| Project-Based Sec.8 | Housing Choice Vouchers | HOME | Section 202 | Section 811 | Community Development Block Grant | |
| FY 16 Senate Bill | $10.82 billion[1] | $19.9 billion[2] | $66 million | $420 million[3] | $137 million | $2.9 billion |
| FY 16 House Bill (H.R.2577) | $10.654 billion[4] | $19.92 billion[5] | $767 million | $414 million[6] | $152 million | $3 billion |
| President Budget Request | $10.76 billion[7] | $21.12 billion[8] | $1.06 billion | $455 million[9] | $177 million | $2.80 billion |
June 26, 2015
Senate Appropriations Committee Releases T-HUD Funding Bill for Fiscal Year 2016
On Tuesday, June 23, the Senate Transportation, Housing and Urban Development, and Related Agencies (T-HUD) Appropriations Subcommittee released its funding bill for fiscal year 2016. The Subcommittee passed the bill the same day, and it was later passed by the full Appropriations Committee on Thursday, June 25, with a recorded vote of 20 to 10.
The legislation includes a total of $37.56 billion for HUD, which is an increase of nearly $2 billion above the FY 2015 enacted level, but a $3 billion decrease from the Obama Administration’s budget request for FY 2016. Below are the funding figures in the Senate T-HUD Appropriations bill in comparison to the House T-HUD bill (H.R.2577), the President’s budget request. :
1 Amount for contract renewals – up to $215 may be used for contract administrators
2 Includes $17.98 billion for contract renewals
3 Includes $77 million for service coordinators
4 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)
5 Includes $18.151 billion for contract renewals
6 Includes $77 million for Service Coordinators
7 Included $10.54 billion for renewals and $400 million in advanced appropriations (for FY 2017)
8 Includes $18.33 billion for contract renewals
[9] Includes $77 million for Service Coordinators
Compared to the House bill, the Senate’s targeted appropriation for Project-Based Section 8 (PBS8) is much higher, and is consistent with NAHMA’s minimum acceptable funding rate for the program since the transition of contracts funding to a calendar year model. The Senate Appropriations Committee Report highlights this transition and implies that the slatted funding level will provide full-funding for all PBS8 contracts: “The recommended level of funding is $1,096,000,000 more than the amount provided in fiscal year 2015 and is $66,000,000 more than the budget request…The Committee recommendation completes the process of shifting the funding cycle for contract renewals to a calendar year basis.” The Senate bill rejects the Obama Administration’s proposed change to the medical deduction calculation, and again rejects the administration’s proposal to renew senior preservation rental assistance contracts [SPRAC] in this account.
NAHMA is very concerned about the funding level targeted for the HOME Investment Partnerships Program. A funding level of $66 million represents a 93 percent cut from the FY 2015 enacted level. Since HOME is used as gap financing for the construction/rehabilitation of multifamily properties under the Low-Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC), this cut would greatly impact the construction of new affordable units. NAHMA is strictly opposed to this draconian cut, and our advocacy efforts for FY 2016 funding will be expanded to oppose such a cut to HOME. NAHMA is also opposed to the cut to HOME included in the House T-HUD Appropriations bill. The House bill intends to redirect funds from the Housing Trust Fund to HOME, but NAHMA believes that these programs should be fully funded independently.
During the markup of the bill by the Senate Appropriations Committee, several amendments were introduced to increase funding for affordable housing programs. Senator Jack Reed (D-RI) introduced an amendment which would have provided an additional $990 million for HOME, but the amendment failed on a party-line vote of 14-16. Senator Chris Coons (D-DE) also introduced an amendment to boost HOME funding. This amendment was contingent on a broader budget deal to remove the strict spending caps enacted by the Budget Control Act of 2011 (BCA), but the amendment was likewise struck down by a 14-16 vote.
Many Democrats, including Appropriations Committee Ranking Member Barbara Mikulski (D-MD) and Senator Reed, ranking member of the Senate Appropriations T-HUD Subcommittee, have urged other lawmakers to work on a bipartisan budget agreement that would eliminate the BCA spending caps. However, Senator Susan Collins (R-ME), the Chair of the Senate Appropriations T-HUD Subcommittee contended that the Senate’s effort on spending bills must be limited to discretionary spending caps until Congress chooses to act otherwise.
“I happen to believe that the BCA caps should be responsibly increased to a certain degree, but that requires Congress to act. And until that time, our job as appropriators is to write bills within the budget caps, within the budget allocations established by law in order to avoid the mindless cuts triggered by sequestration and ensuring proper consideration for each and every program.”
Now that the Senate bill has passed the full Appropriations Committee, it will soon be introduced on the Senate floor for full debate. In the coming days, NAHMA will be sending grassroots advocacy alerts to members which will request that lawmakers reject the harsh sequestration imposed cuts made to HOME and other affordable housing programs.
To view the Senate Committee Report, please click here
Supreme Court Issues Ruling on Disparate Impact as it Relates to the Fair Housing Act
On June 25, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a decision in the case Inclusive Community Project Inc. vs. Texas Department of Housing and Community Affairs. The 5-4 decision allows complaints to be brought under the Fair Housing Act based on “disparate impact,” when a policy that appears to be neutral, or no intent to discriminate, has an adverse effect or impact on a protected class. Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote the opinion, and was joined by Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor, and Elena Kagan.
An important note is that while the opinion firmly upholds the concept of “disparate impact,” it seems to place new limits on how claims can be brought. The opinion is clear that disparate impact claims cannot be based solely on statistical disparities. A plaintiff will have to demonstrate that a defendant’s policy or practice actually caused a disparity. Under this reasoning, housing authorities and developers would not be held liable under a disparate impact challenge if they could show that a policy or practice was necessary to achieve a valid goal.
HUD Secretary Julián Castro issued the following statement in response to the Court’s ruling: “Today is another important step in the long march toward fulfilling one of our nation’s founding ideals: equal opportunity for all Americans. The Supreme Court has made it clear that HUD can continue to use this critical tool to eliminate the unfair barriers that have deferred and derailed too many dreams. Working with our partners on the ground, we will continue to do all we can to build a housing market that treats all Americans with basic dignity and respect.”
NAHMA will continue to analyze the impact of the Supreme Court’s opinion on affordable housing programs. NAHMA will continue to update members, as we learn more from meetings with HUD and other industry stakeholders.
Bill Introduced to Restrict Federal Employee Travel to Conferences
On June 17, 2015, Representative Michael Fitzpatrick (R-PA) introduced the Stay in Place, Cut the Waste Act of 2015 (H.R.2810). This legislation seeks to cut travel budgets for federal agencies to as much as 50 percent of the 2015 levels. Representative Fitzpatrick’s bill promotes videoconferencing as a substitute for face-to-face meetings. However, as previous NAHMA meeting attendees are aware, federal employee attendance at conferences and meetings allows property owners and managers to discuss specific concerns and issues which may not be able to be discussed via videoconferences.
While NAHMA supports Congressional efforts to improve accountability and transparency in government spending, we believe that the provisions being considered in H.R.2810 would have serious unintended consequences. If enacted, these provisions could cripple the communication between federal agency staff and private organizations which is necessary to create a constructive, effective, and transparent private-public partnerships.
This legislation was also introduced in the 113th Congress by Fitzpatrick but it did not advance past the committee level. NAHMA joins the American Society of Association Executives (ASAE) in opposition to this bill and we will continue advocacy efforts to prevent passage of H.R.2810 and any other legislation which would arbitrarily prevent federal employee engagement in industry meetings or conferences.
Posted