| PBS8 | Housing Choice Vouchers | HOME | Section 202 | Section 811 | Community Development Block Grant | |
| FY 16 House Bill | $10.654 billion[1] | $19.92 billion[2] | $767 million | $414 million[3] | $152 million | $3 billion |
| Obama Budget Request | $10.76 billion[4] | $21.12 billion[5] | $1.06 billion | $455 million[6] | $177 million | $2.80 billion |
| FY 2015 Omnibus | $9.73 billion | $19.3 billion | $900 million | $420 million | $135 million | $3 billion |
June 12, 2015
House Passes T-HUD Appropriations Bill
Late on Tuesday, June 9, the House of Representatives passed H.R.2577, the Transportation, Housing and Urban Development, and Related Agencies (T-HUD) Appropriations Act, 2016. After extensive debate, the bill passed narrowly with a final vote of 216-210. The Senate has yet to release its version of a T-HUD appropriations bill for FY 2016.
The funding levels contained in the passed H.R.2577 are identical to the House Appropriations T-HUD Subcommittee draft as reported in a previous Washington Update:
[1] H.R.2577 does not explicitly state how much would be made available for contract renewals; this amount does include $400 million in advanced appropriations (for FY 2017)
2 Includes $18.151 billion for contract renewals
3 Includes $77 million for Service Coordinators
4 Included $10.54 billion for renewals and $400 million in advanced appropriations (for FY 2017)
5 Includes $18.33 billion for contract renewals
6 Includes $77 million for Service Coordinators
The late night voting marathon that concluded in the passage of H.R.2577 included numerous floor amendments. Most of these amendments focused on transportation or single-family housing; below are the amendments relevant to affordable multifamily housing:
REJECTED: Floor Amendments No. 35 & 36 – Representative Glenn Grothman introduced two amendments which would have barred any family who is not an elderly family or a disabled family from receiving assistance under the Tenant-Based Rental Assistance program (Housing Choice Vouchers) and the Project-Based Section 8 program, effective October 1, 2015. Additionally, this amendment would have cut the funding level for voucher renewals by $210 million and the amount for contract renewals in PBS8 by $300 million. Fortunately, these amendments was rejected by a voice vote.
Representative Grothman also pointed ire at the owners and managers of Project-Based Section 8 properties while introducing his amendment on the House floor: “Over time, we have this kind of industry growing up in which you operate low-income housing. In some ways, I assume people are entering into it because it is more profitable than a pure, free market sort of thing; and I would think that people who are opposed to corporate welfare ought to be opposed to it for that reason as well… In order to get this low-income housing, it almost encourages one–it does encourage one–to have children without a mother and father at home. To continue this program or even expand this program to more people is to just destroy the moral fiber of America.”
REJECTED: Floor Amendment No. 10 – Representative Al Green (D-TX) offered an amendment that would have increased appropriations for the HOME Investment Partnerships Program to $1.06 billion (the Administration’s FY 2016 request). This Amendment would have also reversed language that would have transferred funding for the Housing Trust Fund (HTF) into the HOME account and effectively eliminate the HTF by prohibiting replenishment from any source. THUD Subcommittee Chairman Diaz-Balart raised a point of order, or a claim of rule breaking, on the amendment because it failed to provide offsets for this increase. This and all other related points of order were sustained.
ACCEPTED: Floor Amendment No. 337 – Representative Scott Garrett (R-NJ) introduced an amendment which would prevent HUD from using funding in H.R.2577 to enforce fair housing laws using the disparate impact standard. Garrett has been an active opponent of the disparate impact rule as it relates to housing. NAHMA signed on to an industry support letter for this amendment. This amendment was passed with a recorded vote of 232 – 196.
ACCEPTED: Floor Amendment No. 399 – Representative Scott Gosar (R-AZ) introduced an amendment which would prohibit HUD from using funds to carry out the rule entitled “Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing”, published by HUD in the Federal Register back July, 2013. Gosar has previously introduced this language in a stand-alone bill, H.R.1995, the Local Zoning and Property Rights Protection Act of 2015 (this bill remains unpassed). The final recorded vote for this amendment was 229-193.
ACCEPTED: Floor Amendment No. 24 – Representative Al Grayson (D-FL) introduced an amendment which would increase funding for the Section 202 Housing for the Elderly program by $2.5 million. This increase would be offset by cutting funding for HUD’s Office of Policy Development and Research by a similar amount. This amendment was passed by a voice vote. Grayson’s amendment was one of only two amendments which increased funding for HUD assistance programs; the other increased funding for the Housing Opportunities for Persons with Aids (HOPWA) program. Grayson’s amendment passed by a voice vote, meaning it was not officially recorded.
Though H.R.2577 passed the House, it still faces a serious uphill battle in becoming law. The White House has threatened to veto the bill, should it reach the president’s desk, because of the low funding levels it provides for transportation and housing programs. NAHMA will continue to monitor the bill’s progress and will alert members of the Senate T-HUD appropriations figures when they are released.
Hearing Centers on the Future of HUD
On Thursday, June 11, the House Financial Services Committee held a hearing entitled “The Future of Housing in America: Oversight of the Department of Housing and Urban Development.” HUD Secretary Julian Castro was present and delivered testimony on the state of the Department as it turns 50 this year.
Committee Chairman Jeb Hensarling (R-TX) began the hearing by criticizing HUD and its failure to combat poverty in America: “The poverty rate today is essentially unchanged from when HUD was founded. Millions more Americans fall below the poverty line today, including an unbelievable one out of five children… For whatever good HUD does, it clearly has not won the war on poverty.” Hensarling placed emphasis on the funding provided to HUD, and his desire to see concrete information on how housing assistance has improved the lives of low-income Americans.
In her opening remarks, the Committee Ranking Member Maxine Waters (D-CA) countered that HUD “provides critical rental and homeless assistance for our country’s most vulnerable populations.” She also attacked the majority party and the recently passed House T-HUD Appropriations bill by saying “as we will see here today, my colleagues have no interest in strengthening our national housing system. Their priorities, that is on the opposite side of the aisle, are clearly reflected in the recently passed HUD funding bill, which drives investment in this agency down to historic lows, undercutting programs which help families reach housing stability.”
Secretary Castro responded to comments that the Department is failing at its mission by highlighting the essential services provided by HUD and its ongoing efforts to improve: “our innovative rental assistance demonstration [RAD], which has helped communities leverage nearly $1 billion in private market construction investments to address long-overdue repairs to public housing, and with an additional $5 billion coming down the pipeline, it’s clear that we’re going to help ensure that public housing is quality housing for years to come.” He also noted the challenges faced by HUD, particularly with its budget constraints “…under HUD’s current budget, we’re able to serve only one out of every four people who are eligible for our assistance. That’s why we’re examining our own operations to see how we can deliver results faster and more effectively to those that we serve.”
These opposing beliefs of success versus failure created tension during the hearing, and there were several contentious discussions between the Secretary and committee members. One particularly hostile dispute occurred between Secretary Castro and Representative Scott Garrett (R-NJ) over the use of disparate impact policy as it relates to HUD and the Federal Housing Administration’s (FHA) lending practices. “HUD’s disparate impact rule, that allows you, the government, to allege discriminatory practices based not on intent, but solely on statistical outcomes and not, as I say, on any discriminatory intent or disparate treatment. The results of that are that the cost of litigation is strangling the market.” Representative Garrett did not highlight examples from the multifamily-side of HUD, but his intentions were clear; Garrett has been an active opponent of the disparate impact rule as it relates to housing and he has aimed to bring attention to the practice through legislation added to the T-HUD Appropriations bill for FY 2016.
Representative Al Green later rejected Representative Garrett’s statements on disparate impact – “…we cannot allow disparate impact to be eliminated. This tool has been recognized by courts, and they’ve made a difference, and I applaud you for standing up and standing your ground this morning.”
Much of the focus of this hearing was placed on the single-family side of HUD, and also the Department’s ability to produce data on the effectiveness of its programs. There was little agreement on how to improve the Department, and much of the back and forth discussions displayed the stark political divisions of this committee.
To view an archived webcast of this hearing and to view Secretary Castro’s testimony, please click here
Posted