[House Hearing, 117 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
DEPARTMENTS OF TRANSPORTATION, AND
HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT, AND
RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS FOR 2023
=====================================================================
HEARINGS
BEFORE A
SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE
COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED SEVENTEENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE DEPARTMENTS OF TRANSPORTATION, AND
HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT, AND RELATED AGENCIES
DAVID E. PRICE, North Carolina, Chairman
MIKE QUIGLEY, Illinois MARIO DIAZ-BALART, Florida
KATHERINE M. CLARK, Massachusetts STEVE WOMACK, Arkansas
BONNIE WATSON COLEMAN, New Jersey JOHN H. RUTHERFORD, Florida
NORMA J. TORRES, California MIKE GARCIA, California
PETE AGUILAR, California ASHLEY HINSON, Iowa
ADRIANO ESPAILLAT, New York TONY GONZALES, Texas
JENNIFER WEXTON, Virginia
DAVID J. TRONE, Maryland
NOTE: Under committee rules, Ms. DeLauro, as chair of the full
committee, and Ms. Granger, as ranking minority member of the full
committee, are authorized to sit as members of all subcommittees.
Christina Monroe, Winnie Chang, Josephine Eckert,
Xavier Arriaga, and Samhita Subramanian
Subcommittee Staff
__________
PART 4
Page
Department of Transportation Fiscal Year 2023 Budget
Request......................................................... 1
Department of Housing and Urban Development
Fiscal Year 2023 Budget Request................................. 73
Members' Day......................................................147
Manufactured Housing: Supporting America's Largest
Unsubsidized Affordable Housing Stock...........................151
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Appropriations
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
49-815 WASHINGTON : 2022
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PART 4--TRANSPORTATION, AND HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT, AND RELATED
AGENCIES FOR 2023
DEPARTMENTS OF TRANSPORTATION, HUD, AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS
FOR 2023
Tuesday, May 10, 2022.
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FISCAL YEAR 2023 BUDGET REQUEST
WITNESS
HON. PETE BUTTIGIEG, SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Mr. Price. This meeting of the Transportation, Housing and
Urban Development Subcommittee will now come to order. Good
afternoon, everyone. As this hearing is fully virtual, I am
going to address a few housekeeping matters as well. For
today's meeting, the chair or staff designated by the chair may
mute participants' microphones when they are not under
recognition for the purpose of eliminating inadvertent
background noise. Members, however, are responsible for muting
and unmuting themselves. If I notice when you are recognized
that you are unmuted--or that you are muted, I will ask the
staff to send you a request to unmute yourself. Please then
accept the request so that you are no longer muted.
I remind all members and the witnesses that the 5-minute
minute clock still applies. If there is a technology issue, we
will move to the next member until the issue is resolved, and
then, of course, you can claim the remaining time. You will
notice a clock on the screen that will show how much time is
remaining. At 1 minute remaining, the clock will turn a bright
yellow. At 30 seconds remaining, I will gently tap the gavel to
remind members their time is almost expired. When your time is
expired, the clock will turn red, and you can finish your
sentence, or finish your thought, but we will then turn to the
next member.
In terms of the speaking order, we will begin with the
chair and ranking member. Then members will be recognized in
order of seniority, alternating sides.
Finally, House Rules require me to remind you that we have
set up an email address to which members can send anything they
wish to submit in writing at any of our hearings or markups.
That email address has been provided in advance to your staff.
Okay. With housekeeping administrative items out the way,
let's turn to our witness, to our main business of the
afternoon. Welcome, Secretary Buttigieg. Your second appearance
before the THUD Subcommittee, of course, in a bit virtual
formal, but still a good turnout of members, I think almost 100
percent, and a chance to have a productive conversation.
Welcome, too, to the members of the subcommittee. I am glad
to see all of you. I appreciate your participation today and
remind you, of course, to mute your mics, so when you are not
speaking, and to ensure that you keep you video on so we can
see your face and so you can be recognized.
Mr. Secretary, we have had the pleasure of working together
over the last 15 months on our shared vision for transforming
America's transportation infrastructure into safer, more
accessible, more equitable networks. Through the enactment of
the monumental investment--the Infrastructure Investment and
Job Acts, the IIJA, otherwise known as the Bipartisan
Infrastructure bill, and equally important the fiscal year 2022
Transportation and Housing Appropriations Bill. I want to thank
you for your leadership, both publicly and behind the scenes,
as we have advanced these shared goals and have made historic
investment in our transportation networks. When you combine all
this, Congress has enacted $143 billion in new funding for
highways, bridges, airports ports, rail, public transit systems
for the current fiscal year. I look forward to continuing our
work together to move these investments forward, get them on
the street, officially begin our work today then on the fiscal
2023 budget. It is a good budget. It includes $105 billion for
the Nation's transportation systems, funding that is necessary
to continue to address our distressed infrastructure, all of
it: roads, bridges, airports, ports, rail, and public transit
systems. The President's request will be leveraged by the $36.8
billion provided by the IIJA in advanced appropriations to
modernize and improve transportation networks across the
country to increase safety, reduce emissions, and contribute to
the mitigation of climate change and addressing equity, those
goals that we hold before us in all that we do.
While the IIJA provides greater funding opportunities for
States, local governments, and transportation agencies,
Congress must continue to provide robust annual funding, annual
Federal funding, to enable all these stakeholders to see the
projects through and to address our needs systematically year
after year after year. That is what this subcommittee does. And
those needs have accumulated as we all know. The American
Society of Civil Engineers graded America's infrastructure
overall as a C-minus in its most recent 2021 report card, with
aviation, roads, and transit scoring down in the D range. They
also estimated last year the total needed to fix our
infrastructure, $22.59 trillion over 10 years, a stunning
figure, just to bring our infrastructure into good condition.
So we have made a significant start. The IIJA will certainly
propel us toward the needed transformation. But the President's
budget request and much more are going to be required to close
these funding gaps. We have a big job to do.
The President's budget allows for new or improved service
across all modes. And we are happy to say it is building on
this subcommittee's commitment to examine and address our
transportation needs, including some of the adverse effects of
past policy. You know, there have been in the past, under the
guise of urban renewal, for example, there has been some
disparate impacts through the way we did highways, we did
throughways, cutting through urban neighborhoods. All of us
know that there is some, some correctives that need to be
applied, and, in some cases, some possible compensatory
policies to address some of these inequities and to move
forward in a more positive way.
Mr. Diaz-Balart and I, and members on both sides of the
aisle, have worked on this subcommittee for years to augment,
authorize, and formula amounts to all sorts of transportation,
all modes of transportation. And I must say, we have sometimes
immodestly noted that while everybody's been talking
infrastructure and declaring ``infrastructure week'' and that
sort of thing, this committee actually has been funding, and
funding it in a serious way for years. All modes have
benefited, but our focus on intercity rail and transit has been
particularly noteworthy.
And the 2023 budget request picks up on that, makes great
strides toward reducing single-occupancy vehicle trips,
transportation congestion to harmful emission, by proposing
that $3 billion be invested in Amtrak, another $1.3 billion and
three competitive grant programs that can support passenger
rail. That would be $500 million for the oversubscribed CRISI
program; $2.85 million for the Capital Investment Grants
program, new starts for transit, and $150 million for new
competitive grants to improve the resilience of transit assets
and help transit agencies transition their fleets to zero
emission buses. All of these represent increases above fiscal
2022.
The area I represent in North Carolina offers a good
example of what investments can mean. Now, I don't aspire to be
Mr. S-line. I don't think I can match Amtrak Joe. But I must
say, that getting this S-line corridor from Raleigh to Richmond
developed will be an enormous step. The key step in completing
the development of the Southeast Passenger Rail Corridor. The
States of North Carolina and Virginia, with generous help from
CRISI, are well on their way to getting this done. And the
resources in this budget and in the IIJA will let us get it
done here and get it done elsewhere. It will replicate the
success in corridors ideally suited to passenger rail travel
across the country.
Also, I want to note the budget request makes critical
investments in technical assistance and capacity building in
underserved communities to promote equitable access to the
resources we have approved. Part of this is the new Thriving
Communities Initiative, which I am sure the Secretary will
address. This, too, builds on the bipartisan work that this
committee has done over several years to support communities of
persistent poverty.
Overall, the 2023 budget request dedicates $26.8 billion in
discretionary resources to take care of our most immediate
needs, including the necessary resources to keep DOT staffed
and prepared to implement and oversee these critical
developments.
So, Mr. Secretary, Mr. Diaz-Balart and I look forward to
working with you in crafting a bipartisan bill that helps
address the unmet infrastructure needs of this country. Mr.
Secretary, we look forward to your testimony today, to working
with you, to ensure that DOT has the funding it needs to carry
out its critical mission. Now let me turn to my friend and
colleague the Ranking Member, Mr. Diaz-Balart, for his opening
statement.
Mr. Diaz-Balart. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, I hope my voice
holds up. Mr. Secretary, great to have you once again in front
of the subcommittee. And to you, Mr. Price, it is an honor,
Chairman, to embark on your final season of hearings. I look
forward to working with you to complete the 2023 THUD bill on
time. I know that we are going to get started on the details of
this bill as soon as the hearing--all the hearings are over,
and we have quite a few hearings still left to go. And as you
know, Mr. Chairman, our staffs are already burning the midnight
oil preparing for what is going to be an extremely busy number
of weeks ahead. Mr. Chairman, I want to make sure that this
bill is a capstone of your career. And I pledge to you that I
will do anything that I can and everything that I can to get
this bill finished across the line in the next coming months.
Mr. Secretary, I look forward to discussing the $27 billion
discretionary request for the Department of Transportation
today. I will note that your discretionary request is really
just a smart part, one part of the resources that we have
entrusted to your Department. Altogether, your request for
fiscal year 2023 is $142 billion. That is including $37 billion
in advance appropriations to the Infrastructure Investment and
Jobs Act. Now, I consider these advanced appropriations to be
fully under the jurisdiction of this committee. These funds
will not be on autopilot. They, instead, will be subject to
vigorous oversight by this committee. I want to make sure that
every dollar has a return on the investment for the taxpayer,
and that we never let either the bureaucracy or political
agendas get in the way of delivering results for the people of
this great country. Our work this year should be guided by
commitment to face the serious, serious challenges, both new
and old. And I will tell you, whether those challenges are
excess government regulation, those challenges are now also
inflation that is eroding the quality of life of families
across the country and really, really, really hurting people in
our country. The supply chain disruptions that continue, and
really an overreliance on manufactured goods from adversaries,
particularly, Communist China. So these issues are obviously--
not all of them are fully in the hands of the DOT obviously,
but the Department's decisions, the policies, and the spending
priorities need to contribute to solutions to these challenges
and clearly not make those challenges any worse.
And, finally, we cannot ignore the impact of excessive
spending and the rising debt on families today with inflation
and rising interest rates eroding, seriously eroding the
quality of life of all of Americans. The President's budget
request for all nondefense discretionary spending is 14 percent
above last year. That is from nondefense discretionary.
Frankly, it looks a lot like last year's request. It is both
excessive and out of balance with defense getting, again, an
increase that doesn't even keep up with inflation.
But this committee will work towards a bipartisan topline
agreement for fiscal year 2023. And then the chairman and I
will be able to work together, along with the members of the
subcommittee, to finalize an on-time, hopefully, fiscally
responsible budget for DOT.
Mr. Secretary, I appreciate your willingness to serve, and
your willingness to always be available. I look toward to your
testimony and, again, to your continuing dialogue as this
process moves forward. With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Mr. Price. Thank you, Mario. And now, Mr. Secretary, we are
happy to turn to you. We are grateful that you are here, and we
look forward to your highlighting of the 2023 budget request. I
want to recognize you for 5 minutes to summarize your
statement. Of course, your full testimony will be entered in
the hearing record. Mr. Secretary.
Secretary Buttigieg. Thank you very much, Chairman Price,
and Ranking Member Diaz-Balart, and to all members of the
subcommittee, I want to thank you for the opportunity to
discuss the President's fiscal year 2023 budget request for the
Department of Transportation. I first want to thank Members of
Congress on both sides of the aisle who delivered the
Bipartisan Infrastructure Law as well as the fiscal year 2022
Omnibus. Because of these historic investments, the Department
is now in a much stronger position to help build the
transportation future that the American people need and
deserve. One that is safer, more efficient, and more affordable
for everyone from families transporting kids to businesses
moving goods. And we have acted urgently and responsibly to
start delivering that.
We recently saw the dramatic collapse of a bridge in
Pittsburgh, the emergency closure of the major I-40 Hernando de
Soto Bridge that connect Tennessee and Arkansas, and the
closure or weight limiting of so many bridges affecting
communities across the country. In December, we were able to
allocate the largest Federal highway funding to States in
decades, $52.5 billion to make roads and bridges safer and more
resilient, more modern, so people can get to where they need to
go.
Another urgent priority for us is addressing the pandemic-
driven supply chain disruptions and the accompanying inflation,
while acting to ensure our supply chains are resilient into the
future. The steps we are taking include efforts to support
truck drivers, supplement inland ports, and modernize our port
infrastructure, all help to move record volumes of goods more
quickly and stem the rising cost of shipment, and it is showing
results. The number of container ships total waiting for berths
at U.S. ports has dropped by 35 percent since peaking in early
February. Employment for trucking rose in 2021 to its highest
level since 1990. And grocery and drugstores have products in
stock at almost the exact level as before the pandemic.
We will continue to address issues wherever they arise,
whether that is longer, dwell times on U.S. freight rail, or
the COVID-driven stops and starts in China, which we are
monitoring closely. Across our transportation systems, there is
still much more to do to achieve our goals from lowering costs
to giving people back time in their day. In fiscal year 2023,
we are now poised to build on early progress with the
President's budget for the Department of Transportation that
totals $142 billion, including $36.8 billion in advanced
appropriations provided by the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law in
that year.
Allow me to give you a few highlights. Safety remains our
top priority. And the budget includes funding to help address
the crisis of deaths on America's roadways as outlined in our
National Roadway Safety Strategy. That includes $3 billion in
the Highway Safety Improvement Program. With $4 billion for
RAISE and in the new Mega program, we will rebuild century-old
infrastructure and lay the groundwork for America to compete
and win in the decades ahead. With $23.6 billion for the
Federal Aviation Administration, we will further enhance
aviation safety, combat the effects of aviation on the climate,
and improve airport infrastructure. With $4.45 billion in
Capital Investment Grants, we will advance 15 major transit
projects that shorten commutes, increase access to jobs, and
reduce congestion on the road for millions of Americans.
We will invest $17.9 billion to reverse decades of
underinvestment in intercity passenger rail, and make fast,
reliable train service available to more people. We will
provide $1 billion to build out a nationwide network of
electric vehicle chargers so that Americans in every part of
the country have access to the lower monthly costs of electric
vehicles. We will also begin implementing our ambitious new
fuel efficiency standards which are projected to save the
typical household hundreds of dollars in gas costs and prevent
2.5 billion metric tons of carbon dioxide from reaching our
atmosphere.
And to keep making progress on supply chains to help move
goods faster and fight inflation, we will invest a total of
$680 million to modernize ports, $3 billion to improve the
roadways that carry the majority of America's freight, and a
total of $1.5 billion for CRISI grants to improve freight rail.
That is just a sample of the improvements the American people
will experience when they drive, fly, ride, and shop as
enhancing our transportation systems directly helps lower the
transportation cost of goods and services.
We understand that the tremendous opportunity we have been
given to help modernize our country's infrastructure comes with
a profound responsibility to use taxpayer dollars efficiently
and wisely, and to make resources more accessible to State and
local governments so they can build good projects. This type of
infrastructure transformation only happens, at most, once every
generation, and it only happens when we work together.
So I want to, again, thank you for demonstrating that
democracies can deliver a better future for the people they
represent, and for your work ensure that the United States
remains the global economic leader. I look forward to
addressing your questions, and thank you, again, for the chance
to be with you today.
Mr. Price. Thank you, Mr. Secretary. Well, let me open the
questions with one that picks up on your statement in terms of
the multiple funding streams that we have devoted to
transportation and infrastructure over these last couple of
years, and your responsibility for making sure all of this
works together and gets where it is supposed to go and
underrides the kind of economic growth and prosperity that we
all are for aiming for.
You have, in the last in three fiscal years, the Department
has been provided with something like $106 billion in COVID
relief. More recently, the IIJA, the Bipartisan Infrastructure
Bill put something like $661 billion into roads, bridges,
airports, ports, transit, and rail systems over a 5-year
period, and that includes, of course, the advanced
appropriations. This is on top of the annual appropriations,
and we have gone above authorized levels in in those bills.
Like $19 billion above authorized levels that this subcommittee
has taken the lead in providing over recent years.
So we are responding here, of course, to a great need, but
there is a challenge to coordinate this and to do it with due
diligence, to do it responsibly and well. So how is it going?
That is my question, basically. What kind of challenges of
coordination and control does this pose for the Department and
how you are dealing with them? What kind of workforce needs
does it pose? You know, there was a special IIJA hiring
authority that OPM provided back in February. Have you made use
of that, are you dealing with the workplace needs? You are
dealing, of course, in a competitive job market to hire the
people you need.
And then, most importantly, how is it going with respect to
getting the money where it is supposed to go, getting the money
to the designated--the recipients in the case of formula
enhancements, and also getting grant programs and grant
processes going in terms of competitive programs? We are aware,
of course, of the special White House effort headed by Mr.
Landrieu. How do you work with that? How is this going to come
together so that we, of course, exercise due diligence over the
use of these funds, but at the same time make sure these funds
have the maximum impact in a limited period of time?
Secretary Buttigieg. Thank you very much, Chairman, for the
question. And it is really the question that we are working
with every day here in this Department. When Congress makes
these resources available, that creates the challenge and the
opportunity for us to make good use of them. Trying to do so
promptly as possible, but also do so responsibly and get it
right. In some cases, this is an expansion of programs that
exist that are very familiar to communities and to this
Department.
In other cases, in many cases, it involves creating whole
new programs and ensuring that the guidance is correctly framed
up for those and that they get off to a good start.
I am pleased to say that we have made significant progress
on getting funding to States, cities, and communities for many
major programs provided for by the law. We at the Department
have established an executive policy council responsible for
overseeing the Department's implementation and making sure that
the results are on time, on task, and on budget for the
American people. And this is also happening within the wider
context of the administration-wide infrastructure
implementation task force and the work of Mitch Landrieu, the
senior advisor, and infrastructure and implementation
coordinator. So we are often at the interagency table with the
other departments working other parts of the bill.
We have opened applications for discretionary grant
funding. We have set out apportionments for formula funding and
moved over $79 billion out to be made available. And throughout
the summer and fall, we will be announcing additional funding
opportunities for bridges, transit, rail, ports, airports, and
other projects.
You mentioned workforce which is certainly going to be an
opportunity and a challenge for the entire construction
transportation sector, and certainly for our Department too.
Some of the occupations that we are working right now to hire
and include engineers, program analysts, transportation
specialists, motor carrier safety specialists, transportation
industry analysts, environmental protection specialists, grants
management specialists, community planners, and others.
Because, of course, we need to make sure that we have the
skills and talents in this building to responsibly deliver that
funding. That hiring is underway. We have certainly got many
more positions to fill, and we are at work on a daily basis to
do so.
Mr. Price. Okay. Thank you. I know, like many members, I
have been having sessions with stakeholders--State and local
stakeholders who are eager to know how and when and where to
apply. And I must say, the website that you have set up is one
of the best I have seen for giving very precise information
about where to turn, and what the timetable is for putting
these programs in force and so on. It is unusually good, and,
of course, a huge help to members, like all of us on this
subcommittee, who want to see our State and local stakeholders
making full--taking full advantage of this and making effective
applications. Okay. Mr. Diaz-Balart.
Mr. Diaz-Balart. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Mr.
Secretary, the IIJA establishes a One Federal Decision mandate
to streamline environmental reviews for obviously large
infrastructure projects. Now, I would note that this is an
effort initiated by previous administration, and then canceled
by the Biden administration in a spree of canceling commonsense
executive orders. Fortunately, this initiative was codified
into law in the infrastructure bill through a bipartisan
effort.
So, Mr. Secretary, as you, I am sure, agree, too often
regulatory delays drive up the cost or even leave communities
waiting for sometimes years for projects to get completed. And
we all know that the world--that the U.S. leads the world in
scientific and engineering talent. So it is clear that this is
a bureaucratic issue, not a technical know-how issue.
So here is the question, Mr. Secretary, can you provide us
with the status of your implementation of the One Federal
Decision, and the kinds of real measurable results that we
should expect to see in the coming months, in the coming years?
Specifically, for example, as you implement this law, will you
be able to measure the following 3 areas: the reduced time for
permit approvals, the dollars saved, and, thirdly, the jobs
created? So I would ask that you be as specific as possible,
and also that you keep our committee updated on your efforts to
implement the One Federal Decision.
Secretary Buttigieg. Well, thank you, and I certainly
welcome the opportunity to remain in touch with your offices
individually and this committee on this. This, as of you know,
it has a lot of process improvement provisions aimed at
improving environmental review and permitting to advance
transportation infrastructure, and recognize the benefits of
these investments as promptly as possible while still meeting
the requirements that are expected of them. A couple of things
I would note. One is that there is a very aggressive timeline
toward the first requirement, chronologically first
requirement, which is a 60-day requirement on the development
of categorical exclusions. We met that timeline consulting with
the Federal agencies that were specified, identifying
categorical exclusions in Federal highway, and providing the
substantiating information that could help accelerate the
delivery of projects if available there.
We are also taking other steps to improve by making greater
use of the Federal permitting dashboard, which, right now,
tracks over 240 active transportation projects. The
Infrastructure Permitting Improvement Center which manages that
dashboard's body that we are working with to help expedite
project delivery, and I think provide detail of the type that
you are talking about, at least in part, to try to make sure
there is visibility on what is happening in terms of
timeliness, in terms of compliance. And we will continue
working to post information on things like the categorical
exclusions to provide some transparencies there.
We will continue also with public involvement guidelines to
try to document public engagement. Make sure that it is far-
reaching, equitable. And, of course, the more smoothly that
goes up front, the fewer issues will be encountered later down
the line. And welcome further opportunities, whether it is in
the provisions that are called out for by the law, or, you
know, within those boundaries that had been set out to make
sure that, again, of course, while meeting and respecting all
legal requirements, we are being as efficient and as smooth as
we can in delivery.
Mr. Diaz-Balart. And, Mr. Secretary, again, I look forward
to you keeping us in the loop as much as possible as to how you
are doing and how you are progressing. And what are those
specific savings in time or the other three--the other two
categories that I mentioned? So I am assuming we can count on
you doing that, right?
Secretary Buttigieg. We would certainly welcome the chance
to continue providing as much good information as we have on
this.
Mr. Diaz-Balart. Great. I appreciate that. Thank you, Mr.
Chairman.
Mr. Price. Thank you. Mr. Quigley. Mike, I think you are
muted.
Mr. Quigley. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Mr.
Secretary. Mr. Secretary, some of the civic lessons we have
aren't as helpful as others. I wanted to talk about the 5G
spectrum rollout. Obviously, I think calls for the need for
greater coordination sometimes between Federal agencies. Some
of this is new stuff, and we learn as we go. But the public
discussion, I guess, we would call it between FAA and FCC
wasn't particularly helpful. It was probably avoidable and not
particularly productive. The resolution to 5G for airports and
air carriers is going to take some time to resolve, and FAA had
some temporary stopgap measures in place. But, obviously, you
know, how we are working with the White House and the other and
FCC to resolve these 5G spectrum issues, and how do we avoid
this in the future? Because, obviously, 5G is going to take a
while as it begins to be incorporated, but the lessons for 6G
and beyond as well.
Secretary Buttigieg. Thank you, Congressman. As you noted,
the most important thing is going to be coordination. The last-
minute and urgent issues that arose at the beginning of this
year were years in the making. And what we have seen in places
that have been able to have the safe and efficient coexistence
of 5G cell technology and aviation operations is a strong level
of communication and coordination between telecommunications
and aviation regulators well in advance of any kind of
deployment.
I will say that we have made significant progress since
January with the FAA, of course, principally focused on its
core mission of safety, but with the dialogue with
telecommunications industry, as well as regulators, on how to
ensure that that is compatible with the 5G rollout. That
communication and interaction has allowed us to refine the risk
model around runways. It has allowed wireless companies to turn
on the majority of their transmitters, activating about 90
percent of their installed network of transmitters, but
recognizing that there remain more transmitters that are
economically very important for them to be able to activate
where that needs to be deconflicted with the safety imperatives
on the aviation side.
So the long-term solution is to establish a new performance
standard for altimeters in the presence of that C-band
spectrum. In the meantime, based on what I would say is an
entirely voluntary arrangement that reflects, I think, great
credit on the willingness of telecom operators, aircraft
equipment manufacturers, airlines, and different Federal
agencies to cooperate, we have been able to work to ensure that
modifications like filters and other things that can be applied
to the aircraft are done as quickly as possible while also
refining the model.
There will be more instances, as you mentioned, whether we
are talking about 5G or other spectrum issues as we go. And so,
we are undertaking efforts to communicate more closely than I
think has ever been done in the past with relevant players to
include NTIA and Commerce, the FCC, the White House, in some
circumstances DOT--sorry DOD, and anybody else on the Federal
side with involvement here, as well as ensuring continued
healthy dialogue on the industry side.
Mr. Quigley. And I am hoping that there is also
communications with those in the technology side of this as the
industry expands, and, you know, moves at literally the speed
of light towards--you know, 5G isn't done. I mean, there is a
lot more that is going to be incorporated. But this is a
worldwide issue. So, you know, we want U.S. travelers to feel
safe wherever they are going. And I think there is some lack of
information and concern about how this is playing out in other
countries at the same time.
Secretary Buttigieg. Absolutely. We need to make sure that
we are prepared and aware of forthcoming technologies. Because,
again, the spectrum is only going to become more important from
a transportation perspective and from an industry [inaudible]
Perspective. We need to be able to identify of any of these
issues well in advance of anything like the events of January.
Mr. Quigley. Thank you so much, and we will talk to you
soon.
Secretary Buttigieg. Thank you.
Mr. Price. Mr. Womack.
Mr. Womack. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Mr.
Secretary, for joining us. It is good to see you again, and it
is always good to see a mayor, by golly, someone who's had the
experience of creating and executing an actual budget, and
probably on time, and making government work. So I am deeply
appreciative. And I am sure that you probably are a little bit
anxious about the Congress and its inability to do what mayors
all around the country have been able to do year after year
after year, and that is do the basic functions of government.
It is my understanding from my staff that you and--your
team and my staff have been working on an exemption request
from the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration for an
Arkansas company. I want to thank you and your staff for your
attention to the matter. I hope that we can continue to work
through the company's request in an expeditious manner, and I
am sure we will.
My colleague, Mr. Quigley, was talking about 5G, and I am
going to also talk about it. But at the same time, I want to
congratulate you, give you some of the credit for it because
when you took the reins on this--this 5G rollout in January and
brokered a voluntary agreement between parties, it was obvious
to me that there was a lack of leadership on the issue. And I
understand the aviation concerns caused by the rollout, but I
also understand why the wireless carriers were eager to roll
out transformative service. But, again, it takes leadership to
get this done, and then I want to commend you for that.
So a quick question about it. You mentioned the NTIA,
that's between the FCC and the NTIA and this whole issue of
spectrum coordination, do you feel like there is an appropriate
level of coordination? And that is question one. Number two
would be, are you resourced appropriately to be able to handle
this coordination?
Secretary Buttigieg. Well, thank you for the question. I
believe that there is now going forward, though, there was not
always previously--I am pleased to see the arrival of the
confirmed leadership for NTIA, and again, the level of dialogue
that was forced by this issue between FAA, FCC, and other
parties both on the public sector and industry side. We will
make sure to alert Congress if we feel that further resources
are needed to support this work, because, you know,
transportation is increasingly a matter of communications
technology. There is a lot of overlap there. And I don't mean
to suggest that the jurisdictional lines aren't clear, but the
communication across them to make sure that we head off these
kinds of issues does need to be stronger and, I think, will be
as a result of the lessons learned from this experience.
Mr. Womack. Thank you. I will note for the committee that
this issue certainly is not going to go away, but I believe
that the parties are working toward solutions for the short-
term. But 5G spectrum use is only going to increase. So the
last question for me on this subject that is related to this
committee's work. Does FAA have--and you have kind of addressed
some of the resource needs right now--but as we look to the
budget that has been presented in the work for fiscal year
2023, are you satisfied with the resources in that budget? And
the second part of the question is about more about brain
drain. Are we suffering? I would assume so, from what is going
on at the FAA given its many duties and projects. And are you
having to pull people off of other projects to be able to work
toward it? So--and that will be the end of my first line of
questions.
Secretary Buttigieg. Thank you. Yes, very briefly, it took
enormous work on the part of the safety organization, including
working in areas that they typically hadn't, you know, teaming
up with telecom experts to model interferences is an example of
something that is just different from what a lot of people in
the safety organization had been asked to do. The budget
request for fiscal year 2023 does support that safety
organization, those engineers, and that technical expertise. We
do find ourselves like, I think, so many in the private and
public sector in a moment of working to hire and build that
organization further. And that is a challenge and an
opportunity for us right now.
Mr. Womack. Yeah, thank you. Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Mr. Price. Thank you. Ms. Clark.
Ms. Clark. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And welcome back, Mr.
Secretary. We are delighted to have you here. I want to thank
you for your work and your leadership in getting the
infrastructure law passed. And we know the work ahead of us,
and we are looking forward to partnering with you on it. One of
the things that we know for sure is that almost 30 percent of
our total greenhouse gas emissions comes from the
transportation sector, and the primary source of that is fossil
fuel burning cars and trucks. And the Bipartisan Infrastructure
Law addressed this significant source of carbon dioxide
emissions by making historic investments in electric vehicle
infrastructure. Your budget invests $1 billion in the National
Electric Vehicle Infrastructure Formula Program, and $400
million in charging and fueling grant programs. Can you tell us
how these investments are going to impact the lives of everyday
Americans who may be considering transitioning to an electric
vehicle?
Secretary Buttigieg. Yes, and thank you for the question.
This is absolutely essential to get right in order for us to
meet our broader climate goals. And what we know is that there
is existing technology today in terms of electric vehicles.
That if we can make sure that more Americans can conveniently
and affordably access it, it will mean dramatically fewer
emissions, and, importantly, savings for those families, those
drivers as well, and reduce fuel cost and maintenance costs.
The Electric Vehicle Infrastructure Formula Program is
providing this year $1 billion to States to provide funding for
their plans to help build out a national highway network. I
would also emphasize that the--I should say a charging network
across the National Highway System. I would emphasize that we
are in a great model of partnership right now with the
Department of Energy, because under the infrastructure law, we
are able to set up a joint office with them to help make sure
that we manage this program well.
It is accompanied with a discretionary program that will
represent $400 million in fiscal 2023 to help fill in some of
the gaps and help communities with their charging needs.
We also are mindful of the need to make sure that there is
a greater level of public understanding about the benefits of
electric vehicles, and that we do our part to try to help make
them affordable, which other proposals with Congress could help
to do. But right now, there are fuel savings to be captured by
families who may simply be hesitating because of range anxiety,
the fear that you might not have a charger between where you
start and where you are headed, and that is exactly what we can
address with this formula program. So the plans are due back in
from the States by August. And then pending approval of those
plans, we will be able to get the funding moving promptly after
that, and start seeing these chargers go into the ground.
Ms. Clark. That will be great, great news. And I also
wondered related to this, there is an electric vehicle working
group. Can you tell us when the members of this working group
are going to be selected, how people can volunteer, and how you
are going to ensure diversity in this group?
Secretary Buttigieg. Yes, in fact, teaming up right now
with the Department of Energy, we are establishing this
electric vehicle working group whose functions will be to make
recommendations on the development and the adoption as well as
the integration of light, medium, and heavy duty EVs into our
transportation and energy systems. We will soon be actively
soliciting input on the composition and design of this
committee. And we will have more information on the process for
selecting members in the weeks ahead. So, please stay turned on
that, and we will be able to follow up with your office as that
goes live.
Ms. Clark. In my closing seconds here, I know that equity
is part of your goal and that you are shifting dollars to make
sure that small, disadvantaged businesses can be part of
contracting. Can you talk briefly about how the Department's
equity focus will change when you are evaluating future
infrastructure projects? And will you, you know, give priority
for those that are trying to address historic injustices or
emphasize future equity?
Secretary Buttigieg. Thank you. Yes, as briefly as I can,
let me emphasize two areas in which we are focused on equity:
The first is in the selection and delivery of the projects,
making sure that no one is left behind; making sure that we pay
attention to the opportunity to benefit overburdened and
underserved communities with transportation that connects them
to opportunity.
The second dimension I want to mention is the opportunity
for wealth creation, for firms owned by historically
disadvantaged owners, and for workers often belonging to groups
that have historically not been able to get much of the
economic benefit on the labor side. That is why we welcome the
provisions in the law for efforts like local hire, and it is
why we are at work to make sure we are doing everything we can
within the authorities provided by Congress to maximize the
opportunity for DBEs and for businesses that have a unique
opportunity to expand their capacity and their competitiveness
working on the many construction and transportation projects
that will be funded in the years ahead.
Ms. Clark. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield
back.
Mr. Price. Thank you. Mr. Rutherford.
Mr. Rutherford. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And, Mr.
Secretary, thank you so much for joining us today. It is great
to see you again. You know, my northeast Florida district is a
large logistics hub for the entire Southeast of the United
States with both--well, actually, airports, rail, Federal
highways, two interstate systems, ferries, seaports, and a very
robust transit system. So as you can imagine, my district is
very supportive of the investments in infrastructure that you
have been proposing. And, particularly, I appreciate your
request that includes $37 billion in the advanced
appropriations through the passage of the IIJA. And, although,
I couldn't vote for it for a lot of other reasons, I do want to
say I support you, and I stand with you on substantial
investment into our infrastructure.
And I just want to reiterate, Ranking Member Diaz-Balart
mentioned in his opening remarks that the IIJA funding will be
subject to rigorous oversight by this committee to ensure every
dollar. It has a strong return on investment for our taxpayers.
And I just want to align myself with that sentiment that he
expressed earlier.
I was pleased to see in your 2023 budget, it included
substantial investment in our maritime industry, including
strong funding for MARAD, for port infrastructure, for our
Maritime Marine Academy to ensure that we have a strong
maritime workforce. And also, it included $450 million in IIJA
funding for--$450 million for this year in that 5-year plan.
So, my question is with this influx in the maritime
investment since much of this is long overdue funding from our
end, how is DOT tracking the spending in order to provide
adequate oversight to ensure that we are spending these dollars
in the correct manner, and following up on so that we get the
best return on our dollars? And then what, if any, innovations
are you thinking about concerning the implementation to make
the project execution easier like permitting and other areas
like that? Can you talk about that a little bit?
Secretary Buttigieg. Yes, thank you. And let me say at the
outset that we recognize and welcome the oversight role of this
body and others in ensuring that these dollars are spent
accountably. And the subject of your question is very much on
my mind as the port infrastructure development program grows to
levels we have not seen before. The good news is, this is a
program that has existed as opposed to some of the programs
that are being newly created. And so, I would say there is a
strong level of experience and what I would call muscle memory
in the Department about how to effectively and efficiently make
those project selections. But we need to expand our capacity
both to make sure we are choosing the right project on the
front end, and then to follow through on the back end to make
sure that their delivery is efficient and that their use is
compliant. This is especially timely now because these
investments can help, we think, with supply chain issues and,
ultimately, play a role in the fight against inflation. We have
got to be able to move goods in and out of our ports as
efficiently as possible.
I will give you two examples of just a range of things we
are supporting here from last year's cycle. One of them was $52
million that went to on-dock rail to bring about 10,000 more
feet of rail onto the port of Long Beach so that you can get
those containers moving more quickly and efficiently. But
another project sort of at the other end of the spectrum and
size was $1.6 million that went to a port on the Ohio River in
Indiana, just across the river from Kentucky, that helps pig
iron get loaded off of barges and up to a nearby foundry. So I
would emphasize that communities of all sizes and ports of all
sizes stand to benefit.
What we want to do is make sure that we work with these
project sponsors so that they understand the requirements
upfront, and that we encourage them to be as effective and help
them to be as effective and efficient as possible in deploying
those dollars.
Mr. Rutherford. Excellent. With that, Mr. Secretary, I see
that my time has run out. I will yield back, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Price. All right. Thank you. Mrs. Torres.
Mrs. Torres. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Secretary, it is
good to see you again. My constituents in California, the
Inland Empire, lack good public transit options that are
reliable and affordable as well as housing options. They are
often forced to commute hours to work on congested freeways.
And that is why I introduced the Sustainable Communities Act,
which builds on an old Obama initiative focused on transit-
oriented development with new grants. And as the cochair of the
New Dem Infrastructure Task Force, I have been working to
ensure transportation and housing are interconnected. The
fiscal year 2022 enacted bill created the Thriving Communities
Initiative, providing $25 million for DOT, and $5 million for
HUD to facilitate technical assistance and capacity building
for underserved communities in need of infrastructure
improvements. The goal of the program is really to increase the
proficiency of State, local, and Tribal governments, to plan
and develop projects, to increase transportation options and
reliability and affordability, for people to connect from their
homes to work, to school, and to each other.
So before we talk about DOT's fiscal year 2023 request for
another $111 million for the program, could you talk to us
about how DOT is standing up this program? And is there a
multi-modal working group within DOT? And has DOT set up other
working groups with Federal agencies for cross-agency
coordination and outreach to State, local, and Tribal
governments?
Secretary Buttigieg. Well, thank you, and let me identify
very much with your focus on ensuring that silos do not get in
the way of recognizing that housing and transportation are
intimately related. Of course, I needn't tell this committee
that, but the organizational chart of the Federal executive
branch doesn't always reflect it. And so, we have been working
closely with our partners at HUD and in other agencies to make
good on that insight. And, certainly, Thriving Communities is
an important part of that. The technical assistance that comes
in that place-based approach creates resources and
opportunities for us to work with other partners. HUD, as I
mentioned before; also, potentially, EPA, the Economic
Development Administration within Commerce, and the Department
of Agriculture. And we see ways that that can create both
inclusive patterns for engaging stakeholders and ways to do the
sort of cross agency work that can lead to efficient project
delivery and holistic project design. So the team is at work
right now in standing up the terms for that kind of technical
assistance and making sure we can help communities, especially
disadvantaged communities get the most bang for our buck. And
we really value the opportunity to provide that capacity
building because with we know sometimes it takes resources to
access Federal resources. And we want to make sure that is not
a barrier to getting these dollars to where they can make the
greatest difference.
Mrs. Torres. Absolutely. And as you stated correctly, you
know, the challenges with the smaller entities, I mean, the
metropolitan cities know how to do that. They have staff and
can afford to hire consultant firms and teams of attorneys to
help them through this process. But oftentimes, the
communities, like the one I represent, are left behind. Through
COVID, I don't have to remind you, but I am going to say it, so
many of our critical workers. You know, I didn't realize how
many of them depend on public transportation. So the fact that
it was many of those bus lines were reduced, the train didn't
often run, not to mention, you know, all of the issues around
rail safety in my community. So thank you for focusing on these
issues, and I will wait until the second round to ask my next
question. I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Price. Thank you. Mr. Garcia.
Mr. Garcia. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Mr.
Secretary, for your time and your service to our beautiful
Nation. I want to just, first of all, thank you for the focus
on the ports of L.A. As well as Long Beach. I know that was a
multifaceted and complex problem. And I know that we are still
experiencing some of those things. I think it would be actually
very useful for this committee to, if you could, point us to a
resource that shows the progress being made and what sort of
the next barriers and the third and fourth level of friction
and challenges that we are experiencing in our ports. Just so
that we can get an understanding of, you know, now that we have
sort of knocked down the low-hanging fruit, what are the third
and fourth order ripple effects? But we can take that offline.
I just want to associate myself with some of the comments
about executability. I am deeply concerned about the dollar
values here. We see big numbers, not only from the
infrastructure bill, but on the annual budgets. And I just
wanted to get a sense, from your perspective, as far as your
confidence in the ability to execute some of these programs.
Not only do we have a lot of dollars right now for these
projects, but we also on the heels of The Great Resignation
don't necessarily have all the bodies to staff these projects
to the levels that maybe that we should be able to and
absolutely need to.
We had a problem before COVID, and I think that was
aggravated because of COVID, and we now have a position where
we literally have jobs looking for people rather than people
looking for jobs. So I wanted to get your sense of how is that
affecting the transportation and infrastructure projects and
sort of what your overall level of confidence? And what is sort
of the fallback plan if you see yourself under-running on some
of these projects? I know, the easy button is just to keep
writing more checks and spend more money. But under-running on
a government program isn't necessarily a bad thing when you
have limitations outside of your control. I just wanted to get
a sense, if you can, spend a minute on that. I have one other
issue I want to raise, but if you can just walk us through your
thoughts on executability right now.
Secretary Buttigieg. Thank you. These are very important
challenges. You know, of course, the problems associated with
exceptionally low unemployment are better than the problems
associated with exceptionally high unemployment, but they are a
real challenge when it comes to project delivery, whether we
are talking about the agency itself and the hiring we need to
do, or what is happening across different sectors. And it
certainly contributed even to our supply chain challenges, as
we see the issues related to availability of workforce, whether
we are talking about trucking, shipping, rail, or even aircraft
pilots.
Specifically, with regard to the projects that we are
rolling out, this is one of the reasons why we have a direct
focus in workforce. And the law provides, in many cases, a
specific set of resources to do that with. Just take one
example on the Low-No Emissions Bus Program, there is actually
a 5 percent threshold that requires grantees to invest that
much in workforce to help make sure that they can actually
operate these new pieces of equipment that are coming their
way. And I recently had a chance to visit a community college
in Northern Ohio that is partnered directly with the transit
authority there. So they'll have a very direct place to take
those dollars.
We are going to count on partnerships like that across the
country between different organizations that are in a position
to do training, and those that are doing the hiring. I don't
think we can afford to be hands-off about it for the very
reasons that you cite. We need to deliver. We need to deliver
well. And if we are in the business of building good things
well, we can't do it without actively working to expand our
productive capacity.
Mr. Garcia. I appreciate that. That all makes sense. I am
looking forward to seeing you execute and seeing the results of
these investments. At the macro level, very important for our
country. So we have got to do this correctly.
The second issue I had is completely different. We have a
bit of a jurisdictional issue with the space domain right now.
We have got the NTSB asserting itself as sort of the authority
for space mishap investigation work, stepping on the toes of
the FAA. I would submit that the NTSB doesn't have the domain
expertise nor the capacity to fulfill this role and
responsibility. And we know that the FAA and the NTSB now are
working together to try to deconflict this. Quickly, though,
are you aware of this sort of jurisdictional encroachment? And
how do you see this getting resolved? Is there some way here
where we can put this responsibility back in the hands of the
FAA?
Secretary Buttigieg. Well, thank you for the question. We
certainly recognize some jurisdictional complexities questions
have risen and [inaudible] it may have been more theoretical
before the growth of commercial space launches is accelerating
exponentially. And so it is time for us to take a look at this.
To the roles of NTSB and FAA, I would add, Commerce has a role,
NASA, and I think there is a lot of interest in looking at
that, that flying formation, so to speak, and seeing if we have
got it right. Of course, to the extent that that is laid out by
Congress, we are running through the assignments that we have
issues like deconflicting the National Air Space, concerns
about the creation of space debris. But we would certainly
welcome a chance to work with Congress and other stakeholders
if there are ways to make sure there is no confusion or
complication around the jurisdictional issues because, again,
the demand is only going to rise.
Mr. Garcia. Yeah, we can't bloat our government even
further and confuse and muddy the waters. I am out of time, Mr.
Secretary. Thanks for your time. Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Mr. Price. Thank you.
Mr. Aguilar.
Mr. Aguilar. Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman.
Good to see you again, Mr. Secretary. Don't pay attention
to those bells. We just have those go off. The chairman puts
those on intentionally every time Mr. Garcia speaks, so don't
worry about that.
Mr. Secretary, the Bipartisan Infrastructure law is a
generational investment in clean energy and green technology
that will help us achieve net-zero emissions by 2050. And I am
proud that in my district we are home to some of this
innovation that embodies the administration's continued
commitment to improving transportation systems that reduce
emissions.
The Redlands Passenger Rail Project in southern California
will be one of the first zero-emissions self-powered passenger
trains in North America. The train can operate on existing rail
infrastructure, allowing it to immediately deliver zero-
emissions passenger rail to scores of underserved communities
throughout the region.
Mr. Secretary, can you elaborate on the steps that the
President's budget proposal and Bipartisan Infrastructure law
take to expand access to low- and no-emissions transportation
specifically in historically underserved communities?
Secretary Buttigieg. Well, thank you. This is a very
important part of our climate agenda, just as was the electric
vehicle infrastructure we discussed earlier for light-duty
vehicles and privately owned cars.
The Grants for Bus and Bus Facilities Program, which is
continued through the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law, includes
the Low- and No-Emissions competitive grants program, which is
requested at the level of $73 million in funding, alongside the
$1.1 billion provided in advance appropriations.
And what this allows us to do is support the many transit
agencies and authorities that already want to adopt low- and
no-emissions bus equipment but may not be in a position to do
so.
When they do--and it is not just the buses but often
required supporting facilities that they need help with. When
they do, that means lower emissions, less pollution, health
benefits, which are especially marked in disadvantaged
communities, as well as potential taxpayer savings from the
lower cost of filling them up.
So we are really enthusiastic about ensuring that we get
these dollars out far and wide, and agree that it will often be
in disadvantaged communities that you might see the greatest
proportional benefit from an agency being able to make that
move into newer technology.
Mr. Aguilar. Thanks for the explanation. And I would love
to invite you to visit the Redlands Passenger Rail Project when
we open this fall.
I also wanted to briefly mention and reference the
Disadvantaged Business Enterprise Supportive Services Program
within the President's budget. This program helps disadvantaged
business enterprises, DBEs, compete for funding for federally
assisted highway projects.
Can you share how DBE Supportive Services has helped
minority- and women-owned businesses compete for and receive
grant funding for federally assisted highway projects and how
we can continue to help these small businesses compete for
funding within the broader bipartisan infrastructure law?
Secretary Buttigieg. Thank you. Yes, we had an
authorization for this fiscal year and it is reflected in the
budget request that we would request to continue this program,
because it supports the ability of State departments of
transportation to achieve the objectives of their DBE programs.
So, knowing that ultimately the bulk of this transportation
funding goes out through the States, supporting them in
providing the kind of training, the kind of technical
assistance to DBEs is one of the best things that we can do to
make good on the potential of this generational investment to
create generational wealth and often for employees, workers
from backgrounds that have been disadvantaged or excluded in
the past. No one has a better track record of employing them
than DBE firms.
This funding can be used to help these firms improve their
business practices, overcome barriers to success, ultimately to
facilitate their development into viable organizations that are
successful in a competitive environment in competing for and in
performing on these federally assisted projects.
So we work closely with the States to make sure these
dollars are effectively used, and we really welcome the tools
that Congress has given us to provide that kind of help.
Mr. Aguilar. What other tools does the Department need in
utilizing this program and as you roll this out?
I would just say also that the funding level for this DBE
Supportive Services has been capped at $10 million since 1973.
Senator Padilla and I introduced a bill to raise the funding
cap to $25 million that can help programs that affect FAA and
FTA as well.
But what else can we do to help?
Secretary Buttigieg. Well, as you mentioned, you know,
certainly, the more resources there are for us to work with,
the more businesses we can help and the more geographies we can
help them in. And, right now, through the States, this is
Federal-highway-focused, but to be able to do so across other
modes would potentially allow for businesses that aren't
working in areas that are currently supported to see that this
is a program for them too.
I should mention also that we, as the Department, are in
the process of adopting more ambitious SDB goals for our own
direct procurement. But what is so helpful about the DBESS
Program specifically is it enhances the ability of DBEs to
participate not just in the dollars that are directly
contracted or procured by my department but in those formula
dollars that the States are ultimately spending.
Mr. Aguilar. Thanks, Mr. Secretary.
I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Price. Mrs. Hinson.
Mrs. Hinson, I believe you are muted.
Mrs. Hinson. Okay. Can you hear me now?
Mr. Price. Yes.
Mrs. Hinson. Okay. Great. Thank you. And thank you, Mr.
Chairman.
And I thank you, Mr. Secretary. Good to see you again, as
well. We bring Midwest greetings. And it is actually, for once,
warmer in the Midwest than it is here in D.C. So thank you
again for appearing before our committee.
There are clearly a lot of impressive happenings at the
DOT--innovations, as we have heard already today, to help with
global competitiveness, investment in rural development. And I
look forward to continuing to work with you on those efforts.
And, about a year ago, we had a discussion about wanting to
simplify, obviously, the forms and the grant process, and so I
was very encouraged to hear about what is happening with the
websites and trying to make that more user-friendly as well. So
I am very excited to hear more about your work there.
But I just wanted to raise a quick alarm about a couple of
things. Number one, I think there are a couple of areas in the
budget that I think, you know, spend quite a bit of taxpayer
money on programs that won't really help Iowans.
And a couple of those areas: specifically, billions of
dollars for Amtrak train lines. Obviously, that is all going to
go to the Northeast Corridor. People living between New York
and D.C. will get a lot of that money. It is already one of the
most heavily funded public transportation corridors in the
country.
And you also mentioned the $1 billion investment just to
build out the network of electric vehicle chargers. And, you
know, Iowans see that as a billion-dollar investment in China
for critical mineral production. And Iowans have been very
clear with me, they don't want to send their tax dollars to
China to help with electric vehicle charging stations that we
can't really use right now.
When you look at the numbers in Iowa, about a tenth of 1
percent--a tenth of 1 percent--of the registered vehicles in my
district are electric vehicles. So Iowans right now are not
trading in their affordable vehicles, their reliable vehicles,
their farm trucks for impractical, luxury, expensive electric
vehicles that can't go more than 200 miles without recharging.
And a couple things there. First, these EVs were not really
built with rural Americans' long distances across counties to
get to childcare and work. I just visited a place where people
are driving 40 miles each way to and from childcare two times a
day. That completely depletes their ability to go anywhere
else.
Secondly, Iowans can't afford it. I just talked with a mom
in Waterloo who is concerned about her shrinking paycheck
covering the rising costs that she is facing, gas and
groceries, not buying a new electric vehicle that costs,
respectfully, $50,000 to $60,000 on average.
And adding charging stations and then suggesting that
people should be out there buying a new electric vehicle is
truly an out-of-touch response to what my constituents are
facing right now.
So I just wanted to ask specifically today, Mr. Secretary,
you know, when it comes to these investments in electric
vehicles and a $16 million investment in electric vehicles, can
you describe where that specifically would go?
Secretary Buttigieg. Sure.
So, first of all, let me put to rest some misconceptions
about electric vehicles, and ones that would, I think, be
especially interesting to your constituents.
So let's take the electric trucks that are coming onto the
market--say, a Silverado or an F-150 Lightning, for example.
Those are all-electric models. They start about $40,000. And
they have a range in the 200- to 300-plus-mile area.
And it is actually rural drivers who would benefit the
most. I mean, think about some of the drivers you mentioned,
right? The more they drive, typically the more of their income
is going to gas, and so the more money they are going to save
if they can afford an electric vehicle, which allows them to
fill up on electrons. Of course, that is not free either, but
it is cheaper----
Mrs. Hinson. Well, but electrons are more expensive right
now too, Mr. Secretary. I mean, when you look at--I have
constituents sending me copies of their electric bills that
have more than doubled in the last year too.
So, when it comes to energy affordability, that is the
issue here. No matter what fuel you are using, everything is
more expensive right now. So that is why I am saying
respectfully here that electric vehicles are not the answer
right now when we are facing this energy affordability crisis
across the board.
Secretary Buttigieg. So, again, it is less expensive to
fill up on electricity than it is to fill up on gas and diesel.
That is only the more true recently, but that has been true for
some time.
And so part of what we are trying to do here is to make
sure that families can get the savings. Now, as you know, we
also proposed tax credits that would have knocked another
$10,000, $12,000 off of the price of those vehicles, so that,
for example, F-150 or Silverado that would start at 40, that
would get into the high 20s for your constituents.
Now, some Members voted for that, some Members voted
against it. We believe it would be a nice complement to what we
do have the funding from Congress to do, which is to make those
chargers available.
Now, one other thing that I think is especially worth a
mention in areas like the Midwest, where you and I come from,
is that, while it is still going to be important to have this
kind of electric vehicle infrastructure across the highway
network for those longer road trips, what a lot of folks don't
realize is that many people, especially in rural areas, where a
majority of families live in single-family homes, have electric
vehicle infrastructure already. It is called the plug in your
wall. In other words, an ordinary wall plug, while, of course,
not as fast as a Level 2 charger or something like that, is
something that can be used to charge a family vehicle.
Look, we are in a race against time. We are seeing effects,
some of which have been experienced, you know, certainly in
Iowa, of disturbingly frequent and extreme weather events
related to climate. Many scientists believe we are within just
a few years of the point of no return.
And we have technology that exists right now, that is
creating American jobs, that can save American taxpayers money
today on their gas or diesel bills if we just act to make sure
that it is affordable, which is what those tax credits are
about, and act to make sure that we have that kind of charging
infrastructure. So, you know, even with a 300-mile range, we
know that that is not going to work for everybody, with longer
driving patterns, and we could help them, and we will, using
this funding.
I don't want to miss the opportunity just to let you know
something else that I think you will be relieved to hear on the
Amtrak side, which is that, if you look, for example, at the
2023 budget and the $3 billion requested for Amtrak, $1.2
billion of that is for the Northeast Corridor, $1.8 billion for
the national network.
So I would hate for anybody to go out thinking that this
was only going to the Northeast Corridor. That is certainly, of
course, where a lot of the passengers, a lot of the revenue, a
lot of the economic activity connected to Amtrak is, but the
vision really is for a nationwide network that will benefit
this country coast to coast.
Mrs. Hinson. Thanks, Mr. Secretary.
Thank you.
Mr. Price. Mr. Espaillat.
Mr. Espaillat. Thank you so much.
Thank you, Secretary.
As you know, the Second Avenue Subway--the second phase of
the Second Avenue Subway project has been in the pipeline for
some time now, and, under your leadership, in partner with the
MTA, significant progress has been made.
This year, my constituents and I were pleased to see the
fiscal year 2023 funding recommendation included $400 million
for construction of the second phase for the Second Avenue
Subway. This is an excellent sign that the project is right on
track and that the next and final phase should begin by the end
of this year.
I hope that you can visit the tunnels with me. I know that
you were scheduled to, but I again extend an invitation to you
to visit that wonderful project that addresses equity,
transportation equity, for East Harlem and Harlem and my
district.
My question is: When deciding the ``Annual Report on
Funding Recommendations'' for Capital Investment Grants Program
projects, is project readiness taken into consideration when
this decision is made, Secretary?
Secretary Buttigieg. Well, thank you. Yes, one of the most
important things, of course, in programming these funds is to
make sure that the project sponsors are going to be able to
implement and execute.
And I know that--and, by the way, I haven't forgotten the
opportunity and invitation to come see the Second Avenue
Subway. I am looking forward to it. And, as you know, that is
part of the broader body of the transit vision that would be
funded in this budget request with $2.9 billion in general
funds, which, coupled with the $1.6 billion that came in
advance appropriations, brings us to $4.5 billion for the year.
But, yeah, certainly, there is a statutorily defined set of
criteria that is specific to each project type, but we work
very closely with project sponsors to make sure that they can
be delivered effectively.
Mr. Espaillat. Thank you, Secretary.
I want to jump into another question. While the
Infrastructure and Jobs Act was not designed to achieve the
Biden administration's climate commitments, it does provide
funding for programs that can help reduce pollution and prepare
communities for resiliency against climate impact.
What measures will you enforce to guarantee that Justice40
is adhered to when implementing programs under the
Infrastructure and Jobs Act that invests in clean energy, clean
transportation, green buildings, workforce development, grid
and transmission updates, recycling, and clean water? What
enforcement mechanism or what measures will you take?
Secretary Buttigieg. So one thing that is going to be very
important is transparency about how we are meeting those goals.
And I can tell you that, you know, this Justice40 commitment is
taken seriously in my department and in all of the covered
programs across the infrastructure law. That is the expectation
of the President, the public, and the Congress alike.
Of course, we have been working with equity in mind even
before the bill passed. To take one example from your
neighborhood, the $18 million planning grant for the Cross
Bronx Expressway planning work in fiscal 2022 out of RAISE, I
think, is an example of something that is compelling largely
because it can benefit people who----
Mr. Espaillat. That may be my district in a couple of
months, Mr. Secretary, so----
Secretary Buttigieg. We will keep our eyes peeled on that.
And, either way, I know it is something that will affect your
constituents.
So I just want to mention that as an example of the work we
have been doing before. But, now, with Justice40 and with the
resources in the BIL, we have an opportunity to really take
these commitments to the next level.
And you have my commitment that, as we work with OMB to
make sure that we spell out the specific implementation and
metrics for measuring the keeping of those promises, that that
is something that we will be tracking all the way at my level,
in the White House, and throughout this department.
Mr. Espaillat. Mr. Chairman, let me just thank the
Secretary for his persistent commitment to transportation
across the Nation and infrastructure and, of course, to the
environmental issues that are connected to transportation and
infrastructure that are so important to the neighborhoods like
the ones that I represent.
And I just look forward to having the Secretary visit
Harlem, East Harlem, as we plan to connect that neighborhood to
the rest of the world. And I thank him for all his efforts thus
far.
And I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Price. Thank you.
Mr. Gonzales.
Mr. Gonzales. Thank you, Chairman.
And thank you, Mr. Secretary, for attending today.
You know, I represent south and west Texas. I represent 42
percent of the southern border, a district that is
predominantly Hispanic.
My first question to you is, when is the last time you
visited the southern border?
Secretary Buttigieg. That is a good question. I guess it
has been probably 2 or 3 years since I was in that area.
Mr. Gonzales. I would love to host you there, because there
is a lot--you see a lot of things on TV, but there is a lot
more to that area than just the security piece. The security
piece is absolutely important, but there is trade and commerce
that is equally as important in there. And infrastructure plays
a fundamental role in all of that.
You know, have you ever heard the name Bishop Evans?
Secretary Buttigieg. Yes, that is familiar.
Mr. Gonzales. Okay. Bishop Evans was a National Guardsman
that drowned a couple weeks ago----
Secretary Buttigieg. Oh, of course. Yes.
Mr. Gonzales [continuing]. In Eagle Pass, Texas. And I
mention his name because we are seeing all kinds of people get
sucked up into this chaos. And I am bringing it back to
infrastructure.
You know, a lot of times, along those areas, especially
Eagle Pass, Del Rio, and I would argue even Yuma area, you have
a lack of infrastructure. And what does that mean? When there
is a crisis or when there is a situation, emergency situation,
a life-or-death situation, it requires, you know, Border Patrol
or any agency to have access to some of these different areas.
And one of the difficulties was getting access to that river
and, ultimately, you know, them recovering his body.
So I would love to host you, if you ever decide to come
down, or help you build out a trip, you know, if you decide to
do that. I think it is very important, beyond the security
piece, but to spend some time and energy in that.
You know, along those lines, you know, we often talk about
seaports, and I think seaports are important, but there are
also land ports that I think have been overlooked quite a bit.
And I have several land ports in my district. And I think what
you are going to see, as these increased, you know, delays in,
you know, certain seaports, you are going to see the land ports
be an alternative route to that.
You know, on that note, is there anything in particular
that your organization is working on for land ports as far as
modernizing and streamlining some of that ability?
Secretary Buttigieg. Well, thank you. And certainly agree
that, you know, the story of making sure that our borders are
functioning well is largely an infrastructure story. And that
is as true for land ports of entry, through which a great deal
of commerce and trade passes, as it is for our seaports.
And there is a lot available--first of all, of course,
making sure our road networks are adequate--and other resources
in the infrastructure law. One of many reasons we thank
Congress for passing the infrastructure law is the financial
support that it provides for land ports of entry that I know
will be important at the border.
Mr. Gonzales. Well, I am just going to double-down on that.
You know, as you know, the Aviation Safety Division
specializes in basic and advanced training courses in aircraft
and rotorcraft accident investigations and safety management
systems, SMS. The Aviation Safety Division provides training
and technical assistance to the Interagency Committee for
Aviation Policy, Customs and Border Patrol, and the Army and
Air Force National Guard.
I appreciate the Department working with CBP agents and
many others in my district to help secure the border. On that
note, you know, I would love for you to look into that and find
ways on how--you know, the interagency cooperation is very
important, and all of it is intertwined. And, you know, if you
could look in and, you know, maybe we could have a dialogue on
how we can expand some of these areas. Because transportation
is very critical, as we have kind of laid out.
Secretary Buttigieg. I would welcome a chance to work with
you on that. Thank you.
Mr. Gonzales. Okay. Perfect.
My last question is honestly in regards to electric
vehicles. And, you know, we often talk about, you know, whether
some districts will benefit or not benefit from it. Honestly, I
don't want to have that discussion. I would prefer to talk
about the rare-earth minerals in it and what are we doing, you
know, as far--you know, China has a grapple-hold on this. And,
you know, what are we doing to kind of compete in that area,
when it comes to, you know, the components of what makes an
electric vehicle work?
Secretary Buttigieg. Thank you. This is a very important
dimension of how we are going to need to work to prepare for
the future, especially in order to maximize the job-creation
potential of EV production and supply chains in the U.S., not
to mention just making sure that the supply is adequate.
I would mention not only the availability, mining, and
extraction of rare-earth elements but also the refining
capacity for them. If you look at some of the elements that are
important in EVs, the reason that there is a disproportionate
level coming from China actually has less to do with the
elements than it does the capacity to prepare them for being
usable.
And this is exactly the kind of issue that the Joint Office
of Energy and Transportation that was established, linking our
department to the Department of Energy, is working on.
I think, you know, these issues, of course, cannot be used
as an excuse to maintain the status quo, but also cannot be
ignored and need to be tackled with energy, with resources, and
with determination.
And we are seeing a lot of the industry, the OEMs, taking
very creative and innovative steps to diversify the kinds of
technologies that they have. Because some of the sources
actually do exist in the U.S. if we make the most of them--
lithium is a good example of that--while others, like cobalt,
are much harder to source in the U.S. or even in friendly
countries, creating some pressure to look for alternatives that
wouldn't require them to be used as much.
But, again, we see a lot of industry leadership, and we
think that deserves to be matched by public-sector leadership
in supporting that kind of supply-chain development, so that we
can really be ready for what we are sure is going to be a
transition to electric in the auto industry but are not sure is
going to happen quickly enough unless we are all working
together.
Mr. Gonzales. Thank you, Mr. Secretary.
I yield back.
Mr. Price. Ms. Wexton.
Ms. Wexton. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And thank you, Mr. Secretary, for joining us here today. It
is great to have you back with us.
Now, I would be remiss if I did not at least congratulate
you and Chasten on the new arrivals that you have had since you
last appeared before us. And I do feel the need to point out
that you look incredibly well-rested. And so I don't know what
your secret is, and maybe you can tell me about it in round
two, but for right now I want to talk some about transit, if we
may.
You know, I would be remiss also if I did not thank the
administration and your department for your continued support
of Metro in the fiscal year 2023 budget request. It is really
important that we get that up and running, because, you know,
as more and more Federal workers return to work and need to
take transit, they are returning to transit, as well as people
who are trying to save money on gas, as gas prices increase. So
we are seeing a big up-tick in the people riding on Metro, so I
want to say thank you for making sure that WMATA will be able
to provide safe, frequent, and reliable service for the region.
And I do remember that, when you were last before us last
year, we talked a little bit about the fact that Phase 2 of the
Silver Line will be opening in my district. I had hoped it
would be open by now. It is not yet open.
I do remain confident that it will open in fiscal year 2023
sometime, if not before. And I would like to maintain that open
invitation for you to join us for the ribbon-cutting when it
does take place.
Secretary Buttigieg. Well, that is something I share your
enthusiasm for and look forward to being able to celebrate. And
thank you for the kind words about our family too.
By the same token, I would be remiss if I didn't
acknowledge that, today, WMATA named a new executive director
and CEO, somebody I got to know through terrific work that went
on in Austin. And I am wishing him every success and look
forward to working with him and his team.
Ms. Wexton. Yes. Thank you. Thank you for pointing that
out, Secretary Buttigieg.
I also want to ask you about the integrated smart mobility
pilot program that is proposed in the Federal Transit
Administration budget request. I am really intrigued by this,
because, you know, as I mentioned, Silver Line Phase 2 is
coming into Loudoun County. It is still a very suburban county,
and we have trouble with that first mile, last mile, you know,
linkages and also with things like paratransit and microtransit
and things like that.
How do you envision this pilot program working to help
better connect people to transit in all areas?
Secretary Buttigieg. So what I would say is that our
transit systems are part of a tapestry that looks very
different than it did even 10 years ago, let alone 20, 50, or
more when many of these systems were established. And the
assumption that the best approach is always going to be a
fixed-line, hub-and-spoke, neighborhood-to-neighborhood system
has been complicated, but perhaps possibly in a good way, by
the arrival of things like micromobility, bike-share, scooters,
ride-share, and other technologies that, if we think of them
right, I think could be a complement to, not a replacement for,
transit.
So this is a discretionary grant program, $50 million
requested in this budget, that would allow FTA to award up to
five grants to eligible recipients. And the idea would be to
support innovative approaches to mobility that improve safety,
accessibility, and equity in accessing community services or
economic opportunities or getting people to where they need to
be, to put it simply.
So that means things that might, for example, integrate
active transportation or shared-use mobility with public
transportation improvements, so that we have just a safer,
better, and more up-to-date model for transit.
And I think, while $50 million might seem to be a modest
number relative to Federal transit spending writ large, I think
we can learn from what works through these smart mobility
grants in ways that could inform, ultimately, the entirety of
transportation and transit investment across the U.S.
Ms. Wexton. Good. And I would suggest that you guys, when
you do award those pilot program grants, assuming that is
funded, you do so to a diverse area when it comes to geography
and everything like that--some to suburban areas, some to urban
areas, and things like that.
Now, I also want to talk a little bit about the Airport
Terminal Program at the FAA that we created in the Bipartisan
Infrastructure Law. I represent four airports--three regional
and one international--and they are all really, really excited
about this, everything from, you know, the Manassas Regional
Airport, which really needs a new tower; Winchester, which is
looking to hopefully build a new terminal there; and,
obviously, Dulles International Airport, which is way behind on
their construction of Terminal C.
You know, what kind of impacts are you hoping that this
program will have? And can you talk a little bit about how the
Department plans to allocate the grants to ensure that there is
a diversity of recipients, that it is not just, for example,
the big international airports but it also includes the
regional airports and smaller airports?
Secretary Buttigieg. Well, thank you. And as a former mayor
of a community that really relied on our regional airport, I
know how important it is to support airports of all sizes and
types.
So the infrastructure law provides $5 billion over 5 years
specifically for terminal development projects. And that is set
out, per the law, to ensure that we consider replacing aging
infrastructure as one of the specific areas that is held in
mind when selecting projects. And those grant funds can be used
for upgrades or replacement of aging terminal or airport-owned
air traffic control tower projects.
So I think it is certainly one that could be applicable to
the scenario that you mentioned and something that we had put
out for solicitation and are now going through the applications
from that first tranche of the funding. I am really looking
forward to making some announcements that I hope will
demonstrate our commitment to supporting airports of all sizes
and types.
Ms. Wexton. Thank you, Secretary Buttigieg.
I will yield back.
Mr. Price. Thank you.
Mr. Trone.
Mr. Trone. Thank you, Chairman Price, for holding this
hearing today.
And, Secretary Buttigieg, a lot has happened since you were
here last time. We have had some great, wonderful progress in
transportation, so we thank you for that.
Finally, we are going to be able to rebuild our roads and
bridges and bring our infrastructure [inaudible]. In my
district, it will allow communities like [inaudible] And
Cumberland, Maryland, to reap the [inaudible].
IIJA included one of my bills, the Finish the ADHS Act,
which delivered 100 percent of the funding needed to finish the
Maryland portion of Route 219. And for that, we thank you.
On surface transportation, for the first time, you are
allowing grants to apply for multiple--multiple grants with one
application. Great idea. How is that going to look on the back
end? And will the criteria be the same across grant programs?
Secretary Buttigieg. Well, thank you for highlighting the
work we are doing to try to make it just a little bit simpler
for project applicants to navigate our processes and for our
staff to go through these applications.
You know, 46 new programs were created in the DOT alone
through the infrastructure law, and we want to make sure that
that doesn't lead to a bewildering array of different programs
with different requirements, different dates, different
processes, because, of course, that will be especially
difficult for smaller communities or disadvantaged communities
but, really, difficult for any community to navigate.
So our intention with rolling some of these projects up
together--for example, combining the INFRA Program, the Rural
surface program, and the Mega Program together--is to make it a
simpler, streamlined process for applicants and allow us to
weigh different funding sources that could all perhaps be
applicable to the same project and issue that decision and go
through that process all at once.
Now, sometimes, the selection criteria are set out in
rather specific terms by statute. In all cases, we usually have
to create a little more specificity around that. And our
intention is to be very transparent in the notice of funding
opportunity so applicants know what to expect.
And I think we are going to learn a lot from this first
year of combined notices of funding opportunity and, if it goes
well, perhaps even be able to take further steps in that
direction.
Mr. Trone. I think that is fantastic.
INFRA is going to continue to be a key Federal grant
program. Do you anticipate being able to award more grants
since you have so much more funding available? And any criteria
changes on INFRA that are significant for this year from last
year?
Secretary Buttigieg. So the answer to the first question is
yes. You know, we have gone from the neighborhood of $1 billion
to the neighborhood of $1.5 billion, thanks to the funding that
was provided in the bill. And so I would expect that that will
allow us to support more projects than before, which is welcome
because this is a very popular and oversubscribed program,
where we got more applications, and I would say more deserving
applications, than we were able to fund.
The criteria are broadly consistent. And, again, as we put
out these notices of funding opportunity, we try to be as
transparent as we can about how we are putting those criteria
to work and what applicants can expect.
We also try to work with applicants on the back end if
something doesn't go their way. Sometimes they can successfully
reapply in a second or a third year, and we are pleased to see
an application go back and get stronger.
There are some new eligibilities in INFRA. Wildlife
crossing projects, which I think sometimes sounds fanciful for
people who maybe don't live in areas where that is important,
but that can really save lives, in terms of reducing the number
of large-animal strikes on some roads. Marine Highway Corridor
projects; certain projects on our National Multimodal Freight
Network; other things that we think would be relevant to our
supply chains.
So there are some new eligibilities that we would encourage
project sponsors to become familiar with, so that they know
that this program just might be for them even if it wasn't,
necessarily, in the past.
Mr. Trone. That is fantastic and great news.
I want to put in a plug for Maryland I-81 grant
application. We have applied, as you mentioned, actually 4
years and gotten better and better every year in our
applications.
This project, I-81, carries 12 percent of the United States
GDP--12 percent. In desperate need of Federal funding. It has
over 19,000 trucks every day, and the top 1 percent--1
percent--of truck traffic per lane. And we only have nine
exits. And the problem with the exits is, they are 50 years
old, they are 800 to 900 feet, and we need 1,500 feet now for
standard for safety.
So we would love for you to put a good word in for I-81.
And thank you for the great job you have done so far. We really
appreciate all of your hard work there.
I yield back.
Mr. Price. Thank you.
Mrs. Watson Coleman.
Mrs. Watson Coleman. Thank you so much, Chairman.
Thank you, Mr. Secretary, for being here.
I did get the opportunity to hear the majority of your
testimony. Then, unfortunately, I had to go and do another
hearing.
First of all, let me just say that I am glad that it is
President Biden in the White House right now and I am very glad
that you are the Secretary of Transportation, because the
issues that I am very concerned about you have already been
addressing.
I want to talk to you a little bit about this whole issue
of reconnecting neighborhoods. You have mentioned this in
hearings that we have had before, what has happened with the
kind of policies that were implemented that disconnected very
important neighborhoods. And I am thrilled that the
Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act has included funding for
reconnecting these communities.
I wanted to ask you if you could provide me any further
details as to the timeline of these grants and what localities
should be aware of when applying.
I want to thank you also, because I did have someone from
your office on an information panel discussion.
But I would really like to know how these neighborhoods
that have been most impacted will know about these grants and
will know how to apply for them.
Secretary Buttigieg. Well, thank you very much for the
question.
You know, one thing I have found about cases where a past
decision about infrastructure has divided a community is that
they are everywhere. I am amazed to see heads nodding when I
describe that railroad track or that highway that tore through
a community of color or divides one neighborhood from another,
even if I don't know specifically which one that would mean to
somebody in my audience. We have seen it in communities of
every size, north, south, east, and west. And so we know that
there is a great deal of interest in this program.
This year's funding amounts to $195 million, and we intend
to put out the notice of funding opportunity by the end of June
of this year. This is one of those new programs, so it is
taking some work to get it just right, as opposed to an
expansion of an existing one, but we also want to move
promptly, because I suspect that we will see a remarkable level
of demand for this.
The kinds of projects we are looking for are ones that can
use Federal dollars to improve or reconnect where Federal
dollars in the past divided. I would say there might be many
different types or flavors, so to speak, of those projects--
what is called a cap-and-stitch, where you go over a highway
that might create that kind of gash; or sometimes a more modest
intervention, like adding a transit route where it doesn't make
sense to completely replace a piece of infrastructure but you
need to help people get across or around it. We will make that
a little more specific and clear in the grant criteria.
But the other thing I would want to mention is, while this
pilot program funds projects that are specifically geared
toward this, there is nothing to stop a number of other bodies
of funding, discretionary and formula, from being used in ways
that align with these kinds of purposes.
And so my hope is that States, as they use their formula
funding, might take note of what is achieved through this pilot
program and decide independently that they might want to take
some similar steps on their own.
Mrs. Watson Coleman. So, Mr. Chairman, I think this is
wonderful. And I represent the capital of the State of New
Jersey, the very historic city of Trenton. And it has been cut
off from its access to the waterfront, which would make it even
more attractive to both its tourism and economic development.
I want to extend an invitation to you to come see this with
me, explore this, and use your creativity as we discuss what
has happened negatively in terms of our capital city and what
could happen under any one of these programs. So right now I am
extending that invitation. Please know that my office will
follow up, and hope that we can get you into the city of
Trenton and the great State of New Jersey.
The other project that I am really--or funding stream that
I am really interested in is this whole making streets more
healthy.
I introduced a bill called the SHADE Act, which would have
put $50 million over a 5-year--for a 5-or-so-year period, which
would help those communities that have really been experiencing
higher temperatures, unhealthier environments, breathing air,
et cetera. They have been traditionally the redlined districts.
They are the poorer districts, and they are minority districts.
And I am wondering, what is it that you all will be doing
to notify those particular communities of their eligibility for
cooling-down mechanisms?
Secretary Buttigieg. So I would point to the sources of
funding around things like Complete Streets, where often an
important design element is making sure that they address
issues like this that are not just an aesthetic concern but, as
you point out, often a health concern as well. They can affect
even the physical sustainability or durability of
infrastructure because of the accumulating heat that happens in
hard infrastructure that could otherwise be somewhat sheltered
through things like tree canopy.
And so we would welcome the chance to work with your office
to lay out in a little more detail which funding sources might
have overlapping eligibilities that could be helpful for
communities that are including these elements in their project
design.
Mrs. Watson Coleman. Thank you, sir.
I see that my time has expired. I yield back. I thank you
for the opportunity to have this conversation.
Mr. Price. Thank you.
And that does conclude our first round of questioning. It
is really good and impressive to have virtually all hands on
deck from the subcommittee, both sides of the aisle, with good
questions. I think we covered a wide waterfront.
And we will have a second round; that will give us another
chance. We are not wanting to keep you too long, Mr. Secretary,
but we appreciate your sticking with us here, and we will
proceed.
I will ask members to do their best to frame their question
so as to give the Secretary time to answer within the 5
minutes. We need to do a little better in moving along.
But I will start the second round, and we will be happy to
entertain anyone who wants to stay with us and participate.
I noted in my opening statement that, like Amtrak Joe, I
consider myself an advocate for passenger rail. The $66 billion
in advance appropriations provided across several rail programs
over 5 years in the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act does
have the potential to really transform passenger rail in the
U.S., upgrading present services, hopefully adding new service.
And then there is, of course, a lot of other action, as
well, with not just Amtrak but Amtrak in cooperation with the
States, like North Carolina and Virginia, actively advancing
projects leveraging CRISI and other programs. We have invested
heavily in them as a subcommittee, and they are, of course,
included in the IIJA. Others are just beginning to explore
this, but the potential is very great.
So, Mr. Secretary, my question in brief is: What is your
vision, what is the administration's vision for passenger rail
in this country? What steps are you doing to prepare potential
applicants to apply for the funding, applicants who want to
build on their progress thus far, others who may want to break
into this, States and other entities? What kind of advice do
you have in terms of lining up for this and making a solid
effort?
And what kind of, I guess, planning and coordination, of
course, in cooperation with Amtrak, are you undertaking so as
to make sure that these pieces, in the end, add up to a system,
I would say, of workable regional corridors? Whatever else we
do, we ought to end up in addressing these corridors that are
such obvious candidates for passenger rail.
What kind of criteria about project readiness and the dates
for project completion--any criteria we should know about as to
how you are approaching this?
Secretary Buttigieg. Well, thank you.
The vision, in short, is that American citizens ought to be
able to expect just as high a standard of passenger rail as
citizens in any other developed country. I think we know that
that is not true today, through no fault of Amtrak's, through
the fact that we haven't invested in passenger rail to the same
degree as other countries have done.
I do think we should support Amtrak but not only Amtrak, in
that there are a number of different possibilities, including
public-private partnerships that have emerged to help provide
excellent passenger rail for Americans.
And I also again want to emphasize that, while of course a
lot of the need and a lot of the opportunities are for the
Northeast Corridor, [inaudible] $12 billion, for example, for
the Federal-State Partnership Program across that $66 billion
in IIJA funding dedicated toward rail is for the specifically
non-Northeast-Corridor projects.
You also mentioned CRISI--$5 billion for all sorts of rail-
related infrastructure projects. And while many of them might
in the first instance be envisioned as related to freight rail,
because these freight rail lines host Amtrak passenger service,
it is really is a win-win for goods movement fluidity, supply
chains, and passenger capabilities when we have that.
Also, we have the Railroad Crossing Elimination Grant
Program. There are a lot of communities where people have to
wait for too long or, worse, experience safety hazards around
railroad crossings, including a number of communities around my
Indiana hometown. But that also enhances fluidity and
reliability for passenger and freight service.
So there are really a variety of rail projects that can be
supported here. And there will be, we know, a lot of
variability around the design and the urgency for those.
FRA is working to make sure that information is clearly
available to rail stakeholders so that they can succeed, so
that they can compete, so that they can apply for these funds,
because even the major investment here, really since Amtrak's
inception, it is not infinite, and choices will have to be made
about where those dollars will make the biggest difference,
both on and off the Northeast Corridor.
Mr. Price. That is encouraging to hear.
Believe me, this is long overdue. This was one of the more
visionary aspects of the Obama recovery plan--$8 billion, in
that instance, applied to passenger rail development. We made
good use of it in North Carolina to develop the Raleigh-to-
Charlotte service, four trains each way each day--very good
service. And now our vision is to extend on to Richmond, then
on to D.C. And there are a lot of regions in this country where
that kind of initiative is either underway or is going to get
underway, I think, with the possibility of this support.
All right. Mr. Diaz-Balart.
Mr. Diaz-Balart. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Secretary, in December, DOT released guidelines to the
States for their highway formula funds that many thought
appeared to reduce their decision-making flexibility. And I am
sure you have heard about it because, at a minimum, this has
caused confusion and concern amongst State DOTs.
I don't have to tell you that discouraging new capacity
could, frankly, be really ill-advised as we are dealing with
supply-chain issues. But I then read and heard that, obviously,
the intention was not to do that.
Do you intend to clarify--my understanding is that there
has been no clarification after that was released. Do you
intend to clarify your guidance to the States so that they
have, you know, total assurances that their flexibilities and
authorities under the law remain intact?
Secretary Buttigieg. Well, certainly, if there is any
remaining confusion or misconceptions, I am happy to address
that. If the concern is to make clear that the memo does not
prohibit the construction of new general-purpose capacity on
highways and bridges, I should emphasize that that fact,
verbatim, is in the memo.
What we sought to do was to lay out priorities that we
think were important to bear in mind, but we recognize that
this is going to be different in different jurisdictions and
environments. There----
Mr. Diaz-Balart. No, I appreciate that.
Secretary Buttigieg [continuing]. Are some places where--
okay.
Mr. Diaz-Balart. No, I appreciate that, Mr. Secretary, but
there was some confusion. And so I think, you know, I am
hearing from you now, but obviously--hopefully the States have
now been reassured.
Let me change gears. There was a lot of conversation with
other members about this kind of issue. You know, I want to
make sure that there is maximum accountability and transparency
in decision-making. We are dealing particularly with
discretionary grant programs, and I don't have to tell you that
there is a lot of money there.
The IIJA advance appropriations provided $100 billion for
new and discretionary non-formula programs, and this is above
the amounts provided through the Highway Trust Fund and through
annual appropriations. That is a staggering amount. And, again,
a lot of folks have been talking about this.
Last week, OMB released a 14-page guidance memo on the
implementation, but one of the areas that I thought may have
been overlooked is an effort to provide transparency and
accountability to the public. I didn't see any specific
measures to increase public access to the way decisions are
made in determining which projects get funded. This is an issue
that happens, you know, no matter who is in control, what
party, or what the Secretary is.
So I think we should work together on a few issues, Mr.
Secretary. I would like to provide the public with access to
deliberations by DOT, you know, to DOT's grant application
review panels, maybe through open meetings or other forums of
reporting.
And, also, I think we should provide specific information
for grantees--and you talked about how you have been, you know,
talking to grantees who maybe had not done well originally and
may be coming back with better proposals. I think we should
provide specific information for grantees when they don't
succeed as to why they were not successful so they can do, you
know, a better job when they come back.
So, Mr. Secretary, would you agree with some of these
transparency goals? And, if so, are you willing to take
specific steps to give the public more access to internal
funding decisions? And I look forward to working with you on
those issues.
Secretary Buttigieg. Well, we certainly recognize how
important it is that our decisions are accountable and the
public has a clear view of why we are making them and where
taxpayer dollars are going. I will mention a few things that we
think will help with this in our plans looking forward.
One is to provide individual debriefs to unsuccessful
applicants so that they understand how a decision was reached
and, maybe most importantly, understand how to strengthen their
application for the future.
I also know that, under the infrastructure law, in the Mega
Grant Program, we will be publishing the overall rating that
was assigned to each of the eligible projects that was
considered.
And we would be open to discussions about other measures
that could be helpful too. Our goal, of course, is to do it in
a balanced way that preserves appropriate levels of discretion
in the Department and allows us to discuss things very candidly
with project sponsors and, at the same time, make sure that
there is appropriate public understanding about what is
happening with what is, of course, ultimately public money.
Mr. Diaz-Balart. Yeah, no, I don't disagree that, you know,
some conversations have to be kept somewhat private. But I
think, obviously, it is important--because we are talking about
so much money--that the people feel confident that the
decisions are being made in a transparent way, in a way that
is, you know, in the public good.
And so, again, it is not a criticism at all to you or to
the DOT right now; it is just an issue that has come up from
time to time. And I look forward to working with you and the
chairman of the subcommittee on ways that we can increase that
transparency as much as possible.
So, with that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Mr. Price. Thank you.
Mr. Quigley.
Mr. Quigley. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you again, Mr. Secretary. I know it is a long day.
Coming back from COVID, and we still have issues, but we
are talking about getting people back into transit programs and
the resistance there.
One of the issues in Chicago--and, from what I understand,
it is across the country--is the issue of crime. Part of it
stems from sort of a chicken and egg, which comes first. There
are people who have reservations getting into transit systems
that have not a lot of people on the train or the bus. They
feel less secure. And it blocks people from wanting to get on,
because they don't see anybody there. But to get more people
on, they have to be more secure.
You know, has DOT started talking about or are there assets
and assistance we can provide to help transit agencies address
these concerns?
Secretary Buttigieg. Well, certainly both the reality and
the perception of safety are very important for public
confidence in transit. We know that this has been a concern
raised by a number of transit agencies.
There are some delineations of authority between what is
appropriate for us to work on versus law enforcement or other
entities, but we certainly welcome any opportunities we can
provide that could be helpful here.
And one thing I would point to is the hard infrastructure
around anything from the design of an entrance to a subway stop
to the lighting around a bus shelter could play a role in
safety even if it is funded with other considerations in mind
as well.
Ultimately, density of ridership tends to contribute to
both the perception and the reality of safety. And so that is
going to be an ongoing journey, of course, as we work to see
transit ridership recover from its COVID depths.
The last thing I will mention, though, a more general point
about safety that I think is sometimes missed, which is that,
if you look at the statistics on the number of roadway
fatalities we experience in ordinary car travel--a very high
number that we are working aggressively to lower--by
comparison, there is a much higher degree of safety per
passenger mile associated with the use of transit.
I don't think it maybe works that way psychologically for
us as commuters, but I do think that it bears mention, that the
more excellent transit options that we are providing, that
people feel confident and that are convenient to take, at least
on today's patterns of roadway and transit safety, there is a
safety benefit to be had there too.
Mr. Quigley. Yeah.
And I just had a--I know you mentioned lighting, entrance
design, and so forth. If I might throw in the possibility of
cameras, people's perceptions of that. I don't know if that
falls in, but it is certainly something we are interested in.
Any other barriers that you have seen in how we get back
the density that you talked about, besides crime issues?
Secretary Buttigieg. Well, if you look overall at transit
ridership, it has rebounded to about 60 percent of pre-pandemic
levels, which is considerably higher than it was in late
summer/fall 2020. But that average, as averages are, can be a
little bit misleading. The recovery has actually been swifter
in terms of bus usage and slower in terms of subway and train
usage.
Now, some of that, I think, just reflects what is happening
in terms of commuting patterns. But it is something that we
want to watch carefully and integrate into our strategies for
helping transit fully recover.
Mr. Quigley. All right. Thank you so much.
I yield back.
Mr. Price. Mr. Rutherford.
Mr. Rutherford. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Secretary, first, I would like to say thank you to you
and President Biden. I know early on you all came out very
supportive of the Jones Act, and we do appreciate that. I think
it is very important to our national security, actually. And so
thank you for that.
I would point out one other thing on the IIJA. In the
Federal bridge program, when you see these applications come
through from the State of Florida, would you please consider
one thing in the formula? The State of Florida has done a very
good job of expending our tax dollars to keep our bridges safe
and in excellent condition. Now that seems to be working
against us through this formula, actually to about the tune of
$200 million a year. So, over the 5-year period of the bridge
program, that is going to be about a billion dollars.
So, if you would, just think kindly of us when you look at
that, okay?
And, then, what I would like to ask for an update on, Mr.
Secretary: The Tanker Security Program, I believe, is also
highly important to our national security. The idea that our
military has to continue to rely on fuel delivered by foreign
tankers, I think, is just unconscionable.
Can you tell us a little bit about what the status on that
program is?
As you know, that was put into the NDAA in 2021; we funded
it in 2022. Actually, USTRANSCOM even looked at it back in 2021
and affirmed that it was necessary, and that is why we funded
it in 2022. So there is no doubt that it is a necessary effort.
Can you tell me where we are at in that effort?
Secretary Buttigieg. Thank you for the question. Yes, we
agree like the Jones Act in general, but this tanker security
program, in particular, is a matter of economic, and even
national security. We had $60 million in funding for that for
this fiscal year, in the budget request, another 60, to
continue the program at that authorized level going into fiscal
year 2023. And the way that would break down would be $6
million per vessel for up to ten tanker vessels.
Now, what we are encountering is the complexity of setting
up this program and getting it up and running, especially
because it entails likely reflagging some or most of the
vessels that will be eligible under this program, and getting
them onto the registry includes crew issues, making sure that
physical inspections are passed, making sure that the Coast
Guard is able to sign off. And so, there are a lot of steps
that have to happen here. But we are committed to going through
those steps. And MARAD has told me that their goal is to have a
rule in place that would enable them to begin receiving
applications by the end of this calendar year.
Mr. Rutherford. By the end of this calendar year?
Secretary Buttigieg. Correct.
Mr. Rutherford. Excellent. Excellent. Because I think every
month we delay this is a real challenge for our military. So
with that, Mr. Chairman--or Mr. Speaker, I thank you. Listen, I
want to ask one other question, I have got 1 minute left. This
will be a short question. You mentioned earlier about knocking
down, quote, knocking down the price of EVs. Are we going to
knock that down? Are we going to get the manufacturers to knock
down the price, or are we actually going to ask the taxpayers
to pay for a piece of that price?
Secretary Buttigieg. Well, right now, the approach has been
to call for both. But, of course, the Senate has not acted on
the extension of the tax credit that would have encouraged
swifter adoption. But, certainly, the OEMs are working in this
direction, too. Like many things, there are economies of scale,
this is relatively new and a very small percentage of sales
today. The President has made a commitment to work toward 50
percent of sales by 2030 being EVs. And many of the companies
have made comparable or even more aggressive commitments.
Let me say this in terms of the philosophical reason why
you would consider a policy extension, just as we have those
$7,500 tax credits that have existed through past legislation.
We think that the transition to EV will happen one way or the
other. What is not guaranteed is three questions: Will it
happen quickly enough to help us meet our climate goals? Will
it happen in a way that people can access it who wouldn't be
able to afford it otherwise, including some of the people who
might benefit the most from the gas savings, provided they can
afford that upfront cost? And third, will it be made in
America? We see fierce competition, as we always have, in the
automotive industry, and that is going to be true more than
ever as that industry goes electric.
Mr. Rutherford. Thank you, Mr. Secretary. And, you know, I
still think we need to see those--this comparison of a carbon
footprint per mile for all the different fuel sources. Thank
you very much, sir. I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Price. Thank you. Ms. Watson Coleman.
Mrs. Watson Coleman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr.
Secretary, you know how excited I am about the Portal Bridge,
and that we are almost at the full commitment to that Portal
Bridge, even included in this fiscal year 2023 budget. So we
are going to be able to get to the tunnels in safety and
security and not have to worry about manually lifting or
lowering. What is the next step for our tunnels, though? What
should we be doing, and what can we do to help us get there?
Secretary Buttigieg. So, there are several funding streams
that have been created or expanded under the infrastructure law
that could be applicable here across the bridges and tunnels
that comprise the overall Gateway project. I would also note
with appreciation that the Gateway Development Commission has
identified a director, a leader. We think that is a very
important step in the capacity of the GDC to help deliver on
that, and makes for a more fluid partnership with us as a
Federal department to help deliver.
Mrs. Watson Coleman. I'll be very pleased to work with him.
Secretary Buttigieg. Likewise. And I know it will be an
important note for keeping Members of Congress informed, too. I
was very pleased during my last trip to the region to hear that
the notice to proceed on construction for Portal North Bridge
has actually been issued. So I am looking forward to seeing
that direct movement there, and hope in short order for
movement to begin on the next procedural steps to pave the way
for the tunnels to get done as well. We are talking about such
volume in terms of the passengers who count on these tunnels
that you could live 1,000 miles away, somewhere in the Midwest
perhaps, like my old Indiana hometown, and you would feel the
economic impact if something were to block the free passage of
people through those tunnels.
So we understand the urgency of this funding to include the
Capital Investment Grant Program, which is transit-oriented,
but again, can benefit both transit and trains. As one example
is going to be very helpful in timely meeting these goals.
Mrs. Watson Coleman. We are very much interested in being a
partner here. Let us know. We will be working with Mr. Kolluri
as well. We are so glad he is coming on board. We recognize
that there's $100 million in fiscal year 2023, which like the
first funding for this. I just want to know what the next steps
are because we don't want any delays. So, you know, steady as
she goes. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
Mr. Price. Thank you. Mr. Garcia.
Mr. Garcia. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Secretary, I want
to, first of all, apologize for my colleague from California,
Aguilar's comments earlier. He has got the memory of an
elephant so his defeat in the congressional baseball game still
feels like it was yesterday. Very fresh. He is in the healing
process.
Yeah, I wasn't going to weigh in on this EV conversation,
but you said a few things that, frankly, I wish you were right.
But the reality is, I don't think you are, and I mean that very
respectfully. I drive an electric car. I am in California, so
it is kind of the best and worst conditions. And I can tell you
there really is not an ROI right now, even in California with
the traffic, with the car-pool lane option that we have. To
charge a car at home through an outlet without the enhancements
to your electrical system at home can take up to 4 days for,
call it a 300-mile range. We shouldn't have to be subsidizing a
product that cost anywhere between $40,000 and $60,000 per
unit. That is not the Federal Government's role. The market
space should be doing that.
If you want to look at how do we help enable lower-income
families to acquire this technology, you should look at maybe
downloading some of these incentives and rebates to the used
car market on the resale side of things.
The other problem we are seeing in California is that as
more people buy electric vehicles, the demand on the electric
grid becomes overwhelming. And as you know in California, we
also have this phenomenon with power shutoff options where the
winds get above a certain speed, they turn our power off. So as
an EV car owner, I sometimes go out to my car thinking I
charged it, but that charging was stopped or interrupted
because of the infrastructure challenges we have on our
electrical grid due to high winds.
So this isn't a utopian scenario yet. I want what you said
to be true, but I think we have got a long ways to go still.
And this is why I think our side is still encouraging the
market space to consider other options while the OEMs evolve
and while this becomes--when we get to economic order of
quantities and economies of scale, that may take it a decade or
so, and the efficiencies and the motors and the batteries will
get there eventually, but we should not force that artificially
at the expense of middle-class America. Just my commentary on
that.
My question is around high-speed rail, though. We talked
about this last year when you came to us in California. We have
got this, what I call franken-rail. It is this rail system that
really doesn't know what it is. It is meandering through all
the towns and villages and scaring the hell out of the locals.
It is not high speed. It is not cheap. It is not effective. It
is not efficient. It is not low emission. There is no ROI for
this. There is no market space or demand in the cities that it
is going to. Now, over $105 billion. And last year when we
talked about this, I kind of just requested that you looked at
this to make sure we are not wasting Federal subsidies and
grants on this project.
This isn't a political thing. This is a project that should
have died a few years ago, and it is being propped up with a
lot of taxpayer money now. I would rather invest in Metrolink.
I would rather spend money on Amtrak. I would rather support
projects like what Mr. Aguilar was talking about in the
Redlands. This high-speed rail comes at such cost that we are
cannibalizing these meaningful rail projects.
And so, I would just implore you to look at this. It is
eligible. It is not explicitly prohibited under these Federal
grant programs. But we have so many more options. If we want to
invest $1 billion, $5 billion, $10 billion in rail in
California, we have so many more options that will actually
decompress our traffic patterns and get cars off the freeways
and help commuters in a meaningful way.
As we follow under the execution conversation from last
time, I would just ask that you continue to look at this. The
jobs can be had without flushing American Federal taxpayer
money down on this franken-rail project. And we need to do the
right thing on this one.
I wanted to get your thoughts on that and any updates that
you have from your perspective for California's high-speed
rail.
Secretary Buttigieg. Sure. What I will say is that we
continue to want that project, as we want any project, to
succeed. But I would emphasize the portfolio of investments
that we have here that doesn't concentrate all of our hopes
around high-speed rail or any rail in a single geography or a
single project. Because, you know, high-speed rail is so new in
the U.S. that we haven't yet seen at scale what we might call
the winning technology or project delivery mechanism. Although,
we are hopeful that through this infrastructure law we can
establish and in at least two or three geographies, not a full
national network, but two or three geographies, something that
will demonstrate that we can do it just as well as anybody else
in the world here.
On the EV Piece, I certainly recognize that the ROI depends
on how expensive your car is, and how expensive your
electricity market is. And it is different in California than
it is where I come from. Although, I think we will find that in
time, it is increasingly becoming one that is clear regardless.
But with regard to the grid issues, I can tell you we are
sinking our teeth into those. It is part of what the Joint
Office of Energy and Transportation is working on. It is part
of why we are glad that the infrastructure law includes grid
improvements. And, you know, just like the raw materials
issues. There are two ways to take it, right? We can't accept
it as an excuse to do nothing, but we do accept it as a
challenge that we need to work on.
Mr. Garcia. Thank you, Mr. Secretary. I yield back.
Mr. Price. Mrs. Torres.
Mrs. Torres. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Secretary, once
again, you know, I want to go back to the issues that the
community that I represent, Southern California and San
Bernardino and L.A. County. You know, low-income vulnerable
communities lack affordable transit options, as I stated
earlier, which create a barrier in reaching those good-paying
jobs that they could potentially get. That is why I introduced
the Fair Transportation Act, which was largely included in the
fiscal year 2022 omnibus. Based on my bill, I spearheaded an
effort in the omnibus to include funding and language directing
DOT to develop metrics for measuring the effectiveness of
surface transportation projects in addressing transportation
challenges and barriers faced by historically disadvantaged
communities, areas of persistent poverty, and public
transportation dependent populations.
Mr. Secretary, can you speak to the steps DOT has taken to
equitably distribute transportation funding and investments
from the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law to distressed regions,
low-income communities, areas of persistent poverty and
communities of color?
Secretary Buttigieg. Thank you. Yes, we take this seriously
as a moral as well as an economic imperative. Many people
understand the concept of food deserts, a neighborhood in areas
where you can't access fresh, affordable healthy food. The same
is also true for transit. There are transit deserts, or
mobility deserts, where it is difficult to be able to get to
where you need to be. And if you were to access the American
Dream of getting education or work or both that will lift your
economic circumstances, being cut off from transportation or
mobility means being cut off from opportunity.
That is why it is so important to make sure that these
dollars are spent equitably. We have already considered this in
discretionary grant programs like INFRA or RAISE. I was
especially pleased to hear about at least one case where an
economically disadvantaged community of color had a vision for
safety improvements, and only decided to apply--they weren't
going to apply. And then when they heard that we were taking
these criteria seriously, they decided to, and it was such a
deserving project that they wound up succeeding in getting
funding. And so, that is just one example of how, in these
discretionary programs, in ways that we are aiming to be very
transparent about, we are making clear our commitments here.
A good transportation system is one that works for
everyone. And there are some areas, especially lower-income
areas where people are disproportionately likely to depend on
transit, where people often are one unreliable cousin with an
unreliable car away from missing a shift at work and perhaps
even losing their job. We have got to create better options for
them. And it is something I think we have every opportunity to
do through the funding that enhances our ability to support
transit, and support active transportation, which can also be
part of the puzzle just making it safer to be able to get
around on foot, on bike, and through transit, so that people
can get to where they need to be.
Mrs. Torres. Thank you for sharing that information with
all of us. And thank you for your commitment to continue to
support and highlight the needs of these communities that
deserve to have their fair share.
You know, on the issue of high-speed rail in California, I
know that I don't have to educate you on this issue because you
are very knowledgeable on what happened. The ballot
initiative--the Republicans insisted on that project starting
in Central Valley because they demanded to have the jobs there.
So, you know, starting a project there in Central Valley
was what they wanted. The demise of high-speed rail in
California is not the lack of demand or the lack of interest
from our population. The demise is the constant lawsuits, the
gumming up the processes that they have been able to not only
increase the price, but delay a project that is desperately
needed in California.
I also want to go back to a question that was asked earlier
regarding the electric vehicle working group. Thank you for
creating that process. I just met last week with IBEW, and they
are very, very concerned about, you know, the lack of training
that some of the mechanics folks that are working on these
stationary recharging stations may have. So we really need to
pay attention, you know, to that. Thank you, again, for being
here with us today.
Mr. Price. Mrs. Hinson.
Mrs. Hinson. Thank you, Mr. Chair. And thank you, Mr.
Secretary, for sticking with us. You mentioned, in our last
conversation, the race against time. I think we do agree on
that. We do have a time crunch here. And it is clear that the
administration does recognize the immediate value that the Iowa
biofuels community has in its conversation, given the recent
announcement, of course, to provide a waiver for the sale of
E15 as a year-round fuel. And I know I have talked with many of
these producers and processors. Iowa is absolutely ready to go
to provide an affordable, environmentally-friendly solution
right now to help address fuel shortage concerns. And I know
when we had a chance to talk personally last year you talked
about the importance of supporting our biofuels supporters and
producers, which I certainly appreciate.
So if you could talk a little bit today about the roles
that you see the DOT having in helping to support the increased
use of biofuels to help meet carbon reduction goals long-term.
Secretary Buttigieg. Thank you for the question. And we
absolutely view biodiesels and biomasses as a very important
part of how we get to where we need to be on this urgent path
toward reducing our emissions. It is something that hits close
to home for me. When I was a mayor, our biggest water customer
for our municipal utility was our ethanol plant. I have seen
what that can to create jobs and to be part of an all-of-the-
above energy strategy.
I think a lot of the opportunity in the medium term for
biofuels will be in some of the sectors that are hardest to
decarbonize in transportation. And here, I would point not only
to the use that is certainly going to continue well through
this decade for some modes of transportation like cars and
trucks, but also aviation and the maritime sector. We stood up
a sustainable aviation fuels grand challenge in partnership
with the Department of Agriculture and the Department of Energy
to find ways to reduce the cost and expand the production and
use of sustainable aviation fuel, or SAF. And so, there are a
lot of opportunities to further policies like lenders, tax
credits, that might help get these things, these technologies
to scale.
But also, I would point to the maritime sector. One that on
one hand, pound for pound, is one of the least carbon intensive
ways to move a ton of goods. On the other hand, just because of
the sort of fuel that is burned there is contributing a
disproportionate amount of carbon and other pollution, and
could benefit potentially from the widespread use of cleaner
biofuels.
Also, our Federal Rail Administration has previously
partnered with Amtrak to look into biodiesel fuel for
locomotives. And so there is some interesting opportunity there
to consider as well.
Mrs. Hinson. Absolutely. Well, I appreciate your commitment
there to look at that all-of-the-above energy strategy because
truly, that is what consumers need right now. In Decorah, Iowa,
I was there doing a town hall last week. You know, gas hit over
$4 a gallon and diesel hit $5.30 a gallon. So this is something
people are looking for. And E15 year-round across the country
could provide relief right now.
So you actually hit on something else with the maritime
industry. And I wanted to just flag the maritime program led
by, of course, MARAD and the National Park Service to help
preserve sites and artifacts from maritime history. I wanted to
flag, specifically, a boat. The USS The Sullivans, is in dire
need of repair right now. It is sinking. It is stationed in
Buffalo, named in honor of five brothers from Waterloo, Iowa.
They died when their ship was torpedoed in World War II. And
right now, it gets its money by generating revenue selling old
vessels, but not enough money in the program right now to save
all important items from our country's maritime history.
So I would ask you today to commit to helping protect this
legacy. Work with my office on the National Heritage Maritime
Program to ensure that ships like the USS The Sullivans get the
necessary restorations that they need.
Secretary Buttigieg. Well, thank you. We welcome the chance
to stay in touch with your office about the opportunity here.
As I understand it, the National Maritime Heritage Grant
Program is overseen by the National Park Service, but our
Maritime Administration is at the table because some of the
funding comes from our Vessel Operations Revolving Funding. So
I would look forward to learning more and working with you on
this.
Mrs. Hinson. And we need that. We need to have a good seat
at the table there. So I appreciate anything you can do. And
then, lastly, you mentioned sustainable aviation fuel and,
obviously, that is reflected in the budget. A lot of
communication from the EPA lately about the use of canola oil
as well as other non-ag products in sustainable aviation fuels.
But could you clarify a little bit today whether the investment
in SAF will be using agricultural sources also?
Secretary Buttigieg. So I think there is certainly that
potential. I don't know all of the chemistry, but my
understanding is there is a great deal of interest and
excitement about how those sources could be part of the answer
for sustainable aviation fuels.
Mrs. Hinson. Well, I know I have met a lot with our
biofuels guys. They are ready to go and want to have a seat at
that table, too. So thank you, Mr. Secretary. Mr. Chair, I
yield back.
Mr. Price. Thank you. Mr. Aguilar.
Mr. Aguilar. Thanks, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the second
opportunity, Mr. Secretary. I wanted to pick up on where my
colleague Congresswoman Torres left off with respect to equity.
One of the programs that we had been tracking in the Bipartisan
Infrastructure Law is the Transportation Workforce Outreach
Program that will increase diversity and encourage young
professionals to consider careers in the transportation sector.
Can you talk a little bit about how investing in the
Transportation Workforce Outreach Program will assist in
improving transportation equity?
Secretary Buttigieg. So I would point to two things. First,
from an equity perspective, we know that there are some
Americans and groups of Americans who just haven't historically
been included in the transportation jobs or the construction
jobs associated with maintaining, building, and, operating our
transportation infrastructure. We have a chance to change by
ensuring that we are working with different parties who have a
good track record of training or preparing people to succeed in
that workforce, and recognizes that is one of the most
important things we can do to see to it that the opportunity to
create generational wealth. By that, I don't mean necessarily
the wealthy, but just ordinary families being able to build up
the wealth that goes into the owning a home and being able to
pass it on to generations through these good-paying jobs.
The other thing I would point to is that this is not only
important in terms of being the right thing to do, but,
frankly, important in terms of being able to successfully
deliver. If you look at what this infrastructure law really
calls for, what it is going to have to summon from us in terms
of our business community, our productive capacity, our access
to raw materials, and our workforce, we will not meet our goals
unless we see to it that no talent is left on the table. And
so, this is an important part of being able to deliver and an
important part of making sure that our delivery works for
everybody.
Mr. Aguilar. Thanks, Mr. Secretary. One last question on
climate and resiliency. Obviously, we have talked about
climate-related disasters and extreme weather and the need to
improve resiliency in our transportation infrastructure. What
steps does this budget proposal in front of us do? Coupled with
the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law, how are we advancing more
resilient investments in our transportation assets?
Secretary Buttigieg. So a couple of things that I would
point to include the Carbon Reduction Program. That is a
formula program that IIJA authorizes from the Highway Trust
Fund an average of $1.3 billion per year. But that is going to
be an important element of how we support the States and things
that are going to reduce transportation emissions and expand
multimodal options. A lot of different eligible projects are
conceivable here. And we just put out guidance a couple of
weeks ago and are looking forward to seeing what the States are
going to be able to do with that.
Then you have the resilience program called PROTECT. And we
think that is especially important because we have seen the
impact that these extreme weather events have on our
transportation infrastructure right now. So if you look on one
hand measures like the EVs or support for transit that help
reduce carbon emissions and help us avoid the worst climate-
change scenarios unfolding beginning in this decade. The
PROTECT Program recognizes that some of those effects are
already upon us. And so planning grants, resilience improvement
grants, evacuation route grants, grants for at-risk coastal
infrastructure are going to be especially important recognizing
that if a 500-year flood is becoming an annual or biannual
event, our infrastructure is getting washed out repeatedly, it
might not make sense to put it back the way it was originally
placed over and over again. But that is pretty much all you
could do with our traditional models with things like emergency
relief funding through Federal highway.
So the PROTECT formula program helps us get ahead of that.
And we think that is going to be an important part of the story
here. You will have the formula guide for that new program out
later on this summer, and it will have a discretionary element
alongside it, so that we can support with things that we think
we need to emphasize, projects alongside what goes out by
formula to the States.
Mr. Aguilar. Thank you so much, Mr. Secretary. I yield
back, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Price. Ms. Wexton.
Ms. Wexton. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you, Mr.
Secretary, for being so accommodating and sticking around. I
think I'm the last questioner, so I'm going to try to keep it
brief. I just have one more question for you. We talked some
last year about GPS and the Department's interagency work to
provide a resilient alternative, positioning, navigation and
timing, or PNT services for its critical infrastructure. And
this has become even more urgent given the news that Russia is
testing anti-satellite weapons that could endanger GPS
satellites. And they have succeeded in jamming GPS signals in
Ukraine and everything. So is it really important that we get
this up and running.
And as you are aware in fiscal year 2022 omnibus, we
created a program which is housed at DOT, and provided $15
million to help develop the new needed requirements and
standards and conduct additional testing. And I was just
curious how that is going. How is it going?
Secretary Buttigieg. So I can tell you that we are at work
meeting those congressional requirements and working with that
funding. As you know, the thing that changed since our last
exchange is that the legislation kind of modified the acts so
that it is not selecting land-based as necessarily the
technology being used to move forward along the lines that we
support and consider very important that are best summarized as
to protect, toughen, and augment, so that we have that kind of
PNT resiliency. And we are going to continue working with the
funding that is available to try to meet those expectations.
Also working in coordination with interagency partners. We
know that we have certain responsibilities that have been
placed at our feet by Congress, but also can't do it alone; we
know how important DOD's role and Homeland Security's role will
be.
Ms. Wexton. Very good. Thank you so much. I really
appreciate your time, and thank you so much for all that you
are doing. Take care. And I yield back, Mr. Chairman, with
that.
Secretary Buttigieg. Thank you.
Mr. Price. Thank you. Mr. Trone.
Mr. Trone. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Secretary,
for sticking around with us here. There has been a number of
comments about Amtrak Joe over the course of the hearing, and
his million-plus miles on Amtrak. And I had the fortunate
opportunity with the President last night at my home, an event
that we had, and we talked about Amtrak, and he certainly is,
you know, very supportive of all you can do to continue to
improve Amtrak in this Northeast corridor, in particular. But
we also talked how we are hopelessly, literally hopelessly
behind Europe, TTB, China, Japan on bullet trains, the high-
speed rails, 300-plus miles an hour, that we know the
technology is there.
And I want to get an update on a project that runs through
Maryland that is very important to everybody in the Maryland
delegation, and that is on Maglev. Maglev has the potential to
create almost 160,000 jobs. It is supported by labor. And it is
a very environmentally friendly technology. Japan is willing to
put in their IP of $6 billion, and they are willing to fund 50
percent of the first leg to test between Washington and
Baltimore, which will make that commute--which is congested
now, environmentally very unfriendly--15 minutes.
So we wanted to get an update. If I could, there has been
four appropriations in the last four cycles that moved into the
Federal Railway Administration. And what is the status on those
dollars in the Federal Railway Administration from the last
four appropriations on getting those released so the project
can do its EIS and EIS work and regulatory process? And how do
we get those funds released?
Secretary Buttigieg. So I will give you a high level of
review based on what I know and then would be happy to provide
one in more detail through the FRA. What I know is that there
was, as you said, a sequence of grants to the Maryland DOT on
this. The first grant was obligated under this project although
the second and third were not, and I think they required
certain deliverables that would need to be ready in terms of
the statement of work, financial information about the proposed
budget schedule, everything that goes with that.
I know that there was preliminary engineering and design
that was to be supported through FRA funds that went to the
Maryland department, and that this is subject to, I think, an
agreement that dates back to fiscal 2016 to try to advance the
environmental review there. But following the public comment
period that was paused to get more information about costs and
other things would be necessary for project success. So having
shared that much that I could right now, let me get with our
team and try to get you a more up-to-the-minute update on this
statement.
Mr. Trone. And who, Mr. Secretary, would be a good point
person for us to follow up with?
Secretary Buttigieg. So, ultimately, this comes to the FRA
and addressing the FRA Administrator Amit Bose with, of course,
with a copy to my office would be probably the best way to
address the query.
Mr. Trone. Okay. That is fantastic. We can make
transformative investments in our rail and just continuing to
be so far behind the rest of the world is not who we are. So
thank you so much for your attention to this. So we will follow
up. I yield back.
Secretary Buttigieg. Thank you.
Mr. Price. Thank you. And I do believe that concludes our
second round, unless there is a member who has not been heard,
I think we have accommodated everyone. And, Mr. Secretary,
thank you for participating in this hearing and sticking with
us, as many have said. We look forward to working with you as
we draft the fiscal 2023 appropriations bill. The committee
staff will be in contact with your budget office regarding
questions for the record. We will have, I am sure, a number of
questions for the record. And we will submit them and would
appreciate as quick a response as you can manage.
If you could work with OMB to return the information to the
committee within 30 days from Friday, we will be able to
publish the transcript of today's hearing, and that will help
us make informed decisions for 2023. Mr. Diaz-Balart, do you
have any final comments?
Mr. Diaz-Balart. Mr. Chairman, no, thank you very much on a
I thought a very, very good meeting. And I thank the Secretary
for spending his time with us. I yield back.
Mr. Price. Thank you. And, Mr. Secretary, Godspeed. Thank
you for your good work. We look forward to continuing. And
thanks to all the members for a very thoughtful and helpful
hearing. With that, the meeting is adjourned.
[Answers to submitted questions follow:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Wednesday, May 11, 2022.
DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT
WITNESS
HON. MARCIA L. FUDGE, SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN
DEVELOPMENT
Mr. Price. The meeting of the Transportation, Housing, and
Urban Development Subcommittee will come to order for our
hearing featuring the HUD budget and our beloved Secretary
Marcia Fudge. So welcome, everyone.
Glad to see you here and looking forward to this
discussion.
It is a fully virtual hearing, so I need to address a few
housekeeping matters before we start. For today's meeting, the
chair or staff designated by the chair may mute participants'
microphones when they are not under recognition for the purpose
of eliminating any inadvertent background noise.
Members are responsible, though, for muting and unmuting
themselves. If I notice when you are recognized that you have
not unmuted yourself, I am going to ask the staff just to send
you a request to unmute yourself, or I may just say something,
but we hope you can move right ahead then and unmute yourself
and speak.
I remind all members and the witness that the 5-minute
clock still applies. If there is a technology issue, we will
move to the next member until the issue is resolved, and then
you can, of course, resume and claim the balance of your time.
You will notice a clock on your screen that will show how
much time is remaining. At 1 minute remaining, the clock will
turn yellow. At 30 seconds, I will tap the gavel to remind
members their time is almost expired. The clock will turn red
when your time is expired.
I won't interrupt you in mid-sentence, but I will ask a
couple of things: One is that you rapidly wrap up, complete
your thought as the time expires; and, secondly, that, in
asking your questions, you will give the Secretary time to
answer within the 5 minutes. Please don't ask a question right
up until the limit and then put her in the position of being
gaveled. So you understand from yesterday that we need to pay a
little more attention to that.
In terms of speaking order, we will begin with the chair
and ranking member, then members will be recognized in order of
seniority alternating sides.
Finally, House rules require me to remind you that we have
set up an email address to which members can send anything they
wish to submit in writing in any of our hearings or markups.
That email address has been provided in advance to your staff.
So let's get underway. And, again, good morning, everyone.
Welcome, Secretary Fudge----
Secretary Fudge. Thank you.
Mr. Price [continuing]. To your second appearance before
the T-HUD Subcommittee. Your former House colleagues are glad
to see you again, and we look forward to a fruitful exchange
this morning.
As a reminder to all members, please mute your mikes when
you are not speaking and ensure that your video remains on in
order to be recognized.
Madam Secretary, you have done a lot of good work in your
first year as Secretary at HUD. Despite the significant
challenges that the pandemic created in particular, you have
managed to lead in the deployment of more than $7 billion in
American Rescue Plan funding for--and over $12 billion in CARES
Act resources to assist affordable housing providers, State and
local partners, Tribal communities, and above all, the people
who defend on our affordable housing support in responding to
the Housing challenge posed by COVID-19.
This includes targeted assistance to help homeless service
providers work in tandem with public housing agencies to
navigate the complexities often of an emergency housing
response, direct assistance to local governments to increase
services, and provides support for small businesses. Quite a
task, and you have done well.
For years, we witnessed a President's budget request that
flatlined critical housing infrastructure programs, such as
section 202 and 811 programs for the elderly and people with
disabilities. And, actually, those budgets often zeroed out
critical programs, including Choice Neighborhoods even the HOME
Investment Partnership.
So I'm pleased that your department has worked with us to
revive and revitalize those programs building on the progress,
I must say, that we made on this subcommittee for years before
that and usually on a bipartisan basis, the work we did to
reverse draconian cuts and support the housing budget across
the spectrum, the kind of varied programs that address varied
needs.
The impact of this funding can be seen all across our
districts. I had a good visit last month to Winston-Salem, for
example, Winston-Salem, North Carolina, home of a new Choice
Neighborhoods development. I was able to see in the initial
stages a comprehensive redevelopment effort involving a large
downtown neighborhood integrating attractive, affordable
housing, with supportive social services, transportation, and
business development.
I give Winston-Salem a lot of credit for their remarkable
perseverance, I think over 5 years, in pursuing those funds
until they finally received an award. But their perseverance
isn't the only factor in their getting that award, as they
understand. A part of the reason they finally got the funds is
because of the progress we made at increasing available support
for the program, from the time they first applied, when Choice
Neighborhoods was down to a handful of projects annually
nationwide, to the present, where it is much more robust than
that. Thanks to the work of the subcommittee, we can say Choice
Neighborhoods is back in business.
So are sections 202 and 811, rental housing for the elderly
and people with disabilities that had been flatlined over the
last decade. So our subcommittee has done that. We have a
longstanding bipartisan commitment to address the complex
housing challenges communities face across America, and we look
forward to continuing our work with you to ensure that HUD has
the resources necessary to carry out its critical mission.
Families across the country in urban, suburban, rural, and
Tribal communities have time and time again been forced into
difficult situations when they try to find affordable housing,
constrained by huge waiting lists for vouchers offering rental
support, and then sometimes having a hard time getting placed
even when they have a voucher thanks to the limited supply in
production of affordable housing.
Low-income and working families shouldn't have to wait for
years before they get the opportunity to access critical
Federal support for secure housing and safe housing and a
stable community with good schools, convenient transportation,
and supportive services.
Health and safety standards in housing are a continuing
challenge. Carbon monoxide, lead, radon, mold continue to pose
major, potentially life-threatening challenges for renters of
all ages, and that is the tip of the iceberg of a disgraceful
backlog of maintenance and renovation needs in our public
housing stock.
Now, we have been able to make a good deal of progress on
homelessness. That has been a major focus. There is still so
much to be done though. HUD's so-called point-in-time count
conducted on a single night in January 2021 found that, on any
given night, more than 326,000 people are experiencing
sheltered homelessness in the United States, of which 4 in 10
were people in families with children. And, believe me, those
numbers would have been far worse without the CARES Act and
other pandemic relief measures.
This subcommittee has worked hard to do our part to address
a range of challenges. I am glad--I am grateful for the
cooperative leadership of our former chairman, now ranking
member, my friend and partner, Mr. Diaz-Balart.
Over the last 5 years, which includes, of course, the years
of his chairmanship, we have increased resources to the tune of
$43 billion for capital improvements to public housing; new
affordable housing for the elderly and people with
disabilities; and targeted assistance to States, localities,
and Tribes to address complex housing and community development
needs.
We worked with our authorizing colleagues to enact three
supplemental bills in fiscals 2020 and 2021 to provide nearly
$80 billion to help individuals and families affected by the
pandemic, including emergency housing assistance, housing
counseling service, eviction prevention, assistance to
homeowners.
So these investments have been a vital response to the
pandemic, but we know they provide only temporary relief for
what we know are longer term challenges. The unmet needs of our
communities are immense. They require us to think boldly about
the future of housing in our country. Housing plays a central
role in stabilizing communities, creating pathways to
homeownership and wealth.
It is hard to hold on to good health and to achieve
positive educational outcomes or to reach your economic
potential without a safe, decent, and affordable place to live.
Housing in this country is essential and it deserves, as we
have said many times, to be a front burner issue.
And I think the budget that the administration has sent us
indicates they feel the same way. Overall, the budget request
provides $71.9 billion for HUD, a 9.4 increase over fiscal year
2022. That includes $32.1 billion in housing choice vouchers,
$3.6 billion to combat homelessness, $3.8 billion to expand
economic opportunities and improve the quality of life for low-
and moderate-income families, and $2 billion to construct and
rehabilitate affordable rental housing through the HOME
Program. These are all increases above fiscal 2022.
Stable housing is foundational to how people build their
lives, and I am pleased that the budget before us lays the
groundwork for millions of households to remain stably housed
or to have the opportunity to build a stable, safe, and
thriving future.
Secretary Fudge, we look forward to your testimony today
and continuing our work together on these vital issues.
Now, let me recognize our ranking member, Mr. Diaz-Balart,
for his opening statement.
Mr. Diaz-Balart. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. First,
let me apologize for my voice. I have a bit of a cough, and
hopefully I will get through my statement without coughing too
much. Chairman Price, my friend, thanks for holding this
hearing.
And, welcome, Madam Secretary.
Secretary Fudge. Thank you.
Mr. Diaz-Balart. As I have mentioned, your experience as a
mayor and a Member of Congress, I think, gives you a unique
perspective on HUD's programs actually. I have to tell you, I
appreciate your honest and direct communications with us, with
your former colleagues, and I also appreciate your attention to
issues faced by local governments where HUD's programs are
implemented. Again, you have been accessible, and I greatly
appreciate that, Madam Secretary.
The administration has once again submitted a budget
request that is, well, highly unrealistic with a 14-percent
increase for nondefense discretionary spending, and, by the
way, only a 4-percent increase for defense, which doesn't keep
up with the exceedingly high inflation rate. The request for
HUD is $7 billion, or 13 percent above the enacted level. This
includes a number of new initiatives and program expansions
that I think will create liabilities on this bill for years to
come.
As the chairman knows very well, the annual housing renewal
costs alone already exceeds $2 billion per year. I have joined
Chairman Price to make those renewals a priority in this bill
for now nearly a decade, and I will continue to support this
priority so that we protect our most vulnerable citizens with
obviously safe, quality housing.
However, it is becoming clearer every single day that we
cannot continue on a path of increased debt for future
generations. Unrestrained spending will simply further drive up
the inflation that is eating at American families' budgets
particularly for, you know, hardworking, middle-class families.
I am certain, however, and I am optimistic that we can find
common ground and make smart investments in HUD programs. These
smart investments will, I think, help communities prosper and
protect our most vulnerable citizens. We do this every year.
And I am pleased to consider you, Madam Secretary, and my dear
friend, Chairman Price, as partners, intricate and essential
partners in this effort. We clearly need a bipartisan, top-line
budget agreement with a fair balance between defense and
nondefense spending. It is the only way we are going to
actually have an agreement.
And we all know that continuing resolutions waste time and
waste valuable money.
And, Madam Secretary, you know that very well.
So hopefully we can move quickly towards compromise and
smart funding decisions for fiscal year 2023. I look forward to
continuing to work with you, Madam Secretary, and thank you for
being here. I look forward to your testimony.
With that, I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Price. Thank you. Now, Secretary Fudge, let's turn to
you for your statement. We thank you again for being us. Look
forward to the highlighting of the 2023 budget request. You are
recognized for 5 minutes for an opening statement, and, of
course, your full written testimony will be included for the
record.
Secretary Fudge. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Price and Ranking Member Diaz-Balart and
distinguished members of the subcommittee, thank you for the
opportunity to testify today in support of President Biden's
2023 budget for the Department of Housing and Urban
Development. The support of this subcommittee is critical to
ensuring that every American has a safe, stable home, to
ensuring that every American can live in communities that are
strong and resilient. And I want to thank you for the
investments you have already made in our agency and in the
people we serve.
Chairman Price, I want to also thank you for all that you
have done to support HUD throughout your distinguished career
in Congress, and, my friend, you will be missed. You have been
a fierce champion of the work we do, and I am so grateful for
your leadership.
HUD's mission is central to achieving the President's
vision to build a better America, to ensure that every person
has a shot to get ahead, to addressing longstanding systemic
challenges, to expand on the historic progress our country has
made over the last year, and to deliver the agenda the
President laid out in his State of the Union address, to build
a better America, to reduce the deficit, reduce costs for
families, and grow the economy from the bottom up and the
middle out.
Since day one, the President has viewed housing as critical
to addressing our Nation's most urgent challenges. Throughout
the pandemic, HUD put in place emergency relief measures that
kept homeowners and renters in their homes. Since July, more
than 20,000 formerly homeless households have been housed
thanks to the emergency housing voucher, and almost 30,000 more
formerly homeless households have been issued vouchers and are
seeking housing. More than 53,000 emergency housing vouchers
have been issued to households by PHAs and over 20,000 have
been housed.
While the pandemic emergency may be behind us, the crisis
in housing it exposed remains. This budget will help provide
security and stability for the American people, advance
opportunity and equity on behalf of marginalized communities,
and address the existential threats posed by natural disasters
and climate change.
The 2023 President's budget request, $71.9 billion for HUD,
which is around $11 billion more than the 2022 annualized
continuing resolution level. We cannot put off the critical
investments this budget makes in the American people,
investments that will help lay a stronger foundation for shared
growth and prosperity for generations to come.
At HUD, we understand that our homes represent more than
four walls and a roof. Where we live determines the kinds of
jobs we can get, how healthy we are, and where our children go
to school. The President's budget understands that too. That is
why the budget provides $32 billion for the Housing Choice
Voucher Program, which would accommodate approximately 200,000
new vouchers. That would allow individuals and families across
the country to move off long waiting lists and into safe,
decent housing.
The budget addresses the Nation's homelessness crisis head
on by providing $3.6 billion to provide housing and services to
those experiencing homelessness, an increase of $576 million.
The budget works to ensure that the supply of housing meets
demand. It provides $2 billion for the HOME Investment
Partnership Program, an anchor of the Nation's affordable
housing system, and $15 billion for project-based rental
assistance and housing for people with disabilities and older
Americans, and $180 million for the development of new units
for those groups.
The President's budget advances energy efficiency and
prepares our existing housing infrastructure for the impacts of
climate change. This budget builds on the administration's
commitment to investing in rural communities. It makes crucial
investments in our public housing supply and supports the
removal of dangerous health hazards from our homes.
The President's budget also recognizes that to meet the
needs of our communities we need an appropriate level of
staffing at HUD. HUD's mission is to create strong,
sustainable, inclusive communities and quality, affordable
homes for all. Every day folks across our agency work to
improve our citizens' quality of life through housing. The
budget delivers on these promises, and I am pleased to share
this request with the subcommittee.
Thank you.
Mr. Price. Thank you, Madam Secretary.
Well, we will now turn to the questions, and I will start
with one, which relates both to your statement and the things I
said to begin today. I know you share the conviction of members
of this subcommittee that housing is infrastructure and that
both the demand for housing and the supply of affordable
housing need to be addressed in any kind of balanced approach,
and I do think your budget does that and you acknowledged it
just now.
I would like to ask you about getting some of these dollars
at work in our communities and what kind of progress we have
made in doing that. I mentioned in my opening statement the
work this subcommittee has done to bring the Choice
Neighborhoods program back to a scale, for example, the 202
housing for the elderly, 811 housing for the disabled, and, of
course, the HOME Investment Partnership is a feature of your
budget. It has been a mainstay of people putting together
affordable housing projects for years now.
What kind of progress have we made in getting those dollars
not just appropriated but also getting them into the
communities? I mentioned the Winston-Salem Choice Neighborhoods
ordeal, 5 years trying to get that money. They finally got it.
How are we doing? And I wonder, you can do part of this for the
record, but what can you say about the kind of work you have
done in getting the notices of funding availability out,
getting the grant processes cranking, getting these awards
made? And I will focus particularly on those programs that I
mentioned, Choice Neighborhoods and 202 and 811.
Secretary Fudge. You are exactly right in your assessment
of Choice Neighborhoods. It is a transformational program. When
you think about cities having resources in the $30 million to
$35 million amount at one time, it gives them not only the
opportunity to think big, to plan for larger projects, but it
also includes the communities. It includes all the
stakeholders. And so it becomes not just a project for housing;
it becomes a community project.
Winston-Salem is a perfect example of what can happen, but
let me give you another one. I was in Philadelphia not too long
ago where they were just finishing up one of their--finishing
up the Choice Neighborhoods grant. Within that area, they have
a training facility. They are working with Temple University as
partners for their residents. They have increased the amount of
public housing available. It is truly transformational. The
neighborhood is now a neighborhood of choice. It is where
people want to live. And they did it without displacing the
former residents on that site. So that is one of the things
that we are extremely pleased about.
And, throughout this whole program, what Choice has done is
replaced about 9,300 housing units with now 30,000 housing
units, so we are expanding the amount of housing. We are making
the housing safe. We are making the housing desirable, and we
are changing neighborhoods. So I think that that is an
excellent example of success from these kinds of programs.
Mr. Price. I would appreciate your furnishing for the
record some accounting of the way that the grant process has
gone with, you know, the--a recounting of the notices that have
gone out, the kind of application levels that you have seen,
the awards that have actually been granted, and if you could do
that for Choice Neighborhoods and for 202 and 811 in particular
to give us a sense of what happens after we appropriate the
funds----
Secretary Fudge. We would be happy to do it.
Mr. Price [continuing]. And how expeditiously we are able
to get those awards made.
Secretary Fudge. Mr. Chairman, we are happy to do it. We
are currently working on formulating our fiscal year 2022
notices of funding. But I would suggest to you that, as we look
at housing in general across this country, 202 and 811 housing
is going to be more and more important because, as our society
continues to age and people wanting to age in place, the fact
that, as you discussed earlier, our homeless population is
growing; however, a large portion of that is senior citizens as
well and disabled.
So we have to look at all of the ways that we affect those
populations, and that is why we are asking for an increase in
202 and 811 because I think that we have for many--too many
years not done the kind of work in those particular areas that
we should have. So we will be happy to get you the information.
Mr. Price. I can tell you, in the district I represent, the
landscape is dotted with 202 projects that congregations
undertook in cooperation with HUD years ago. And I think it is
important, of course, to get those programs back in business
and also to generate the activity locally where, once again, we
retain the kind of muscle memory about how to go after these
funds and how to put these deals together.
Well, thank you. Now, Mr. Diaz-Balart.
Mr. Diaz-Balart. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
You know, I am really proud of the work that the
subcommittee has done, that we have all done together to
address homelessness. And if you look at, for example, Miami-
Dade county as example, with HUD's assistance, it has really
become a model for the entire country. Homeless rates remain
remarkably low in Miami-Dade county particularly among
veterans, but I am obviously concerned about the dramatic rise
in housing costs in southern Florida.
But it says a lot about our community leaders that we have
not seen a surge in homelessness, even, you know, with all of
the people moving into Florida, et cetera. We can't keep our--
we can't stop focusing on that, but so far I am actually
really, really pleased with how the community has responded.
But there are dramatic differences when you look across the
country, right. While in Florida, many rural and in other--many
rural areas have not seen a significant rise in unsheltered
homeless population. The situation, according to what you see
in the press in places like L.A. And elsewhere, particularly in
the West coast, seems to be heading towards frankly a crisis
where many communities are almost now unlivable, right, and
they are going to be so for generations. So we provided $4
billion in the CARES Act for homeless assistance. That is,
again, over 2 years now after that, about half of that funding
has been spent. So funding is not the issue. The money is
there.
So, Madam Secretary, can you provide us with a candid
assessment as of now as to how these COVID relief funds have
been used--again, half has not been spent--what was the most
effective use of these funds, and what types of programs were
less effective so we can kind of have a good idea as to where
we should be focusing? I would invite any specific local
examples that you can provide as well.
Secretary Fudge. Thank you very much, Mr. Diaz-Balart. And
I am happy to discuss it because I think it is a good story,
and it is one that we should be telling more.
As of the end of March of 2022, CARES Act funding has
provided 828,000 people who have been served in emergency
shelters; 154,000 of them are children, and 62,000 of them are
elderly. 162,000 people have been served through our Street
Outreach Programs. Another 137,000 people have been assisted
with rapid housing--rehousing, of which 39,000 are in permanent
housing and no longer need the rapid rehousing assistance.
146,000 people have been assisted with homelessness
prevention, and hundreds of thousands of people have been
sheltered or we are preventing homelessness. I think it is a
great story, and I can't thank the committee enough for the
resources that you have given us to make that kind of an
impact. And even though it seems like a long time, you know,
CARES was actually designed to be a 5-year program. So I think
that we are doing extremely well, and I thank you for the
question.
Mr. Diaz-Balart. Yeah. Madam Secretary, there are--
obviously, for a number of years now, there has been a big push
for what we call housing first, right. And should we look at
other models that should be considered to improve on housing
first practices? Again, my concern is that, in some areas, like
in Florida and others, we are seeing great success, but in
other areas, like what you see, I mean, you know, you see the
tent cities in places like L.A., something is not working,
Madam Secretary.
So any ideas as to what we might be able to do to make sure
that--and again, it is not an issue of money because the money
is there--of how we can have better outcomes because we have
obviously parts in this country where we have a crisis?
Secretary Fudge. Well, certainly, I am always willing to
look at things that are going to make us better. There is no
question about that. But let me also say to you that housing
first doesn't mean housing only. We are looking at all--at many
different things that we know can be helpful.
Every single community is different, so we certainly do try
to tailor our programs based upon what Congress allows us to do
to be sure that we can address the problems of those various
communities. And so I am always open to new ideas, absolutely.
Mr. Diaz-Balart. Madam Secretary, I look forward to working
with you to look at what is working, what is not working. We
can always improve, right? We can always do better.
Secretary Fudge. Right.
Mr. Diaz-Balart. And, again, obviously, what we have now is
an issue where the money is there, so an opportunity to figure
out what is working, what is not working as well and maybe do
some serious changes. I look forward to working with you.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back, actually 13 seconds before the
end of my time.
Mr. Price. Setting a good example for sure.
Ms. Clark.
Ms. Clark. Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman.
And wonderful to be here with you, Madam Secretary. And I
have to say that I thought you were the most popular figure
coming out of Ohio, but on a recent trip, I got to meet your
mom, and I do know that she takes a little precedence over even
you. But so grateful for your work.
An issue that I know you are committed to and that we have
talked about before is that of childcare. In States like
Massachusetts, where the cost of childcare can exceed $20,000 a
year, it is out of reach for many middle-income families and
certainly for HUD-assisted families. It is inaccessible in far
too many parts of this country.
That is why this committee funded a research collaboration
between your department and HHS on how we can prioritize and
promote on-site childcare supportive services for people in
HUD-supported housing. I am hoping you can provide me an update
on the status of this report and when you might think we would
have the final.
Secretary Fudge. We are putting out the solicitation call
very soon. I can't tell you exactly when it will be back at
this point, but we are working with HHS because we know how
important health care is, especially to marginalized families
and communities.
Ms. Clark. Yep.
Secretary Fudge. So we are just as excited about getting
the opportunity to really take a deep dive into it, and we
thank you for allowing us to do it as well.
Ms. Clark. Great. Thank you for that.
Secretary Fudge. Oh, we expect for that to happen this
summer.
Ms. Clark. This summer the RFP will go out or the
solicitation----
Secretary Fudge. Yes. That is right.
Ms. Clark. Okay. All right. Thank you.
Also, I know and thank you for your support of survivors of
domestic violence, and I especially want to thank you for
appointing a director of gender-based violence prevention in
equity and your support of the continuum of care set aside to
rehouse victims of domestic violence.
In your budget, you have requested $1.6 billion for an
additional 200,000 housing choice vouchers, and that includes
prioritizing survivors of domestic violence. I am hoping you
can comment on why this priority is so important and if you can
talk about your department's efforts to collaborate with other
agencies, like HHS and DOJ, to address this intersection of
domestic violence, homelessness, and housing.
Secretary Fudge. Let me first thank you for your being a
champion for VAWA, for the vouchers for these emergency
situations. We know that violence, whether it be sexual assault
or domestic violence, is increasing in this country. We know
that we have for too long not really addressed not just the
causes but trying to assist people in getting to safe places.
So that is why we were so excited about bringing on someone
who can look at this, can advise us. I think we are probably
the first agency to do it because we know what fleeing from
sexual assault or domestic violence can mean to one of our
residents. And so we have done everything we can to provide not
just the vouchers but other assistance as well and to move them
and house them safely and quickly.
Ms. Clark. Thank you. And, speaking of all this important
work that you are trying to do and how fundamental it is to our
recovery and meeting the need out there, it is alarming how
much staff that HUD has lost. I think you are leading from 1991
to 2019. Almost 50 percent of the staff has been lost, and you
have nearly half of your workforce eligible for retirement by
the end of the year.
I know you are committed to turning this around, and I
wonder if you can talk to me about your strategy a little bit,
what more we can do to support you in this critical work, and
are there also ways that you are thinking about turning around
and shortening the turnaround for hiring? And I see that I have
20 seconds left for this answer, so we can also take it up
offline as well.
Secretary Fudge. I will try as quickly as possible. Over
the last 2 years, it is the first time in many, many years that
we have gained more employees than we have lost.
Ms. Clark. Amazing.
Secretary Fudge. That goes to show you how long the
situation has been going on. We cannot do our work, the work
that Congress has directed us to do, without the proper
staffing. So thank you for bringing it up. I am not going to
extend your time, but I would say that it is probably one of
the most important things we are asking for in this budget so
that we can serve the people the way we should.
Ms. Clark. Thank you for that. I yield back.
Mr. Price. Thank you.
Mr. Rutherford.
Mr. Rutherford. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And, Madam Secretary, thank you for being here with us this
morning. I want to talk a little bit about, you know, the price
of homes across the U.S. are just skyrocketing, and many of our
dedicated first responders are finding it increasingly
difficult to purchase a home in the communities in which they
work.
I have a bill called the HELPER Act, which would create an
FHA-type loan program for law enforcement, EMTs, firefighters,
and teachers that would give them a one-time opportunity to
purchase a home. And it is similar to the Good Neighbor Next
Door program within HUD, and it would--but this provides
greater flexibility and more home ownership opportunities for
our first responders.
So I have a two-part question here for you: First, I think
I know the answer, but I would like to ask, do you see the
value in first responders living in the communities that they
serve; and then, secondly, has HUD looked at ways beyond the
existing Good Neighbor Next Door program to actually assist
first responders and teachers in obtaining homes?
And I would like to ask you if you would take a look at the
HELPER Act and see if that is something that you could get
behind to help our first responders and others, the teachers
and all of that, to be able to buy a first-time home so that
they can stay in the neighborhoods where they serve.
Secretary Fudge. Thank you, Mr. Rutherford. I absolutely
will take a look at it. I have had a cursory review of it and
would love to work with your staff on it.
One of the things that we are finding across the board
because of this housing crisis, and it really is a crisis when
you look at the cost of housing across the country, is that
affordable housing is a problem for almost every worker in this
country. We have places where the cost of housing is so high
that businesses are complaining they can't get help because
people can't afford to live in their neighborhoods. So we know
it is a crisis, and I am more than willing to have our teams
look at your HELPER Act.
Mr. Rutherford. Thank you, Madam Secretary. I appreciate
that.
I want to kind of switch gears. In recent months, I am sure
you have seen, there has been some heartbreaking examples of
deadly fires in residential buildings, such as the ones in New
York and Philadelphia. These fires really highlight the
continued need for fire safety in residential buildings.
And last year, my good friend, Representative Coleman, and
I joined forces in the Public Housing Fire Safety Act, and it
incentivizes the installment of fire sprinkling inside--in the
old established public housing. And so I would like to ask, $65
million was appropriated in this year and for these competitive
grants to public housing. What kind of fire safety initiatives,
if any, have these grants gone to, the competitive grants, that
were issued? Do you have any idea how much of that is going on?
Secretary Fudge. Well, it is our intention to award these
grants later this year or at the very beginning of next year,
so I can't give you an update at this point. But I will suggest
to you that, out of that $65 million, we are able to do better
inspections as it relates to all health hazards but
particularly fire safety. So we will have a better answer for
you later in the year. We will make sure we get that back to
you.
Mr. Rutherford. Okay. Thank you very much. And so it is
good to know that that is a priority.
Secretary Fudge. Yes.
Mr. Rutherford. And I tell you, you know, Bonnie and I
are--you know, we just believe this bill really needs to move
forward as well because children and adults dying in these
fires is just atrocious.
So, with that, Mr. Chairman, I see my time is about
expired. I will yield back.
Mr. Price. I thank you.
I turn to Mr. Quigley.
Mr. Quigley. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Madam Secretary, it is great seeing you and appreciate the
amazing job you are doing. Love serving with you. And right out
of the box, you helped us change an important practice for our
trans community in shelter, so we thank you for that.
I want to turn to the issue that I know you cared a lot
about still--as a Member and care a lot about now, that is
HOPWA funding. You know, the administration is proposing a
funding level that might actually cause a reduction in the
number of people living with HIV who will be served by the
program. I think the difference between the proposal and what
we are going to be asking for is $455 million to $600 million.
The estimate in the congressional justification is about
45,640 households, which is about 10 households lower than the
fiscal year 2022 proposed amount of 56,355. As you know, my
district, similar to yours, has--this is a big issue. So we are
asking you to take a look at that and give us your thoughts on
how we might be able to work together to get that number up to
the current need, if possible.
Secretary Fudge. I would be happy to take a look at it. I
mean, we are putting a little attention on it now because we do
know that there are--some programs are going on that just have
not requested their reimbursement. We know that there are some
issues in just the implementation just because of staffing and
capacity, but we will do whatever we can to get you the
information.
Mr. Quigley. I appreciate that. And, as you know, people
living with HIV face incredible stigma and discrimination in
housing, but HOPWA was the only housing program dedicated to
the population, particularly for people living with HIV. You
know, housing is healthcare.
Is there anything else HUD is working on to expand other
forms of rental assistance to serve people living with HIV?
Secretary Fudge. Yes. We are working with our homeless
programs. We are working with youth programs. We are providing
seminars and webinars. We are doing all that we know how to do
to reach the proper populations, as well as we are working, of
course, with HHS and other agencies that affect these
populations as well. And, just last week, we actually had a
webinar with the CDC and with our foster youth. So we are doing
the work. It is just, at this point, I don't have the data to
give you that you are asking for.
Mr. Quigley. No, and I understand. I am just curious too,
are there steps being taken to make people living with HIV a
priority population for HUD programs like housing choice
vouchers?
Secretary Fudge. Well, I think that when you were talking
about our budget request, the President's budget request is at
a $455 million level, which we believe is very good. But it
also proposes $1.6 billion in incremental housing choice
vouchers, which then gives us the opportunity to house more
people with AIDS or other populations, of course, as well. But
certainly that becomes a priority within those incremental
housing vouchers.
Mr. Quigley. No, we certainly want to work with you to make
that a priority. And we would love to have, you know, when you
come back to Chicago, meet with the populations and talk about
these issues. I know you care deeply about it, and we look
forward to working with you and your staff on an ongoing basis.
But thank you so much for your service.
Secretary Fudge. Thank you. Thank you so much.
Mr. Price. Mr. Garcia.
Mr. Garcia. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you, Madam Secretary, for your service to our
beautiful Nation. I support this mission that HUD has. I
believe in safety nets. I believe it is a noble mission. But I
am a numbers guy, and as an appropriator, especially right now
where our Nation is seeing record inflation, 8.5 percent, and a
debt of $30 trillion at the Federal level, we have got to pay
attention to these numbers a little closer than we have maybe
historically.
And I think you are operating woefully inefficiently right
now as an agency. $61 billion rounding up, $60.8 billion, would
be sufficient. If you assume 500,000 homeless people in our
country right now, which is a rough estimate plus or minus,
that $61 billion is enough to give every homeless person in our
Nation $122,000 every year, each and every year. The average
rent right now in our Nation is about $1,100, maybe $1,200
right now per month. So, when you spread that $122,000, you are
actually paying for about 110 months of rent for every homeless
person each and every year within your specific budget.
These numbers don't make sense, and I think--I think you
are not getting all of the power to the ground, the power of
the American taxpayer dollar to the ground in these
neighborhoods where we need to be making the investments that
you described. I agree with everything that you said, but you
are not getting the power to the ground.
Another way to look at it is, if the average home price
right now is $300,000 nationwide, that monthly payment, to
include not only the mortgage but also taxes and insurance,
comes out to about $1,700 a month, which with your budget we
can actually fully pay the mortgage for an entire year for 3
million families.
So, when we talk about staffing and when we talk about
efficiencies within our Federal agencies, this is one of those
agencies unfortunately that stands out as not necessarily
getting the taxpayer dollars to the customers, in this case the
families that need housing assistance, at the levels that
they--that you should, frankly.
What is your current staff? You talked about your staffing
challenges and the ramp down. What is your current staff at
right now?
Secretary Fudge. Let me just--thank you so much for your
question, Mr. Garcia. Let me just say to you that we serve more
than 500,000 people. We serve more than a homeless population.
Mr. Garcia. How many do you serve--Madam Secretary, how
many do you serve?
Secretary Fudge. We serve almost 5 million people. We serve
almost----
Mr. Garcia. How many?
Secretary Fudge. We serve almost 5 million people.
Mr. Garcia. Five million?
Secretary Fudge. Yes. And if there is something that you
have specifically that you think we are not doing, I am
certainly willing to listen to whatever that is.
Mr. Garcia. No, I don't think it is a lack of what you are
doing. I think you are doing it inefficiently. Even at 5
million, you are still putting about $12,000 per year to each
of these 5 million people, which is, again, enough to pay for
their entire rent for an entire year. That is each and every
year, by the way.
So, even if you are servicing 5 million--I am not saying we
don't service 5 million. We should service everyone that needs
the money, but let's service them and not necessarily
bureaucrats who are making more money off of these programs in
Washington, D.C., than the people who are benefiting from these
programs in rural areas.
Secretary Fudge. Mr. Garcia, if you have something
specific, I certainly do--I am willing to listen to it. I mean,
but you are talking in generalities. So tell me what we are not
doing.
Mr. Garcia. Well, it goes to my question, I guess,
specifically--I am actually not talking in generalities. I am
being very specific, Madam Secretary, not to argue with you.
But I am asking you, how many people work for your agency right
now?
Secretary Fudge. 7,500.
Mr. Garcia. 7,500. So you are asking for a 10-percent
increase. And so what I would submit to you is that we need
fewer bureaucrats in the agency and maybe more focus on how do
we get this money to the neighborhoods and to the people who
need the assistance rather than people in your agency.
What is the average salary of a HUD worker right now?
Secretary Fudge. Oh, I have no idea.
Mr. Garcia. I would like to see that. And I am doing this
in the vein of hopefully bringing solutions to the table
because this is a lot of money. This is aggravating our
Nation's debt. This budget is in the hole, a 13-percent
increase I believe year over year while we are operating in
this extremely high inflation rate.
This inflation actually hurts the poor, as you know, more
than anyone. This is the equivalent of adding another month of
rent to low-income family households. And so, in the interest
of getting that money there, I think you need a task force to
go look at how you maximize our taxpayer dollars, increase
efficiencies, and get this money to the people that need it,
rather than to the bureaucrats in Washington, D.C. I know that
is a tall order and that is a massive endeavor, but we have got
to figure out how to get your money to the ground in the areas
that need it.
Mr. Chairman, I am out of time.
Secretary Fudge. I am happy to do it, but I would say this
to you, sir: Money on the ground is getting housing vouchers to
VA people, veterans who are sleeping on the streets; money on
the ground is taking care of making sure we get these
encampments off street; money on the ground is making sure the
people in public housing live decent; money on the ground is
Choice Neighborhoods that we talked about. We get money on the
ground. That is why I am saying, specifically, if there is
something we are missing, tell me what that is.
Mr. Garcia. I understand. Only about 15 percent of that
gets to the ground, Madam Secretary. That is all I am saying.
It is woefully inefficient, and we can do better.
Secretary Fudge. Thank you.
Mr. Price. Mrs. Watson Coleman.
Mrs. Watson Coleman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Secretary Fudge, thank you for your service. I am so glad
that you are at the Housing and Urban Development Department,
and I am certain under your leadership and under the vision of
the President of the United States, you will be able to get
people to want to work there and want to be part of your
workforce.
Housing is really important to me. It was important to me
when I worked in the executive branch in the State of New
Jersey and when I worked in the legislative branch. I have a
couple of questions that are at the opposite end of the
spectrum. I have seen the value of neighborhood preservation
programs where you go into a neighborhood that is kind of
declining, you have got nice homes and then you have got a few
homes that are in real trouble, and you apply those resources
to those homes that are declining in that neighborhood.
So I am wondering, is there any emphasis in your department
in working with States to spend their resources strategically
in trying to save, recoup these neighborhoods under
neighborhood preservation?
Secretary Fudge. Thank you, my friend. It is nice to see
you as well, Mrs. Coleman.
Preservation is one of the main paths that we have to take
to be able to create enough housing in this country. We know
that today there--we are probably about 4 million housing units
short of housing all the people who need housing. We cannot
build enough housing, even though this budget gives us a great
start at trying to build new housing units.
But we also have to preserve communities. If you are from
places like where I am from, Mrs. Watson Coleman, there are
blocks and blocks and blocks and rows of vacant and abandoned
homes. And part of the problem was that we, as an agency, were
continuing to red line certain kinds of communities.
And so now we are changing that to make sure that we can
get resources into those communities through those low-dollar
loans that we hadn't been giving. We can make sure that we put
a focus on trying to make sure that those properties go to
people who want to live in them as opposed to going to
investors and flippers. We are doing our part. We do need local
governments to assist us with making those communities
priorities, but we are providing resources and assistance to
try to make it happen.
Mrs. Watson Coleman. I think that is so vitally important.
And if there is anything that you see from your perch now and
from your former perch as a Congress Member as to what kind of
legislation we could consider to be greater incentives for
municipalities to look strategically at spending money that is
available to them, I--Mr. Rutherford and I, we are partners in
this sort of field, and we would very much like to look at it.
The other thing I wanted----
Secretary Fudge. Mrs. Watson Coleman, if I could just say
quickly, remember we used to have a program called Hardest Hit
Money. We had a neighborhood stabilization program. So you
might, as a legislative piece, want to go back and look at one
of those.
Mrs. Watson Coleman. Thank you very much. I will take note
of that.
The other area that I want to talk to you about, because
you do so much for the most vulnerable among us, is those
returning citizens. Now, my understanding is that you had a
task force that looked at what to do with returning citizens,
how to best serve their needs. I know it is not just their
needs for housing. I know when I was a legislator we looked at
all the other things that they needed in order to qualify for
Federal resources and programs. I am wondering where your
department is with regard to that and what you think we are
going to be hearing from you as recommendations to move
forward.
Secretary Fudge. Well, I would say this, Mrs. Watson
Coleman, we know that too many people with criminal records are
denied access to housing, and we know all that does is create a
bigger problem. It doesn't help public housing either. It
doesn't help Section 8 housing either. We know that one in
three people in America have a criminal record of some sort. So
we have to be realistic about the populations we serve.
So what we are doing is actually taking a look at what our
screening processes have been to this point. We are in the
process of doing it now. So we are hopeful that by October we
will have some definitive answers for you, but we know it is a
problem, and we know for too long we have just denied people
simply because they have a criminal record. So we are looking
at it.
Mrs. Watson Coleman. Thank you. I know that this is a
problem, and I know that it disproportionately impacts Black
and Brown communities on so many levels and the economically
depressed. That is such an important issue.
I also just want to take note of the fact that you have
inherited a department that was basically raped of its
resources and its vision under the former Presidency, and now
we have both the President and a Secretary who understands the
importance of housing and understands the communities that need
to be served and the municipalities that need to be protected,
and so I want to thank you for your service. I am so glad that
you are there. And I certainly stand ready to be a partner in
whatever I can do.
I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Price. Thank you.
Mrs. Hinson.
Mrs. Hinson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding this
hearing today.
And, thank you, Secretary Fudge. Good to see you again.
Secretary Fudge. Nice to see you.
Mrs. Hinson. And I appreciate you appearing before our
subcommittee again. And as you and I have already talked about
before last year, ensuring that HUD is supporting our rural
communities is a top priority for me. And you know much of my
district is classified rural, and just want to make sure in our
conversations we don't leave those communities behind.
I know you said earlier in the hearing, and it perked my
ears, every single community is different. That couldn't be
truer in Iowa. So, again, we know one-size-fits-all policies
don't work best, so I look forward to continuing to work with
you and HUD to make sure that we continue to target those
resources efficiently.
So we know, as is the case with everything right now, cost
of housing, labor and materials for building are steadily going
up, consistently going up. And these rising costs, I do
believe, are the result of Democrats overspending in Congress.
It hurts our working-class families, seniors on fixed incomes
the most right now. It is pricing out a lot of homebuyers in
rural communities. And I am hearing this from a lot of our
homebuilders back in Iowa; it is discouraging new construction.
In the past year, costs have risen, as we have heard, with
inflation 8.3 percent and over 5 percent specifically for
shelter. And this is something I am hearing directly from my
constituents about. In Clayton County, where housing supply has
been decimated by flooding, for example, a study found that
over 100 unfilled jobs are tied directly to housing shortages
there, a serious challenge in small rural communities much like
where I was last week.
So we know this crisis isn't going away. Increased spending
is worsening the challenges that are caused by inflation, and
when we are talking about the President's budget request
calling for $7 billion more than last year, I do want to make
sure we are being efficient with those dollars.
So in what ways is HUD working to address rising costs in
this case without further overspending? I just want to follow
up on my colleague's comments there about targeted and
efficient spending.
Secretary Fudge. Thank you so very much. I mean, I think we
have to also put in context the fact that during the COVID
crisis, especially over the last 2 years, what has happened is
that production of materials that are needed in housing just
have not been available, whether it is manufactured housing,
which we thought great option, but we don't have enough
plastic, we don't have enough wood, we don't have enough of all
of the things----
Mrs. Hinson. So are you working to help with supply chain?
I guess that would be just--you know, as I am asking about what
ways you are working to help address these costs, even if it is
supply chain and driving that down and increasing----
Secretary Fudge. Well, that is what we are doing. We are
right now trying to help the supply chain. So what we are doing
is we are helping, we are meeting with the homebuilders and the
manufacturing home, all of these people, to talk about how we
can increase and speed up the supply chain because we know it
is a problem, as do they.
Mrs. Hinson. Okay.
Secretary Fudge. We also----
Mrs. Hinson. So, if you are meeting with them, you are
probably hearing about regulation as a huge cost driver for
them too in housing costs. Have you been looking at regulations
there? I know manufactured housing is an affordable housing
option many people rely on in my district. Just looking at ways
to lower those costs through regulatory reform there at all?
Secretary Fudge. Well, we haven't been hearing about
regulation, but what we have been hearing about with
manufactured housing is how excited they are about the fact
that we are getting ready to find more ways to give mortgages
on manufactured housing, how we are going to finance
manufactured housing, because it is a big, big issue with us
right now.
Mrs. Hinson. Yeah.
Secretary Fudge. So we have been getting more input on that
than we have--no one has mentioned regulations to me, quite
honestly. But we are talking about----
Mrs. Hinson. Okay. I would encourage you, in those future
conversations, ask them about that, because they regular
express to us that that is driving up their costs of building
and that, as we know, gets passed on to the consumer. We want
to make housing and that dream a reality for everyone in every
working family, and that is a priority I think we all share. So
I would just encourage you, in those conversations, make sure
you are talking to them about that because they are definitely
flagging that.
One of the regulations that they also flagged continually
for us, DavisBacon, because right now HUD applies DavisBacon to
repairs over $2,000. I think that is an outdated threshold. It
has been in place almost 100 years. So would you support
raising that threshold to help lower costs for housing repairs
as well?
Secretary Fudge. I am certainly willing to look at it,
because I don't know what it is right now off the top of my
head. So I wouldn't say yes, not having any background----
Mrs. Hinson. Repairs over $2,000. Again, that was set back
in 1931. So I think, ultimately, we are just trying to look for
flexibility to help drive down those costs, regulatory
flexibility.
And then another area, and I know I am short on time, but
disaster repairs is another area where it is incredibly
important to my district. So I would encourage you to look at
flexibility. Have you heard anything about that?
Secretary Fudge. We're hoping that you are going to pass
for us our disaster recovery with the CDBG. We absolutely agree
with you 100 percent. But the one thing that I would suggest
too that might help is zoning changes too, because a lot of
these communities, the cost of building is so high because of
zoning regulations and planning board regulations, not so much
regulations coming from the Federal Government but from local
government.
Mrs. Hinson. All right. Up and down the spectrum. So thank
you, Madam Secretary. I appreciate it.
Mr. Chair, I yield back.
Secretary Fudge. Thank you so much.
Mr. Price. Thank you.
I am going to recognize Mr. Trone, and I am going to ask
Mr. Quigley to take the gavel for a brief period while I make a
quick visit to the SFOP Subcommittee next door.
But, Mr. Trone, you are recognized.
Mr. Trone, you may be muted.
Mr. Trone. Okay. Thank you, Chairman Price.
And, Secretary Fudge, thank you very much for joining us
today.
The President's fiscal year 2023 budget, 9.4 percent
increase over 2022. We are thrilled to see the invested
resource expanding housing, assistance, and availability.
I would like to talk today about Recovery Housing Program.
Twenty million Americans identify as being in recovery from
substance abuse--substance use disorder. Many of these
Americans rely on, quote/unquote, sober homes. We know there is
a shortage of beds in recovery housing, and I know you are
focused on this issue.
Can you talk about how HUD collaborates with SAMHSA on
recovery housing, and what does this collaboration look like,
and who handles it?
Secretary Fudge. Well, we do work with SAMHSA. One of the
things that we are trying to do is determine what best
practices are right now, so that we can make sure that we put
in place the kinds of processes that we need to be sure that we
are handling it properly.
But I would also say that housing for, not just persons who
have substance abuse problems, but the mentally ill, the
disabled, all of them right now are at the top of our agenda
because we know that there is such a lack of them. But we are,
in fact, working on a daily basis with HHS, with SAMHSA, to be
sure that we are looking at whatever the best practices are.
And I can't tell you off the top of my head, Representative
Trone, but I will make sure that I can get that information to
you exactly what we are doing between the two of us.
Mr. Trone. That would be great. And the availability, you
know, continues to be an issue, but we really don't have in
writing what great quality recovery housing for those in
addiction looks like. You know, how many people do we have in a
house? Should it be two? Should it be 10? You know, is it all
same sex? You know, what type of activities should happen
together? How does that sober living, you know, business--it
has really become a business. What is the best way to do it?
And, secondly, you know, how much of it do we have in America?
How do we measure how much we have? And then third, how do we
measure the demand?
So it seems like the demand, you know, the availability we
have, and then what it looks like, do you have enough
resources, or how can we help you in this area?
We lost 107,000 Americans, the number came out today from
the CDC, last year, to overdoses. 1.2 million expected in the
next 10 years. So this is a problem, unfortunately is not going
away, and we want to be there to work with you.
Secretary Fudge. Well, excellent, because right now we
don't have a handle on really how much of that housing is
needed. We know that some of the resources that we are talking
about come under Medicaid and Medicare. We are talking about
SAMHSA. So it is a whole of government approach to this
process, as well as certain institutions are restricted as to
the number of beds that they can use for this particular
purpose. So we are still trying to work together to be sure we
know what the real need is, because at this point, quite
frankly, we don't know.
And as soon as we get a better handle on that, I can
probably give you a better answer. But anything that you can do
to provide us with assistance, we are willing to take.
Mr. Trone. We would love to work with your staff on that,
and we will reach out. And you guys have been great to work
with. Really good.
Secretary Fudge. Thank you so much. Perfect.
Mr. Trone. So what recovery housing really means is there
isn't any inpatient treatment, which means simply insurance
doesn't pay for a doggone thing. So do you have any suggestions
how we can make it more affordable and, you know, what can
Congress do to, you know, again, help you support people in
recovery housing?
Secretary Fudge. You know, well, SAMHSA has block grant
funding so that we can also use CDBG Recovery Housing Program
funds. There are things that are available. Again, we just
don't have a good handle on how much is really needed.
I don't know that I really have a good answer for you at
this point, other than just to say to you that we will get as
much information as we possibly can and get it to you as
quickly as we can.
Mr. Trone. Sometimes the best answer is we don't have the
answer yet, let's work together to get it. So that is a really
great answer. So, Secretary Fudge, thank you.
You know, we've seen these spikes in overdoses, you know,
all over the country. They followed COVID-19. The President has
listed this as the number one thing in his unity agenda is the
fight on addiction, and number two was mental health. And as
you said, they are so connected. And the housing is--if we can
get the housing for these folks in addiction and mental health
crisis, then we can really help move them on a way to recovery.
So we love to work with you, and keep up the great work. We
are lucky to have you there. Thank you, ma'am.
I yield back.
Secretary Fudge. Thank you. And we are looking forward to
working with you as well.
Mr. Quigley [presiding]. Mr. Gonzales.
Mr. Gonzales. Thank you, Chairman. Thank you, Secretary
Fudge.
You know, I represent Texas' 23rd District. It stretches
from San Antonio to El Paso, 800 miles of the southern border.
My first question is, have you visited the city of San
Antonio since you have been Secretary?
Secretary Fudge. I have not.
Mr. Gonzales. I would love to have you visit. It is the
seventh largest city in the United States. It is not a Black
city, a White city. It is a Brown city. And I think I would
love to work more with the Hispanic community.
You know, I recently toured a few different facilities
there in San Antonio, the Cassiano Homes and the Alazan Apache
Courts. And when I was child, I actually spent some time in the
housing area. And, you know, I look back on it, and I want to
make sure that we have all the resources we need, that they
have all the tools possible to be successful.
What I saw during that time--it was as if I was walking
back in time. You know, there were--in these specific areas,
they didn't have washers and dryers. You know, they had to dry
their clothes outside on a clothespin hanger. I mean, it is
just--it is very--it is not very dignified.
And I want to be--I would love to work together to see how
we can maybe put some resources towards this area. Like I said,
seventh largest city, the area is only growing.
I want to also talk about the Family Self-Sufficiency
Program, FSS. And, you know, I recently had a constituent reach
out, a single-parent woman that was working two jobs, you know,
just doing everything right. And she was part of this program
where she was trying to own her own home. And she had put
$16,000 towards this fund, towards this FSS fund, and it was
taking forever to work through the bureaucracy in getting that
done.
We worked with SAHA, San Antonio Housing Authority, and on
a closing day, she was able to get $16,000. Well, guess what?
That $16,000 is transformational for that family. You know,
she--and I just--I can't highlight enough how much of an
advocate I am on that FSS Program. And I would love to hear
your thoughts on just kind of where you think that program is
going or what priority it is.
Secretary Fudge. First let me say, I am happy to come to
San Antonio. You invite me, and I will come.
Mr. Gonzales. Great.
Secretary Fudge. I have been to Texas; I just haven't made
it to San Antonio.
Secondly, the FSS Program is exceptional. Just about a
month ago, I had a virtual call with four women, three of whom
were very successful in getting their own homes through this
program. They just ranted and raved about what a great program
it was. The fourth is back in the program. They talked about
the pride it gives them and it gives their children to own
their own home. I am very supportive of FSS.
Mr. Gonzales. I love it. I love it. Maybe we can work
together on streamlining it or making some of the bureaucracy,
that way folks can, you know, just access it and understand it
more, a little bit more. So thank you for that.
My next--you know, a different part of my district is the
El Paso area. You know, along the border, the need for these
critical areas is key. And, you know, there is communities
called colonias. And what I have really seen is these areas in
particular have really been forgotten. I mean, they lack
running water, they lack electricity, they lack sewage, they
lack paved roads. I mean, they really need a lot of support.
And, once again, in the El Paso area, this is a community,
you know, the housing community is growing. It is not
shrinking. And without the basic kind of needs of that, it
makes it very difficult.
And, you know, I mention that--you know, I have tried to be
helpful with community projects, but that is just Band-Aid
work. I mean, I really would love to maybe have a deeper
conversation on these colonias and how we could work together
to maybe help with some infrastructural needs on there.
Secretary Fudge. Mr. Gonzales, that is a great topic for us
to have a discussion about because we know that it has been a
problem. The President's 2023 budget in its CDBG allocation
sets aside for the State of Texas 10 percent of those CDBG
dollars to deal specifically with colonias. And so I would be
happy to have a conversation with you or our teams talk about
how those resources are used and how they have been used in the
past.
Mr. Gonzales. I appreciate it.
And then the last thing I want to mention is, in previous
years, the HUD Administrator had a program known as the Border
Community Capital Initiative. And I would just ask maybe take a
look at that and see if that is something worth spending, you
know, energy and resources towards. I just look at it as, you
know, the country is very different, but the communities along
the border, I mean, they are really in need of some basic,
basic infrastructure needs.
So thank you for taking my questions, Madam Secretary. I
look forward to working with you.
And I yield back.
Secretary Fudge. Thank you.
Mr. Quigley. Mrs. Torres.
Mrs. Torres. Thank you, Chairman Quigley.
And, Secretary Fudge, it is so nice to see you. Thank you
for your commitment to affordable housing.
As you already know, climate change has brought us many
challenges. The drought throughout the western States is
devastating so many communities. And at times it almost feels
like we are losing more housing units to fires than we are able
to build.
In my home State of California, a State of nearly 30
million people, 37 million are living in severe drought areas.
An estimated 120,000 affordable homes need to be built each
year through 2030 to keep up with our housing needs,
particularly for extremely low-income residents. And as a
former mayor, I know too well that housing permits will not be
approved or cannot be approved in these severe drought areas.
So my questions to you are: What steps has HUD taken to
coordinate expanding water access with affordable housing
needs? And has HUD been working with other agencies on issues
surrounding affordable housing and droughts or water shortages?
Secretary Fudge. We work with other agencies all the time.
It is one thing that is good about this administration,
Representative Torres, is that we don't work in silos. We know
that it is a crisis, but we do work specifically with
Department of Transportation. We work with EPA and then HUD.
And so I work a lot with EPA on some of these issues.
We know that the President's budget includes more than a
billion dollars in programs that support energy, climate, and
resilience programs, which includes about $250 million for
multifamily Green and Resilient Retrofit Program. So we are on
the same page with you.
We know that it is a problem, especially out West, whether
it be wildfires, whether it be drought. We know that it is a
huge problem in your part of the country. So, yes, we are
looking at it.
And if you have got some ideas, we would be happy to talk
to your team too, because I am sure you are closer to it on a
daily basis than we are.
Mrs. Torres. Yes. Thank you. I know that you are committed,
and I often, you know, see you working directly with other--
with our agencies and other secretaries.
I hope that you prioritize this issue of water availability
as a challenge to all of the things that you already have on
your plate.
In fiscal year 2022, enacted bill provided $30 million for
new Thriving Communities Initiative. Of this, I secured $5
million for HUD to work directly with DOT on this initiative
and provide technical assistance to communities to strengthen
housing development as part of their transportation solutions.
So what steps are you taking with Secretary Buttigieg to
establish this initiative? And can you provide a timeline for
when HUD will enter into any necessary interagency agreements
on the Thriving Communities Initiative?
Secretary Fudge. We don't have a timeline right now, but
what I will do is contact Secretary Buttigieg. They do have the
bulk of the resources, as you said. We got our $5 million. But
let's put together something to get to you. Because he and I
are going to be talking anyway, so let me see if we can put a
little fire under getting that moving more quickly.
Mrs. Torres. Thank you so much for being with us today.
And I yield back.
Secretary Fudge. Thank you.
Mr. Quigley. Ms. Wexton.
Ms. Wexton. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And thank you, Secretary, for joining us today. It is good
to have you back before us.
First of all, I would like to thank you and the Department
for rescinding the deceptively named Preserving Community and
Neighborhood Choice Rule and restoring the Affirmatively
Furthering Fair Housing rule we talked about last year. That
has made a huge difference in the lives of so many people. And
I just want to thank you for, you know, helping the
marginalized communities and expanding access to opportunity,
addressing inequity and discrimination in housing and community
development. I just want to say thanks.
Secretary Fudge. Our pleasure. Thank you.
Ms. Wexton. I want to pick up a little bit where Mr. Trone
left off, talk about homelessness and mental health, because
there is so much intersectionality between those two phenomena.
I recently met with the head of a homeless shelter in
Winchester, Virginia, which is in my district. He told me a
story about one of the clients there, a 19-year-old young man
who suffered from significant mental illness. He had been in
foster care since he was 11. He was abused and neglected
throughout his childhood, and he had a severe mental health
crisis at the shelter where he was refusing to take his
medications, he was threatening staffers, and things like that.
So he was taken to the hospital. They did not end up--they did
not end up admitting him. I don't know whether he didn't meet
the criteria for TDO or if it also was because there just
weren't any beds available. And that story is something that we
see throughout America right now.
So there were no beds available, so a relative picked him
up and took him to stay with his grandmother, who had looked
out for him all his life. And 4 days later, he killed her over
a minor disagreement. And he is now in--you know, this young
man is now in jail awaiting trial for his grandmother's murder.
And this sad story is not an isolated incident that
happened in my district in Virginia. I mean, we see it happen
all around the country.
And homelessness has been shown to cause both physical and
mental problems, as well as substance abuse, and people are
trapped in this endless cycle that has only been made worse by
the pandemic. We have far from enough psych beds and mental
health workers to care for all these people, and the burden is
increasingly falling on unequipped people at--working at
homeless shelters, jails, and prisons to do whatever they can,
often with tragic consequences, as we saw in that case.
And I am glad to hear that you are working with HHS and
SAMHSA on these issues, but how can HUD's various technical
assistance programs help its partners on the ground to address
this crisis, and is there a role that HUD can play in working
with State and local governments as well?
Secretary Fudge. I mean, certainly we work with State and
local governments on a lot of things. But right now,
Representative, what we really do in that regard, besides
working on the housing aspect of it, is we do try to provide
technical assistance to let different governments know where
they should go to get help, because we do work all together.
But we know that a lot of this comes too as a result of
homelessness. So, obviously, our homelessness programs are
going to be helpful. We know that our youth-focused programs
foster youth, those aging out of foster care are going to be
useful. We know that when we start to talk about, as we did
earlier, about what we do with childcare and how we deal with
victims of domestic violence and sexual abuse and what happens
to their children, I think all of those things come together to
give us some idea. But we don't specifically directly focus on
mental health, other than housing those people who are in need.
Ms. Wexton. Right. But one of the things--and that is one
of the problems I see what is happening right now, because
everything seems to be siloed. You know, you have mental health
treatment, you have SAMHSA, you have substance abuse treatment,
and then you have homelessness, and they are all kind of siloed
right now. And I think it might be an area that is kind of ripe
for some pilot programs or something like that to really
determine, you know, the ways that we can help at a deeper
level. Because I think that this phenomenon is happening all
over America, and it is getting worse. So that is just my
thought on that. I hope that you will take that to heart.
Secretary Fudge. Oh, I will.
Ms. Wexton. About the community projects, I want to thank
the HUD employees who have worked incredibly hard over the last
2 years and have taken on the additional task of administering
these community projects that the House and Senate enacted into
law with the recent omnibus bill.
I know you are working hard and you are working as quickly
as possible, but I want--some of the recipients in my district
are trying to make critical budget decisions in the coming
weeks, and they are waiting on HUD to give them guidance on the
projects first. So do you have some indication of how things
are going with those community projects and when we can expect
an answer for our localities during the process of budgeting
right now?
Secretary Fudge. Well, we know that Congress designated
over a thousand projects with the $1.5 billion that has been
funded through our economic development initiatives. We don't
select the grantees and we don't determine the funding amount
for the project. But let me see what we can do to get you an
answer to your question and get that back to you.
Ms. Wexton. Wonderful. Thank you so much. I would love to
be able to report that to my localities.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And, with that, I will yield back.
Mr. Price [presiding]. Thank you.
And thanks to Mr. Quigley for taking the gavel here for a
few minutes.
And I think we are ready for the second round, unless there
is some member who hasn't been recognized.
We are ready for the second round. Okay.
Let's begin with manufactured housing. That has been
mentioned today several times, but I want to focus as directly
on it as we can.
Manufactured housing is an essential part of our Nation's
affordable housing stock and I think the solution. More than 3
million people in America live in manufactured homes, with over
50 percent of all manufactured homes located in the South and
in rural areas across the country. Median annual household
income of manufactured home residents who own their homes is
about $35,000. That is roughly half the median annual income of
site build homeowners. Over one-quarter of manufacturer
homeowners earn less than $20,000 annually. Those are
statistics, I am sure, Madam Secretary, that are familiar to
you.
Many of these are older people, live on fixed incomes. I
visited a number of these allotments in my district. It is
striking how long people have lived there, how attached they
are to those communities, how much they care about those
communities. It is also striking what kind of pressures they
are under, because in many cases, there is a challenge to
preserve and protect manufactured housing. These tracts of land
are closed in. They, of course, have increased in value, and
that sometimes has meant that the rents have increased.
The fees for community services have increased. And there
has been sometimes a purchase of these properties by investment
firms, with questions about what then happens to the
manufactured housing? Does it become unaffordable or does it
actually go away and displaced by other uses?
So there are a lot of questions surrounding manufactured
housing in this country, and HUD is--our Federal programs are,
I think, imperfectly configured to deal with this, although I
know you have thought about it. And so that is what I want to
ask you to elaborate on today.
How are communities using HUD programs to expand the
preservation and affordability of manufactured housing? What
barriers do they face in doing so? Are there incentives we
should consider that would help level the playing field for
these communities, to make sure that private investment firms--
to influence the way they handle this and make sure people
aren't displaced, to incentivize keeping affordable housing
uses in place? And how could we work with State and local
partners to address this issue, the preservation and the
affordability of manufactured housing?
Secretary Fudge. Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman. Let me
first give you some good news, I think, that--you know, HUD is
now working closely with the Federal Housing Finance Agency on
the interagency manufactured housing task force, which is
designed to figure out how we can expand access to affordable
financing from manufactured housing purchases, including
manufactured homes that are titled as personal property.
Part of the problem that we have had over the years is how
these homes were titled. So now we believe that they should be
titled just as homes are basically titled. The problem was
because most of the time the land was not owned by the person
with the actual manufactured home and/or trailer. So we are
looking at how we can make that process more streamlined and
make it more beneficial to the homeowner.
Secondly, what we are looking at is the fact that
manufactured housing is more affordable. It can be installed
much, much faster. It is more efficient than it was in the
past. So it becomes a place where people desire to live, as you
say, especially elderly people or people--because they downsize
to a place that is comfortable. It is generally all one level.
They are in communities that are similar with similar people.
But let me just give you also a good story. I was in
Portland, Oregon, with Representative Schrader about 2 or 3
weeks ago, where the city of Portland actually loaned CDBG
dollars to a nonprofit so that they could purchase a
manufactured home neighborhood basically, and they used those
resources instead of giving--letting a for-profit buyer buy it,
the nonprofit purchased it. They had enough resources of their
own, and with some private investment as well, to rehabilitate
those units. So people stayed in their homes. Nobody got
evicted, and they had received----
Mr. Price. And that was using CDBG dollars? That was using
CDBG dollars?
Secretary Fudge. Absolutely. CDBG.
Mr. Price. I see.
Secretary Fudge. The other thing that can used is the 108
Loan Program as well. But this was CDBG dollars that the city
of Portland gave to a nonprofit--or loaned to a nonprofit to
purchase the land and to do the rehabilitation. And it is
beautiful.
And it is an alternative that I think we need to look more
into, because it may be where we go for more low income and
moderate and affordable income housing because it can be done
quickly and at a good price point.
Mr. Price. Thank you. That is very helpful.
The ranking member and I, I think, agree with you that this
is an area that is due for scrutiny and it is under a lot of
pressure right now. And we need to figure out in this bill what
initial steps we can take to improve our ability to work with
manufactured housing communities. Long way from the old trailer
park stereotypical----
Secretary Fudge. Long way.
Mr. Price. Long way from that for sure.
Mr. Diaz-Balart.
Mr. Diaz-Balart. Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman.
Madam Secretary, let me talk about--hold on. I am coughing,
so I have got a lozenge. Give me a second. Sorry about that.
I want to talk to you about the HOTMA, which is the Housing
Opportunity Through Modernization Act. Almost 6 years ago,
Congress passed the Housing Opportunity Through Modernization
Act by unanimous vote. This bill streamlined HUD's tenant
income certification and unit inspection process, and also
makes other improvements--administrative improvements. But the
Department has yet to issue a rule implementing the law.
And so to be helpful, can you give us a status on the
implementation of this law and potential timeline for a final
rulemaking?
Secretary Fudge. Yes. Thank you, Mr. Ranking Member. We
have issued actually two rounds of proposed regulations. We did
that in 2020. And we expect to issue final the regulations
later this year or, at the very latest, early 2023.
Mr. Diaz-Balart. That is great to hear, Madam Secretary. I
think it is helpful.
Once it is finally implemented, do you think you will be
able to measure dollars saved or additional families served
because of the legislation?
Secretary Fudge. You know, I really am having a little
trouble hearing. If you could just repeat for me, please?
Mr. Diaz-Balart. Yes. I am sorry. Let me get closer.
Secretary Fudge. It might be on our end.
Mr. Diaz-Balart. All right. Once it is implemented, do you
foresee being able to measure savings and actual dollars or
additional families served?
Secretary Fudge. I mean, I think that just like every other
program, we do assess them. So I am sure that we can probably
come with some kind of an assessment, because we do that for
every program. That is just a part of our accountability
measures throughout our programs. So, yes, I would say we----
Mr. Diaz-Balart. And I appreciate that you are moving
forward on actually the rulemaking part.
Let me talk about something that is pretty sensitive. I am
hearing a lot about growing concern from public housing
authorities about, you know, during the whole COVID thing, some
tenants opted not to pay rent during the eviction moratorium.
And so my understanding now is that some PHAs now have not been
able to collect legitimate tenant contributions and it is
creating a dire financial situation for some PHAs.
I don't know if you have heard about this, but if so, what
actions are you taking or looking at taking to help PHAs
address the challenge of collecting these due rents, and,
obviously, you know, while preventing hardship to families that
have played by the rules and paid their fair share?
Secretary Fudge. I am a bit familiar with it, Mr. Ranking
Member. And what we are doing from HUD's point of view, because
actually we are working with Treasury, and Treasury is the
actual agency that handles the Emergency Rental Assistance. So
we are working with Treasury, have brought it to their
attention. And they are now in the process of connecting with
State and local agencies, and grantees, to ask them to work
with our PHAs, as well as to be sure that the emergency rental
dollars do get into the PHAs for those who are in a position
where they have not received significant sums of money.
I have not heard that it is a major problem. I have heard
that it has happened in some PHAs, but we are working with
Treasury to make sure that we can get some direct access to
them.
Mr. Diaz-Balart. And I am glad to hear that you are working
with Treasury, because, obviously----
Secretary Fudge. Yes.
Mr. Diaz-Balart [continuing]. Treasury has a different role
than you do.
Secretary Fudge. Yes.
Mr. Diaz-Balart. And you feel confident that that
interaction with Treasury will allow you to have the input
necessary to make sure that this is done correctly, right?
Secretary Fudge. Oh, absolutely. I mean, because we stay in
constant contact with PHAs. So if the situation worsens,
certainly we will know. But I am confident that we can take
care of this problem.
Mr. Diaz-Balart. All right. And, obviously, as I hear
things, we will let you know as well.
Secretary Fudge. Thank you.
Mr. Diaz-Balart. Right. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Price. Mr. Espaillat.
Mr. Espaillat. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Secretary, thank you so much. I must admit, I am a little
bit jealous because you have taken Elizabeth de Leon from us,
and she will be your assistant secretary. And I hope I can be
with you tomorrow as she gets sworn in.
Secretary Fudge. I hope so.
Mr. Espaillat. Let me just warn you, she is a star. She is
a shooting star, and I am sure she will be great for you.
Madam Secretary, broadband access continues to be a major,
major issue for the districts like the one that I represent
that has Harlem, East Harlem, Washington Heights, Hamilton
Heights, Northern Manhattan, and Northwest Bronx. And I know
that there was moneys in the infrastructure bill for the
implementation of broadband in cities and rural areas. And so I
want to know what HUD is doing to roll that out and to
implement it. I think it is important that we have a roadmap
towards that. That is the first question.
The second question is a housing question, a public
housing--I represent a district with the highest concentration
of public housing, particularly in Harlem and East Harlem,
NYCHA housing. And we asked for $36.5 billion in the Build Back
Better program, but we know where that is at right now. And you
have included an $8.8 billion ask for public housing.
What is the plan to bring capital help to NYCHA that needs
new elevators, new boilers, new roofs, new pointing, new
windows? I mean, really the condition of the housing stack is
horrible and they need immediate help. And so what is the plan
to bring about assistance to those families that are now really
living in inhuman conditions?
But thank you, Madam Secretary, for all the work, the great
work so far you have been doing.
Secretary Fudge. If I may, Mr. Espaillat, let me start at
the second question. The President's 2023 budget is requesting
almost an additional billion dollar increase in the Public
Housing Fund. Certainly, we, early on, had been talking about
resources in excess of some $40 billion to $50 billion.
Mr. Espaillat. Right.
Secretary Fudge. So that doesn't exist today, unless
Congress decides in its wisdom to do something different. So we
are kind of at your mercy at this point in terms of what kind
of resources Congress is willing to allocate. I am with you. We
need to have much more. But the President, knowing that this
was a major problem, did ask for an increase of a billion
dollars, and we are hopeful that that will be something that
this subcommittee will be supportive of.
As it relates to broadband, of course, through the
infrastructure bill, you know, we have the Connect Home USA
program, but more importantly for your residents, I would
suggest that if they have not already heard from us, they will.
But we are making sure that they have information about a
program through the FCC, which is the Affordability
Connectivity Program. And what it does is it makes getting that
broadband more affordable. And we are also asking all of our
public housing authorities to extend broadband throughout the
public housing facilities. So those are two things.
And the third thing that I think is most important for
these communities is that, if they get resources from the
Affordability Connectivity Program, it does not count against
their income calculations for programs. So they can get it and
still be in compliance with their income requirements.
Mr. Espaillat. Well, thank you. I hope to work with you. As
you know, connectivities--we have organizations like Silicon
Harlem and the Bronx Foundation that are working on that on the
ground, and that is a--through the pandemic, we saw our
inability to get young people connected to distance learning.
It was just an incredible crisis. You would think that in New
York City and in our country, that would be readily available.
That wasn't the case. In fact, I think the city of New York had
to give out 300,000 laptops to students because they didn't
even have that.
And so I hope that I can work with you and HUD and the FCC
in making sure that we connect district. And with regards to
the public housing, I hope we get that full billion dollars,
Madam Secretary.
I am gonna be extremely, extremely selfish, and I want it
all to myself, Mr. Price.
Thank you. I yield back.
Secretary Fudge. Thank you, Mr. Espaillat.
Mr. Price. All right. Thank you. Thank you.
Mr. Rutherford.
Mr. Rutherford. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Madam Secretary, I want to go back to the conversation very
briefly and just make a point about crime within Federal
housing units. I have to say as a former sheriff, a lot of
those tight guidelines that you see now in HUD really developed
as a result of the incredible amount of violence and property
destruction that we saw in the late 1980s and early nineties.
Then in 2016, some of those guidelines were loosened, and I
think rightly so. You know, they began to look more at, not
just the fact that there was a criminal history, but, number
one, that it was a conviction; number two, that it was a
violent crime, not a property crime; and number three was the
proximity to the time. You know, if it was 20 years ago or 15
years ago, then they took that into account.
And I just want to make sure that we don't go back to the
eighties and nineties, because I saw that violence and that
destruction and would never want to go back there. Now----
Secretary Fudge. Can I just----
Mr. Rutherford. Sure. Go ahead.
Secretary Fudge. Let me just say, Mr. Rutherford, I am a
former prosecutor, and we are looking very, very closely at
what those requirements would be, how we do assessments.
Certainly, we do not want people who have committed violent
crimes, sexual crimes, et cetera. So I would be happy to--since
I know that this is your background, let's talk about it at
some point. I would love to get the benefit of your thinking on
it.
Mr. Rutherford. Thank you, Madam Secretary. I would love to
talk about that.
Also, in the colloquy that you were having earlier with
Chairman Price, you mentioned CDBG grants and some of the great
successes. You know, I think one of the amazing things about
CDBG grants is they give us that flexibility to actually use it
to draw in private investment. In fact, you were talking about
that with Chairman Price.
I have seen that work in my city. But I have to ask, and I
hope maybe it is an oversight, but CDBG grants in this budget
are cut 22 percent. And I think it is one of the best tools
that HUD has. And so I would ask that somebody would look at
the 22 percent cut and maybe take--if we just took half of the
project-based rental assistance increase and half of the new
implemental vouchers increase, if we just took half of each of
those increases, we could get back to level funding with CDBG.
I am a big proponent of CDBG. And I, Madam Secretary, I
would just ask you look at that again, because I think it also
goes to the issue that my good friend, David Trone, brought up
earlier, and that is on the--it gives you the flexibility when
you are trying to work with people who are coming out of jail,
out of the criminal justice system, or coming out of the mental
health institutions, it gives us much more flexibility to set
up housing for those folks. And I believe the housing, first,
is a great idea. But as you said, it is not housing only. And
so I would just ask you to relook at this 22 percent cut to
CDBG.
Secretary Fudge. You know, Mr. Rutherford, I agree with you
100 percent. CDBG--I am a former mayor. CDBG is the thing that
all mayors want. It is the thing that we talk about, the thing
that we fight for. But I would ask you to--I am going to look
at it, but I think that maybe you are looking at two different
things.
In the President's 2023 budget, CDBG is up a bit. I think
you are counting some of the earmarks, which is making the
numbers look different, but I will take a look myself and will
get back to you on it.
Mr. Rutherford. I would appreciate that.
Secretary Fudge. Because I agree. CDBG is the most
flexible,--between CDBG and HOME, the most flexible money
youare going to get from us.
Mr. Rutherford. Absolutely.
Secretary Fudge. Okay. Perfect. I will take a look.
Mr. Rutherford. Thank you very much.
And, Mr. Chairman, I think my time is just about out, so I
yield back.
Mr. Price. Thank you.
Mr. Aguilar.
Mr. Aguilar. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Good to see you, Madam Secretary. I apologize for being
tardy. I did not want to miss this but had a few other things
on the bill.
Madam Secretary, you and I have talked about this in the
past. I am a huge supporter of increasing the FHA loan limit as
a pathway for homeownership for so many people in our
communities. And I appreciate the efforts that the Department
has taken so far in areas like mine, neighboring Los Angeles
and Orange County, where you have an FHA loan limit of
$970,000, ours being $562,000, just the disparity there. And
your staff has been amazing. And I want to continue to work
with this. We have had report language to try to help, and I
know this is an authorizing issue as well. So I appreciate your
leadership and look forward to working with you on this.
But I also wanted to mention, talking about homeownership
and the American Dream, the President's budget request
additionally referenced the Home Equity Accelerator Loan pilot
program under FHA to increase access to homeownership.
Can you elaborate on how FHA loans are important for
minority and first-time home buyers, and how the HEAL pilot
program will lower barriers to homeownership?
Secretary Fudge. Always nice to see you, my friend, as
well.
Let me just say to you that first-time borrowers really
make up about 85 percent of FHA insured mortgages, and the
majority of them are Black and Brown. So we are looking at
Black and Hispanic borrowers at twice the rate of any private
market, of anybody in the private market. So we are the place
where communities of color come to get their--for our insured
mortgages. And that is what lenders do. Lenders come to FHA.
They know that that is what we do and we do well.
So that is what I think makes the difference between us and
the private market. But I would also say that we work to be
sure that persons who are going to ultimately get backed by FHA
have a better opportunity to purchase. So we are doing things
like addressing student loan debt. We are doing things like
helping with down payment assistance. We are looking at
lengthening some of the loan products we have.
So we are making an effort. We are looking at bias and
appraisals of properties. So we truly are making an effort,
Representative Aguilar, to be sure that we can address the
populations that you are talking about.
Mr. Aguilar. Thank you. I appreciate your commitment to
that.
And you have also talked consistently about the need to
increase access for affordable housing, and I am pleased that
in addition to this priority, the President's budget request
referenced the importance of funding mobility related
supportive services.
How can Congress continue to support the administration's
goals to fund mobility related supportive services for low-
income individuals?
Secretary Fudge. Well, we know that many people--we have a
lot of elderly people within our portfolio. We certainly have a
lot of persons who live in low-income housing who have mobility
issues. So I am just hopeful that when you look at the
President's budget, that it is something that you would support
and even speak to, because I think many people do not
understand why it is important. So I am glad that you raised
it.
Mr. Aguilar. I introduced a bill to address some of these
same goals to create a funding stream for affordable housing
properties that offer supportive services for their residents,
and I look forward to working with the administration and
hopefully hosting you in the future to talk about some of these
things.
Secretary Fudge. I am on my way. I am on my way.
Mr. Aguilar. On your next trip. I love it. I love it.
And I think I kind of caught you talking about priorities
with Mr. Rutherford as well. And I wanted to ask about the
President's budget request referencing housing first approach
and--which has been used by both Republican and Democratic
administrations, I should remind folks, to address
homelessness.
Can you share how implementing a housing first approach as
mentioned in the President's budget has effectively combatted
homelessness and what more we can do to support the
administration's efforts?
Secretary Fudge. You know, it is interesting, because I so
appreciate Mr. Rutherford's understanding of how that process
works. You know, when we say housing first, what he was saying
is that I said it is housing first, it is not housing only.
What we are trying to do is put people in a stable position so
that we can bring in the services that they need. Because it is
difficult to provide counseling or rehabilitation services to
somebody that is not stable, that doesn't have a home.
So what we try to do is make sure that we can first get
people housed so that we can then address the ongoing and
underlying problems. But there are other ways to do it as well.
I mean, I was talking with Representative Trone about how we
address housing for those who are in drug rehabilitation. So, I
mean, there are many things we can do. But housing first is, I
think, one of the most important things we can look at.
Because, first off, data shows that it has been proven to be
effective.
We have geared our vouchers, a lot of the vouchers,
especially the homelessness vouchers, to a housing first
approach. So I think that once people understand that what we
are talking about is just getting people in a position where we
can be helpful, people look at housing first a different way.
Mr. Aguilar. Thank you so much, Madam Secretary. Good to
see you again.
Secretary Fudge. Thank you. Good to see you.
Mr. Aguilar. Thanks, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
Mr. Price. Thank you.
Mrs. Hinson.
Mrs. Hinson. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Madam Secretary, I represent the Meskwaki Tribe in Iowa,
also known as the Sac & Fox Tribe of Mississippi in Iowa. Their
settlement is in Tama County. And I just wanted to flag some
things for you today in this hearing.
The Meskwaki Nation did suffer serious damage during the
August 2020 derecho. We had like 140-mile hour winds, the
costliest thunderstorm coming through our district ever in
history. I have been having great difficulty in working with
HUD's Office of Native American Programs in getting some
assistance for severe derecho losses.
So happy to provide you with the timeline from the Tribe,
their back and forth with HUD specifically. And I am sure you
share those concerns, but I would just ask, Madam Secretary, if
you will commit to working with me to help the people of the
Sac & Fox Tribe work through this in Iowa?
Secretary Fudge. Oh, absolutely. You have my commitment to
do it. I know that we are looking now at a request that the
Tribe submitted to give some more flexibility in the Indian
Community Development Block Grants to help them with some of
the buildings. So our teams can talk whenever you would like.
We want to make sure that we can be helpful.
Mrs. Hinson. Great. Yeah. And I certainly appreciate your
willingness to work with our office on this. You know, it is
one of those cases where you talk about bureaucracy really
getting in the way of moving forward, and this is a case where
the Tribe really has been further harmed by that. So I am
hopeful that we can get the Meskwaki people the resources they
need to help rebuild on their settlement. And I know that
disaster relief is complicated, but we need to be doing
everything we can to simplify that process.
So would you be willing to consider reviewing some of the
retroactive costs maybe for disaster cleanup and rebuilding
relating to expenses that they incurred after the derecho came
through but as they were working through the application period
for assistance?
Secretary Fudge. We are willing to review whatever they are
willing to send us. But this is another reason why we need
permanent authorization for CDBG-DR because then they know up
front what they can expect. We know up front what we can
provide without having to go back and delay the process,
because we have to come up with a new set of rules every time
there is a disaster. So I am certainly hopeful that you----
Mrs. Hinson. And that is not efficient for anyone.
Secretary Fudge. Right. So I am hopeful that you can
support our permanent authorization, because I think it will
solve some of the problems that you are experiencing with
bureaucracy.
Mrs. Hinson. Well, I am looking forward to following up,
and I will make sure that our office follows up with your staff
as well to continue to advance that so we can get that resolved
for them because they have been waiting--it will be 2 years in
August. And so that is certainly a long time for them.
Real quick, HUD also plays a role, as we have been talking
about, disaster relief, billions of dollars in damage, they can
leave homes in severe disrepair. And the budget request calls
for $5 million for climate-related research to help HUD
properties prepare for disaster.
So what have you already discovered is most helpful in
assisting communities in terms of preparedness efforts there?
Secretary Fudge. Well, I don't know that I can give you
that answer right now, but I will look and see. We collect
data, no question about it. I wasn't prepared for that, but I
will make sure I get you an answer very, very quickly.
Mrs. Hinson. That is okay. Well, and I--I was just--
obviously, I mentioned the Tribe. They were impacted by that
natural disaster, but we had just so much damage through our
district. And so just would flag and ask for your continued
support to engage with our rural communities in this effort.
Another area where we are really focused is on flooding
mitigation. How are you as an organization working to help our
communities become more resilient to disasters like flooding?
Secretary Fudge. Well, it is through a number of things.
First off, with the resources that are in the infrastructure
bill, we are going to be talking about how--and giving
technical assistance on how we start to look at resiliency.
Because what we don't want to do is continue to spend disaster
resources and then turn around and not tell them this is going
to happen again if you don't do ABC or XYZ.
So we are making sure that we coordinate with EPA, we
coordinate with local governments to be sure that we can build
back better, as it were, so that we don't go through the same
situation again. But we are also talking about how we make our
homes more energy efficient, more resilient. We are looking at
the forces around them, the environment around it. So we are
doing an awful lot of things. And if your team wants to reach
out to us, we can give them all of the things that we are
doing.
Mrs. Hinson. Okay. Well, I appreciate that, and look
forward to continuing to work with you on the issue affecting
the Meskwaki Tribe and disaster preparedness in our community.
So thank you, Madam Secretary. Appreciate you being here today.
Secretary Fudge. My pleasure.
Mrs. Hinson. Thank you.
Mr. Price. Madam Secretary, I would like to affirm a couple
of things you have just said.
First of all, the case you make for the authorization--the
permanent authorization or CDBG-DR, we do need that. And that
will serve us well. And in another disaster-prone State, I can
affirm that.
Also, very good idea to visit Mr. Aguilar's district. I
just did that myself, and it is a great area. And I am glad you
are going to be able to do that.
I want to propose an abbreviated third round, Mr.
Rutherford, now sitting in for the ranking member. I do have an
important question to raise, and he may as well. But if we
could have that abbreviated third round, then we will let you
go. But I would like to take a few more minutes.
Secretary Fudge. Okay.
Mr. Price. All right. My question has to do with the Rental
Assistance Demonstration program, RAD, as we call it. It is a
tool, as you know, to preserve and improve public housing
properties and to address the significant nationwide backlog of
deferred maintenance. This is a tool that has been used very
successfully by major housing authorities in North Carolina.
We do have to insist, of course, that it be done right,
that it not have displacement, other negative effects. But I
think the cities of Durham, Charlotte, others, have shown that
it can work in a positive way.
The President's budget reflects this view. It requests an
expansion of the RAD for the second year in a row and proposes
to eliminate the public housing unit cap and the sunset date
that now applies.
So I wonder, Madam Secretary, if you could just fill us in
how many units are currently in the pipeline, how long it will
be before it reaches the current unit cap, what challenges does
the current sunset date present, the public housing agencies
looking to participate in the program? In other words, what is
the rationale for your request in this regard, and what more
can Congress do to support the administration's goals within
the Rental Assistance Demonstration program?
Secretary Fudge. Well, I don't know that I have the
specifics as to the numbers in front of me. I don't have that,
Mr. Chairman. But what I can say to you is three things.
One, the Federal Government cannot alone build our way out
of this housing crisis. We need support from the private
sector. And what the RAD projects do is allow us to leverage
our own resources to make sure that we can provide better and
more housing to people who need it.
Because what we find is that when we do RAD projects, the
people who live in those projects become--they feel better
about the fact that they are upgraded. They are better equipped
to address issues like climate change or address issues like
resiliency, energy efficiency. And so people tend to like them
once they are in them, because what they realize is that HUD
still has a great deal of control over what happens. They think
they are private, but they are really still publicly run.
So we are supportive of it, and I know in the President's
budget there is about $60 million in addition to the renewals
we had before, and that includes about $10 million just for
elderly housing alone. So we are excited about making sure that
we can continue these RAD projects, but I will have to get you
the actual numbers and the replacement numbers because I don't
have that in front of me.
Mr. Price. Well, I would appreciate that, and we will make
good use of it. Because the specific request regarding the cap
and the question of sunset date, those are very specific
requests and we need to evaluate those. And, of course, as you
just indicated, a RAD applies not just to a public housing
property, it also applies to 202 and 811 properties, and this
subcommittee is taking the lead in making those applications.
And so we do want to work with you on it.
We appreciate your defense of this effort, and we know you
share our goals as to how to make it work right and to make
sure that it--that we get more bang for the buck out of public
housing and that we--that not only don't displace people, but
actually serve more people and serve them well. So thank you
for that.
Secretary Fudge. Thank you.
Mr. Price. Mr. Rutherford.
Mr. Rutherford. Mr. Chairman, I will just defer to my
colleague, Mr. Aguilar, and then I will just close for the
ranking member.
Mr. Aguilar. I am fine, Mr. Rutherford.
Mr. Rutherford. Then let me say, Madam Secretary, I have
really enjoyed your openness and your willingness to engage
individually with Members of Congress. I guess it goes back to
your former life, right.
But, honestly, thank you very much for that. And I really
look forward to working with you on these issues that help our
homeless, what we can do for that population, because I know
the impact that it has on quality of life, not just for them,
but for an entire community. So thank you very much.
And, with that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Mr. Price. Thank you, Mr. Rutherford.
And that does conclude our hearing this--I guess we are
still this morning by a few minutes.
But, Secretary, thank you for participating with us today.
It was a good hearing and a good exchange with a number of
members from all over the place in terms of the issues and
policies that we are concerned about. So we look forward to
continuing to work with you as we now move ahead with the 2023
appropriations bill.
The committee staff will be in contact with your budget
office regarding questions for the record. Members will no
doubt have some of those. We have a number to submit, in fact,
and I would imagine that will be pretty widespread.
In any case, if you will work with OMB to return the
information for the record within 30 days from Friday, we will
be able to publish the transcript of today's hearing. That will
help us make informed decisions for fiscal 2023.
So thank you again. Thanks to all the members for another
good hearing, all within 24 hours. You probably know we heard
from Secretary Buttigieg yesterday afternoon. So we have had a
lot going, but I think a very productive period here hearing
from our two distinguished secretaries and giving us a kind of
focus on the work ahead.
Secretary Fudge. Thank you.
Mr. Price. So thank you very much. And, with that, the--any
parting words, Madam Secretary? I do want to give you a chance
to do that.
Secretary Fudge. I just want to say thank you. I mean, I
really do honestly want to work with the members of this
committee. I think that better than anybody in Congress, you
all get it. And so I am willing to do whatever it takes to be
responsive, and look forward to working with you all. So thank
you so much.
Mr. Price. Thank you. Well, I, once again, agree with you
about the quality of this subcommittee. I absolutely agree. And
we will hope to prove that in the weeks ahead.
With that, the hearing is adjourned.
[Answers to submitted questions follow:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Wednesday, May 25, 2022.
MEMBERS' DAY
Mr. Price. This hearing of the Subcommittee on
Transportation and HUD will come to order. This hearing is
fully virtual, so I will address very quickly a few
housekeeping matters.
The chair or staff designated by the chair might mute
participants' microphones when they are not under recognition
for the purpose of eliminating background noise. Members are
responsible for muting and unmuting themselves. If you notice
when you are recognized that you have not unmuted yourself, we
will ask the staff to send you a request to unmute yourself.
Please then accept that request.
I remind all members and all witnesses that the 5-minute
clock still applies. If there is a technology issue, we will
move along and come back to you so you cannot lose your time.
You will notice a clock on your screen that will show how much
time is remaining. At 1 minute remaining, the clock turns
yellow. At 30 seconds, I will remind the member by tapping the
gavel that their time is almost expired. Then the clock turns
red when the time is up.
In terms of the speaking order, we will begin with the
chair and ranking member, and then any other members in order
of arrival.
Finally, House rules require me to remind you we set up an
email address which members can send anything they wish to
submit in writing at any of our hearings or markups. That email
address is available to your staff.
The subcommittee will now come to order. Transportation,
Housing and Urban Development Subcommittee funds programs that
affect every district in the country, from building and
repairing our Nation's affordable housing to improving our
airports, roads, and bridges. The programs in our bill improve
safety and provides stable housing for our most vulnerable, and
create jobs that further America's economy. We are the
infrastructure committee, both transportation and housing
infrastructure, and we take that very seriously.
Today, we will hear testimony from Members on programs in
the bill. We will use this information to guide the
subcommittee as we assemble our fiscal 2023 bill. I would like
to recognize our ranking member, Mario Diaz-Balart, my friend,
for any comments he may have before we begin.
Mr. Diaz-Balart. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Actually, I just want to thank you for having this. You know,
the Appropriations Committee is always constantly trying to get
feedback from the Members to make sure we have a better
product. I know that the chairman is a little bit under the
weather and he is still doing this, so, again, Mr. Chairman,
thank you for your willingness to always be open to all of the
Members of Congress and also your willingness to always work
with us on the committee. And with that I welcome our first
witness, and I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Price. All right, thank you very much. And we will turn
to that first witness, who is Elaine Luria of Virginia. Mrs.
Luria, welcome to the subcommittee. You are recognized for 5
minutes. And we will, of course, put your full statement in the
hearing record.
----------
Wednesday, May 25, 2022.
THE HONORABLE ELAINE G. LURIA, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE
COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA
Mrs. Luria. Thank you, Chairman Price and Ranking Member
Diaz-Balart, and my colleagues on the subcommittee for this
opportunity. Transportation, infrastructure, and housing are
the backbone of safe communities and a thriving economy, and
Virginia's Second District is the gateway to transport goods
from the Chesapeake Bay and the Port of Virginia to the rest of
the United States. Annually, the port and its related maritime
industries are responsible for 530,000 jobs and 88 billion in
spending across the Commonwealth, and generates 10 percent of
our Gross State Product.
I would like to thank the subcommittee on supporting the
Rebuilding American Infrastructure with Sustainability and
Equity, or RAISED, grants, and the predecessor programs. My
district has received over 29 million in these grants, which
were key in improving the ability to transport people and goods
from the Port of Virginia.
I would also like to highlight several projects that are
important to our constituents. First, Laskin Road, which is
part of the National Highway System that is in Virginia Beach,
federally identified as a road important to the Nation's
economy, defense, and mobility. I requested 2 million to
improve the existing alignment of Laskin Road from Red Robin
Road to Oriole Drive, for a length of approximately 0.6 miles,
as well as minor improvements at Birdneck Road. Improvements to
Laskin Road will widen it to four lanes--from four lanes to a
traditional six-lane divided highway with a medium, as well as
a sidewalk and shared-use path for bicycles and pedestrians.
I am also requesting 3 million for the Nimmo Parkway Phase
VII-B project to improve access to the Sandbridge area and
provide a more resilient hurricane evacuation route for the
residents. In the event of an obstruction that blocks the road
completely, to include flooding, vehicle crashes, fallen trees,
Sandbridge Road is impassable, and the only current detour is
through the high-security military facility of Naval Air
Station Oceana and Dam Neck. The detour can only be opened with
permission from the U.S. Navy. With this funding, we will bring
greater transportation reliability and safety to the residents
and visitors of Virginia Beach.
For many individuals, including coastal Virginia and across
the Nation, sidewalks and bike lanes are crucial commutes and
vital for accessing services.
The Duffy's Lane Transit Center Relocation in Norfolk
requests 500,000 to construct the Hampton Roads Transit Bus
Center on West Ocean View Avenue at a highly visible location
to ensure a safer environment for the nearly 1,000 daily bus
patrons.
In Virginia Beach, I am requesting 2 million for the
Virginia Beach Trail, which would connect different city
centers and zones for further economic development and ease. It
will also connect low- and moderate-income areas to a larger
trail system.
In Williamsburg, which was the first municipality founded
in the Commonwealth in 1632 and became the capital of the
Virginia Colony in 1699, the Williamsburg African American
Heritage Trail will tell a fuller story of its history by
highlighting African American history and a storytelling that
will unite us in a thread and understanding and respect for all
those who came before us.
Essential investments in infrastructure cannot be forgotten
for rural America. This includes projects such as expanding and
modernizing our sewer system on Virginia's Eastern Shore. This
is why I ask for your support for two projects on Virginia's
Eastern Shore: the Exmore Sewage Collection System and the
Wachapreague Sewer Line & Pump Station. The Exmore Sewage
Collection System project will not only serve Exmore but will
impact the entire Northampton County. The $3 million project
will be used to rebuild the sanitary sewer collection system
and expand the system to provide service for affordable
housing.
Moving north into Accomack County is my request for 3.09
million for the Wachapreague Sewer Line & Pump Station. The
average age of Wachapreague township's septic tanks and
drainage fields is over 50 years, exceeding by more than a
decade the expected lifespan of these septic systems. This
situation poses a health risk to privately owned wells and an
environmental risk to the Atlantic Ocean and its barrier
islands that are adjacent to Wachapreague.
I would like to highlight several programs that are
critical not only for Coastal Virginia, but for America. As a
20-year Navy veteran, I appreciate the value of the
subcommittee's funding brings to my top two program requests:
the Department of Transportation's Maritime Security Program
and the Housing and Urban Development's HUD-ASH program.
Again, I would like to extend my thanks to the prior
support of RAISE grants and thank you for giving me the
opportunity to highlight the importance of investing in
infrastructure to our districts, our constituents, and our
nation. And I yield back.
Mr. Price. Well, thank you. I think it is fair to say you
packed a good deal into a 5-minute statement. A number of
requests, some for other subcommittees, most for ours. We will
certainly take this under advisement. We appreciate all the
work you have done to assess the needs of your district and to
relate them to the opportunities in our bill. So, thank you. I
don't have any further questions. We will look at your full
statement printed in the record.
Mr. Diaz-Balart, do you have any questions?
Mr. Diaz-Balart. Mr. Chairman, just I want to thank the
Congressman Luria for bringing up these important issues. Look,
it is important for Members to do this, right? We should never
leave it up to the bureaucrats and the bureaucracy to fight for
the issues that are important in our country, that, frankly,
the Members tend to have a better grasp of it. Right? I thank
her, and I hope that other Members will do the same as our
witness has done today.
Mr. Chairman, she highlighted a number of specific projects
in her district. She also highlighted a couple of general
items. One of them is ports, ports funding. I do want to tell
you, Mr. Chairman, you know, I guess we can pat ourselves on
the back because it was you and I that, for the first time,
actually set aside money for ports, something that we thought
was important. This was a subcommittee priority; it had not
happened before. And so, again, Mr. Chairman, just one of those
areas where we had been saying for many, many years that this,
you know, this tends to be the infrastructure committee, not
that others are not important, but we get our job done. And so
that is just another area that I wanted to highlight from her
testimony this morning.
I want to thank you again for coming forward, for
testifying, for bringing up issues that are important to you as
the representative of the people in your area, and, as the
Chairman said, we take this very seriously. We will be looking
at both requests.
And, again, with that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Mr. Price. Well, thank you very much. You are, of course,
absolutely right about the ports funding and where that
started; and, fortunately, others have picked up on it,
including the bipartisan infrastructure bill. Now, there are
other possibilities, but, still, this year-to-year funding in
the appropriations bill is absolutely critical and will remain
so.
Mrs. Luria, thank you for the testimony. I have no further
questions. And if we have no further comments, we will adjourn
the hearing. Thank you very much.
Thursday, May 26, 2022.
MANUFACTURED HOUSING: SUPPORTING AMERICA'S LARGEST UNSUBSIDIZED
AFFORDABLE HOUSING STOCK
WITNESSES
LANCE GEORGE, DIRECTOR OF RESEARCH AND INFORMATION, HOUSING ASSISTANCE
COUNCIL
MICHAEL LIU, DIRECTOR, MIAMI-DADE COUNTY PUBLIC HOUSING AND COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
GEORGE MCCARTHY, PRESIDENT AND CEO, LINCOLN INSTITUTE OF LAND POLICY
CLEMENTE MOJICA, PRESIDENT AND CEO, NEIGHBORHOOD PARTNERSHIP HOUSING
SERVICES, INC.
MARY O'HARA, EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT, ROC USA
Mr. Price. Hello, Norma? Who else do we have besides John
Rutherford. All right, good. Garcia? Okay, good. We got a good
lineup. All right, we're ready to go.
Ms. Subramanian. Okay. Now that we are all on. Let's begin.
I ask that all members turn on their video feed and remain on
mute. Good afternoon, my name is Samhita and I am the Zoom host
for today's hearing. Prior to today's hearing, all of your
offices received information and instructions to troubleshoot
technical questions and concerns. If you have an issue that
requires technical support, please call the systems
administrator for your office.
When you are speaking, please keep in mind that it will
take a few seconds before you appear on the large screen. Pause
for one moment after unmuting yourself and before talking to
allow the system to catch up. Please speak loudly and clearly.
We ask that your video feed is turned on throughout the
proceeding. Members are responsible for muting and unmuting
themselves. If I noticed when you are recognized that you have
not unmuted yourself, I will send you a request to unmute
yourself. Please then accept that request so you are no longer
muted.
Once I finish this introduction, I will double check to
make sure that everyone is muted. It will be silent for
everyone on the Zoom until Chairman Price dabbles in the
hearing. Any questions before we go live? Okay, great. Thank
you. Mr. Chairman, you may now begin the countdown.
Mr. Price. This meeting of the Sub-Committee on
Transportation, Housing, and Urban Development will come to
order. As this meeting is fully virtual, we have got to address
a few housekeeping matters. I will do so quickly.
For today's meeting, the Chair or staff designated by the
Chair, may mute participants' microphones when they are not
under recognition for the purposes of eliminating background
noise. Members are responsible for muting and unmuting
themselves. If I notice when you are recognized that you have
not unmuted yourself, I will ask the staff to send you a
request to unmute yourself and then you can accept that
request. I remind all members and the witnesses and the 5
minute clock still applies. If there is a technology issue, we
will move to the next witness and, of course, you can reclaim
the balance of your time.
You will notice a clock on your screen that will show how
much time is remaining. At 1 minute remaining, the clock will
turn yellow and when the time is expired, the clock will turn
red. I ask members and witnesses to try to time your questions
and responses so that they do fall within the 5 minutes
allocated to each member.
In terms of the speaking order, we will begin with the
Chair and Ranking Member, then members who will be recognized
in order of seniority for questioning, alternating sides.
Finally, House rules require to remind you that we set up an
email address to which members can send anything they wish to
submit in writing on any writings or markup. That email address
is available with your staffs.
Well, colleagues, we are here today to discuss the
important role that manufactured housing plays in response to
our nation's affordable housing crisis and some challenges that
face manufactured housing in our community. This is a policy
hearing. We are having it early in the season, however, because
we want it to be fully considered as we write next year's
appropriations bill. And we have a group of witnesses today
that I think will challenge us and inform us and we are very
grateful for people making time in what I know is a busy week
to have this hearing which is the sort of hearing we could have
any time of the year, but we are timing it now because we do
think these policy challenges are pressing and that they do
warrant consideration as we write the bill.
What about manufactured housing? It is probably helpful to
clear up a few misconceptions first. Long gone are the trailer
parks of yore, some of us remember. Replaced, though, by
manufactured or mobile home parks that are no longer usually
transient. In fact, there are established communities. I
visited some in my district recently that opened my eyes to
this. These are places where people have lived for decades,
where children have grown up, senior citizens have found a
stable place to live and interact. And no longer are most
manufactured homes flimsy tornado-magnets, as they used to be
called. Modern day manufactured housing built to the standards
laid out in HUD's regulatory framework are actually safer and
stronger than many houses built on site. Although I should say,
that we understand that their regulatory framework may be in
need of some modification.
These are not just temporary or disposable structures. They
are homes to more than three million people in America. Many
live in communities or mobile home parks where they often own
the home itself, but not the land that the home sits on. And we
will, of course, return to that situation many times today.
Though a higher prevalence of homes are located across the
South and the Western states, manufactured homes exist all
across the country in urban, suburban, and rural areas. North
Carolina is particularly noteworthy in this regard. This is 13
percent of our housing stock is manufactured housing.
Nationally, almost two-thirds of manufactured homes are
owner-occupied, are working class, elderly, and immigrant
families looking to maintain a sense of place and community.
Nationally, the median annual household income of
manufactured home residents who own their homes is roughly half
that of site built homeowners. Over a quarter of these
homeowners earn less than $20,000 annually and yet, they are
homeowners. The cost to own or rent a manufactured home is, of
course, lower than most homes built on site, but there are
still a lot of distinct challenges and problems that these
residents face. Distinct of their homes and to their way of
life.
The average community is over 40 years old. Many of these
communities face significant infrastructure and resilience
challenges. Struggles that are only made worse by rising
threats of natural disasters and extreme weather events due to
climate change. Historic and continued disinvestment in
infrastructure for these communities which, all too often, has
been the reality. That's only serving to exacerbate financial
pressures on owners and residents alike. There is another
equally serious threat as well. In recent years, large
financial and private equity firms have begun purchasing
manufactured home communities, particularly in high growth
areas, subsequently raising rents on land and associated fees.
For many homeowners, including a substantial portion who live
on fixed incomes, this can force them into impossible
decisions.
Some take on additional tenants to handle costs. Others
have to decide to prioritize paying rent, other critical
personal expenses. Those who can't cut enough corners to make
the rent payments find themselves forced to leave their
community or even be evicted including in the midst of the
COVID-19 pandemic.
As the cost to move a manufactured home is thousands of
dollars, and many cannot be moved without critical structural
damage, that often isn't a choice. There's no choice sometimes
than selling the home. And even here, homeowners are dealt
another blow. Because of the way that manufactured homes are
titled, in the vast majority of states, they depreciate in
value even as the cost of the land underneath them increases in
value. Just like your new car loses value when you drive it off
the lot, manufactured homes titled as personal property, and
that's the way they ordinarily are titled, they lose their
value despite the fact that homes rarely move once initially
placed. That is a legal holdover from the days of trailers.
Only a few states and with extra hurdles are these homes
titled as real property, allowing manufactured homeowners the
same financial benefits as site built homeowners. For
homeowners in these communities, these pressures are all too
real. Over the past few years, we have seen story after story
of predatory takeovers of manufactured home communities and
private investment firms seeking a means to a quick profit. The
manufactured home community can, indeed, be a source of fast
money. But the collateral damage is that they become
unaffordable to their residents or are shuttered and rebuilt as
strip malls or market rate housing. And that is a possibility.
These tracts can be taken out of housing all together,
converted for more lucrative uses and then residents, of
course, are displaced.
Federal policy has long shied away from issues specific to
mobile and manufactured homes, but I think there's some
evidence, including this hearing, that that is about to change.
A few weeks ago, Secretary Fudge relayed to this Sub-Committee
some of the ways that HUD and local jurisdictions have begun to
address manufactured homes. Just last week, the White House
released a Housing Supply Action Plan that included specific
proposals to expand the availability, preserve the
affordability of manufactured homes as a major component in the
needed increase in this country's housing supply.
The Federal Housing Finance Administration as well recently
released the Duty to Serve Underserved Markets Report for 2022-
24 for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. The report includes guidance
on financing options for manufactured housing. And lest we
forget, still pending before the Congress, is the Build Back
Better Bill which includes $500 million in additional CDBG
funding dedicated to infrastructure improvements for
manufactured housing communities.
So, a lot going on. A lot to attend to. And there is much
work that needs to be done and done quickly to help preserve
the affordability of manufactured homes and communities. Now,
we all know this is not just a Federal matter. There is a task
for local communities here, local governments, managing land
use and zoning, enforcing safety and sanitation standards.
There's a challenge to non-profits and to community-minded
developers as well.
Our focus today, though, is on Federal policy. Policy that
despite the breadth and diversity of HUD's portfolio, as often
seen, the manufacturing housing sector fall through the cracks.
How can existing programs and funding streams be adapted or
should new ones be demonstrated or established to empower
manufactured home residents and communities to incentivize the
preservation of these communities and disincentivize
displacement? To support rehabilitation and renovation where
indicated. To keep properties and investors in the affordable
housing sector. Big questions and we have an outstanding panel
of witnesses today who can also help us understand these
challenges and these areas of opportunity, and who can speak to
what aspects of Federal policy and programs need to be modified
and expanded so that we can productively support the Americans
who make manufactured housing their homes.
Our first witness will be Dr. George McCarthy, the
President and CEO of The Lincoln Institute of Land Policy. Then
Michael, Liu, the Director of the Miami-Dade County Public
Housing and Community Development Department. Clemente Mojica,
the President and CEO of Neighborhood Partnership Housing
Services, Inc. Lance George, Director of Research and
Information of the Housing Assistance Council. And Mary O'Hara,
the Executive Vice President of ROC USA. We look forward to
hearing from these witnesses this afternoon and, of course,
collaborating with all colleagues as we produce a fiscal 2023
THUD Bill that we can all support and then the rest addresses
issues that we know we need to deal with.
Let me turn now to my friend and Ranking Member, Mario
Diaz-Balart who has cooperated fully in putting this hearing
together. Ask for his opening comments.
Mr. Diaz-Balart. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much for
holding this very important hearing. And I know, Mr. Chairman,
that you are a little bit under the weather and I will tell
you, but you have not skipped a beat. And so, again, thank you
for your leadership. I also want to thank the witnesses for
taking their time to engage in the Sub-Committee on the
challenge and promise of manufacturing housing along with the
options for redeveloping mobile home parks. The Chairman spoke
at length right now in his opening statement on this issue
something he and I have had multiple conversations about. The
issues are complex and they extend way beyond the Sub-Committee
and way beyond HUD, actually.
But I know that we all share a common goal of giving more
household a share of the American dream through home ownership,
if at all possible. And if I may, Mr. Chairman, I do want to
especially thank Director Michael Liu, who has done really,
frankly, an excellent job in Miami-Dade County.
I've seen first-hand, Mr. Chairman, what Director Liu has
accomplished for thousands upon thousands of folks in Southern
Florida. I really don't think that there is a more innovative
or knowledgable Public Housing Director in the entire country.
And we are really blessed to have you, Mr. Liu, in Miami-Dade
County. And I want to thank our Miami-Dade County Mayor--I went
to her and I asked her if I could tap into you and into your
knowledge, Director Liu, and she was amazingly accommodating.
And so, again, thank her as well. But even as housing prices
soar, you, Director Liu, have worked in partnership, by the
way, with State and local officials and the private sector to
expand affordable housing. Your tireless work has contributed
really to our nation's prosperity. So, Director Liu, thank you
for your service and for spending the time with us here today.
I don't want to make a, Mr. Chairman, a very lengthy
opening statement because we do have some amazing witnesses
today. I am fortunate to have a district that ranges from
densely urban to rural and to agricultural. And in Southern
Florida, I see both the challenges and the opportunities of
mobile home park redevelopment, and the options for
homeownership that quality manufacturing housing can provide to
working families. And so, obviously, the bulk of this work is
really at the local level and the organizations represented
here by our witnesses today. You all play an important role in
really helping with innovation and expanding homeownership
opportunities.
So, I hope this hearing is a continuation of an ongoing
conversation about how we can help find the right tools and the
policies to meet this challenge. The Chairman mentioned some of
those challenges. I look forward to hearing from our witnesses
today and with that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back. Mr. Chairman,
I believe you are still muted. I apologize.
Mr. Price. Thank you. Yes, let us turn to those witnesses
and remind each of them that we are going to gladly print your
full statement in the hearing record, but we do ask you to
leave your oral presentation to 5 minutes, so that we will have
plenty of time for discussion.
Let us start with Mr. McCarthy, Dr. George McCarthy, who is
the President and CEO of The Lincoln Institute of Land Policy.
Mr. McCarthy. Thank you, Chairman Price, Ranking Member
Diaz-Balart and members of the Sub-Committee. You will have to
excuse me. I learned yesterday that I am positive for COVID and
I am talking about one octave lower than I normally would be.
But thank you for the opportunity to discuss the vital role of
manufactured homes as the source of affordable housing.
I want to share just one essential fact that is really
important to understand about manufactured housing.
Manufactured housing started as travel trailers, providing
temporary housing for workers after World War II. And this was
done as a response to critical housing shortages as G.I.s
returned from the war. The housing itself evolved dramatically
and now, manufactured housing is virtually indistinguishable
from site built housing, both in performance and durability.
However, the institutions that support the manufactured
housing sector did not evolve as rapidly and we continue to
treat homes like automobiles; sold on lots, financed as
personal property, and as the Chairman pointed out, valued
using a Blue Book as an asset of diminishing value.
Today, manufactured housing, obviously, brings and
sometimes the only opportunity for families to achieve the
American dream of owning a high quality, affordable home. But
failed policies and market practices have increasingly
prioritized shelter for capital investments over shelter for
families.
We urgently need Federal action to overcome serious abuses
of politic power in this sector. So now, I will just briefly
discuss the benefits of manufactured housing and some of the
current challenges in the sector and the need for reform to
address them.
First of all, manufactured housing is the largest source of
affordable housing in the nation. Importantly, manufactured
housing dwarfs the national stock of subsidized housing by
millions of units. There are 6.7 million units of manufactured
housing and 4.8 million units of subsidized housing according
to the Department of Census. With an average price of just over
$100,000, the average manufactured home costs roughly half the
price per square foot of the average site built home and as the
Chairman pointed out, it serves a population with a median
income of around $35,000 or half of the median income of people
who live in site built homes.
But make no mistake, these homes have been built to high
quality standards, now are built to high quality standards and
often are indistinguishable from traditional homes built on
site. But owners of manufactured homes are considered second
class. In particular, under the law and in housing finance
markets. And particularly, those who live in manufactured home
communities who do not own the land underneath their homes.
These communities are now an attractive target for acquisition
by private equity investors. Using inexpensive public capital
from Government-sponsored enterprises like Fannie Mae and
Freddie Mac, these investors are buying entire communities and
raising the land rents charged to the homeowners.
In the last 8 years, Fannie Mae alone, Freddie Mac alone,
provided $9.6 billion of financing for the purchase of more
than 950 manufactured home communities across 44 states, while
offering financing to only two resident-owned communities
during that same time. Second, these investors exploit
residents by raising land rents significantly while neglecting
the streets and other infrastructure to boost their profits.
Others raise land rents so much, residents are forced out and
what is worse, our own Government fuels this exploitation by
tilting the playing field in the mortgage markets.
Federal solutions must drive toward a single goal. To
provide residents of manufactured homes with the same access to
stability, financial opportunity, and quality of life available
to owners of traditional homes. So, first, the Federal
Government needs a dedicated source of funding to repair a
neglected infrastructure in manufactured home communities. As
the Chairman pointed out, the Build Back Better had an
appropriation for infrastructure manufactured home communities
and we hope that the fiscal year 2023 HUD appropriation will
set aside the same funding for the community development block
grant program and to finance critically needed infrastructure
in the manufactured housing communities.
Second, we need to reform the financing systems so we don't
find ourselves in this position again. Fannie Mae and Freddie
Mac need to develop new finance products to support the sale of
the communities to their current residents. They also should be
required to publicly disclose the details of every loan they
purchase to support the sale of manufactured home communities
to private investors.
In addition, any park purchased using public money should
come with the requirement that land rents remain affordable for
the long term. In other words, land lease protections. Third,
the Government-sponsored enterprises and the Department of
Housing and Urban Development should develop new loan products
or approve existing products with loan to value requirements or
interest rates on par with traditional mortgages for site built
homes. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac should introduce new chattel
products to serve the affordable housing market. And although
HUD theoretically provides manufactured housing chattel
financing through Title I, it is unnecessarily restricted loan
limits, less than $70,000 for home financing. This number is
too low for most buyers when the average sales price for a new
manufactured without land is $87,000.
In addition, the Government needs to relax unnecessarily
strict net worth and capital requirements for Title I lending
to address a shortage of issuers. Ginny Mae now requires
lenders to have a minimum net worth of $10 million plus 10
percent of outstanding obligations to participate in this
manufactured housing program, several times the requirement for
single family issuers.
Finally, we should impose stringent new energy standards
for manufactured housing to reduce the acute energy cost
burdens for residents and we should establish a Cash for
Clunkers program to retire the one million plus pre-HUD code
homes with new energy star homes. In short, while the Federal
Government alone cannot address every challenge associated with
manufactured housing, we still won't make progress without
Federal leadership. Thank you for the opportunity to testify
and I look forward to your questions.
Mr. Price. Thank you very much. Now let us turn to Michael
Liu. And we appreciate your being here and will welcome your
testimony. The director, let me say the director of the Miami
Dade County Public Housing and Community Development
Department.
Mr. Liu. Thank you very much, Chairman Price, Ranking
Member Diaz-Balart, members of the committee. Like so many
metro properties currently used as housing for those with lower
incomes, Mobile Home Park, MHP, owners are under intense
pressure to sell, whether it be for warehouses, light
industrial uses, or housing purposes. Demolished and rebuild
with anything, that seems to be the mantra.
``Specifically, we find that half of mobile home park
residents surveyed would have no where to go if they had to
leave their mobile home. They would likely end up homeless,
particularly if sufficient relocation assistance is not
provided.'' This is from a Miami Dade MHP research paper
written by South Florida Jobs with Justice and Florida
International University Research Institute on Social and
Economic Policy. The date of the report, 2010. In 12 years,
things have not gotten better.
As the director of the largest housing agency in Florida
that manages all Federal HUD programs and state-authorized
housing loan funds I live with the reality that none of these
programs are designed to assist mobile home park residents that
are forced to move. This in the highest cost burden
jurisdiction in the country.
The one state program that exists and is funded by owners
of MHPs allows for maximum compensation of only $6,000. With
MHP properties in Miami Dade County commanding offers of over
$4 million an acre, government will be hard pressed to compete
as a buyer if it wants to get into that market.
Alternatively, we can focus on ways to incentivize owners
of MHPs to instead of selling to the highest bidder, get them
to redevelop taking into consideration the housing needs of
those who will have to relocate based on a real plan and
provide significant public benefits for the surrounding
community. We have created programs for the building of
affordable housing and transforming public housing with the
avid involvement of the private sector. Why not bring that same
mindset to the effort to prevent wholesale MHP resident
displacement?
Examples: make flexible CBG programs and allow local
entitlement communities to determine how much of their
allocations can be utilized for relocation assistance.
Infrastructure dollars should be made available for responsible
MHP redevelopment. Low-income housing tax credits should be set
aside for MHP development projects.
This is a very important beginning, Mr. Chairman, and I
thank you for the opportunity to express my thoughts. Thank
you.
Mr. Price. All right. Thank you. Now let is turn to
Clemente Mojica, the president and CEO of the Neighborhood
Partnership Housing Services, Inc.
Mr. Mojica. Thank you, Chairman Price, Ranking Member Diaz-
Balart, and members of the subcommittee for the opportunity to
provide testimony on how our organization is using manufactured
housing to create more affordable home ownership opportunities
in our suburban communities. I would also like to acknowledge
Representatives Norma Torres and Pete Aguilar whose districts
include my organization service area, as well as thanking
Congresswoman Torres for the invitation to appear before you
today.
My name is Clemente Arturo Mojica and I am representing
Neighborhood Partnership Housing Services, or NPHS for short.
NPHS is a community development financial institution focused
on the Inland Empire region of Southern California which
includes Riverside, San Bernardino, and eastern Los Angeles
Counties. And we are a proud member of the network of
NeighborWorks America affiliated organizations. Our mission is
to build equitable communities by creating innovative housing
and economic solutions that advance the wellbeing of people and
vitality of our neighborhoods. And thanks to our comprehensive
approach to community development NPHS has stimulated more than
4.5 billion in direct investments back into our local
communities over the past 31 years.
As our current housing crisis deepens with affordable
housing supply at historic lows, NPHS is urgently rethinking
how to meet our communities' housing needs, especially around
affordable home ownership. We see manufactured housing as a
viable solution of increasing the supply and availability of
affordable home ownership.
NPHS has tested the viability of manufactured housing to
address the shortfall of affordable home ownership in our
neighborhoods. We have placed nine manufactured homes in the
city of Chino and San Bernardino to date with an additional 10
in our development pipeline. Using manufactured housing to
redevelopment vacant, scattered, and often very blighted lots
in our suburban neighborhoods, we have seen that factory-built
leverages the efficiencies of the manufacturing process to
increase the housing supply at an affordable price point and
shorter construction timelines. Manufactured homes are highly
customizable and energy efficient as well.
Manufactured housing holds promise for economies of scale
when developing scattered vacant lots in urban, suburban, and
rural neighborhoods. In our initial developments, the cost of
developing factory-built homes has been anywhere between 24 to
30 percent less than traditional site-built homes. For example,
excluding land value and offsite construction costs because
those vary, it is costing NPHS approximately $300,000 to
construct a 1,500 square foot, 3 bedroom, and 2 bathroom
manufactured home with a 2-car garage that is attached. Whereas
a traditional site-built home with the same configuration and
similar amenities costs NPHS approximately $390,000.
Based on the lessons learned from our initial experience
with manufactured housing we have secured our own retailer
license to build and test a scalable and replicable
manufactured housing social enterprise to help increase the
supply of affordable home ownership. Our manufactured housing
social enterprise has a twofold scale strategy. First, at the
regional level use our status as a factory direct conduit to
recoup and partner with other developers to increase the supply
of affordable manufactured homes. Secondly, working with our
national partners, Next Step and NeighborWorks America, we hope
to build a scalable, adaptable, and replicable business model.
We are also integrating additional strategies with the
potential to increase and preserve the supply of affordable
home ownership. These strategies include manufactured accessory
dwelling units, ADUs, placing manufactured homes on a community
land trust to preserve affordability for the long-term, pushing
design innovation and standardization, and integrating energy
upgrades such as solar panels and energy storage on
manufactured homes.
To test these strategies NPHS is about to break ground on a
factory-built demonstration project in the city of San
Bernardino, which entails a manufactured single-family home and
a manufactured accessory dwelling unit on a community land
trust with solar energy and energy storage. These strategies
will test the potential to improve climate resiliency, protect
affordability, and test the accessibility of first mortgage
financing for homebuyers purchasing manufactured homes on a
community land trust.
I would like to close by expressing my gratitude to the
Subcommittee on Transportation, Housing and Urban Development,
and Related Agencies for its commitment to mitigating our
Nation's affordable housing challenges, and for its ongoing
support of NeighborWorks America. Without this Federal resource
which provided critical funding support for our manufactured
housing program, we would not have been able to develop and
implement this strategy in Riverside and San Bernardino
Counties.
Thank you for your time and the opportunity to have shared
the work NPHS is doing to increase affordable home ownership
using manufactured housing. I look forward to answering your
questions. Thank you very much.
Mr. Price. Thank you. Now we turn to Lance George, the
director of research and information at the Housing Assistance
Council.
Mr. George. Good afternoon, Chairman Price, Ranking Member
Diaz-Balart, and members of the subcommittee. Thank you for
this opportunity to testify on the role of manufactured homes
as affordable housing, especially in rural communities. The
Housing Assistance Council, often referred to as HAC, is a
national nonprofit corporation that supports affordable housing
efforts in rural areas of the United States and Territories.
HAC helps build homes and communities across rural America. We
work with local community-based entities, including nonprofits,
municipalities, Tribal entities, and for-profit developers.
These groups know what is best for their community. HAC helps
enable them to improve their housing conditions through the
provision of financial products, training and technical
assistance, and research data and information services.
A community's housing stock is one of its most important
resources. Manufactured homes are often an important and vital
element of that stock, especially in rural America. There are
approximately 6.7 million occupied manufactured and mobile
homes in the United States comprising about 6 percent of the
Nation's housing stock. More than half of all manufactured
homes are located in rural areas around the country, and
manufactured homes comprise 14 percent of all occupied homes in
rural communities, more than twice the national rate.
While important, manufactured housing is all too often
overlooked and unfairly maligned. This is likely more a factor
of who lives in manufactured homes than any structural or
aesthetic element. Although the demographics of manufactured
housing are changing, lower income households still occupy the
majority of this stock. Underserved populations, like
farmworkers and those living in Native American communities,
also disproportionately utilize manufactured homes as a source
of affordable housing.
Living in manufactured homes is often characterized by
unique financing and land tenure issues. While the purchase of
a manufactured home can be relatively affordable, financing
costs can be much greater than for conventionally built homes.
A large portion of manufactured homes are financed with
personal property or chattel loans. With shorter terms and
higher interest rates, personal property loans are generally
less beneficial for consumers than conventional mortgage
financing. Approximately 64 percent of all manufactured home
loans in 2020 were classified as high cost, essentially having
a substantially high interest rate. This is more than five
times the level of high-cost lending for all homes nationally,
and for manufactured home loans secured by the home only,
without the land, that figure jumps to a staggering 90 percent
high-cost rate.
The challenges facing manufactured home consumers and
communities are complex. There is no single solution to address
them all. While direct services should be paramount, access to
accurate data and information is an important and vital
component of strategies and solutions. Manufactured housing
challenges are often obscured by a lack of reliable data and
information. This is a particular concern with this sector
where much of the data is not publicly available, especially
around the extent of private financing and equity investment.
The Housing Assistance Council respectfully recommends that
this subcommittee invest in robust research on manufactured
housing. With an understanding of the current state of the
manufactured housing market, Congress and the public can track
shifts in this market and make well-informed investments in its
success. If Congress is considering swift action, pilots or
demonstration programs to improve the state of manufactured
housing, then an immediate investment in data and research is
even more urgently needed. The timeline confronted by a
vulnerable low-income households currently at risk demands no
less than well-informed decisions from Congress.
Manufactured housing is already a significant source of
housing in rural places and it should continue to be a high
quality, affordable housing option. But ultimately and finally,
I wish to reiterate that manufactured homes and communities are
just that, homes and communities. No different than any other
house or any other community, and consumers and residents in
manufactured homes deserve the same access to quality financing
as well as the respect and attention from every sector. HAC
looks forward to continuing our work with Congress and the
Federal agencies to support the subcommittee's effort.
Thank you again for the opportunity to testify today.
Mr. Price. Thank you. Finally, let us turn to Mary O'Hara,
the executive vice president of ROC USA.
Ms. O'Hara. Good afternoon, Chairman Price, Ranking Member
Diaz-Balart, and members of the subcommittee. Thank you for
this opportunity to testify.
I would like to speak about the--I would like to speak to
the demonstrated success of resident-owned communities, or ROCs
for short. Resident ownership has been a proven solution that
permanently preserves affordability, corrects the structural
issues in this critical affordable housing marketplace, makes
the best of Federal investment and serves as the only bulwark
against the recent onslaught of private equity into people's
homes.
I speak today on behalf of the 294 resident-owned
communities and the 20,000-plus homeowners and their families
that ROC USA represents. In 38 years, we have not had a single
ROC close or return to the speculative market. Just to bring it
home, there are at least 1,500 manufactured home communities in
the 14 districts of the T-HUD subcommittee. That includes
nearly 50,000 home sites. These communities are at risk of
being bought and sold to the highest bidder and quickly
becoming unaffordable or worse, bulldozed and redeveloped.
Resident-owned communities realign the ownership of the
home and land. ROC homeowners continue to own their own homes
and an equal share of the cooperative that owns the land. Each
ROC member has a proprietary lease to occupy their lot forever
and has a say in how the community is operated. ROCs are
professionally managed, usually by a local property management
company. An elected board of directors oversees third-party
vendors for snow plowing, trash removal, just like any other
community operator.
True, there are good community operators out there who
invest in capital improvements, but too often homeowners who
successfully purchased their neighborhoods must immediately
turn their attention underground to address decades of
disinvestment in aging water, sewer, and stormwater systems. We
are talking basic health and safety infrastructure here.
Imagine the lowest income homeowners paying interest on
millions in debt in order to have clean drinking water and safe
sanitation.
I work with Pasadena Trails, a 13-year-old ROC just outside
of Houston. It is 114-home community in one of the best school
districts in Texas. Pasadena's board is six Mexican American
women who work in schools, landscaping, one is a retired nurse.
As interest rates came down from a high in 2009 they looked to
refinance their commercial mortgage. They decided to borrow
enough to hire an engineer and address the drainage issues that
had plagued them since before they bought the park.
Two weeks after they pulled the final draw on their
construction loan, Hurricane Harvey devasted the Houston area.
Pasadena Trails didn't have a drop of standing water in their
community. Instead, homeowners were out volunteering brining
supplies to their neighboring communities. These are ordinary
homeowners taking things into their own hands and using their
own resources to pay for infrastructure that every other
homeowner takes for granted.
The chairman asked, how can this T-HUD and Congress support
existing ROCs and preserve more manufactured home communities?
One, include the $500 million Manufactured Housing Investment
Grant in the HUD 2023 Appropriations Bill. This is a set-aside
within the CDBG program to fund critical infrastructure
upgrades. Along with the desperately needed storm shelters that
some states require, in ROCs they double as community centers
and remote learning sites.
Two, help more of these communities. Give would-be resident
owners the same kind of cheap Fannie and Freddie financing
widely used by investors to purchase communities. While
investors are raising rents to earn exorbitant returns,
resident owners are stabilizing rents, preserving
affordability, and investing in their affordable housing asset.
Acquisition financing can come from equity investments and
CDFIs through the GSEs, FHFA or the CDFI fund, or through
existing HUD programs.
Three, public investment in investor-owned communities,
including financing by Fannie and Freddie, should include a
requirement of long-term release provisions and the opportunity
for homeowners to purchase the property when it is put up for
sale. This preserves the public investment and creates
permanent, long-term affordability.
Finally, Congress should create a manufactured home
community capital gains credit to encourage community owners to
sell to the homeowners who live there. Let us incentivize
operators who want to sell to their residents.
On behalf of the thousands of homeowners living in
manufactured home communities we thank you for shining a light
on this critical issue and inviting us here to share our
practitioner-based experience. We urge you to include funding
for community infrastructure and acquisition in the HUD 2023
Appropriations Bill.
Mr. Price. Thank you very much. And that does conclude our
testimony from five very impressive and helpful witnesses. We
will proceed now to the questions.
The members will be recognized at the time the hearing was
called in order of seniority, and we will proceed. I will ask
the first questions, and then we will be on our way. Please be
mindful of the time, Members, and allow the witness time to
answer the question within the allocated 5 minutes.
So, with that, I will focus this first question on Ms.
O'Hara and Dr. McCarthy, not meaning to exclude the others, but
we have limited time, and I want to distill some of the things
we have heard today. Many of you have touched on the themes I
outlined in the opening statement, and I am grateful for that.
I am going to ask you maybe to distill it even further, though,
and to focus on the existing HUD portfolio, existing programs,
and the way they are or are not serving manufactured housing
communities, and the way that, with modifications, they might
be. I realize there may be some new funding streams that are
needed and so forth, but to focus on the existing CDBG, Section
108, Home, Choice Neighborhoods perhaps, and then LIHEAP other
programs. Which of these are particularly important?
A lot of the discussion today has been about the threat to
the homes that come when the developments are purchased, sold
to new owners. Of course, we need to know what we can
realistically do to address that, what communities can do. But
there is also the question of infrastructure and the quality of
manufactured housing and the way they are served by the
infrastructure in the community: stable water, sewage,
electricity to residents, protection against extreme weather
events. And so many of these Federal programs are aimed at
enhancing, of course, infrastructure, and they are used that
way. CDBG programs support infrastructure for all kinds of
housing developments. So how can we build on these programs?
I am starting with you, Ms. O'Hara, particularly mindful of
ROC's specific role in promoting resident-owned developments,
and what kind of particular obstacles have perhaps been present
in those situations in addressing their short- and long-term
needs. Let me start with you, Ms. O'Hara.
Ms. O'Hara. Well, I thank you, Chairman. Thank you very
much. I would say, in terms of the existing HUD programs, CDBG
has been utilized very successfully by resident-owned
communities in some states. As you know, CDBG is a very
competitive program in most locales, and different states,
different jurisdictions, all use their CDBG monies in different
ways. To have a set-aside for resident-owned communities, for
manufactured housing communities, that would directly place
them in a situation where there would be money that was
directed towards their infrastructure needs could be absolutely
critical. And the issue sometimes with CDBG, as I said, is
locales have different priorities, depending.
I would also say that some of the difficulties fall in the
fact that manufactured housing communities fall between the
cracks of multifamily versus single-family, or rental versus
home ownership. They are home ownership, but they sometimes are
not seen as home ownership even in resident-owned communities.
Again, minor rule change to recognize limited equity housing
cooperatives as home ownership and enabling the myriad of
programs to be available in manufactured home communities,
whether it is for infrastructure or the homes themselves. We
have had issues trying to access weatherization, home repair,
obviously, as many people here have spoken to, is the mortgage
financing.
But the other piece in terms of being able to create new
resident-owned communities is we need a source that is quick.
You know, CDBG, home funding, all of those are based on rounds
and based on significant time situations and the fact that they
are competitive. In the ROC USA model, we are meeting community
owners' real estate transaction timeframes. We are helping
homeowners purchase these communities in 90 to 120 days. We
need to be able to deliver financing in a very rapid timeframe.
So again, creating in the same way, honestly, that these
investor-buyers are using Fannie and Freddie money, right, they
have that money available to them in a commercial timeframe. We
need the same to be available for homeowners purchasing their
communities.
Mr. Price. Okay, thank you. Dr. McCarthy.
Mr. McCarthy. Yeah, I would focus on Title I because, you
know, as you pointed out, Chairman Price, one of the biggest
problems for manufactured housing owners is they get inferior
access to inferior financing to buy their homes. But Title I is
overly restrictive and they need to kind of increase the loan
limits in Title I, and they also have to reduce the capital
requirements for issuers.
One of the things that is always a problem in affordable
housing is the small loan program. There is not issuers who
want to make small mortgages, and then to add the additional
burden that they have to have so much capitalization to make
those small loans is just a bridge too far. And so for us, we
think that increasing the number of issuers, and particularly
if we could find ways to get CDFIs to issue challenge mortgages
through Title I, and then increasing the loan limits would go a
long way towards making it possible for people not only to buy
new manufactured homes as their first homes, but also to
replace their homes when their homes aren't working so well.
The other thing is that, you know, you mentioned LIHEAP.
Most of the energy programs, which I know are weatherization,
which are done through the Department of Energy, are not very
helpful in the manufactured housing space because very often
the best treatment for manufactured housing is to replace the
whole home. And we have actually shown that, using the
Department of Energy formulas, home replacement is actually
economical, meaning that the energy savings alone would pay the
mortgage for the replaced home in many cases. And so we have
worked with a few states that have made that happen, but
generally that is, you know, hit-or-miss kind of retail level
kind of work. So I would focus on those two for now.
Mr. Price. All right, thank you. Mr. Diaz-Balart.
Mr. Diaz-Balart. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Dr. Liu, let me
start with you. You know, you have a unique role as an
executive of a very large PHA that is also responsible for both
CDBG and HOME funds. You talked a little bit about this in your
introduction, but can you discuss some of the HUD programs and
tools that potentially can be utilized to incentivize
developers or property owners to redevelop aging mobile home
parks into vibrant communities that also include affordable
housing?
You mentioned the cost, for example, of moving residents,
right, whether it is temporarily or full-time, and many of the
folks that live in these parks probably are not HUD housing
recipients. So how do you deal with that? What are some of the
potential regulatory and statutory barriers that you face as
you work to execute these types of redevelopment projects?
Mr. Liu. Congressman, Ranking Member Diaz-Balart, thank
you. While CDBG certainly is useful, as has been mentioned for
infrastructure, it is also a tool that can be used to address
potential displacement, as well as being used for assistance in
finding alternative housing. And some of those alternatives
should be in the form of preference given by the developers of
redeveloped sites if, in fact, they accept a package of
assisting these residents.
But what needs to be done is to increase or eliminate, for
the purposes of helping mobile home park residents, the 15
percent cap on public service categories of use of CDBG funds.
That would give the local jurisdictions, and this is also
another point, the local entitlement communities need to be
given flexibility to manage the assistance provided through
CDBG.
With all due respect to my brethren in HUD back in
Washington, D.C., it just is not going work if the programs are
managed from Washington. They have to be managed at the local
jurisdictions.
Also, I do believe, and I want to mention this, that if the
Federal Government is willing to make a significant investment
in redeveloping and working with developers who are community-
spirited and incentivizing them, I certain do believe that it
is appropriate for the Federal Government to require that local
governments, state governments provide some form of assistance
in order to access Federal assistance, and Miami-Dade is
willing to do that in the challenges that we face. Metro areas
certainly have different pressures than rural areas. As I
mentioned, the cost of land here is so large, we have to find
ways to incentivize owners of the mobile home parks to, if
indeed, rather than sell, redevelop in a way that is sensitive
to their residents who are there, giving them options on the
redeveloped properties certainly with the same concepts that we
have done in the realm of public housing, et cetera.
Mr. Diaz-Balart. So you have thought about this and you
talked about incentives. What kind of incentives can be
provided to the private sector in order to develop--you know,
you mentioned not throw these people out, to hopefully also
develop affordable housing on these properties? And how can
they effectively work with DHS, PHAs like yours, community
development agencies, and others, and other capacity building
organizations?
Mr. Liu. Well, first of all, certainly, relocation
assistance, as well as preferences given back onsite are key.
If we can come up--if the government can provide enough
assistance to work with the owners of mobile home parks to
compassionately and fairly work with residents to provide the
relocation assistance, that can go a long way. And what are we
talking about? Well, we are talking about more than $6,000.
That is not going to work.
If we can provide significant, for instance, potential home
ownership options, heavy-duty down payment assistance, special
mortgage assistance, again, to incentivize then the developers
to provide home ownership options for mobile home park
residents on the new redeveloped properties, that certainly can
work. And local jurisdictions, such as mine, have the ability
to assist on that, along with the flexibility that can be given
with CDBG.
Secondly, a significant relocation package similar to the
concept behind the URA to provide mobile home tenants and
residents who don't want to return or who are looking for other
options offsite, we have to be ready to provide that kind of
assistance. So counseling, relocation counseling and
assistance, dealing with moving expenses, all of that needs to
be packaged together for mobile home park residents.
And I think in combination with Federal Government support,
state support, local government support, that it is possible to
consider packages ranging anywhere from 30- to $50,000 per
family, which I then think would be a reasonable incentive then
to the owners of these sites to say that makes sense, you know,
I can do that. And along with potential assistance on
infrastructure cost, as has been mentioned by others, I do
think that we can come up with a program that doesn't exist
today, that can help the situation regarding mobile home park
redevelopment.
Mr. Diaz-Balart. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, I know you have
indulged us with extra time, and I greatly appreciate it. I
know it is an issue that is near and dear with your heart, and
it is an issue that is going to continue to get worse, not
better unless we address it. So, again, thank you, Mr.
Chairman, for allowing me to go over time.
Mr. Price. Sure. That was an important answer and we
benefit from it. All right, Mr. Quigley.
Mr. Quigley. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you to the
ranking member for having this hearing. This issue goes back to
when I was a Cook County commissioner and, you know, we started
talking about how in our unincorporated areas in Cook County
there was an extraordinary need for this kind of housing and
the issues on a local basis that were challenging.
But I want to add, Mr. George, I appreciate the fact that
you were referencing the need for comprehensive real-time data
in your written testimony, and without a grasp of this
nationwide we are really going to struggle to understand the
breadth and depth of the challenges and to formulate really
comprehensive policy. My question is if you could give a little
deeper dive, and others including and Ms. O'Hare, talk about
this. What are the gaps currently that exist we should be
thinking about in the data to further understand these needs?
And what are some of the things that, you know, we don't know
about manufactured home communities, the challenges they face?
And what can we do to expand this data?
Mr. George. Thank you, Vice Chairman Quigley. It is an
excellent question. I think there are two really initial realms
to look at in the access and utilization and procurement of
data, the first of which would be in the private realm, in the
private sector.
Candidly, this is largely, and it has been noted by several
of the members and the witnesses that this housing largely
operates in the private space. It is largely unsubsidized, and
that also means much of the data is in that particular space,
as well. But sometimes that market data, especially we have
often noted, manufactured housing is often overlooked and noted
as maligned, and that data is typically not available,
especially to the public sector. So I think there are avenues
for resources to procure and collect private market data, which
will really help understand that side of the market.
On the public side, I do think there are, especially within
the realm of the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban
Development, there are also some improvements that can be made
on that side. Notably is the manufactured home survey that has
been conducted for many years, a very valuable and rich piece
of information. But notably, some of that data is actually been
taken away or restricted.
One good example is in the past it is a collection, because
HUD has overview of basically the regulation of the siting and
placement of manufactured homes, we would get data frequently
on the placements and the siting and the shipments of
manufactured homes from the factories. But a few years ago, the
data, I think for cost-saving measures, were taken away on
placements. And that is a pretty valuable piece of data
information to access this type of housing.
Secondly, the American Housing Survey, which is a very rich
source of information, a detailed source of rich information on
America's housing stock, gives us a really valuable and rich
source of information, and it is commissioned by the U.S.
Department of Housing and Urban Development. Much of the data
has been suppressed or taken away. Notably, just an example in
this realm, it is much more difficult to access information on
rural communities, but also just other characteristics related
to manufactured housing. For example, the variable that allows
us to analyze, at least in the public use file, if a home is
located in a manufactured home community or not. So those are a
couple of examples.
And I will finally just mention that I think there have
been some advances made in the data, particularly by the Office
of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. They have made
great advances. That is a good example where there have been
some improvements in the Home Mortgage Disclosure Act. It has
still not gone far enough, but it has given us some additional
insights that we just simply didn't have a few years ago.
So those are a couple of examples, both on the private and
the public side. Thank you.
Mr. Quigley. Anyone else wish to add to that?
Ms. O'Hara. Just I would like to reinforce what Lance just
said about understanding manufactured homes in communities
versus manufactured homes on fee simple sites. Because so much
of the data is mixed, it is very hard sometimes to be able to
really see what is going on in communities versus in the fee
simple sites themselves.
Also, just on the financing side and when things are bought
and sold and who is doing the financing, Fannie and Freddie do
have to disclose any information on the communities that they
are financing, and that would be tremendously beneficial, I
think, for all of us.
George, I wanted to give you a minute there, sorry.
Mr. McCarthy. No, Mary, you said what I was going to say,
which is that we need better disclosure on the purchases of
these manufactured housing communities using public money. I
mean, we just need to know more.
Ms. O'Hara. Just the other thing is it is really hard to
find the real owner of communities, and we struggle all the
time because in states where we don't have opportunity to
purchase, we are out there trying to get in touch with
community owners, and oftentimes it is through, you know, a
multilayer of LLCs in order to find who actually owns the
community.
And finally, on the infrastructure side, nobody is tracking
what is happening in manufactured home community infrastructure
repair or replacement, and we are dealing with systems that are
often 40, 50, and 60 years old. So an ability to look at that
would be a tremendous help, I think, to a group like this,
particularly.
Mr. Quigley. Very good, thank you. I yield back.
Mr. Price. To be continued. Mr. Rutherford.
Mr. Rutherford. Thank you, Mr. Chair and Ranking Member. I
would like to begin with you, Director Liu. I know you really
are on the front line of trying to ensure that families have
safe and affordable places to call home. And I know you
mentioned twice now the importance of having that local
flexibility, and I think that is incredibly important, too,
having been, you know, a former sheriff in my own community and
understanding the engagement with the Federal Government in
local affairs.
I want to ask you this, because one of the things that I
saw happening in my community was a lot of our affordable
housing, now this was an urban district, but a lot of our
housing that was being refurbished by a lot of nonprofits who
would go in and build affordable housing on vacant lots and in
other places, some homes had to be torn down, and we actually
saw tie-ins between crime and home ownership. And we overlaid
those two, home ownership with the amount of crime in a
community. And so what I would like to ask, and this kind of
goes to the data question that I think Mr. George brought up
earlier, as well, and that is are there any similar studies
where we have redevelopment or can we use some information of
redevelopment of either residentially-owned communities or just
mobile home communities, in general?
Mr. Liu. That is an excellent question. I think there
probably is a lack of specific information on that and that
certainly would be a great area for research. But I think there
is a fair amount of research on redevelopment, generally,
outside of the mobile home park area, whether you are talking
about public housing or low-income areas that have gone through
redevelopment. And by and large, the data is overwhelming that,
done well, done with the right planning, that redevelopment
brings a huge drop in crime.
Mr. Rutherford. Right. So, let me switch to Mr. Mojica for
a minute. I know your organization has used HOME funds and
particularly the Treasury's CDFI access. Can you talk a little
bit about that really does bring some good flexibility into the
situation. Am I correct in that? Or, I mean, CDFI seems to be
one way to ensure you are getting the flexibility that you need
in a community.
Mr. Mojica. Yeah. Thank you for that question, Congressman.
Absolutely. I mean, at least in the communities that we are
serving here in Southern California, Inland Empire, Riverside,
San Bernardino counties, we are working in very distressed
areas, particularly in neighborhoods in the city of San
Bernardino, where the cost of development supersedes the amount
of the sales price that the home is going to be sold. So we are
partnering with the local governments to go ahead and use HOME
dollars to subsidize the difference, and get more of these
units off the ground. Because there is a gap, so it is a
construction equity.
Mr. Rutherford. Oh, I hadn't even thought about that, yeah.
Mr. Mojica. Yeah. And the good news is, as we are building
these real estate markets through these infill developments,
the subsidy that is needed is getting less and less and less.
So, the idea, without gentrifying our neighborhoods, of course,
is to elevate the--reduce the amount of public subsidy that is
needed to subsidize the construction of these units.
Now, that is--and, again, it is all about leveraging public
resources. But, you know, HOME, using HOME dollars means that
the homes have to be sold to families at 80 percent or below
the average median income. These homes are not being sold below
market rate. We want to keep elevating, you know, and
stabilizing the value of homes. So those families that are
going to buy these factory-built homes at market rate are going
to need down payment assistance. And as a CDFI, we use CDFI
funds from the United States Treasury as down payment
assistance to help these families purchase the home.
So a lot of flexibility and a lot of leveraging using these
programs. So we utilize HOME a lot and CDFI funds quite a bit
to help make the purchase of these homes sustainable.
Mr. Rutherford. Awesome. Thank you for that information. I
hadn't even thought about that aspect of it. So thank you very
much. I assume my time has run out, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
Mr. Price. Well, thank you. Ms. Clark.
Ms. Clark. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you to all
the witnesses for being here with us today on this important
topic.
Dr. McCarthy, I sort of want to go back to talking about
some of the financing for these homeowners. According to the
Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, 60 percent of
manufactured homes qualify for a mortgage, but almost 20
percent of those qualified homeowners opt to use a chattel loan
instead. Can you explain why they are opting for more expensive
financing? Is this a lack of access or understanding? Or are
the consumers actually being pushed into less attractive
financing?
Mr. McCarthy. Yeah. Thank you for that question. It is
probably three things. One thing is that very often homes are
sold on lots, very much like cars, and then the dealer arranges
the financing. And almost always, when dealers arrange
financing, they arrange them with private property chattel
lenders.
The other thing is that there is a lot more, in the
manufactured housing space, there is a lot more chattel lenders
out there than there are mortgage lenders. And one of the
reasons is because the loans are small and there is just not a
lot of lenders who want to work in that small loan space. And
so the execution is quick, and they know that housing sector
very well, and so they can make the loans very quickly.
And a third reason is just because there is very little
home ownership preparation offered to people who are buying
manufactured homes. And so one of our partners, Next Step
Homes, has developed an online home ownership education
counseling program to give people kind of the background they
need to make informed decisions when they buy a home.
But it is not required, but it is, of course, suggested
that people find a way to those things kind of a little bit
randomly, a little bit haphazardly, because there is no real
incentive for people to get that kind of assistance unless they
come through some mission-driven organization, like a
NeighborWorks organization or something, to help them buy the
home.
But as you know from the CFPB publication, the chattel
loans are much more expensive and they have much worse terms,
right? And the worst thing is, they also have much worse
protections. So if you miss a payment on a chattel loan, you
could lose your home within sometimes 15 days through
repossession as opposed to the legal process of mortgage
foreclosure, right?
Ms. Clark. Yeah. Yeah. And, of course, we see these
patterns played out in refinancing as well. Just----
Mr. McCarthy. Oh, absolutely. Absolutely.
Ms. Clark. Far less refinancing. Here in Massachusetts, our
attorney general has a manufactured home division, so that
people can get information. Do you see that across the country?
Is that common in other Attorneys General Offices?
Mr. McCarthy. No. And as a matter of fact, you know, I
speak proudly, I am a Massachusetts person, too. And in
Massachusetts, they have some of the best protections for
manufactured homeowners in the country. So people who live in
manufactured housing communities get a right of first refusal
if--and they are required to be notified if the home is--if
their park is going to be sold. And the state takes a very
active role in trying to help preserve the manufactured housing
stock. Which is ironic because Massachusetts doesn't have a
very large share of the manufactured homes in the country, but
they have done a very good job of preserving them.
Ms. Clark. Well, that is good to know. I know that when I
worked at the Attorney General's Office we certainly--we dealt
with this issue all the time.
And you sort of led me right over to Ms. O'Hara, who I
think was raising her hand. A little Bay State question
collaboration here, but I wondered if you could talk about
those protections Dr. McCarthy was just--and, you know, what--
if you can give us a little more detail about what happens to
consumers when we see corporate investors coming in, taking
over, raising rents?
Ms. O'Hara. Well, that is a--thank you very much,
Representative Clark. And Massachusetts has had some of the
most success with resident-owned communities. We have 27
resident-owned communities in Massachusetts, and some of the
incredibly increasing markets in the state. And we have had
great success with the Attorney General's Office. The attorney
general has a commission which is staffed both by community
owners and by homeowners in addition to the AG themselves. And
they review all of the community rules of every community in
the state. And they have a hotline. I think the only other
state with sort of an equal protection is maybe New York and
Oregon are the other two.
I would also say that Massachusetts is an awesome example
of where homeowners who own their communities have done major
infrastructure repairs and replacements that were never done by
the prior owners or by those who have bought properties and
then sold them quickly.
We always, you know, do Massachusetts like this. Well,
everything up here drains into Buzzards Bay. The Department of
Environmental Protection is one of resident-owned communities
best friends because he has had properties that they have tried
to get the community owners to fix the septic and sewer
wastewater, and has never been corrected. And once the
residents purchased the community, the first thing they want to
do is address those issues.
We use a CDFI fund, as well. ROC USA Capital finances both
the acquisition and these infrastructure improvements. So, as
Representative Rutherford was talking about, CDFIs have been
the quickest, most flexible in their ability to partner and
leverage other financing. We had participation in ROC USA
Capital loans from the Federal--the state housing finance
agencies that have helped break down the cost of debt with
their monies.
So I won't go on, because I can see the red. But I think
there is just a lot that we could do.
Ms. Clark. Thank you so much. Thank you for your
indulgence, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Price. Thank you. Mr. Garcia.
Mr. Garcia. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member and
all of our witnesses. I think these manufactured homes play an
important role, especially when it comes to some of the housing
challenges that we have. As a former real estate investor
myself, I do want to echo Director Liu's sentiments that we
can't go after the landowners and we can't go after the
investors who are looking to develop these parks. We need to
incentivize them. In my endeavors, with more than 25 units of
single-family homes and multifamily residences, I was able to
do that because of the investment opportunities. I was still
able to make a profit while providing housing below fair market
value rents. And in some cases, actually sell that house to the
tenants for as much as 20 percent below the fair market value.
These are single-family homes, primarily, that I am talking
about.
I get a little concerned when I hear folks start blending
issues and starting to use different vernacular. And I just
want to be very clear on this. This is about a housing
shortage. This is about housing affordability. This is about
enabling homeless families to get a roof over their head. And
we all need to collectively figure out how to do that in a
manner that is affordable and not completely government
subsidized.
I get squeamish when you start blending in the term ``home
ownership'' because in some cases home ownership is actually
not the right thing for some of these families. It is better to
rent. And I would submit that with something like manufactured
homes that are typically, historically depreciating liabilities
and not appreciating assets, saddling a family with a mortgage
to something that is going down in value is very dangerous. It
actually sets them up for failure in the future.
And so, I think the goal is to figure out how do we get
more roofs over heads? How do we get more of these assets on
the ground and incentivize landowners and developers to build
more parks and get them rented out? And its okay for them to
make some profit in that endeavor, just to make sure that we
are providing the housing. Otherwise they leave town and there
are no more manufactured home parks as an option.
Mr. Mojica, I had a couple questions. Again, it just goes
to the vernacular that we are using here. You said that the
1,500-square-foot house costs NPHS $300,000 to make. What do
you sell them for?
Mr. Mojica. So when we sell these homes, we sell them at
market rate. And because we are using HOME dollars to offset
some of the construction costs, part of the financing, they are
sold at 95 percent of the median home price. So, in this case,
the homes that we are going to be selling, for example, the
next three homes are going to sell for $365,000. So they cost
about $300,000 to develop and we are going to sell them at
$365,000. Now----
Mr. Garcia. So you have roughly close to 30 percent--or
rather 20 percent profit margins on your sales, is that about
right?
Mr. Mojica. No. And actually, that is what I was about to
go ahead and clarify. So that is not including land value. The
total development, that was just explaining land value and
offsite improvements. Because these lots are very distressed
and awkward, the actual total development cost, total
development cost, you know, they are about upwards to $380,000.
And during my testimony, I wanted to make sure I made that
distinguishment because----
Mr. Garcia. So you own the land and then--so you buy the
land and then sell the land with the unit, is that right?
Mr. Mojica. That is correct. Yes. Yes.
Mr. Garcia. Okay.
Mr. Mojica. We own the land and we sell it.
Mr. Garcia. Where are you--where do you buy the land? I ask
this because I am from Southern California, as well, so I am
just curious----
Mr. Mojica. Oh, okay.
Mr. Garcia [continuing]. How you are saying in business
with--yeah.
Mr. Mojica. Yeah. So in this case, we are getting the land
donated from the city of San Bernardino and other
jurisdictions.
Mr. Garcia. Okay. So this requires--your business model
requires land to be donated. And then are you telling me that
you are only profiting about $10,000 per transaction then?
With----
Mr. Mojica. Well, in some cases, we are not profiting at
all. And this is where the HOME dollars come in and subsidize
that loss. The idea that--the reason we are in these
neighborhoods, where we are operating at a loss is because we
want to elevate the property values and be less dependent on
public subsidies. And that is one of the big strategies of
suburban infill development.
So I hope I clarified and answered your question. But this
is your traditional single-family home ownership infill
development using factory-built housing versus onsite-built
housing because that would cost a lot more total. including
land, including offsite. Yeah.
Mr. Garcia. Yup. Understood. Okay. All right. I just get
really squeamish when markets are peaking, rates are going
high, and encouraging especially folks of lower income to
purchase a home when they may be caught holding the bag with
negative loan-to-value ratios here shortly.
So I am out of time. I yield back. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Mr. Price. Mrs. Torres.
Mrs. Torres. Here it is. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank
you so much to all of our guests. It has been quite a great
conversation around manufactured homes and mobile home parks.
And, generally speaking, Mr. Mojica, in the Inland Empire,
we have, you know, a big challenge of mobile home parks. And I
am not just talking about the registered mobile home parks, but
I am also speaking to unregistered parks that could be areas
where they were, you know, desolate, no one was out there,
there was absolutely nothing. People moved out. They might have
parked their camper. They might have, you know, brought in, you
know, a car and they might be sleeping in a car. And eventually
they might have, you know, brought in a manufactured home.
Those are huge challenges for our communities. Because how
do you help those communities or those people living in these
unregistered areas? And I know the Coachella Valley has several
of those. In my own home city of Pomona, when I was a local
elected official there, we had 26 mobile home parks. All of
them had issues with septic tanks. All of them had issues with
lack of basic infrastructure, electricity, and all of that.
So we had quite a, you know, big conversation around CDBG
and how that funding could be utilized to help improve this.
Can you talk a little bit more about rehabbing some of--the
opportunities that could exist in rehabbing some of these parks
and bringing them to compliance?
Mr. Mojica. Thank you very much for that question,
Congresswoman Torres. So, yeah, it is a big issue. I mean, the
Inland Empire, you know, has a lot of mobile home parks. And
working with the local governments, we have seen that one of
the biggest issues for registered and unregistered mobile home
parks is mobile home replacement programs. But one of the
things that we are looking at doing in working with some of the
local government is now that we ourselves are a retailer and
can source a supply of manufactured housing, is how can we
create a mobile home replacement program using private sector
dollars versus CDBG or even HOME in order to do a mobile home
replacement program? That is a huge problem in our area right
now, that there is not a lot of resources and funding for
aging, older mobile homes that need to be replaced. So that is
a big issue, and that is one of the things that we are looking
at doing as a CDFI working with local government.
Another issue that we are looking at, especially with the
unregistered, and I am going to give you an example of that,
mobile home parks is in the Coachella Valley, which you
referenced, the Polanco Park Community, which you may be
familiar with, right, I think, I believe that most of them are
unregistered, right? But they have been recognized by the state
as actual entities, right? And you have got basic
infrastructure, you know.
I met with Pueblos Unidos, a nonprofit organization that
incubates the Polanco Parks. You know, I think there is about
56 or so Polanco Parks in the Coachella Valley. It is quite a
bit, totaling hundreds of units of, yeah, of housing. And we
are looking at how can we as--not just NPHS, but other CDFIs,
how can we be a better financial conduit to bring private
sector dollars, leveraged with public subsidies, if we can, in
order to bring infrastructure improvements?
And over there, in the Polanco Parks, for example, is basic
infrastructure for sewage and water. There is a lot of issues
with arsenic and not having sanitary water because they don't
have access to that; and also electricity. When the Santa Ana
winds come through, and this is about climate change as well,
those parks get hit really, really hard.
So those are some ways that we are looking at working with
both registered, unregistered mobile homes communities.
Mrs. Torres. So should we be looking at a specific line
item to help bring these parks, you know, to current standards?
Mr. Garcia. Yeah. Absolutely. And from working with the
Polanco Park community, the biggest thing is, can we bring in
private sector capital, you know, and leverage that with
Federal dollars, let us say CDFI ones, to offset the
infrastructure improvements that are needed?
Mrs. Torres. My time is up. I am going to yield back, but
we are going to come back to this conversation on the second
round. Thank you.
Mr. Price. Mr. Aguilar.
Mr. Aguilar. Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate
you having this panel. And as Congresswoman Torres noted, it is
an honor to have Mr. Mojica testify before the subcommittee and
to highlight some of the great work that neighborhood
partnership housing services does for our region. And I am
going to put Mr. Rutherford as a supporter based on that
previous exchange.
I was proud, Mr. Rutherford, to put forward a community
project funding request on behalf of NPHS for their Sustainable
Communities Catalyst Project. It is a 12-month project designed
to create and preserve affordable housing by developing
manufactured housing on a vacant lot in the city of San
Bernardino and revitalizing the surrounding neighborhoods and
local businesses.
So, Clemente, I wanted to ask you, you know, what Federal
resources does NPHS currently leverage to redevelop projects
like this, where vacant lots, working with local governments,
and utilizing manufactured housing?
Mr. Mojica. Thank you, Congressman Aguilar, for that
question. We primarily use--and following back on
Representative Garcia's question about sustainable home
ownership, right? And we have to be very careful about getting
homes in a position of success not failure. So, we used HOME
dollars and very particularly to build up neighborhoods. Right
now, it is costing us more to develop these homes, even using
manufactured housing. And we don't recoup those, that initial
investment unless we bring home dollars to subsidize some of
that construction. And then we, to ensure that the family is in
a sustainable home ownership, you know, we bring in CDFI funds
in order to provide down payment assistance. And sometimes we
layer that. So, the family goes in there with maybe it is one
or sometimes two layers of down payment assistance to make sure
that that mortgage is affordable.
Now, I will want to add something else. We are testing
manufactured housing and we are seeing significant appreciation
here in southern California. Maybe it is our market. Maybe it
is the crazy market of California. It is, you know. But, I am
going to give you an example. Three years ago, 4 years ago, we
sold a home to a teacher, bought our first manufactured home.
We sold it to her for $255,000. Late last year, she sold it
to--she sold it for $376,000. So, that teacher, she had to move
for other reasons to another state, but it clearly appreciated
significantly.
Maybe it is the market. I am not quite sure. But there is
just--but we are seeing that factory-built homes are
appreciating. But again, I think that we also need to be
mindful that all of these families need home ownership
education to make sure this is a--we put these families in a
sustainable homeownership position. I hope I answered your
question.
Mr. Aguilar. Yeah, no, I appreciate it. But could I follow-
up and ask what are some of the challenges that you face with
using Federal dollars for projects specific to this?
Mr. Mojica. You know, with HOME--using HOME dollars, you
know, the homes have to be sold to families at 80 percent of
the average median income. And since these homes are sold
somewhat at market rate, just a little less than that because
of the HOME regulations, the challenge is also making sure that
we have down payment assistance, right? To get the lower wealth
home buyers to be able to purchase this.
Another challenge was making sure the families get
affordable first mortgage financing. When we started testing
the first homes, it was really hard for families to get
conventional financing with less than 5 percent down payment
required. It just wasn't available. Fannie and Freddie weren't
doing 3 percent, you know, requiring families to--they were
requiring families to come with 5 percent not 3 percent. So,
now with a duty to serve and MH Advantage products, we are
seeing now, you know, we are going to be testing for the first
time, 3 percent requirement down payment for families using
conventional mortgage under the new Fannie and Freddie MH
Advantage products.
Mr. Aguilar. And that will expand the opportunities for
folks to be served?
Mr. Mojica. Yes, absolutely, because back to the question
of what are some challenges of using Federal dollars? The
income requirements are, you know, are meant to help lower
wealth families get into positions of home ownership. So, well,
you know, if that is the case, the families need to be able to
obtain an affordable first mortgage so they are in a very good
position from the onset, right? You want them to go into it
with cash reserves. If there is an emergency or something, you
don't want these families to be vulnerable in an economic
vulnerable position from the onset.
So, with affordable mortgages, with down payment
assistance, you know, we are putting families in a very good
space for long-term sustainable home ownership.
Mr. Aguilar. Thanks, Mr. Mojica. Thank you, Mr. Chairman,
yield back.
Mr. Price. Thank you. Ms. Wexton.
Ms. Wexton. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I also want to thank
the witnesses for appearing today and for your testimony about
this very important topic. And, Ms. O'Hara, you know, I haven't
heard the term fee-simple probably since law school and I have
to admit I had some very unpleasant flashbacks back to my 1L
property exam. So, I am trying to get over that and just get
back into the moment. But thank you so much for that.
So, this is a very important topic for us here in my
hometown of Leesburg because we actually have a--we have
several manufactured housing communities in my district
including one in my hometown of Leesburg, Virginia. I see you
nodding, Ms. O'Hara. I don't know if you are familiar with it
or not, but. But we have Leesburg Mobile Home Park has been
located just outside of--or inside of Historic Downtown
Leesburg since the 1950s. There are 75 lots. Many people there
have lived there for decades and simply can't afford to move
out, you know, to another part in the surrounding area.
Affordable housing in this region is really basically
nonexistent for so many of these people. And a lot of them for
whatever reason don't have a driver's license or don't have
automobiles. So, they need to be able to work, to walk to their
medical appointments, to their jobs, and everything. And there
is no other option for them.
So, Virginia law, you know, we don't have really the whole
private equity coming into the town of Leesburg quite yet. But
we do have the wealthy developers who saw a great opportunity
on this parcel of land and made an offer to the owners for $11
million. Now, Virginia law, which we passed, while I was in the
general assembly, requires that the owner accept a counteroffer
is one if made by the owners of the--or by the unit owners if
they wish to be able to do that. But they couldn't come up with
$11 million. I mean, these are people who work basically
subsistence level jobs and saw their hours cut during the
pandemic.
So, it was pretty challenging for them, but many of them
really didn't have an option to leave to go elsewhere. They
banded together and they started, they launched a PR campaign.
And I have to say it worked because the buyer did pull out at
that moment. But, you know, I just don't know whether it will
happen again.
Ms. O'Hara, can you speak a little bit about what happens
relocating a manufacturing home--manufactured home? It is
exceedingly expensive. I mean, a lot of folks can't afford it.
And even if they were to do it, I mean, a lot of those homes,
and I have been in some of them, they are not going to be able
to withstand that kind of trip. So, you know, could you talk
about what happens to those families that are forced to
relocate, especially for those areas, who live in an area with
a high cost of living like northern Virginia?
Ms. O'Hara. Thank you for that question, Representative
Wexton. I would say--and I do know we have talked to folks in
Virginia about the manufactured housing communities and how
important it would be to preserve them as they are. And I can
talk a little bit about relocation. But I would say, first and
foremost, is we have had communities where the purchase price
is $11 million and we have been able to finance the residents
as a cooperative to purchase those communities.
And we have--I mean, it is interesting in terms of just
talking about who is living in manufactured housing
communities. You know, 80 percent of the folks that are living
in resident owned communities make less than 80 percent median
income. Close to 50 percent make less than 50 percent median.
And we have got over one-third that are making less than 30
percent median income.
And these are already homeowners like the folks in the
community you are talking about. They already own that home.
Many of them own the home debt free. And so, the idea of moving
a home that has been there for, you know, 10, 15, 20 years,
generally speaking, it is settled into its where its been
placed and on the pad or whatever their foundation is. People
have built porches, and stairs, and decks, and sunrooms, and
everything else. The idea that those homes could simply be
picked up and moved somewhere else just is really, you know,
absurd in some cases, most cases, I would say. And then there
is----
Ms. Wexton. I know the zoning policy has a lot to do with
the ability to, you know, whether we are going to be able to
get new manufactured home communities approved. And I doubt
very much that any such thing would be approved in Loudoun
County anytime soon.
But, Mr. George, I would ask you. Is zoning policy a big
issue in the rural parts of America as well? Is there something
that prohibits these communities from being built in the rural
parts of America? Or is it something where they are friendlier
to the zoning?
Mr. George. I would say, generally, I am not an expert and
I might revert back to our initial inquiries around, you know,
increased resources for research. For the most part, I think
that probably relates to, or the issue of zoning is why there
is such a large number of manufactured homes in many rural
communities that there weren't restrictive policies to keep
them out. Oftentimes, because of the spatial and land dynamics
of rural communities. That is what I speculate, but I would say
that greatly contributes to the larger concentration of
manufactured homes in rural communities.
Ms. Wexton. Thank you.
Ms. O'Hara. I just want to say, Representative Wexton, if
this community comes up for sale again, and the residents are
interested in purchasing, we should definitely talk.
Ms. Wexton. Wonderful, great. I will let you know. I will
let you know. That is fantastic news. Thank you. Wonderful.
And, Mr. Chairman, I will yield back. I see my time has
expired.
Mr. Price. Thank you. That does conclude our first round of
questioning. I must say it was a good range of questions and
answers. I think we are all learning a lot. We don't have
indefinite time here, but we certainly have and want to take
time for a second round. So, we will do that. And then we will
all have a chance to submit questions for the record. I know I
have a couple that I probably won't get to orally, but I
certainly want to ask all our panelists to respond.
And I will just say in advance, one of those is a response
to the President's housing supply report of a couple of weeks
ago. A lot of which involves manufactured housing. And I think
we could use your assessments of those proposals. And I will
warn you in advance, we will want you to respond to that.
But let me start the second round and I will turn to Ms.
O'Hara. I want to ask you something, and others can chime in on
this, but I want to ask you something that seems
counterintuitive, but I understand that it is real. And that is
the eviction pressures that manufactured home residents were
subject to during the pandemic. One would think with so many of
these people owning their homes outright and paying rent only
on the land underneath the home, that that would mitigate the
likelihood of default and of eviction. But I wonder what kind
of experience do we have? What kind of data do we have about
the eviction experience of manufactured home residents during
the pandemic? And to the extent there seems to be something
wrong here, what can be done to remedy it at the local or
Federal level? We paid a lot of attention to evictions at the
Federal level, and did we somehow miss a beat on this housing
sector?
And then, Ms. O'Hara, I would like to ask you, you are a
very effective advocate for ROCs. I understand this kind of
arrangement though, home resident ownership, it has declined
over the last number of years, even though you have argued very
powerfully for examples of success. And so, I wonder what your
view is as to how this could be incentivized. Particularly when
development pressures are occurring. What kind of first refusal
or whatever could be required? And how could Federal policy
somehow at least give resident owners a fighting chance?
Ms. O'Hara. Thank you. I greatly appreciate that question.
First off, I would say that in terms of the--oh, I lost my
train of thought there.
Mr. Price. The eviction aspect.
Ms. O'Hara. Evictions.
Mr. Price. Yeah.
Ms. O'Hara. Just as Lance George is talking about we don't
have good data in manufactured home communities versus any
other eviction tendencies across the country. I will say in
resident owned communities, in the 294 resident owned
communities that ROC USA supports, we didn't have a significant
issue with either evictions or with non-rent payment.
Mr. Price. No, but other communities did. And that is what
I am--I do want to get at that one way or another. But maybe
others can chime in on this. But could you proceed then to say
something about incentivizing resident ownership and why
despite the possibilities here, this hasn't caught on more.
Ms. O'Hara. Yeah, it takes a couple of things. The first
thing is, is it takes a willing seller. So, it takes a
community owner who is willing to sell their community to their
homeowners. And we have got more and more of those. We have
been trying to build that over these last 14 years that ROC USA
has been around. And to get out into the marketplace, work with
the industry. Go to all the tradeshows. Talk to the brokers.
Generally speaking, resident buyers are paying the same
price as any other buyer for a community. In states where there
is opportunity to purchase and where the homeowners are given
notice that their community is for sale that there has been an
offer of a certain dollar amount, they are required to meet
that offer. And those are the communities that we have financed
and support with technical assistance where the residents have
bought their communities. So, any place where there is an
opportunity to purchase, there is almost no situation where the
homeowners have not made the choice to buy the community and
where there is the financing available.
The issue currently is this influx of private investment
that has started to drive prices to a place where we cannot
compete with investors who are financed with Fannie and Freddie
low-cost funds. We are bringing market rate funds through our
CDFI. Sometimes we have an HFA, local HFA that has participated
in those loans and driven down those dollars. But included in
the Build Back Better was a housing investment fund that would
provide that kind of low-cost debt for residents to purchase.
But I would say the biggest reason that we have not been
able to expand this resident ownership model across the country
has been a) the fact that most of these communities are sold
without anyone knowing it. They are sold. The residents don't
find out that the land under their homes is for sale until it
is already done, and a new community owner comes in and issues
them either a rent increase notice or 180 days to leave their
home.
So, that process is incredibly important. It is one of the
reasons that we are suggesting that any time the Federal
Government invests in, even through Fannie and Freddie
financing, in a private buyer buying a community, that they
include a requirement that if we have to do it community by
community, let's do it community by community. Require that
that new owner give the residents an opportunity to purchase
when the community is going to be sold.
Mr. Price. Right, that is----
Ms. O'Hara. They have to be noticed----
Mr. Price. That is your proposal that that requirement be
put in place?
Ms. O'Hara. Absolutely.
Mr. Price. Yeah. Just before moving to Mr. Diaz-Balart, I
do want to, just a very quick question to Mr. George. Do we
have the eviction data that I asked for or can you help us
obtain it? And the question as to explaining the pattern?
Mr. George. Thank you, Chairman Price. Unfortunately, I
don't know if we do. I know we have been personally, our
organization has been contacted by larger entities that focus
on this, the Eviction Lab, to try to garner information
specifically about this type of housing. And I just think it is
very difficult. I would also just note, relevant to many
aspects of manufactured housing, there is a lot of variation by
state. And I think many of the witnesses will attest to that.
The State laws that govern this type of housing and units
really varies a lot. So, you can see different protections in
different parts of the country. But, unfortunately, I wish I
had a better answer for you. I don't think that I do.
Mr. Price. Well, if you can come up with one between now
and the printing of the record, we would welcome any data that
is available. And, of course, any of the other witnesses who
have--like to share on this.
Before we go further, I need to make a UC request, and turn
to Mr. Diaz-Balart. But in addition to the testimony we have
heard today, I have written testimony here from the
Manufactured Housing Institute. And I need, before we lose a
quorum here, to make certain that I ask for a UC to enter that
into the record. Is there any objection?
Mr. Price. All right. Let's turn to Mr. Diaz-Balart. Mario,
I think you are muted.
Mr. Diaz-Balart. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I apologize. The
question goes to Mr. George. I am aware of the work that your
organization has done in Kentucky and other rural areas.
Because of the Dean of the House who is on the Appropriations
Committee as well, Mr. Rogers, and, you know, he has worked
hard to ensure that you have the resources to serve rural
areas, some of them which are deeply impoverished. And I
understand, by the way, that you are also from Kentucky like
Mr. Rogers.
But here is the question. How do you leverage seed funding
that we provide to organizations like the Housing Assistance
Council, as you work to provide, you know, quality affordable
housing in rural areas?
Mr. George. Thank you, Ranking Member Diaz-Balart. If I
could just ask for a clarification. Did you say state funding
or did----
Mr. Diaz-Balart. Seed money, I apologize.
Mr. George. Seed money.
Mr. Diaz-Balart. Seed money. Yes, sir.
Mr. George. So, the Housing Assistance Council uses an
array of resources. And I would just like to note that we do,
we are active in many of the communities that you mentioned.
And, yes, I am a displaced Kentuckian. I miss Kentucky very
much these days. But and the photo behind me is very close to
my family farm in eastern Kentucky that actually has a
manufactured home in the picture. I just randomly realized that
in this discussion.
But to get to the question. The Housing Assistance Council,
we work with local community-based organizations. And
oftentimes bring an array of resources. As I noted before,
research and information is just one of the elements of our
work. We provide financing and technical assistance and
training and actually we have funded the preservation of over
390 manufactured homes in five major parks in collaboration
with ROC USA. So, we bring an array of resources both publicly
and privately. One of the important resources that I would say
to work with many of these communities is rural capacity
building.
So, it has been mentioned before the dynamic between urban
and rural communities. In some respect, there is no difference,
but in this there is. The capacity for communities to address
some of these issues is a major issue. And one of the focus of
the Housing Assistance Council is to work with local community-
based organizations in rural areas. They are among the most
resourceful groups you will ever see. It is amazing the work
they do, especially groups like those in Mr. Rogers' district.
But they do not have, like many urban jurisdictions, planning
departments, or sophisticated elements. And we often work with
those communities to help provide technical assistance and
training to address these type of housing needs that we are
discussing today.
Mr. Diaz-Balart. Well, look, I appreciate that. I don't
have a lot of time, but let me now go to Mr. McCarthy, and
obviously zoning is a local issue. And, you know, again, it can
have a great impact on the affordability, right, on some
communities. Now, I would never advocate for, you know, the
Federal Government to try a heavy-handed approach, but I do
think that communities can learn from each other as to where
zoning changes can help increase housing supply or lead to
greater affordability.
So what type of zoning changes do you think are most
productive, obviously at the local level, especially as they
relate to manufactured housing and the redevelopment of, you
know, blighted mobile home communities?
Mr. McCarthy. So, yeah, so thank you for that, the
questions.
First of all, back to the other question about rural areas.
In unincorporated areas they are very often not zoned, and so
it is much easier to kind of establish a new manufactured
housing community in an unincorporated area because there is no
kind of zoning that has been imposed. In areas that are
incorporated that have zoning, there are a couple of things
that are useful to think about. One is, if you want to preserve
the manufactured housing communities as a component of your
affordable housing stock, you can actually do zoning overlays
that will then require that they be maintained as manufactured
housing communities in perpetuity, and then it will incentivize
people to then make those communities work as best they can as
manufactured housing communities.
And then separately, you know, in places like Massachusetts
and a few other states now are looking at some of the state-
level preemption, they are actually requiring that wealthier
communities, you know, bear their share of the affordable
housing burden for the region by requiring that they build
affordable housing when they don't meet kind of normal kind of
threshold standards.
So in Massachusetts, there is a thing called Proposition
40B. If you don't have 10 percent of your housing stock that is
affordable, then if a developer comes in with a proposal to do
a development, they can't be turned down by the local zoning
board. The state can come in and preempt that and say they have
to be able to do that if they are going to be building
affordable housing with a minimum amount of units.
And similarly, where they are building around transit-rich
areas, transit sites in different areas, they can actually add
manufactured housing communities, especially if they are rural
or, you know, exurban transit-rich areas. In Massachusetts,
again, the commuter rail actually runs through what is older
industrial areas that actually do not have a lot of housing,
but actually have abandoned industrial sites, a lot of low-
value commercial properties. And they could build manufactured
housing communities which are relatively dense within walking
distance of a commuter rail, which will give people access to
jobs in the entire region, but they are very often prevented by
the local jurisdictions.
And so now the state is coming in and saying they want to
be able to do dense developments in these transit-rich areas
for a variety of reasons, including kind of the need to build
more affordable housing, but also, they need to get more cars
off the road and reduce kind of congestion and reduce vehicle
miles traveled and, you know, greenhouse gas emissions. And so
there is that.
And then finally, there is just the plain old inclusionary
zoning requirements that some places layer on, and sometimes
that works to the benefit of manufactured housing. But now with
the cost of land and the cost of housing so high, more often
than not even inclusionary is going towards multifamily dense
development and not towards manufactured housing.
Mr. Diaz-Balart. Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Mr. Price. Thank you. Mrs. Torres.
Mrs. Torres. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Dr. McCarthy, in the
fiscal year 2022 enacted bill, I worked secure transit-oriented
development language requiring HUD and DOT to issue joint
guidance outlining best practices for land-use policies to
increase supply of affordable and market rate housing. The
guidance, you know, should provide recommendations for both
local and state land use agencies to improve their zoning. I
was also really happy to see that the Biden administration
included transit-oriented development as part of its housing
supply action plan. So this plan includes transit-oriented
development which will reward jurisdictions that have reformed
their zoning and land-use policies.
Are there any other challenges that you see there? And if
you can be brief, so I would like Mr. Mojica to also identify
what challenges NPHS has encountered developing manufactured
homes.
Mr. McCarthy. Yeah, I will be very brief. I mean, the
biggest challenge we have for transit-oriented development is
actually being able to plan regionally as opposed to
jurisdiction by jurisdiction. And so very often you get some
hyper-localized decisions that are not really beneficial for
the region, and you have to find a way to get the regions to
kind of work together on the plan, right?
Mrs. Torres. Yes.
Mr. Mojica. The other thing is that some of the biggest
landowners in the country are actually transit authorities, and
they don't have a strong incentive to develop their own land to
make affordable housing. And if those incentives were pushed
down to the transit authorities to do that, and it happened in
the Bay area, BART actually did participate in the development
of a lot of affordable housing in the Bay area, that would be
really, really helpful. And they are not property developers,
you know--they move people around on rails, right, so?
Mrs. Torres. Right, but they could work with organizations
such as NPHS.
Mr. Mojica. Yeah, exactly. Yeah, and they do. In the Bay
area that is what they did. They partnered up with affordable
housing developers to develop thousands of housing on BART land
in a codevelopment arrangement.
Mrs. Torres. Mr. Mojica, do you have anything else that you
want to add to this?
Mr. Mojica. Sure, absolutely. First I want to thank the
policy work that our colleagues are doing here, Dr. McCarthy,
Ms. O'Hara from ROC USA. I think it has paved the way for us as
a small developer place-base here to look at manufactured
housing to, you know, help families build wealth through home
ownership, so that has really helped a lot.
And we have, of course, some challenges. So, through the
lens of suburban infill development, we don't primarily do work
with factory-built and manufactured communities. We are more of
an infill suburban developer.
And back to your point, Congresswoman Torres, we are
looking at ways of replacing dilapidated, old mobile homes
through the capacity that we are building in this space. But
your question, the challenges that we are still addressing,
working our way through, and you heard it today, the negative
perception of inferior quality of manufactured homes. The homes
that you see behind me, product placement, you know, those are
the homes that we have built in the city of San Bernardino and
the city of Chino. All of----
Mrs. Torres. Yes, let me stop you there because I am going
to add another challenge to this, and that is for California
and the western states, you know, the fact that we have a
severe drought. No water also means no permits that, you know,
cities could allow you to build housing because where is the
water going to come to service these families? Is that
something that you see as a challenge moving forward?
Mr. Mojica. No, we are not seeing that as a challenge
moving forward. The biggest challenges that we are seeing is
local government capacity to expedite the process of affordable
homes, getting them quicker off the ground. Right now we are
seeing a 5- to 6-month permitting process. And those holding
times prevent me to get the home from the plant, you know, to
the site. And so there are holding costs and, you know, it just
adds a lot more to the bottom line and keeping the cost down on
these developments. No, but we are not seeing that.
Another challenge that we are seeing is the valuation and
appraisal issue, and one of the, yeah, representatives alluded
to that. You know, do these home appraise and do they value
like site-built homes? Probably not 100 percent like site-built
homes, but they are, and there is no uniformity in the
valuation of single-family manufactured homes. But Fannie and
Freddie are looking at that under the new manufactured housing
product financing that they are offering, getting appraisers to
come be more on board.
Mrs. Torres. Thank you, and I yield back.
Mr. Price. Mr. Rutherford.
Mr. Rutherford. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And, Mr. Mojica, I
want to follow up on that because the earlier comment that I
said about home ownership, what I am talking about we should
all be working toward home ownership for these financially
challenged families, I am not talking about just the home, I am
also talking about the land that the home sits on. And I think
that is an important issue because, yes, it is true, the home
itself may actually depreciate, but the land that it is sitting
on is appreciating. And I think when we at look at some of the
investors who are coming in and buying the land, I think they
see that. That is why this number has doubled, the number of
investor-owned properties has doubled, which I think also might
go to the issue that was brought up earlier about the declining
number of people in resident-owned communities. It is going
down because investor-owned properties are going up.
And so, I want to do what we can to help people own their
property because I believe, particularly for these folks who
are in a situation, yes, they may see depreciation in their
home, but if they are seeing great appreciation in their
property, then that is a good thing, and I think, you know, we
need to continue to push that.
And, so, Ms. O'Hara, I was curious, in your comments you
mentioned that you wanted to create a manufactured home
community capital gains tax credit to incentivize selling
homeowners and maintain long-term affordability. My issue with
that, and I have to ask, wouldn't that bring in the investor
community to the detriment of homeowners, or have I got
something wrong on this?
Ms. O'Hara. Thank you very much, Representative Rutherford.
First of all, I am not sure where people are getting the
statistic that there are fewer people living in resident-owned
communities now than there were before because I don't believe
that that is true. I certainly haven't seen that, that there
has been a decline in occupied resident-owned communities.
And I think that investor owners are actually not
necessarily looking at the appreciation of the land. They are
looking, those communities increase in value based on how much
cash they can pull out of it. It is all based on cash flow.
Mr. Rutherford. By raising the rent and all of that, yeah.
Ms. O'Hara. Raising the rent and taking the expenses and
trying to deliver them directly. So, I buy the community, I
raise the rent, and then I let you know that I am going to also
directly bill you for water, I am going to directly bill you
for a share of the property taxes, I am going to directly bill
you for a share of the trash collection. So, your rent goes up
and you have all of these other fees, and that takes away any
expense I have, so my cash flow increases dramatically.
But your other question is--about the tax credit.
The idea there is that there are a lot of mom-and-pop
community owners out there. You know, they have built those
communities or they have inherited them from their parents, and
they have run them like small businesses. Many of those folks
live nearby, they are local to the community, the wider
community, and they would like to sell to their residents, but
because their base is so low, they are looking at a huge
capital gains tax. And so they are holding on to the properties
with the intent of when they leave them to the heirs, the heirs
will be able to sell them with less capital gains tax. And
many, many times the younger generation doesn't want to
continue to own the manufactured home community.
So, if we can open up those community owners that would
like to sell their residence and use the capital gains tax
incentive if they sell to the homeowners who live there, that
would make--as the chairman was asking, you know, how do you
get this to increase across the country? That is one way they
were thinking.
Mr. Rutherford. Right. So, your proposition is that they
sell directly to the homeowners, not to some outside investment
firm.
Ms. O'Hara. Exactly. That is exactly it.
Mr. Rutherford. Okay. That I think I could live with.
Mr. Chairman, I see my time is up, so I will yield back.
Thank you.
Mr. Price. All right, thank you. Mr. Aguilar.
Mr. Aguilar. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I just wanted to
build on the home ownership discussion, and obviously it is a
key component of realizing the American dream. In California,
we received reports from the state that home ownership rates
have dropped to just under 54 percent, which is almost the
lowest home ownership level since the '40s. One important
Federal program that helps individuals live in affordable
housing and preserve their neighborhoods is NeighborWorks.
Mr. Mojica, as a NeighborWorks partner, can you talk with
us about how that program has helped your organization preserve
affordable housing and revitalize neighborhoods within our
region?
Mr. Mojica. Absolutely. Thank you, Congressman Aguilar, for
that question. The funding that we have received from
NeighborWorks America has been extremely critical, very
important for us. Not only are they a funding partner, a
funding resource, but a technical assistance provider as well,
and they incubate a network of other NeighborWorks
organizations that we share a lot of best practices, so there
is a lot going on here.
But that core funding that we do receive, you know, for us,
and if we back into our mission and the areas of impact that we
are in, you know, we use it to create affordable housing and
innovative strategies like looking at factory-built in order to
create both transferable wealth and sustainable home ownership,
right? We use that core appropriation to revitalize our
neighborhoods, you know. So we do a lot of home repair
financing, home repair grants, and so forth, to help address
aging, older housing stock, whether it is site-built or
factory-built.
A lot of education, so, you know, we use that
appropriation, like a lot of other NeighborWorks organizations
across the country, to educate through financial literacy
education, economic inclusion. You know, we talk a lot about
building wealth around home ownership, but we also need to talk
about preserving that wealth, right? So there is a home
ownership continuum, but we also need to go ahead and invest in
a home ownership preservation continuum, creating default-
resistant homebuyers, right, that are more educated, that will
be able to maintain and know how to react when they are in
moments of distress. So appropriation, that funding helps
support those programs.
Environmental sustainability, we have launched a social
enterprise around solar equity, making solar more mainstream
for your typical homebuyer, right, lower wealth homebuyer that
can't--you know, owning solar panels is sometimes out of sight,
out of mind. I have got other priorities than putting solar on
a roof. So we have created an enterprise around helping
families understand solar technology as well as solar panels
and how they can purchase those at a much more affordable
price. Funding has supported those types of social enterprise
innovations as well as other types of innovations across the
country on other NeighborWorks organizations.
And lastly, you know, we are at our tipping point into a
space where, you know, we need to do a--what role can we play
as a CDFI to invest in, you know, small businesses in order to
create more living-wage jobs, so folks can afford to buy an
entry-level home? So that and just many other things is how the
funding from NeighborWorks America has helped our
organizations, and a lot of NeighborWorks organizations would
probably say the same.
Mr. Aguilar. Thank you, I appreciate the answer.
Ms. O'Hara, your organization has a mission of uplifting
residents, and so can you talk with us a little bit about how
nonprofits around the country can leverage public and private
resources to expand and preserve manufactured homes in these
communities and just kind of generally how that leveraging is
helping you maintain your mission?
Ms. O'Hara. Representative Aguilar, thank you so much, and
I just have to piggyback on what Clemente said about
NeighborWorks America. NeighborWorks America invested a half a
million dollars in the launch of ROC USA. They really hosted
the first symposium on manufactured housing back in the early
2000s. They have been a stalwart supporter of every effort I
think here that you see before you. And we have five
NeighborWorks America affiliates that are part of the 230
NeighborWorks America groups. We have five of them in our
network as well. And the great thing about those organizations
is that they are innovating in this space, where we are solely
focused on preserving these communities, our affiliates who do
that work and in addition are creating new affordable housing
and communities.
I mean, one of the things that is so great about resident-
owned communities is you preserve that existing community, and
then any vacant lots that are in that community can be filled
with new homes that will be another affordable house for
another homeowner. They are doing that, just as Clemente said,
the solar work is being done in New York through Pathstone. We
have got a NeighborWorks organization out in Oregon that is
working a whole weatherization process for existing homes. And
some of what Mac McCarthy was saying about, you know, Cash for
Clunkers, that it is the NeighborWorks organization out there
who is looking at replacing these pre-76 homes with new Energy
Star homes. So I can't say enough.
Mr. Aguilar. Thank you so much. I am so sorry, my time is
up, but I really appreciate the answers and your commitment to
these issues.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
Mr. Price. Well, thank you. We have reached the end of our
appointed time. Many of us may have additional questions that
we want to submit, ask you to respond to for the record, but we
have had two good rounds and I think a very wide-ranging
discussion, very informative, but also suggestive in terms of
what direction policy might take, including Appropriations
policy.
So, to conclude, I want to thank all of the witnesses for
participating. We look forward to working with you as we craft
our Fiscal Year 2023 Appropriations Bill and incorporating some
helpful features in that bill to further the objectives
discussed today.
I want to thank one staff member in particular, Rachel
Kyes, who has taken on this as a special project, from the
researching of the issue right down to the recruiting of the
witnesses. And she has had a big impact on this hearing and I
want to thank her for her work in putting it together.
She and others on the committee staff will be in touch with
all the organizations represented here today regarding any
questions for the record. I have already indicated that I will
have one regarding the Housing Supply Action Plan that you
aren't required to respond to, but I would appreciate your
response, since it does in some detail get into manufactured
housing questions. We will have other questions that we will
ask you, and the request is to return that information within
30 days, return that information for the record, so that we
will have a complete transcript and a complete record of our
hearings before we write our bill.
Mr. Diaz-Balart, do you have any final comments?
Mr. Diaz-Balart. Mr. Chairman, I just thank everyone for
their time. I yield back.
Mr. Price. All right. Well, thanks to everyone, and we will
look forward to remaining in touch with you. With that, this
hearing is adjourned.
[Answers to submitted questions follow:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
W I T N E S S E S
----------
Page
Buttigieg, Hon. Pete............................................. 5
Fudge, Hon. Marcia L............................................. 77
George, Lance.................................................... 160
Liu, Michael..................................................... 158
Luria, Hon. Elaine G............................................. 148
McCarthy, George................................................. 156
Mojica, Clemente................................................. 158
O'Hara, Mary..................................................... 161