Before I address the specific topic, I do want to expand a
    little bit upon my resume that Congressman Green put forth. I
    have been in this business for over 40 years, starting in 1977
    as a civilian working for the Army Corps of Engineers. I come
    from private practice. I served on council for 6 years. I was
    the budget chairman for 5 of those 6 years, and I advocated for
    investment in infrastructure and was instrumental in the
    passage of Renew Houston, an $8 billion, 20-year infrastructure
    funding investment for drainage improvements.
        In 2015, facing term limits, I unsuccessfully ran for mayor
    against my current mayor, Mayor Turner. During the early months
    of Mayor Turner's tenure, I was honored for his consideration
    for the possibility of my return to the city. During this time,
    the city experienced what we commonly call the Tax Day Flood,
    April 2016, the third massive flood in less than 18 months. As
    a result, I decided to join the mayor's staff as the chief
    resiliency officer, and he tasked me with the role of working
    primarily on flooding and drainage. Even though my title is
    chief resilience officer, publicly he gave me the term Flood
    Czar, which everybody currently uses.
        Currently, my main duties are to interface with external
    agencies, county, State, and Federal agencies, as well as
    internal city departments on flooding and drainage projects.
        With respect to the topic under consideration by the
    subcommittee, I respectfully offer these comments based on
    recent experiences with Hurricane Ike and 2015 flood recovery
    funds. Upon assuming my current position, I was asked to assist
    in completing several infrastructure projects identified in the
    2008 Hurricane Ike Disaster Relief Action Plan. These projects
    are still ongoing and are expected to be completed in June
    2019, 12 years post the hurricane.
        Several reasons can be attributed to the delay. However,
    the primary issue is associated with the establishment flow of
    recovery funds from HUD to the State or the local metropolitan
    planning organization and, ultimately, down to the city.
        A more positive experience has demonstrated the success of
    direct allocation. In 2016, the city received $66.5 million, a
    direct allocation from HUD, for assistance in 2015 flood
    recovery. The approved action plan distributed the funds among
    infrastructure, home repair, housing buyout, and planning and
    administrative activities.
        In May 2017, Congress allocated an additional $20.5 million
    directly to the city for infrastructure and administrative
    expenses. Having the direct allocation of $87 million afforded
    the city the opportunity to expedite--and I want to repeat
    that--expedite projects in affected areas. For example, by
    working closely with our sister agency, Harris County Flood
    Control District, we have been able to leverage a housing
    buyout dollars and provide those funds to our sister agency to
    expedite the buyout in the city of Houston.
        Additionally, the city has leveraged funds by collaborating
    with another sister agency, Harris County Engineering
    Department, on drainage infrastructure projects in the Spring
    Branch area of the city of Houston, where both agencies will
    share in the cost of construction.
        Finally, two residential areas impacted by the 2015 flood
    where we had ongoing drainage projects, we were able to
    leverage additional HUD funds to increase the scope of the
    project and the size of the impacted area, which really was a
    tremendous impact to the project. This process, as of today, we
    anticipate expending all of the 2015 dollars within 3 to 5
    years; 3 to 5 years, as compared to 12 years for our Hurricane
    Ike recovery.
        The comparison of Ike recovery in 2015, flood recovery
    demonstrates how direct allocation has been more efficient for
    project delivery and completion as it removes multiple layers
    of involvement in the management of recovery funds. Still, it
    is important to recognize that the success of implementation of
    an action plan may also be attributed to the expertise of the
    recipient.
        The city of Houston is the fourth largest city in the
    United States, with a Public Works Department alone of over
    4,000 people with expertise related to disaster recovery and
    action plan implementation and project delivery. We understand,
    though, that there are much smaller municipalities that are
    impacted by floods where technical expertise is not readily
    available and could continue to benefit from the important role
    that the State or the local MPO plays.
        I want to thank you for the opportunity to testify before
    the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations this morning,
    and I look forward to future questions from Madam Chair and the
    committee members. Thank you.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Costello can be found on
    page 30 of the Appendix.]
        Chairwoman Wagner. Thank you, Mr. Costello.
        Commissioner Ellis, you are now recognized for 5 minutes.

                 STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE RODNEY ELLIS

        Mr. Ellis. Thank you, Chairwoman Wagner, Ranking Member
    Green, and other members of the committee.
        My name is Rodney Ellis, and I am one of the five people on
    the governing board for Harris County. Our base city is
    Houston. It is the third largest county in the country.
        I learned years ago in the State legislature, if somebody
    said something that you want to say, you don't have to say it
    again. So I just want to reiterate three basic points.
        One, it will be helpful to extend the deadline for
    expediting funds to speed up delivery dollars. After Hurricane
    Ike, it took 2 years to begin repairing homes.
        Second, the Secretary may directly allocate funding to
    cities and counties. We want you to find a way to do anything
    you can to further remove bureaucratic hurdles that the
    committee considers a problem with direct allocation to
    entities that can handle the administrative workload. One
    suggestion, this is just from me, would be maybe entities that
    are above 2 million people, if they can handle the
    administrative workload--that is just an arbitrary number of 2
    million; at least I am not just trying to cover my county
    because we are approaching 5 million.
        Third, the 70 percent low-to-moderate income requirement
    has ensured that these dollars go to the communities most in
    need. I hope that you will consider leaving the discretion with
    the Secretary to lower that threshold to 50 percent. And I
    would encourage the committee to preserve that provision with
    the discretion of the Secretary.
        Within my precinct, from the latest event, disaster event,
    there were 24,000 structures that were flooded; tens of
    thousands of cars were lost; and many of my constituents are
    still struggling to get back on their feet.
        Across our entire region, including Houston and other
    communities, we were impacted severely. We had 80 deaths. More
    than a million people were displaced, and roughly 200,000 homes
    in the path were damaged stretching for more than 300 miles.
        CDBG-DR dollars are a vital aspect of bringing our region
    around, in the long term as well as the short term. State and
    local governments know what is best for them after a community
    has been impacted, and the CDBG-DR dollars will allow us to
    have a great deal of discretion in determining how to
    effectively respond to crises.
        After Hurricane Ike, Harris County received its housing
    contract on September 1, 2009, almost a year after Hurricane
    Ike. But we did not receive approval from the State of Texas to
    proceed with the program guidelines until September 1, 2010.
    Harris County's post-Ike home repair program took an average of
    3 years to complete all construction, and multifamily programs
    averaged 6 to 8 years. Infrastructure projects averaged 6
    years, including 6 months just to close out projects with the
    State of Texas. In fact, due to issues beyond the County's
    control, we still have two Hurricane Ike CDBG-DR projects under
    consideration nearly 10 years later, issues like lawsuits and
    other issues that will come up.
        I would encourage the committee to look at a direct
    allocation from the Secretary for disaster recovery funding for
    local governments with a population of a certain amount and
    administrative capability of a certain amount because it makes
    it easier for us to respond in a speedy fashion to people. And
    I think, at least privately, many of my colleagues with the
    State, who I worked with when I was a State Senator, and even
    now in county government, would agree, if a local community has
    the administrative capacity, it works better for both sides.
        Finally, I want to reiterate that 70 percent versus 50
    percent issue gently one more time. I know oftentimes it is
    easier for us to respond to the people who are loudest, and
    they tend to not be the people who are most in need.
        Last, I want to thank you again for that $35 billion on
    behalf of my community and all the communities in this country
    that were impacted. Thank you.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Ellis can be found on page
    32 of the Appendix.]
        Mr. Tipton [presiding]. Thank you for your testimony, Mr.
    Ellis.
        Ms. Lagrone, you are now recognized for your 5 minutes.

                      STATEMENT OF HEATHER LAGRONE

        Ms. Lagrone. Good morning. Thank you for having me. Just
    for the record, I am Heather Lagrone. I am the Deputy Director
    for Community Development and Revitalization for the Texas
    General Land Office.
        Just as a reminder, on August 25, 2017, a strengthening
    category 4 Hurricane Harvey made landfall in Nueces County,
    Texas, between Port Aransas and Port O'Connor, with sustained
    winds of over 135 miles per hour. During this period, as much
    as 60 inches of rain fell over the 49-county impact area.
    Harvey slowly meandered its way north by northeast and finally
    dissipated on September 3.
        The Texas General Land Office (GLO) estimates the cost of
    the damages for Hurricane Harvey at over $120 billion, making
    it the costliest event in U.S. history. The hurricane shut down
    ports, trade, tourism, oil and gas production, agricultural
    production, and general business across the State's coast for
    almost a week and, in some cases, for significantly longer.
        The impact of these interruptions is difficult to quantify,
    but the effects of this disaster were felt across the Nation,
    with commodities such as gas, increasing in price by 33 cents a
    gallon in the weeks following Hurricane Harvey. The GLO
    estimates that over 1 million homes were impacted by Hurricane
    Harvey.
        On September 14, 2017, Governor Abbott designated
    Commissioner George P. Bush and his agency, the Texas General
    Land Office, to be the State's lead for short-term housing
    recovery with FEMA (Federal Emergency Management Agency) and
    long-term infrastructure and housing rebuilding through HUD. We
    continue this mission today. The short-term housing activities
    are wrapping up, and we are preparing to transition into long-
    term recovery.
        On February 9, 2018, HUD allocated just over $5 billion in
    CDBG-DR funds to the State of Texas in response to Hurricane
    Harvey. That $5 billion allocation is from a $15 billion
    allocation that was appropriated by Congress on September 8,
    2017.
        The GLO has completed the action plan defining the uses of
    just over $2.7 billion from this allocation, and it is with HUD
    for their review and approval.
        First, I would like to thank Congress for how quickly the
    first funds were allocated for Hurricane Harvey's recovery. Two
    short weeks after Hurricane Harvey made landfall, over $7.4
    billion in CDBG funds had been allocated, but long-term
    recovery is a process that takes too long. There are some
    things that could be done that would shorten the process and
    allow impacted States to at least begin their recovery sooner,
    and I would like to share those with you now.
        States need to be allowed the maximum level of flexibility
    possible for disaster recovery efforts. Hurricane Harvey
    impacted 49 counties in an area larger than the State of
    Indiana in at least three different types of events. In the
    Coastal Bend area, Harvey was a true hurricane with wind speeds
    in excess of 130 miles per hour. In Houston, it was a rain
    event that created flooding that had never been seen. In
    southeast Texas, it dropped many feet of rain that did not
    drain for weeks to follow.
        The recovery needs to be tailored to the needs of each
    impact area and locally driven through a State oversight. HUD's
    formula allocated funds to population centers, and then the
    Federal Register all but required direct housing activities be
    considered over any other kind of need nearly 6 months after
    landfall.
        Requiring HUD to allocate funds from any appropriation
    within 60 days, as was done with the more recent allocation,
    would be encouraged to continue. This would allow States the
    funds to start their recovery, while data commonly used by HUD
    to allocate those funds can be finalized.
        Disasters do not discriminate, and HUD-defined higher
    income but still working class families are often equally
    impacted. HUD's recent shift away from waiving the LMI
    aggregate from 70 percent to 50 percent for disaster events
    will prevent communities from being able to recover in a
    holistic way. It has also made large-scale infrastructure
    projects that could mitigate large areas for future events very
    difficult.
        Historically, CDBG funds have provided grantees with 5
    percent in administrative costs. This value is generally
    adequate. However, HUD has continued to increase the level of
    oversight, reporting, and IT requirements on these awards. This
    is especially evident in allocations resulting in smaller,
    localized events.
        In this recent allocation, HUD limited the support of
    families who reside in a flood plain who made 120 percent of
    the area median income if they did not maintain flood
    insurance. The State is concerned that this could progress
    beyond just families located in the flood plain. As I said,
    disaster events do not discriminate, nor do they consider
    income.
        In Texas, we have many families residing outside the flood
    plain who thought they had all the appropriate insurance
    coverage necessary be impacted by flooding and lose everything.
    For a family of four living in Beaumont, Texas, 120 percent of
    the area median income would be $66,600, which is hardly enough
    income to recover from the complete loss of your home.
        Last, disaster recovery could be greatly expedited if HUD
    had written regulations that governed the supplemental CDBG-DR
    allocations. States would not have to guess at what regulations
    would be applicable from event to event, nor would they wait
    for the Federal Register to be published to begin a program and
    design of their action plans. At the GLO, we are currently
    managing seven CDBG-DR grants that have different rules and
    regulations.
        I have been involved in discovery recovery for the State of
    Texas since Hurricanes Katrina and Rita in 2005. I have to say,
    HUD has been a strong partner who has been very supportive of
    our recovery efforts, and we are offering these suggestions for
    improvement on the program that we have benefited greatly from
    in Texas. We believe that making these adjustments to the
    program could expedite recovery and utilize limited funding
    more efficiently.
        At this time, I would be glad to answer any questions.
        [The prepared statement of Ms. Lagrone can be found on page
    36 of the Appendix.]
        Chairwoman Wagner [presiding]. Thank you, Ms. Lagrone.
        Dr. Martin, you are now recognized for 5 minutes.

                       STATEMENT OF CARLOS MARTIN

        Dr. Martin. Good morning, Chairwoman Wagner, Ranking Member
    Green, and members of the subcommittee. Thank you for the
    opportunity to highlight the evidence base regarding
    stakeholders perspectives on CDBG-DR.
        My name is Carlos Martin, and I am a Senior Fellow at the
    Urban Institute. The views I express today are my own and
    should not be attributed to the Urban Institute, its trustees,
    or its funders.
        CDBG-DR has increased in importance within U.S. disaster
    response since its first use in 1993. This was demonstrated the
    by its inscription in the 2011 National Disaster Recovery
    Framework. The program also plays a unique role in that
    response by contextualizing recovery within longer term
    planning and housing needs.
        My research focuses on the State and local governments that
    receive program grants and, in turn, on their outcomes across
    households and communities. My colleagues and I have examined
    the many challenges State and local governments face. Among
    local factors that pose challenges are the predisaster capacity
    of the grantee staff, the severity of the disaster, and the
    clarity of a community's postdisaster goals.
        We have also looked at the nature of the program's
    authorized activities and regulations, separate from how HUD
    administers them. Two characteristics pose consistent
    challenges: One, the program's final position in the sequence
    of Federal postdisaster response; and, two, the program's lack
    of permanent statutory authority.
        Snapshots from this year's devastations echo what our
    research shows. Communities that have just experienced a
    disaster, like those in Texas, Florida, Puerto Rico, and
    California, are tasked with piecing together resources to put
    their residents, economies, and cultures back on their
    collective feet. Each set of those resources brings with it a
    slew of different requirements, regulations, and stakeholders
    that can test even the most sophisticated and well-resourced
    State and municipal officials.
        This is happening while jurisdictions have ongoing
    questions about the Federal assistance they have received so
    far, while they grapple with long-term goals, land use
    decisions, and infrastructure plans.
        The burden on State and local governments' capacity is
    particularly heavy at this point in their recovery. However, it
    is made heavier by the fact that they may not know the full
    regulatory parameters or the magnitude of the assistance that
    CDBG-DR provides. In some cases, after a disaster, they may not
    know whether Congress will appropriate that assistance and how
    to allocate it.
        As the Federal backstop for recovery, the program
    accommodates all previous programs' constraints, after many
    response and rebuilding decisions have already occurred and
    when communities' expectations are fraying.
        At its best, CDBG-DR is a bridge from the shock and chaos
    of disaster back to the path of prosperity and development on
    which all communities in the U.S. travel. Yet that bridge has
    always been temporary. Future disasters are certain. Equal
    certainty in the Federal response to these disasters will
    improve how our communities recover qualitatively and
    quantitatively.
        Thanks again for the opportunity to share my research. I
    look forward to the subcommittee's questions.
        [The prepared statement of Dr. Martin can be found on page
    40 of the Appendix.]
        Chairwoman Wagner. Thank you, Dr. Martin.
        Ms. McFadden, you are now recognized for 5 minutes.

                  STATEMENT OF MARION MOLLEGEN MCFADDEN

        Ms. McFadden. Chairwoman Wagner, Ranking Member Green, and
    members of the subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to
    testify in the CDBG-DR Program.
        I am Marion McFadden. I serve as the Vice President for
    Public Policy at Enterprise Community Partners, a nonprofit
    organization committed to making well-designed homes
    affordable. For more than 35 years, Enterprise has helped to
    build organizational capacity in both the public and private
    sectors. Last year, we harnessed $7.2 billion in capital to
    help create or preserve more than 60,000 homes.
        Enterprise has worked with communities to help rebuild from
    disasters since Hurricane Katrina, when we established an
    office on the Gulf Coast to assist in Louisiana and
    Mississippi's recovery. We assisted New Jersey and New York
    after Hurricane Sandy; supported the State of Colorado after
    severe flooding in 2013; and we are currently working on
    recovery initiatives in Texas, Florida, California, Puerto
    Rico, and the United States Virgin Islands.
        Personally, I worked on disaster recovery at HUD, dating
    all the way back to 9/11, including as legal counsel for the
    CDBG program and Deputy Assistant Secretary for Grant Programs,
    where I was directly responsible for administration of the
    CDBG-DR Program.
        Today, I would like to highlight three things: The
    importance of CDBG-DR to urban, suburban, and rural
    communities; the benefits of mitigating future risks; and
    opportunities to strengthen the CDBG-DR Program, making it more
    efficient and, thus, faster and less expensive for communities
    to recover.
        As the frequency and intensity of natural disasters have
    increased, CDBG-DR has become an essential component of long-
    term recovery. After a major catastrophe, CDBG-DR is the
    difference-maker for families and small businesses. For
    property owners whose insurance proceeds, FEMA grants, and
    small business homeowner loans have been insufficient to repair
    their homes or get them to stable housing, CDBG-DR pays for
    repairs and rebuilding of apartment buildings. It allows small
    businesses to retool to meet the needs of a changed economy.
    CDBG-DR dollars repair damaged infrastructure and reopen
    hospitals, schools, and shopping centers.
        CDBG-DR is often used as leverage for private capital, as
    well as other public funds. For example, after Hurricane
    Katrina, Enterprise and our partners combined HUD grants with
    significant private capital to redevelop public housing through
    the use of the low-income housing tax credit.
        CDBG-DR is particularly valuable because it allows States
    and localities to rebuild in a forward-facing manner,
    rebuilding stronger and safer so that Federal dollars do not
    put people back in harm's way or throw good money after bad.
    Mitigation measures have been proven to more than pay for
    themselves, yielding an average of $6 in future disaster
    recovery costs for every dollar spent on mitigation.
        At Enterprise, we saw those savings firsthand last summer
    when a very heavy rainfall flooded New Orleans and residents
    found their streets waist-deep in water. Our CDBG-DR-funded
    Faubourg-Lafitte development escaped harm because homes were
    built an additional 2 feet above the base flood elevation.
    Water didn't breach the first floor, so there was no need to
    make a claim on the National Flood Insurance Program policy.
        While building 2 feet above the base flood elevation was
    not required at the time, HUD now wisely requires that level of
    elevation, and we recommend that Congress codify these
    standards for both CDBG-DR and for nondisaster funds.
        Finally, I would like to take a moment to highlight one
    major challenge with the CDBG-DR Program, which is the amount
    of time it takes for HUD funds to reach communities after a
    disaster. As you well know, after each unique CDBG-DR
    appropriation, there is a delay in the flow of funds because
    HUD must write a new set of waivers and requirements to guide
    grantees, in addition to assessing the damage and identifying
    unmet needs. Grantees then need to learn the new rules, make
    policy choices, and stand up their own disaster recovery
    programs before projects can even begin.
        The permanent authorization of CDBG-DR would allow HUD to
    write regulations, create pre-approved model housing programs,
    and develop systems that grantees could quickly customize and
    adopt to shorten the amount of time it takes to get people home
    again while increasing necessary protections against fraud,
    waste, and abuse.
        Permanent authorization could also solidify policies in
    areas that have previously been treated inconsistently.
    Enterprise recommends that Congress take the following steps in
    permanently authorizing the CDBG-DR Program: Better prepare
    communities to administer taxpayer dollars by expanding HUD's
    ability to support that administration. This can be
    accomplished by authorizing additional permanent career HUD
    staff dedicated full-time to disaster recovery work and through
    a set-aside for capacity building and technical assistance in
    all CDBG-DR appropriations.
        We ask that you also require HUD to allocate a portion of
    assistance within 60 days; direct HUD to design pre-approved
    model programs and systems that grantees can take off the shelf
    and implement wholesale; and ensure that grant funds reach
    those who need them most. More detail is provided in my written
    testimony.
        In closing, the Federal Government-impacted communities
    have learned important lessons from recent major recovery
    efforts, but change has been incremental. It needs to be
    swifter and more comprehensive. I look forward to working with
    you to accomplish that. Thank you.
        [The prepared statement of Ms. McFadden can be found on
    page 52 of the Appendix.]
        Chairwoman Wagner. Thank you, Ms. McFadden.
        The Chair now thanks all the witnesses for their opening
    statements, and I would like to recognize myself for 5 minutes.
        Ms. McFadden, I am going to jump around here a little bit,
    so please bear with me as I want to cover a few different
    topics. In my opening remarks, I mentioned that HUD primarily
    uses Federal Register notices to issue clarifying guidance and
    waivers and alternative requirements for the CDBG-DR Program.
    Given this statement, can you elaborate a little bit for the
    subcommittee about some of examples of how not having a law in
    statute has hurt potential grantees of CDBG-DR funds?
        Ms. McFadden. As Congress has passed laws over time, they
    have changed, so HUD has not made any efforts to do a guiding
    set of regulations because it hasn't had a single starting
    point. So, as each disaster appropriation is passed, HUD takes
    a look at the last set of rules but makes changes. Those
    changes may be influenced by a change in leadership or change
    in administration, or they may be influenced by lessons learned
    from previous disasters. But at no moment can a jurisdiction
    know what the next set of rules is going to include.
        Chairwoman Wagner. Moving on to duplication of benefits,
    how do the various agencies providing Federal assistance
    coordinate their efforts so that their funding isn't
    duplicated?
        For instance, how does HUD know whether SBA (Small Business
    Administration) provided assistance so that it does not
    duplicate funding?
        Ms. McFadden. So HUD primarily puts the responsibility on
    the grantees of funds, or the States, cities, and--
        Chairwoman Wagner. I am sorry. On whom?
        Ms. McFadden. The States, cities, and counties that are
    receiving the dollars then have a responsibility to coordinate
    with the SBA, with FEMA, potentially with insurance,
    philanthropic funds, and other places. There is no streamlined
    system available, and finding a way to share data more
    efficiently would absolutely speed up the delivery of
    assistance.
        Chairwoman Wagner. Delivery to victims.
        Ms. McFadden. Yes, ma'am.
        Chairwoman Wagner. Is there any hierarchical list of
    funding sources that allows agencies distributing disaster aid
    to know whether to provide money and when not to duplicate
    others' efforts?
        Ms. McFadden. The Stafford Act contains a hierarchy of
    assistance, but because the CDBG Disaster Recovery Program is
    essentially a one-off every time, it is not included in that
    hierarchy. Permanently authorizing CDBG would allow it to take
    a permanent place in that order of assistance.
        Chairwoman Wagner. Do you know if there is any statutory
    authority that describes the funding or delivery sequence at
    all?
        Ms. McFadden. Only in the Stafford Act, ma'am.
        Chairwoman Wagner. In the staff guide?
        Ms. McFadden. Excuse me. In the Stafford Act.
        Chairwoman Wagner. Stafford Act. I am sorry.
        Ms. McFadden. Which governs permanent disaster recovery
    authority.
        Chairwoman Wagner. One of the major themes that came out of
    our hearing with the Acting HUD IG was the lack of funding and
    the lack of staff at both HUD and the Inspector General's
    Office to conduct proper oversight. Can you quickly talk about
    how these additional resources can help to prevent the waste,
    fraud, and abuse?
        Ms. McFadden. In my many years at HUD, I heard from many
    disaster recovery grantees, so those units that were receiving
    Government. We want more HUD staff time. But the reality is
    that the HUD disaster recovery unit has far less than 20 people
    in it at any given moment. They are stretched very thin, and so
    they only can devote a limited amount of time. Allowing more
    permanent staff and additional resources for technical
    assistance and capacity building so that they can rely on
    experts to assist communities would absolutely strengthen the
    program.
        Chairwoman Wagner. Last, Ms. Lagrone, in your testimony,
    you noted the importance of making sure States knew what the
    regulations were for CDBG-DR allocations in order to begin work
    on their action plans. If the CDBG-DR Program was codified in
    law, how would that have changed your response to the most
    recent storms, for example? How long after Harvey did HUD
    publish Federal Register notices? How can the process be
    improved overall?
        Ms. Lagrone. Absolutely. Thank you, ma'am. The Federal
    Register for the appropriation that came out on September 8
    didn't come out until February, so, from September to February,
    we were looking at previous Federal Registers that we had.
        Chairwoman Wagner. That is 6 months.
        Ms. Lagrone. Yes, ma'am. We were looking to previous
    Federal Registers to try to guess at what that program was
    going to look like. We had an action plan developed. We were
    ready to go when that Federal Register came out, but there were
    some changes in the Federal Register that we weren't expecting,
    so we had to go back to the drawing board in a couple of places
    and rewrite language into our action plan. So that did delay us
    being able to publish the action plan and get it out.
        HUD can't allocate the funds until they have the data that
    they need to determine who needs how much money, and they were
    trying to compare us to Maria and Irma's events, and so they
    were waiting for data to become available. The most recent
    allocation and appropriation that you all have voted on had a
    60-day window that required HUD to at least start initiating
    awards. We are definitely in favor of that because, even if
    they had just given us $1 billion, $2 billion of the $5 billion
    we ultimately got, we could have started our programs months
    sooner, knowing full well that our event was a big enough event
    to qualify for at least that much money.
        Chairwoman Wagner. Thank you. My time has expired.
        The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Missouri, our
    great State of Missouri, for 5 minutes, Mr. Cleaver.
        Mr. Cleaver. Thank you, Madam Chair.
        Thank you, Ranking Member Green.
        I would like to get a couple of you to respond to this. Mr.
    Costello, and Councilman, Senator, Commissioner Ellis, and Ms.
    McFadden.
        Fourteen years ago, or almost, when I was sworn in here,
    along with our Ranking Member, my wife and I went all over this
    area trying to find a place we could buy. One of our former
    members of this committee had said: Don't rent; why don't you
    buy?
        Foolishly, we didn't. I ended up moving over to the
    Methodist building across the street, and now I can't afford to
    live here. The areas where we looked at that time were, for
    Washington standards, very affordable. But now the Nationals
    have a baseball stadium there. There are restaurants I can't
    afford to eat in all over in that area, new apartments.
    Congresswoman Beatty lives there, and others.
        But the problem is that it is happening all over the
    country, and it is hard to argue against, but the
    gentrification is occurring.
        When we were first elected, Capitol Hill was quite
    different than it is today, and I find myself wondering, as I
    walk 333 steps from my apartment to the Capitol every day,
    where did those people go? Where are they living today?
        When I was mayor, we had two 500-year floods in 3 years in
    Kansas City. And as Ranking Member, as the Chair, Congresswoman
    Wagner will recall, it hit St. Louis and Kansas City. We are
    200 miles apart, but it devastated both cities. And one of the
    problems was in the areas where the flood hit, we didn't have
    the HUD policy, Ms. McFadden, that we have as it relates to
    one-for-one replacement, which is a HUD policy, has been a
    policy since maybe the 90's or--and that is, if you eliminate a
    HUD property, you have to rebuild. Every one you eliminate or
    rebuild, you have to rebuild another because when the storm hit
    New Orleans, we had that policy in place.
        Well, the point is we had--the problem is exacerbated when
    it is a flood. Even without a flood, it is a problem. So I
    wonder what is going on and what do we need to do as it relates
    to people who are messed over, first, by the flood, and then by
    the fact that, after it is over, they can't even find housing.
    Please, somebody help us.
        Mr. Costello. Well, Congressman, I will start. And our
    mayor has identified, when he came into office, what he calls a
    Complete Communities Program, where some of these communities
    that are possibly threatened from gentrification, that he wants
    to make sure that we provide services to that complete
    community and to help buildup that community, to make sure that
    those residents that live there will stay there, whether it is
    preflood or postflood. So that is what we are doing now. In
    particular, with some of these disaster relief funds, we are
    allocating projects into these communities.
        But it is not only infrastructure, which I am the
    engineer--I am builder; that is what I am going to be focusing
    on--but it is all those social services as well, even in terms
    of job creation, even in terms of food deserts; we are trying
    to make sure that these communities have all the services
    available to them anywhere throughout the city.
        But we do have, we continue to have the challenge of
    gentrification, and that is why the mayor said: Let's identify
    these six communities. Let's see if we can provide all the
    services we can to them, both public health, all the way
    through to infrastructure, and see if we can maintain the
    viability of that neighborhood.
        Mr. Ellis. I would just add, Congressman, it is a big
    challenge. Over our careers, on one hand, people will say: We
    want our neighborhoods to look like the more affluent
    neighborhoods.
        And then when we invest the resources and people come in
    who are more affluent, that leads to gentrification issues that
    some people have problems with.
        As it relates to disaster recovery, it is a particular
    problem because some people, when they--if they have an option
    of selling their home, where will they move? And for a place as
    big as Houston or Harris County, as you know, having gone to
    Prairie View, it is so spread out; that is a real challenge.
        I am encouraging my colleagues now that I am in county
    government, as I did when I was in city government, to think
    outside the box. On one hand, obviously, we look to the Federal
    Government for help. But on the other hand, sometimes in local
    communities, we have to be willing to put some skin in the
    game.
        So, as opposed to being a traditional County Commissioner,
    where I am just asking for money for roads, I am trying to
    convince my colleagues that we ought to use some of our money
    for affordable housing and some of the nontraditional things,
    instead of just looking to you all. And I did that when I was a
    council member, and each mayor has continued. They use about
    $20 million of local bond money. I think the last mayor on your
    watch cut it down to $18 million for affordable housing. So
    that is a big part of it.
        But, look, it is a clear dichotomy. On one hand, people
    want to enable it to be better. They want investments in those
    neighborhoods. And then when we do, they are upset because
    other people want to come.
        Chairwoman Wagner. The gentleman's time has expired.
        The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Colorado, the
    Vice Chair of the Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee,
    Mr. Tipton, for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Tipton. I thank Chairwoman Wagner.
        And I thank the panelists for all of your testimony here
    today.
        Ms. McFadden, I would like to be able to start with you. It
    is clear that the Department of Housing and Urban Development
    has less restrictive rules for States in its CDBG-DR
    distribution because the States are going to be the passthrough
    entity for those funds. And because of this structure, States
    are given, obviously, the maximum feasible deference for their
    interpretation for distributing those funds. Do you believe
    that HUD can responsibly provide for the CDBG-DR grantees with
    guidance and technical assistance with the maximum feasible
    deference standard in place?
        Ms. McFadden. Thank you for the question. And in the annual
    CDBG program, that goes out every year, not for disasters, that
    maximum feasible deference is strong and respected throughout
    the program.
        Generally, after disasters, if the States are going to be
    administering funds directly, HUD puts in place a very
    different standard for the administration, which is much more
    like the rules that cities and counties have to observe. I
    think that the program has done a great job of ensuring fiscal
    accountability in the administration. However, as the other
    panelists have said, and I think many members of the public
    would agree, it is absolutely time to consider these issues
    through notice and comment rulemaking and giving the public an
    opportunity to weigh in.
        Doing a permanent authorization of the program would allow
    notice and comment rulemaking which, for example, would go
    through clearance with the Office of the Inspector General,
    which could ensure that all the appropriate mechanisms are in
    place for the program.
        Mr. Tipton. Is it your sense HUD can monitor the CDBG-DR
    grantees to be able to ensure performance and compliance?
        Ms. McFadden. Yes, sir. Both the HUD Office of Community
    Planning and Development and the Office of the Inspector
    General monitor recipients of the funds.
        Mr. Tipton. OK. So you are comfortable with that. Might
    have a little issue, I think we might want to make sure that we
    are getting some of that accountability in place, but I would
    like to be able to maybe follow up with you on that just for a
    little more sense.
        And to your knowledge, has HUD ever overruled or otherwise
    told a grantee that its interpretation of the CDBG-DR statutory
    requirement is incorrect?
        Ms. McFadden. I think that there have absolutely been
    moments where interpretations of policy have been different,
    and HUD, ultimately, has ruled against the initial
    interpretation of the statute, if that is what you are asking
    sir, yes.
        Mr. Tipton. So we do have some examples. And do you think
    that more structure is needed from HUD and/or from Congress on
    the distribution of the CDBG-DR grants?
        Ms. McFadden. Yes, I absolutely do. I think communities
    would be served better and taxpayer dollars would be used more
    efficiently if more were done to formalize the program.
        Mr. Tipton. OK. Great. And just finally, do you have any
    suggestions on exactly how we might be able to bring some
    greater accountability to the block grant model after the funds
    have been distributed out to the grantees?
        Ms. McFadden. So, at this moment, HUD's greatest influence
    is in setting the rules and putting and approving the plans as
    they come in because HUD has limited resources to do the
    monitoring that I mentioned, and the Inspector General has
    limited resources do that monitoring. I think an investment in
    HUD's own administration could prove a real strengthening of
    the program because they would be able to look much more
    closely at the way the programs are being implemented.
        Mr. Tipton. Great. That is something again I think we would
    like to be able to follow up on, as we were talking just a
    couple of minutes ago in terms of that accountability and how
    the dollars are going to be spent. I think it is important that
    we do get that aid back.
        I think you noted in your testimony that you had assisted
    in Colorado. We aren't exactly an incredibly flood-prone State.
    Our water runs off pretty quick. It is steep out there, but the
    importance of being able to get that help but also to make sure
    that we are having the accountability, that the dollars are
    going where they need to go to the people that they need to
    help is something I think that is going to be important.
        So, again, Chairwoman, I thank you for holding this hearing
    and yield back my time.
        Chairwoman Wagner. The gentleman yields back.
        The Chair now recognizes my dear friend, the gentlelady
    from Ohio, Mrs. Beatty, for 5 minutes.
        Mrs. Beatty. Thank you to the Chairwoman and to our Ranking
    Member and to all of those who came as witnesses today. Let me
    just say, thank you for your written and your oral
    presentations. I found them very helpful.
        But let me just say--join my colleagues in thanking you.
    And I don't know to call you commissioner, State senator, and I
    am going to add another one, chief of staff, to our late and
    former good friend Congressman Mickey Leland. He would be very
    proud today with you going from chief to sitting here where he
    fought so hard for those who were in need, whether it was for
    food or housing. So thank you for the work you did then and
    what you are doing now.
        History certainly does repeat itself. Just for a little
    clarification to my Congressman to my left's statement about
    where I live, I am going to also include the Chairwoman because
    we live in the same building. And history does really repeat
    itself. Coming some 7 years later after Congressman Cleaver was
    here, we did the exact same thing. The only difference is where
    we live now is the most affordable to live now. And as we want
    to buy in that same vicinity, it is not affordable.
        So 7 years has made a huge difference to those. So, when I
    think about those who are in need and I think about those who
    have been displaced, certainly I know when you think about what
    happened in Katrina.
        And according to the National Low Income Housing Coalition,
    the United States has a shortage of some 7.2 million rental
    homes, affordable and available to extremely low-income
    renters.
        In my district, in the 3rd Congressional District in our
    capital of Ohio, Columbus, there are some 30,000 people
    currently on the waiting list for rental assistance with our
    city's public housing authority.
        So, when I think about Hurricane Katrina, and I visited New
    Orleans during that time and years afterward--so your point--7
    years later after Ike, we are still fighting for those folks to
    have housing. I didn't get to Texas or to Houston, but more
    recently, I was in Puerto Rico.
        So, when I think about all your statements, I guess I would
    like to ask each of you, if I could do one thing for this
    legislation that would help those in need, what would it be? So
    think about that.
        And then, to Ms. McFadden, I found it very interesting, in
    one of your statements in your testimony when you talked about
    that those residents should--that are--120 percent of the
    median should apply first for the small business loan before
    the CDBG. I don't have the exact quote from it here, but you
    are nodding so I assume you know what that reference is. How
    does that work for someone in Puerto Rico when you think about
    the poverty that is there? If you can quickly give me that,
    then I will go to Mr. Ellis and the other witnesses for the one
    thing.
        Ms. McFadden. Thank you, Congresswoman. And I think you
    went immediately to the caveat I would put on that
    recommendation.
        So, for the other members of the subcommittee, my
    recommendation would be that before grant dollars could flow to
    a family at 120 percent of area median income or higher for the
    need that they have left after any insurance or other
    assistance, that they apply for a below-market homeowner loan
    from the Small Business Administration.
        And in most communities, that means that the Small Business
    Administration will make a decision about whether that family
    can afford to repay because I believe, as a matter of good
    public policy, that the taxpayer dollars should go first to
    those who are unable to use other resources that they can repay
    on their own before assisting the general public.
        The challenge in Puerto Rico is that the area median income
    is so low that you may still find people below the poverty
    level. So I would look forward to some discussion about how to
    make it workable there.
        Mrs. Beatty. OK. Thank you.
        Others?
        Mr. Ellis.
        Mr. Ellis. I became Congressman Leland's AA in 1981. It was
    a long time ago when you called a chief of staff AA. Things
    were--we were so poor, and he was so poor; I was his AA and his
    roommate. If we had bought a place in Waterside Towers back
    then, I would be a wealthy county commissioner now.
        Mrs. Beatty. Yes.
        Mr. Ellis. I think the most important thing you can do is
    preserve that 70 low- and moderate-income standard with the
    discretion being given to the Secretary to reduce it to the 50
    percent, but it would be transparent to have to make the case.
    I just want to stress that point.
        My years in city and State and county government, folks who
    need stuff the most generally are not the best organized to
    advocate for themselves. And I think we would be best pressed
    to go ahead and take it at 50 percent every time if we had that
    discretion.
        Mrs. Beatty. Thank you.
        My time is over. So I am sorry, but I yield back.
        Chairwoman Wagner. The gentlelady yields back.
        And we do, in our legislation, currently keep that 70
    percent.
        So the Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Georgia, Mr.
    Loudermilk, for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Loudermilk. Thank you, Madam Chair.
        And I appreciate the panel for being here.
        This is an important issue. It isn't probably one that is
    going to make the headlines of the New York Times today, unless
    the Chairwoman decides to tweet it out, then maybe we would
    get--
        Chairwoman Wagner. I am all over that.
        Mr. Loudermilk. But this is very important, especially in
    the time that we are in. We have--I think it is time for us as
    a Congressional body to relook at the way we do a lot of
    things, because some things that we have done in the past have
    not worked very well.
        And we have driven ourselves to a $21 trillion debt, so we
    can no longer look at just funding our way out of problems
    without making significant changes. And one of the things I
    think we have to do is look at how we can make the dollars that
    we spend more effective and make them go further.
        And I remember something that my parents used to tell me
    and my grandparents, and I think they had a lot of wisdom, that
    if we went back to those old sayings, they can help us out a
    lot. And one of those is, ``An ounce of prevention is worth a
    pound of cure.''
        And, Ms. McFadden, you brought up in your testimony the
    idea of mitigation, which is something we even looked at the
    National Flood Insurance Program of mitigation. And that is
    intriguing because--I would like to know your thoughts on
    implementing mitigation standards such as elevation and
    construction standards because, to me, you can--I would think
    you can spend a whole lot less money preventing a disaster than
    actually rebuilding after a disaster. So I would like to get
    your thoughts on that.
        Ms. McFadden. Elevation and construction standards,
    absolutely a critical piece at the individual property level.
    And I would also encourage, in thinking about any permanent
    authorization or future appropriations, some guidance to HUD on
    how to think about the balance between individual properties
    and communitywide infrastructure projects.
        There is a tension in how to protect the entire community
    and how to go building by building. So the elevation standards
    do keep people in properties safer from harm when the next
    storm comes, but sometimes doing a communitywide solution may
    be more effective over--across the board.
        Mr. Loudermilk. So is it your understanding or your belief
    that we could save a substantial amount of money by investing a
    little bit of money on the front end?
        Ms. McFadden. Absolutely. And I applaud Congress in the
    most recent CDBG-DR allocation for dedicating funds for
    mitigation and making a true investment in doing that so that
    we are not paying again for the same places.
        Mr. Loudermilk. I appreciate that.
        And another area that I think that we can make the money
    that we have go further, especially in certain communities,
    comes to the environmental standards. We had a recent event
    back home where there was a development going in, but it was
    something the entire community wanted to bring in.
        And I went to those who were doing this. It was several
    private and nonprofit organizations coming in, and I said,
    ``What can we do to help,'' because there was going to have to
    be a lot of infrastructure changes, including road
    modifications, building roads. I said, ``What can I do in
    Congress to help?'' And they came to me and said, ``Please,
    don't do anything,'' and I said, ``Why?'' They said, ``We can't
    afford to receive Federal funding for these road projects
    because they would take too long and cost us too much money,''
    and I said, ``Why?'' They said, ``We can build these roads for
    60 percent less money and 60 percent faster if we just use
    State funds because we avoid the onerous reporting requirements
    and study requirements of these environmental standards.''
        Do you see that we can save some money by streamlining some
    of these processes that we go through right now regarding
    disaster response and recovery?
        Ms. McFadden. That is a frustration that has been shared by
    many communities around the country as they have tried to put
    State dollars together with Federal dollars, where even across
    the Federal Government, agencies may have different or
    conflicting standards in implementing the same environmental
    protection laws and historic preservation and related laws.
        So, absolutely, there are opportunities for streamlining.
    And over time, through the appropriation of CDBG-DR dollars,
    Congress has made a little bit more flexibility available so
    that if, for example, HUD dollars follow a FEMA environmental
    review, then there is some streamlining there.
        But there still is much opportunity to make it faster,
    particularly in the realm of large-scale infrastructure
    projects, as you mentioned, and in single-family home
    renovations.
        Mr. Loudermilk. Thank you.
        I yield back.
        Chairwoman Wagner. The gentleman yields back.
        The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Texas, Mr.
    Gonzalez, for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Gonzalez. I am yielding to Mr. Green, I think.
        Mr. Green. I thank the gentleman very much.
        I would like to, if I may, just compliment you, Mr.
    Gonzalez, on your outstanding work on the committee. We greatly
    appreciate what you have done to benefit not only your
    constituents in your Congressional district but also the State
    of Texas. You have truly been one of the outstanding assets.
        Madam Chair, if I may, I would like to introduce into the
    record, without objection, of course, a letter that is dated to
    The Honorable Director Mick Mulvaney, Office of Management and
    Budget.
        And if I may, I would like to also read one sentence of the
    six-paragraph letter that captures the essence of what the
    letter is all about. It reads, ``We write today urging you to
    approve the direct allocation of the appropriated share of
    Community Development Block Grant-Disaster Relief Funds.''
        That is an important sentence. It is an important sentence
    directed to the Director of the Office of Management and Budget
    because of who has signed the letter. The letter is signed by,
    of course, The Honorable Kevin Brady, who is a Member from
    Texas; by The Honorable Greg Abbott, the Governor of the State
    of Texas; The Honorable John Cornyn, United States Senator from
    Texas, The Honorable Ted Cruz, United States Senator from
    Texas; The Honorable George P. Bush, land commissioner, State
    of Texas; Harris County Judge Ed Emmett--The Honorable Harris
    County Judge Ed Emmett; The Honorable Mayor Sylvester Turner;
    and those of us who are from the Houston delegation, including
    Mr. Culberson, Mr. Gene Green, Ms. Jackson Lee, and Mr. McCaul,
    Mr. Olson, Mr. Poe. And I am honored to be a person who has
    signed it as well.
        May I so enter?
        Chairwoman Wagner. Without objection.
        Mr. Green. Thank you, Madam Chair.
        Madam Chair, just as a matter of housekeeping, I would like
    to let people know that, earlier, when I spoke about my having
    had a degree--well, not degree. That is what I want to clear
    up--having had an association with engineering, I did attend
    engineering school, but I want people to know that I am a
    dropout. I really don't want to have to deal with tomorrow the
    press accosting me about, ``I thought you said you didn't
    finish college.''
        Chairwoman Wagner. So noted in the record.
        Mr. Green. Thank you.
        Now, I am also pleased that Texas Southern University at
    the Thurgood Marshall School of Law saw something in me that I
    didn't see in myself and gave me the opportunity to attend law
    school. So I do have what we say--we call a juris doctorate,
    which is really a juris doctor. I am honored to have such a
    degree.
        Moving along, Mr. Martin and Ms. McFadden, when I mentioned
    earlier the prowess of the people who had the hands-on
    experience, I in no way wanted to minimize the intellectual
    prowess that you bring to this forum that is exceedingly
    important, and you have both given me much to consider.
        So let me go to you, if I may, Ms. McFadden. You mentioned
    something that I am fascinated with this concept of an off-the-
    shelf--regulations that could benefit smaller venues. Could you
    elaborate, please?
        Ms. McFadden. Thank you. I would be pleased to.
        The flexibility of the regular CDBG program allows the
    1,200 jurisdictions that receive the funds to design programs
    the way they want to as long as they fit within the guardrails.
    But this means that there are many, many choices and challenges
    they have to face in trying to scale up their existing programs
    when they move from CDBG to CDBG disaster recovery.
        And then they have to question whether HUD will approve the
    choices they are making. If HUD were to do the design upfront
    and pre-approve programs after a disaster when the elected
    officials and others administering Government programs are
    facing very difficult choices, they could have certainty in a
    safe harbor in knowing that they have the best program
    available to them and adopt that wholesale.
        Mr. Green. Have you had any experience in crafting such a
    paradigm?
        Ms. McFadden. After Hurricane Sandy, HUD made some model
    programs available but without doing any notice and comment
    about how to improve them and I think got them available a
    little bit too late for communities to really adopt because
    they were already off and running with their own programs.
    There is something to build on, but I think it needs some
    further improvement before it can really be ready to go.
        Mr. Green. Thank you.
        Now, as a good Ranking Member, I have to do something that
    is very important to one of the members from my side. Mrs.
    Beatty asked about that one thing that you would have us focus
    on, and a couple of you didn't--perhaps as many as three--
    didn't have the opportunity to respond to that question. So it
    is my duty now to make sure that that gets taken care of.
        So we will start with Mr. Costello, the one thing, please.
    And by the way, you have about 19 seconds, over 19 seconds.
        Mr. Costello. Thank you, Congressman.
        And so, to highlight community expectation, the one thing
    would be to expedite funding directly to the recipient so that
    we can deliver the services that we need to deliver, whether it
    is housing, to get people back into housing, or whether it is
    infrastructure to mitigate for future floods.
        Mr. Green. So as not to abuse my time, Madam Chair, I will
    yield back because I will have 5 additional minutes later.
        Chairwoman Wagner. The gentleman yields back.
        The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Arkansas, Mr.
    Hill, for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Hill. I thank the Chairman and the Ranking Member to
    allow an interloper on your committee today to come and hear
    this very interesting presentation. And thanks for holding this
    oversight hearing.
        This is such important work. And the need for flexibility
    and speed in the cities, which you have all talked about, and
    the counties is so important, and that has sort of been one of
    the positive things over many, many years of the CDBG program.
        But in this disaster arena, we have--sometimes it is not
    shaped according to standard policy, and, therefore, there are
    a lot of things that get missed between the goals of the
    program and the success of the program.
        So I am here today on behalf of the taxpayers to ask, how
    do we safeguard these funds and not have GAO reports that tell
    us that we are still looking for $750 million of CDBG disaster
    funds after Katrina that cannot be accounted for?
        So let's--Mr. Costello, maybe talk from the city of
    Houston's point of view, Mr. Ellis, too: How do we get the
    money to a public entity that has public accountability to the
    taxpayer and then out--but out in an effective way where it is
    not used for an unintended purpose or it is just not handled
    right? $750 million is a lot of money, and I think taxpayers
    really--we owe it to them to not let that happen again. Mr.
    Costello.
        Mr. Costello. And that is a very valid question,
    Congressman. And I think it really--it depends upon the
    expertise of the recipient. As Commissioner Ellis had
    described--and I did as well--the city is a very large
    organization. We are the fourth largest city. We have 22,000
    employees. Combined, public works and housing, we have over
    4,500 employees. We have the ability and the expertise to make
    sure that we are in full compliance, assuming we give direct
    allocation.
        The issue that I am concerned about as an engineer in
    providing the mitigation dollars for infrastructure is the
    community expectations on--and how long it is taking us to get
    to a particular project and to implement that project.
        Personally, I am not looking forward to August 2018 when
    the public and the media say to the city and the county, what
    have you done post-Hurricane Harvey? And we really haven't been
    able to show very much, other than maybe modifying some of our
    building standards for future construction, elevating them
    above the base flood elevation so they protect those future
    houses. We still have to address the houses that were flooded
    themselves.
        But to get back specifically to your question, it is really
    a function of the expertise of the recipient.
        Mr. Hill. Well, I saw it. I was a volunteer in helping
    rebuild houses in Lacombe, Louisiana, after Katrina. And people
    were going back in. They didn't have a mortgage, so they
    weren't in the flood program, but they just went right back in
    their same house that were built below the floodplain.
        And a lot of the misallocated money, I think, in CDBG, in
    that time period, DF, were moneys that were extended to people
    for raising above the base floodplain, but it wasn't spent for
    that purpose. And, yet, we know that that--for taxpayers in the
    flood program and for city, county taxes, property taxes, and
    family livelihood, that that is an important feature.
        So I just am interested, from an auditor point of view, how
    do we--Mr. Ellis, maybe you could take a shot at--how do we
    maintain--Houston, Harris County--I am a former Harris County
    resident. Thank you very much. I lived there during Hurricane
    Allen, long time ago. But how do we maintain that audit trail?
    How do we convince the American taxpayers that we will get it
    out and we will make a lasting improvement and not see the
    money squandered?
        Mr. Ellis. Congressman, it is a very good question.
        I am a former resident of Louisiana, by the way. I attended
    Xavier, my freshman year. But I think the key is the clawback
    provisions, is transparency, is, when you see a problem, do
    just what you are doing now: Raise it.
        Look, when I was running for city council in 1983, the city
    had to give back some CDBG money. And I ran on it. And then,
    when I got there, I did realize how difficult it is to spend
    money and spend it the right way.
        So, if there is a direct allocation, all of the strings
    should be on a city or on a county that would be there if it
    went through the State. But it is that transparency. If I could
    figure out how we could end corruption in public life, I would
    be over there in the White House. I would run myself. But you
    have to stay on us. It is that transparency, regardless of who
    gets the money.
        Mr. Hill. Well, I think that is important for OMB and for
    HUD and for our State and local officials. And we look forward
    to partnering with you, and we thank you for being here today.
        Thank you, Madam Chair.
        Chairwoman Wagner. The gentleman yields back.
        I now want to recognize, to close us out, the Ranking
    Member, Mr. Green, for 5 minutes.
        And I want to, in advance, give my apologies. I have a
    markup in Foreign Affairs, a very important genocide and
    atrocities piece of legislation that I have been working on for
    some time. So I am going to dash to Foreign Affairs. I will
    leave it to the Vice Chair, Mr. Tipton, to close things out.
        But I want to yield to the gentleman, the Ranking Member
    from Texas, Mr. Green, for 5 minutes and thank him for his
    collaboration on this endeavor.
        Mr. Green. Thank you, Madam Chair. And I greatly respect
    the fact that you have multiple assignments today, which is not
    unusual for you. You seem to have a multiplicity of things that
    you are doing quite constantly. So I appreciate greatly what
    you have allowed us to accomplish today and hope that things
    will go well with you in your next venue.
        With reference to the one question, let me now go to, I
    believe there may be one or two others. If you have not
    answered that one question--all right. Would you kindly do so?
        And I think, Mr. Martin, did you have an opportunity to
    respond to it?
        Dr. Martin. I have not. I am happy to answer first.
        Mr. Green. OK. We will start--
        Dr. Martin. So Congresswoman Beatty's earlier comments
    regarding the experiences of community development and
    community change speak directly to CDBG-DR's role as being this
    bridge between disasters and what is actually happening in the
    communities before a disaster occurs and long after.
        So I would encourage the move toward thinking of the
    eligible activities in CDBG-DR, if it were to reach a permanent
    statutory--be given permanent statutory authority to include
    those multifamily rental housing activities that are currently
    eligible in CDBG-DR and focus on those as much as the other
    single-family recovery programs.
        Mr. Green. Thank you.
        The lady.
        Ms. Lagrone. So I definitely agree with my colleagues here.
    The flexibility of the CDBG program is what makes it really,
    really the program to put these disaster recovery funds into.
    The flexibility in the program allows us to tailor our recovery
    to the needs that we suffered, and it allows us to do exactly
    what a city needs to be done versus a rural area versus someone
    who is impacted directly by a hurricane or someone who sat
    underwater for months.
        So the CDBG program is the right program for this. But the
    CDBG regulations right now do not define disaster recovery. So
    I think a permanent regulation, keeping all of the flexibility
    possible for the CDBG-DR Program would be the absolute answer
    to this ongoing funding that we are going to continue to need,
    particularly in the State of Texas.
        Mr. Green. Thank you very much.
        I have had the opportunity to give testimony in my
    lifetime, and at the end of the hearing, there was something
    that I really wish that I had said that I did not say because I
    thought it was exceedingly important.
        So what I would like to do now is give each of you an
    opportunity, if there is something that you think that you
    didn't say that you really would like to say so that you won't
    leave and have that afterthought, if you will kindly make
    mention of it at this time. And if you can be terse and
    laconic, I will get through so that everybody will have an
    opportunity, if you would.
        Mr. Costello. Thank you, Congressman.
        I think when we talk about HUD and we talk about disaster
    relief, we have to look at it both in terms of housing and also
    in terms of mitigating infrastructure. And I do appreciate what
    the Federal Government is doing of focusing on both those
    issues. But thank you.
        Mr. Green. Thank you.
        Mr. Ellis. Thank you, Congressman. Two words: More money.
        I will yield back the balance of my time.
        Mr. Green. Yes.
        Ms. Lagrone. I agree as well. Mitigation is very important
    in these programs. As we have been improving homes, we have
    seen the need to not have to go back to those homes again. As
    we have improved infrastructure, we have seen that homes don't
    flood any longer because of the infrastructure that we were
    able to put in place with these funds.
        Dr. Martin. I would recommend better integration across the
    Federal agencies that deal with disaster and response
    assistance. It is certainly clear between HUD, CDBG-DR, and the
    FEMA programs, and particularly relating to the increase of
    resources and funding going to mitigation at HUD, coordination
    with FEMA's mitigation programs would also be helpful.
        Ms. McFadden. And I recommend that Congress act with
    urgency. 2017 was a particularly bad year for disasters, but we
    know that bad years will come again. So act now to make these
    changes to the program and ensure that, as the last source in
    line, that CDBG-DR dollars are available to reach the people
    who need them the most.
        Mr. Green. Thank you.
        And with my last 30 seconds, I will thank all of you for
    appearing today, want you to know that you have been
    exceedingly helpful. My staff has taken copious notes, and we
    will be visiting about some of the things that we can integrate
    into legislation such that it won't just be an appearance. It
    will be an opportunity for you to have made a difference.
        Again, I thank the Ranking Member--excuse me. I thank the
    Chairwoman.
        And I also want to thank Mayor Turner. When I approached
    him about attending and giving his testimony, he said, ``I am
    going to send the best person and that would be my czar here.''
    Those were his words. So, Mayor Turner, thank you very much for
    sending the czar, and thank all of you for your attendance.
        And, again, to the Chairlady, I thank you for the
    cooperation that we have received. I am looking forward to
    bringing this to fruition. Thank you, everybody.
        Mr. Tipton [presiding]. Thank you, Ranking Member.
        And I would like to thank all of our witnesses again for
    your testimony today.
        The Chair notes that some Members may have additional
    questions for this panel, which they may wish to submit in
    writing. Without objection, the hearing record will remain open
    for 5 legislative days for Members to submit written questions
    to these witnesses and to place their responses in the record.
    Also, without objection, Members will have 5 legislative days
    to submit extraneous materials to the Chair for inclusion in
    the record.
        This hearing is now adjourned.
        [Whereupon, at 11:32 a.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]

                                A P P E N D I X

                                  May 17, 2018

    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                                     [all]