U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

30–544 WASHINGTON : 2018

MEMBERS’ DAY 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON THE BUDGET 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED FIFTEENTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

HEARING HELD IN WASHINGTON, D.C., MAY 10, 2018 

Serial No. 115–14 

Printed for the use of the Committee on the Budget 

( 

Available on the Internet: 

www.govinfo.gov 

BU00-A363290 with DISTILLER

(II) 

COMMITTEE ON THE BUDGET 

STEVE WOMACK, Arkansas, Chairman 

TODD ROKITA, Indiana, Vice Chairman 

DIANE BLACK, Tennessee 

MARIO DIAZ-BALART, Florida 

TOM COLE, Oklahoma 

TOM MCCLINTOCK, California 

ROB WOODALL, Georgia 

MARK SANFORD, South Carolina 

DAVE BRAT, Virginia 

GLENN GROTHMAN, Wisconsin 

GARY J. PALMER, Alabama 

BRUCE WESTERMAN, Arkansas 

JAMES B. RENACCI, Ohio 

BILL JOHNSON, Ohio 

JASON SMITH, Missouri 

JASON LEWIS, Minnesota 

JACK BERGMAN, Michigan 

JOHN J. FASO, New York 

LLOYD SMUCKER, Pennsylvania 

MATT GAETZ, Florida 

JODEY C. ARRINGTON, Texas 

A. DREW FERGUSON IV, Georgia 

JOHN A. YARMUTH, Kentucky, 

Ranking Minority Member 

BARBARA LEE, California 

MICHELLE LUJAN GRISHAM, New Mexico 

SETH MOULTON, Massachusetts 

HAKEEM S. JEFFRIES, New York 

BRIAN HIGGINS, New York 

SUZAN K. DELBENE, Washington 

DEBBIE WASSERMAN SCHULTZ, Florida 

BRENDAN F. BOYLE, Pennsylvania 

RO KHANNA, California 

PRAMILA JAYAPAL, Washington, 

Vice Ranking Minority Member 

SALUD O. CARBAJAL, California 

SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas 

JANICE D. SCHAKOWSKY, Illinois 

PROFESSIONAL STAFF

DAN KENIRY, Staff Director 

ELLEN BALIS, Minority Staff Director 

BU00-A363290 with DISTILLER

(III) 

CONTENTS 

Page 

Hearing held in Washington, D.C., May 10, 2018 ................................................ 1 

Hon. Steve Womack, Chairman, Committee on the Budget ......................... 1 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 3 

Hon. John A. Yarmuth, Ranking Member, Committee on the Budget ........ 5 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 6 

Hon. Dan Kildee, a Representative in Congress from the State of Michigan .................................................................................................................. 7 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 9 

Additional statement submitted for the record: .............................................

Hon. Peter J. Visclosky, a Representative in Congress from the State 

of Indiana ............................................................................................... 23 

BU00-A363290 with DISTILLER

BU00-A363290 with DISTILLER

(1) 

MEMBERS’ DAY 

THURSDAY, MAY 10, 2018 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

COMMITTEE ON THE BUDGET, 

Washington, D.C. 

The Committee met, pursuant to call, at 9:00 a.m., in Room 

1334, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. Steve Womack 

[Chairman of the Committee] presiding. 

Present: Representatives Womack, Black, Woodall, Brat, Smith, 

Faso, Smucker, Ferguson, Yarmuth, and Jayapal. 

Chairman WOMACK. Good morning. This hearing will come to 

order. I would like to welcome everyone to the Budget Committee’s 

fiscal 2019 Members’ Day hearing. 

The Congressional Budget Resolution offers a comprehensive outline of the Federal Government’s finances and provides a roadmap 

to address the nation’s fiscal challenges. Understandably, crafting 

the budget each year is not a simple or an easy task. In order to 

build an effective and responsible budget, our Committee has taken 

the time to consider several items. 

Each year we look at the President’s budget request, which reveals the administration’s policy and funding priorities; we hear 

from authorizing committees about their legislative priorities; and 

throughout the process of planning and building the budget, we 

greatly rely on the Congressional Budget Office’s budget and economic outlook or baseline, this year received on the 9th of April. 

Because CBO’s baseline serves as a benchmark from which to 

consider the effects of policy options and determine funding levels, 

the budget cannot be written without the baseline. Even with receipt of all these pieces in the process, the House Budget Committee cannot balance the budget alone. 

We welcome and encourage the input of Members across the 

whole House. While the House Budget Committee is responsible for 

considering and ultimately writing the budget framework each 

year, our work is better and more reflective of the whole House 

when all Members engage in the process. 

Each year our Members’ Day hearing provides a forum for Members to weigh in on their legislative priorities for their districts, 

states, and, indeed, for our country, and to suggest ideas for budget 

savings as required by the Congressional Budget Act. 

However, today is not the first opportunity Members have had to 

be part of the process this year. We launched an online portal earlier this year to accept submissions for innovative policy reforms. 

As our work continues on the budget resolution, we look forward 

BU00-A363290 with DISTILLER

2 

to considering additional ideas that will help us craft a responsible 

and balanced plan for the future. 

I want to thank the Member that has joined us today. And with 

that, I would like to yield to my friend and the Ranking Member 

from the great Commonwealth of Kentucky, Mr. Yarmuth, for his 

opening statement. 

[The prepared statement of Chairman Womack follows:] 

BU00-A363290 with DISTILLER

3 

BU00-A363290 with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 1 here 30544.001

WOMACK OPENING STATEMENT: 

Member's Day Hearing 

Washington, D.C., Thursday, May 10, 2018 

As prepared far delivery- House Budget Committee Chairman Steve Womack 

Good morning, and welcome to the House Budget Committee's hearing for members to 

present their budget ideas for fiscal year 2019. 

The Congressional budget resolution offers a comprehensive outline of the federal 

government's finances and provides a roadmap to address the nation's fiscal 

challenges. 

Understandably, crafting the budget each year is not a simple or an easy task. 

In order to build an effective and responsible budget, our committee has taken the time 

to consider several items. 

Each year, we look at the President's budget request, which reveals the 

Administration's policy and funding priorities. 

We hear from authorizing committees about their legislative priorities. 

And throughout the process of planning and building the budget, we greatly rely on the 

Congressional Budget Office's Budget and Economic Outlook, or "baseline," this year 

received on April 9. 

Because CBO's baseline serves a benchmark from which to consider the effects of 

policy options and determine funding levels, the budget cannot be written without the 

baseline. 

Even with receipt of all these pieces in the process, the House Budget Committee 

cannot balance the budget alone. We welcome and encourage the input of members 

across the whole House. 

While the House Budget Committee is responsible for considering and ultimately writing 

the budget framework each year, our work is better and more reflective of the whole 

House when all members engage in the process. 

Each year, our Members' Day hearing provides a forum for members to weigh in on 

their legislative priorities for their districts, states, and indeed, for our country and to 

suggest ideas for budget savings, as required by the Congressional Budget Act. 

However, today is not the first opportunity members have had to be a part of the 

process this year. 
4 

BU00-A363290 with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 2 here 30544.002

We launched an online portal earlier this year to accept submissions for innovative 

policy reforms. 

As our work continues on the budget resolution, we look forward to considering 

additional ideas that will help us craft a responsible and balanced plan for the future. 

Thank you to the members joining us today, and with that, I yield to the Ranking 

Member, Mr. Yarmuth. 
5 

Mr. YARMUTH. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. And I am 

pleased to join you in welcoming our witness, at least our one witness, for Members’ Day. This annual hearing is a great opportunity 

to hear from Members about their priorities for our country. 

As we all know, the budgets we debate in this Committee are 

about choices; choices that directly affect our constituents and the 

Nation as a whole. Each decision has consequences—sometimes 

good, sometimes bad—that American people have to live with for 

decades to come. 

Unfortunately, last year’s Republican budget fell squarely in the 

bad for the American people category. It paved the way for a partisan tax law that overwhelmingly benefits the wealthy and big 

corporations at the expense of hard-working American families. 

At the same time, it increases our deficits by nearly $2 trillion. 

But that is not an unintended consequence. It is part of the GOP’s 

three-step plan that has failed the American people again and 

again. 

First, Republicans give huge tax cuts to the wealthy; second, 

they cry and feign outrage about the skyrocketing deficits they just 

created; and third, they insist the new deficits are purely a spending problem and call for extreme cuts to programs that are vital 

to American families. 

But what we need from this Committee, what the American people need from us is an honest debate about the fiscal challenges 

facing our Nation. A truthful process that acknowledges that we 

cannot produce a responsible budget without considering the revenue side of the balance sheet. 

Our constituents look to us to protect the national and economic 

security of our country. They rely on retirement benefits and access 

to healthcare. They want to see investments in education, job training, innovation, and infrastructure. And they want us to pay for it 

in a fair way. 

I look forward to hearing from our colleague on his priorities for 

the budget. Thank you, Chairman Womack, and I yield back the 

balance of my time. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Yarmuth follows:] 

BU00-A363290 with DISTILLER

6 

BU00-A363290 with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 3 here 30544.003

YARMUTH OPENING STATEMENT: 

Member's Day Hearing 

Washington, D.C., Thursday, May 10, 2018 

As prepared for delivery- House Budget Committee Chairman Steve Womack 

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I am pleased to join you in welcoming our witness- at least, our 

one witness- for Members' Day. This annual hearing is a great opportunity to hear from Members about 

their priorities for our country. 

As we all know, the budgets we debate in this Committee are about choices ... choices that directly affect 

our constituents and the nation as a whole. Each decision has consequences, sometimes good, 

sometimes bad, that American people have to live with for decades to come. 

Unfortunately, last year's Republican budget fell squarely in the "bad for the American people" 

category. It paved the way for a partisan tax law that overwhelmingly benefits the wealthy and big 

corporations at the expense of hard-working American families. At the same time, it increases our 

deficits by nearly $2 trillion. But that's not an unintended consequence, it's part the GOP's three-step 

plan that has failed the American people again and again. First, Republicans give huge tax cuts to the 

wealthy. Second, they cry and feign outrage about the skyrocketing deficits they just created. Third, they 

insist the new deficits are purely a spending problem and call for extreme cuts to programs that are vital 

to American families. 

But what we need from this Committee, what the American people need from us, is an honest debate 

about the fiscal challenges facing our nation, a truthful process that acknowledges that we cannot 

produce a responsible budget without considering the revenue side of the balance sheet. Our 

constituents look to us to protect the national and economic security of our country. They rely on 

retirement benefits and access to health care. They want to see investments in education, job training, 

innovation, and infrastructure. And they want us to pay for it in a fair way. 

I look forward to hearing from our colleague on his priorities for the budget. Thank you, Chairman 

Womack, and I yield back the balance of my time. 
7 

Chairman WOMACK. I thank the Ranking Member. As a reminder, Members will have 5 minutes to give their oral testimony, 

and their written statements will be submitted for the record. 

Additionally, Members of the Committee will be permitted to 

question the witnesses following their statements. But out of consideration for our colleague’s time and to expedite today’s proceedings, I would ask that you please keep your comments very 

brief. 

I would now like to recognize our first witness today, perhaps our 

only witness, Representative Dan Kildee, from Michigan. We appreciate you coming in today. The Committee has received your 

written statement. It will be made part of the formal hearing 

record. You have 5 minutes to deliver your oral remarks. And the 

floor is yours, Dan. 

STATEMENT OF THE HON. DAN KILDEE, A REPRESENTATIVE 

IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MICHIGAN 

Mr. KILDEE. Is it on now? There. I feel so much better being able 

to hear my voice echoing throughout this room. Thank you. 

And thank you, Mr. Chairman, for this, and the Ranking Member as well for offering Members this opportunity. The focus of my 

remarks this morning will be on one particular set of issues, and 

it has to do with the Federal Government’s role in the health, the 

fiscal and social and economic health of America’s cities and towns. 

To a great extent this issue has historically not been a strong aspect of the Federal Government’s set of priorities. After all, state 

and local government is, generally speaking, in the particular domain of state governments. The role of local governments, in particular, are creatures of state government. But there is a clear public, and I think national interest, in the health of America’s cities. 

And, of course, I do not need to remind all of you of the crisis that 

my own hometown has faced. 

Many people ascribe that crisis to a mistake that was made regarding its water. The truth of the matter is the underlying problem in the Flint crisis is a problem being faced by a whole subset 

of American cities. And it is the continued erosion of their financial 

base, of their fiscal strength. The integrity of those communities 

are really challenged; and there is a national interest in this. 

At this point the most, I guess, direct and specific role that the 

Federal Government plays in supporting cities and towns is 

through a couple of programs; the Community Development Block 

Grant Program, which I think we all are quite familiar with. It 

takes different forms in our own communities; it is quite flexible 

in its use, but it has, with the exception of just this last year, seen 

a fairly steady decline in the commitment that the Federal Government has made to the CDBG program. 

The same could be said of the Home Investment Partnerships 

Program. Both of those are essential supports for cities, but do not 

go I think nearly far enough in what the Federal Government could 

be doing to support America’s cities and towns. 

And I will just stress again that there is a looming fiscal crisis 

that is being experienced in many communities that is not getting 

near the attention that it should. The coping mechanisms that 

state governments largely have used for communities that are facBU00-A363290 with DISTILLER

8 

ing significant financial problems is the same set of coping mechanisms that are used when, say, a corporation is facing insolvency— 

using tools that are very similar to bankruptcy. Even if bankruptcy 

is not utilized, the coping mechanisms are essentially balance sheet 

approaches. 

The problem, of course, is that unlike a corporation, unlike a typical business, a municipal corporation is a corporation formed to 

serve a city. It is not the city. The city is a social and economic organism. 

So I think we have to take I think significant steps to make sure 

that communities, cities, and towns are not treated as corporations 

that can be dissembled and have their parts sold off. They are communities. And we see the result of the failure to properly invest in 

sustainable support for communities. And my hometown, again, is 

a great example. 

What happened in Flint was the result of a long-term loss of 

property tax values, changes in the economy, population loss. This 

is something that is being experienced by communities all across 

the country. There are 50 or so American cities that have lost a significant percentage, half of their population, in the last several decades. And while on one hand it seems as though the Federal Government does not have an explicit role in dealing with those problems, we deal with the result of the lack of tools to address the 

problem. 

And again, you all, many of you right here helped out when my 

hometown was facing its most serious crisis ever and participated 

in helping to provide Federal support to help that community get 

through its struggles: $170 million was appropriated. 

Adding to that what the State government has put on the table, 

we are talking about something around half a billion dollars that 

could have been saved had we collectively, Federal and State government, more thoughtfully invested in infrastructure, in sustaining the tax base in those communities. 

Just thinking about one program in particular, the Clean Drinking Water Revolving Loan Fund. Had we approached that program 

in a way that understood that many communities that are facing 

really significant challenges cannot simply just take on more debt. 

Providing more debt opportunities for those places really does not 

solve the problem. And there is one thing that we can do here; and 

that is expand the portion of that Clean Drinking Water Revolving 

Loan Fund that is eligible to be offered in the form of grants for 

communities that have no prospect of being able to recover the cost 

of reinvesting in their water systems. 

That is just one example. There are many others. I see my time 

has expired. I think this is an important issue, and it is one that 

the Congress ought to focus more attention on. And I thank you for 

the time. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Kildee follows:] 

BU00-A363290 with DISTILLER

9 

BU00-A363290 with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 4 here 30544.004

Congressman Kildee Testimony before the House Committee on the Budget 

Fiscal Year 2019 Member's Day Hearing 

Thank you, Chairman and Ranking Member, for the invitation to speak to you all today. I would 

like to address my remarks on the need for a much more robust federal role, focusing on the life 

and health of American cities and towns. 

lt has been my experience that the important role that cities and towns play in a growing 

economy is not always understood. Cities arc where innovation occurs. 

Right now, there arc only a few elements of federal support for America's cities and towns. The 

HOME Investment Partnerships Program and the Community Development Block Grant 

(CDBG) are critical. But both arc relatively modest investments in cities and towns when you 

think about how essential cities are to our overall society and the health of the U.S. economy. 

We need a far more robust agenda for cities and towns, but for the moment, unfortunately, I find 

myself fighting for a sort of Hippocratic Oath for these places that are clearly so vital to our 

future: first, do no harm. 

I was very pleased to see the increase for both these programs in the recently passed FYI8 

omnibus bill. Yet these increases while large in terms of recent funding levels- are still 

woefully short of what is needed to correct years' worth of disinvestment. 

There is a subset of these American cities that are experiencing very serious fiscal stress, the 

kind of stress that threatens their sustainability and solvency. So far, generally the only coping 

mechanism state governments have provided to cities has been through a solitary tocus on the 

balance sheet, without any consideration whatsoever regarding the long-term sustainability of the 

community and the impact on lives of the people living in these cities and towns. 

The way state governments often have viewed these places is as if cities are the municipal 

corporations to provide services for them. Cities are not municipal corporations ··they cannot be 

disassembled and have their parts sold off like a corporation in bankruptcy. Cities are social and 

economic organisms. State governments may take the position, as was the case in my hometown 

of Flint, that you can essentially bankrupt a city but at the eud of the day we cannot make a city 

or town go away. lt is a collection of people, economic activity and social relationships that will 

remain. 

Instead, we need federal policy that supports increased opportunity, promotes growth, and 

recognizes that our national interest includes an interest in the future of America's cities and 

towns. 

Among the many issues that should we in Congress should be working on is a true infrastructure 

investment, one that appropriately weighs up the ability of our communities to provide 
10 

BU00-A363290 with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 5 here 30544.005

leveraging funds. A plan that has an 80/20 requirement of local funds compared to federal funds 

is just not realistic in being able to make a dent in this need. 

Congress should be looking to "go big'" on infrastructure to fill this gap, but it is vital for policy 

makers to understand the potential unintended consequences of how such investments could 

impact cities and towns across the country, particularly older industrial communities. But 

without a clear plan and resources to revive America's struggling older industrial cities and 

towns, a massive influx of capital investment, while clearly needed and long overdue, could 

potentially contribute to the further disparity in a whole subset of American cities and towns that 

have really struggled with tbe transition from the old to the new economy. 

We need a plan for these communities or we may seem them fall even further behind. even in a 

wave of new development. This failure to compete will have real economic and social 

consequences for our nation. 

l believe that Congress has a responsibility to develop and support programs specifically 

intended to assist these communities with a much-needed market reset. 

I am from Flint, Michigan. I have already lived through significant disinvestment because oi~ in 

large part, policy decisions. In the 1950s and 1960s, the United States made incredible 

investments in the interstate highway system. These were good investments we all benefit to 

this day from these investments. The economy grew. Our national security strengthened. 

But these investments were not equal in their impact. The tide did not lift all boats. In some 

places, like the place I grew up in. new interstate highways- coupled, obviously with many 

other t~1ctors- had the unintended consequence of providing an efficient mechanism to empty out 

my hometown. 

How many other cities are one mistake away trom catastrophe? 

It is my hope that our budget reflects the urgently needed investment in these older cities and 

towns, a Marshall plan for this subset of fiscally stressed communities. 

I'm deeply concerned that unless Congress and the federal government understand that while 

states have the principle role, we are not absent from this discussion. We need a focused effort, 

otherwise Flint will not have been the anomaly that many people think it is, it will have been the 

warning that we failed to heed. 

Thank you. 
11 

Chairman WOMACK. I thank the gentleman. We will engage in 

an opportunity to do some Q-and-A, Mr. Kildee. This is a subject, 

general subject, that I struggle with because in the 12 years preceding my time in Congress I was a Mayor in a strong Mayor form 

of government. And it was my job, I thought, as the CEO of our 

city and the elected titular head of our city, to advocate for policies 

that were fiscally sound, left to our own devices, which we were 

pretty much on our own, to be able to address the priorities of our 

community, and to be able to discern between what we wanted to 

have and what we actually needed to have. 

And like many other corporate structures, particularly those in 

municipal corporations, you have to pick between those kinds of 

things from time—and you cannot fund them all. You do not have 

enough money. 

And so my question is where does the responsibility of the Federal Government begin? Or more importantly, where does the responsibility of the local, city, and county and the state actually 

end? And where do those things meet? Let me give you an example. And I can use my own district as an example. 

We have tax backed bond issues in our city, in our State and 

most all cities utilize them. They go to the voters, they ask for an 

increase in the sales tax to retire bonds. That is the funding mechanism. And then most of them sunset after a certain period of time 

and they build whatever they want to build. In many cases they 

build things that could be debated about whether they are actually 

needed. In one case, a city used a tax backed bond issue to build 

a baseball stadium, to bring a minor league baseball team to town. 

But, yet, sometimes these same cities will come to us, the Federal Government, and say I need money to hire police and fire. And 

so my question is—and I am not, you know, bemoaning the fact 

that a city in my district built a baseball stadium with tax money— 

but it becomes a matter of priority. Why would you come to the 

Federal Government when you could have used your tax backed 

bond money to hire police and fire, or buy apparatus, or whatever 

the need may be. 

So the question is where does our responsibility at this level 

begin and end with regard to the decisions made by our local governments? And I am afraid they look at us as hey, we can do what 

we want to do with our money, and then when we run out, we can 

just turn to the Federal Government. So I ask the gentleman. 

Mr. KILDEE. It is a very good question, and I think a couple of 

points that I would make in response. One is to clarify the direction of my commentary. My focus is on this relatively small subset 

of American cities that in my experience—and my experience precedes my time in Congress. My previous work was focused on working in lots of cities around the country that are facing really significant distress. 

That subset of cities, they never would consider floating bonds to 

build a stadium. They actually cannot even issue debt. These are 

cities for which the coping mechanisms are long past and are facing 

absolute collapse, and have no capacity to tax their own citizens because of, number one, the high rates of poverty; secondly, the lack 

of tax base to make the sort of intelligent investments that might 

BU00-A363290 with DISTILLER

12 

help them come out of the circumstances they are in. So that is 

one. 

I think secondly—and your question is really, I think, an important point for us to focus upon—where does the Federal Government responsibility end, and where does the local government responsibility meet. How do we reconcile those two competing concerns? 

Two important ways. One, the condition that these communities 

face, in some cases it is the result of their own mismanagement for 

sure, or their lack of quality leadership. But in many cases the conditions that they face are as a result of decisions made well beyond 

their control. My hometown, which is not an anomaly—it is just a 

good example. We lost, in the course of just a couple of decades, 

90 percent of our manufacturing jobs; 90 percent. The idea that a 

community can sort of manage its way through that process is really hard to imagine how they might be able to do that. 

The reason I mention that is policies that are made at the state 

level, and even policy decisions that we make, have positive and 

sometimes unintended negative consequences. The decisions that 

we make in terms of the way we invest in infrastructure, for example, can have a very positive impact on a region, but sometimes has 

an unintended negative consequence on a particular area. 

The same could be said of trade policy, for example, or all the 

forms of investment that we make that in some cases benefit some 

regions to the deficit of others. Some communities disproportionately experience the loss as a result. So in one way we all bear a 

share of responsibility for the conditions that these communities 

face, not just the elected leaders that preside over those communities. 

But there is a second important, I think, part of the question— 

or answer to the question. Another way the Federal Government’s 

interest is retained in this question is that we at the Federal Government end up paying for the result of the failure of these places, 

whether we accept responsibility for their condition or not. I would 

argue that there is some responsibility, but even absent that, we 

pay for that. 

The city of Flint—again, the example that I continue to use—is 

not an anomaly. But as a result of the conditions there, 45 percent 

of the people in that city live below the federal poverty line; 58 percent of the children do. And we have accepted as a matter of federal policy some responsibility to make sure that there is a floor 

of decency, that there is a safety net below which those folks are 

never allowed to fall. 

So there are consequences that we bear whether we accept the 

responsibility for the condition in the first place. And again, the 

best example that I can come up with is absent about $20 million 

of infrastructure investment in the city of Flint about a decade ago, 

with that $20 million investment—which they could not access because it was only available in the form of a loan that they did not 

have the ability to repay—we are now at $170 million appropriated 

by this Congress, another couple of hundred million dollars spent 

by the state government, and lots of other costs that we have borne 

publicly and privately, and the loss of private value in that city 

BU00-A363290 with DISTILLER

13 

that will have social and economic consequences for decades to 

come. 

The point being, we have some responsibility for the conditions, 

and we could argue the details of that. But we clearly end up paying for the lack of robust support for these places one way or another, whether we like it or not. And I think that is where the Federal Government’s role comes in. 

Chairman WOMACK. Mr. Yarmuth? 

Mr. YARMUTH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I think we have 

introduced a discussion which is probably the most important discussion we can have in this country. And I am not sure whether 

the United States Congress is equipped to have it. But it is critical. 

And I think back, for instance, to the debate on the tax bill and 

the question of state and local tax deduction. And in the course of 

that debate, those who wanted to eliminate the state and local tax 

deduction, many who did, said why should we penalize a state 

which does not want to tax its citizens as much to benefit the state 

that does. 

Coming from a state which probably is somewhere in the middle, 

but, you know, in Kentucky we have a 6 percent State income tax, 

just was dropped to 5, and we have a city tax and local and so 

forth, I said why would a state that is trying to perform important 

services for its citizens be penalized to serve a state—to the deference of a state that does not really care about serving its citizens, 

or taxing its citizens. 

And this fundamental debate about the division of responsibility 

among different levels of government is really critical. In my city— 

and my congressional district is only my city—we have tried for a 

number of years to introduce or put before the voters a proposal 

to increase the sales tax within our city for dedicated infrastructure projects. 

So we say here we are going to add a percent or a percent and 

a half to the state sales tax just for citizens of Louisville, and it 

is going to fund X. And the General Assembly of Kentucky would 

not give us the permission to do it. So we have these conflicts. And 

again, there are certain things that a politician would never want 

to even bring up because the potential political fallout would be 

substantial. 

I think we need to have a debate in this country about what is 

the Federal responsibility to sustain a lifestyle in many areas that 

is not sustainable. When I look at coal communities in my state, 

they are not sustainable. There is virtually nothing that is going 

to keep them going except Federal programs. And these are not in 

my district. These are in a Republican district. 

But if it were not for SNAP, if it were not for a variety of Federal 

programs—and one congressional district, the 5th Congressional 

District, which is coal country, 27 percent of the people are on 

SNAP. 

So where is the Federal Government—the taxpayers. I should 

not say the Federal Government. The taxpayers are being asked to 

support a lifestyle that is probably not sustainable. Is that the appropriate role of the Federal Government? And I have said for 

years now, I do not think the divide in this country—and other people are saying that more recently—I do not think it is ConservBU00-A363290 with DISTILLER

14 

ative/Liberal; I do not think it is Republican/Democrat; I think it 

is urban/rural. 

We have, time after time, in jurisdiction after jurisdiction these 

conflicts between a Louisville and the rest of Kentucky, a New 

York City and the rest of New York, an Atlanta and the rest of 

Georgia. And the fact is that the future is probably going to be in 

big cities. The trends are certainly in that direction. 

That I think one statistic is 80 percent of the Nation’s GDP is 

in major metropolitan areas, and yet we are trying to figure out, 

because there is a great deal of appeal to small-town America—it 

is part of the history of our country, it is part of a flavor of the 

country that so many people appreciate. 

And again, I do not know how we have that discussion here, but 

it is an incredibly important discussion. And I thank you for bringing it up. I do not have a question for you except I guess one question quickly. And with a very pointed one. And that is the tax bill 

that we enacted, the tax law that we enacted at the end of last 

year, how would you say that is—in your 30 seconds left—has impacted Flint, your citizens, and has it been a plus or a negative? 

Mr. KILDEE. It has been a negative in a couple of ways. One, because in those areas of our community that are still sort of functioning in the marketplace, we are among those states that will see 

an impact of the cap on deductibility and the effect that that will 

have on local property values. So that will have a depressing effect 

on the portion of the region that is still functional in the marketplace. 

But it is interesting. There are some unintended consequences 

that I do not think were very well thought through. The ability, for 

example, for a community like Flint to redevelop is very much dependent on tax credit financing; low income housing tax credits, 

historic tax credit financing. 

Because of the impact—and I am not suggesting that this ought 

to be the core of tax policy—but we just ought to recognize the impact. The impact is that the value of those credits is depressed, and 

the amount of revenue that will be generated from tax credit financing to support the redevelopment in communities like Flint, 

Saginaw, Detroit, Youngstown, Gary, Indiana, fill in the blank, will 

be compromised. So the tools are shrinking at a time when we need 

more tools to help redevelop these places. And that is just a couple 

of examples. 

Chairman WOMACK. Other members? Mr. Woodall? 

Mr. WOODALL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate Mr. Kildee being here. He is a strong advocate for his district, and none 

of us want to be in his predicament, but we all hope we are as 

strong an advocate as he was if we are. 

I am thinking about the Ranking Member’s comments and the 

frustration with so many of the completely partisan votes that go 

on. And he mentioned misguided tax policy and exploding deficits, 

things that actually we would all care about. Lowest unemployment rate in modern times. We would like to all be celebrating that 

together. Challenges of urban and rural America. These are things 

we ought to all be confronting together, and we find ourselves so 

often these days having to continue to defend our position from the 

last time we had a strictly partisan vote instead of being able to 

BU00-A363290 with DISTILLER

15 

celebrate whatever the successes were last time, and then recognize whatever the failures were last time. 

So that is what I wanted to ask you, Mr. Kildee. I am thinking 

about my parents’ hometown; that is Sparta, Georgia. I think Flint 

has dropped, since Spiro tells me, in population from about 102,000 

back in 2010 to about 97,000 today. Sparta, Georgia has dropped 

from about 1,400 back in 2010 to about 1,200 today. So rural Georgia is actually losing population faster than Flint, Michigan. 

I do recognize that there is an opportunity for folks, I think the 

word you used was disproportionate change, things that have happened so rapidly folks could not deal with it. There is no plan, to 

Mr. Yarmuth’s point, nothing the Federal Government can do to 

double the population of Sparta, Georgia. It will never go back to 

its rural cotton is king economy. 

How do we determine, in your view, what those disproportionate 

communities are versus those communities that are just in systemic decline and we are not going to be able to move that needle? 

Mr. KILDEE. Well, it is a good question, and it is a technical 

question. It is a question that I have spent some time working on. 

And just to add a little bit of data to the point, it is true that Flint 

had experienced, just in the last 8 years, a reduction in population 

that might not be proportional to what you experienced in Sparta. 

But in the preceding two decades, we lost half of our population. 

Think about losing half of the population and two-thirds of the 

wealth, because it is not just a matter of numbers of people, but, 

you know, who remains. The people that remain in these places are 

often the least capable, least able, least wealthy, least well-trained, 

least well-educated. And so the disproportionate impact is not just 

measured in population, but in the kind of population that these 

communities are made up of. And it is a real struggle. 

The definitions, I think, are debatable. But what I would suggest 

is communities that have faced sudden and severe economic dislocation as a result of factors that are clearly identifiable as being 

beyond the control of a local government clearly would qualify. 

You know, in our case it was the loss of the American auto worker and the auto sector. In other places it might be, you know, the 

furniture business, for example, in some parts of the country. Or 

steel—— 

Mr. WOODALL. Coal country Mr. Yarmuth referenced. 

Mr. KILDEE. Coal. And in those places, as Mr. Yarmuth pointed 

out, the folks in that community, there is nothing they could do. 

You could have the smartest mayor and city council, the best city 

manager; there is nothing they could do to stop those external 

trends from having a devastating impact on their community. I 

think those communities are identifiable. 

I helped craft—before I was in Congress, helped craft some legislation that was introduced here, but did not see its way through, 

that was a community revitalization and stabilization initiative. 

And it had within it—and I can supply it to the Committee—a definition of communities that have experienced that sudden and severe economic change. It is places like that, which would be Gary 

because of steel, Flint because of autos; you know, other places obviously have their own unique circumstances. 

BU00-A363290 with DISTILLER

16 

In some cases, the decline of a community is a result of bad planning, you know, and bad execution. I would argue that the people 

who live there are still citizens of the Federal—of the United States 

and have some right to expect us to respond to them. But in some 

cases, there is nothing anyone locally could have done. And I think 

we do have a special obligation to communities that experienced 

that sort of decline. 

Mr. WOODALL. I am certain there is an opportunity for partnership there. I appreciate you being here. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman WOMACK. Mr. Ferguson? 

Mr. FERGUSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Kildee, you and 

I have shared something together. I do not know if you remember, 

but in 2009 we shared the front page of the New York Times. 

Mr. KILDEE. Oh, yeah. 

Mr. FERGUSON. And it was a dramatic—— 

Mr. KILDEE. I remember that now. Yes. 

Mr. FERGUSON. You remember that now. 

Mr. KILDEE. You know, I am on the front of the Times so often, 

it is hard to recall. 

Mr. FERGUSON. Well, I mean, when you are the Mayor of West 

Point, Georgia and you land on the New York Times—— 

Mr. KILDEE. I remember that. 

Mr. FERGUSON.——you put it in a frame. 

Mr. KILDEE. Yes. 

Mr. FERGUSON. But it is better to be on the front page than in 

the comics section, though. I am sure I have been there, too. 

The point is, is that as a Mayor, I was where you were when that 

article was written. We were coming out of doing exactly what you 

just said, which is we had lost our manufacturing base. We saw the 

decisions that were made by people, particularly right here in 

Washington, D.C., that created the environment for us to ship close 

to 35,000 textile jobs overseas. We saw our entire manufacturing 

base go away probably 15 years prior to when that article was written. 

And you are exactly right in one thing. Communities that do not 

plan well, and communities that do not look ahead, and communities that do not diversify many times are left holding the bag 

when decisions that are made here in Washington, D.C. have negative impacts on our hometowns. 

But here is the thing that I did learn through all of that, because 

it is painful to watch what happened in my hometown of West 

Point, Georgia, just as it is painful to watch what happened in 

Flint, Michigan. You not only lose the jobs, you lose the human 

capital. You lose the men and women that are going to serve in 

your Rotary Clubs, your Lion Clubs. You watch the fabric of your 

community be torn apart. And it is painful to watch. 

So here is what I have learned through that process. And people 

have asked the question what is the role of the Federal Government in all of this? First of all, I think the most important thing 

in all of this is economic development and job creation. We learned 

through the loss of our manufacturing base that the single most 

important thing that a community has to have is an economic driver. You know, whether it is textiles. In my case now it is the autoBU00-A363290 with DISTILLER

17 

motive industry. Whatever it is, that community or that region has 

to have an economic driver that is pushing forward. 

And then I think the Federal Government’s role is to be there for 

communities to make strategic public investments in new infrastructure that stimulates the growth and gives stability to the private sector to come in and to create the manufacturing jobs or the 

technology jobs. The Federal Government’s role should not necessarily be to be able to go in and then rebuild an older community. 

It is to give it a spark so that communities can then pick themselves up by the bootstraps, because I know how tough it is. We 

did it. 

Here are the other things that we know in that. Outside of having a job, you have got to have decent education. As a matter of 

fact, you need exceptional education. And that education needs to 

be flexible and it needs to align with where the economy is going. 

The training of the children in the 3rd District of Georgia probably 

looks a little different than what needs—the jobs that are being 

created in Flint, Michigan at this point. 

You mentioned housing. One of the most frustrating things for 

me as a small-town Mayor was watching my friends and neighbors 

and my patients that would come to my dental practice live in 1960 

style barracks and public housing—project-based public housing, 

and not have those opportunities that other members of the community did. I think what we do to those in poverty right now is 

absolutely atrocious, and small communities and cities have their 

hands completely tied by the Federal Government. 

I think it is the Federal Government’s role to get out of the way. 

It is one of the fundamental reasons that I ran for Congress is that 

I knew that the hurdles that my friends and neighbors back home 

being successful were barriers that were created at the Federal 

level. 

So my question to you on all of this—I do not mean to lecture. 

I am just saying I have been there. You know, we have shared that 

story. But there is a pathway out of it. You know, I think the Federal Government—I think what we have done right now to create 

job growth in the Nation is incredible. And I think communities 

and states that are putting themselves in the position to take advantage of this opportunity for what is happening with the Tax Reform and Jobs Act, I think those communities are going to be 

primed, and I think they are going to be able to rebuild themselves. 

I think the biggest challenge is not necessarily the urban areas, 

but it is the rural areas. Mr. Woodall touched on this. We have an 

incredible deficit in most of rural America right now with job creation. And I think that sometimes we simply say we have either 

got to recruit in industry for those areas, or we have got to reinvigorate ag. And I would say, based on what Mr. Yarmuth said—and 

I do not disagree with it—that you are seeing more and more 

movement to the urban centers. 

So how do you keep rural America from becoming this Nation’s 

next inner city? And I think you have got to connect people to those 

jobs, and I think that we have got to start looking at new critical 

infrastructures, such as broadband access into rural America to be 

able to connect and disperse workforce to the opportunities that are 

happening in the metropolitan areas. 

BU00-A363290 with DISTILLER

18 

I think we get a lot of pushback on this. I know I do sometimes 

in my own district where people say, that is not the role of the Federal Government to get involved in broadband access. I will tell 

you, and you can probably agree with this, when you are the Mayor 

of a small town and your folks do not have any hope, you will find 

a way to put that infrastructure in to create those economic opportunities. 

So I think that having that conversation in counting broadband 

access as critical infrastructure is important. And I think that we 

can then align our education system where people can learn to 

make a living on the internet in rural America connected to urban 

centers, we got a chance at saving rural America. 

So my question to you is how do you balance the investments 

that you seek for these urban centers, how do you create parity 

with rural America to make sure that we are not creating again 

an inner-city situation in rural America? How do you create that 

parity? 

Mr. KILDEE. I tell you, there probably is not a more important 

point made than the point that you just raised, because I think we 

have allowed for a falsehood to occur in this debate for a very long 

time. And the falsehood being that this is about large cities and everyone else, when the truth of the matter is that it is about communities. 

The effort that I launched, I do not know, 8 or 9 months ago in 

my role on the Financial Services Committee is titled, ‘‘The Future 

of America’s Cities and Towns,’’ because I think there is this false 

dichotomy that we often do not challenge. 

A small-town—the quality, the sustainability of a small town in 

a rural region, the vibrancy of that little town is just as important 

to the economic sustainability of that region as, say, the sustainability and the quality of life in the city of Detroit is to the entire 

State of Michigan. 

I think we would do ourselves a big favor if we could figure out 

a way, when we are making policy or just discussing policy approaches, to try to break down what is I think a false dichotomy 

between large and small. 

What we are really talking about is communities that are scaled 

on lots of different levels. And they all have basically the same 

needs. You need to have a sense of community. You need to have 

the essentials of a civil society—you know, decent roads, good 

parks, opportunities for economic growth; and that can be scaled in 

lots of different ways. 

And I think, you know, as a person who has been identified as 

largely an urban advocate, I can take it upon myself in the last 

decade or so to make sure that I am talking about the unique 

needs of those small places, just as important, and very similar in 

some ways to the needs. They are just scaled at a different level. 

But unless we think about that, we are going to end up creating 

policy that exacerbates the divide, where there really should not be 

one. I think it is a really important point, and I am glad you raised 

it. 

Chairman WOMACK. Mr. Yarmuth had to leave, so a better replacement is—— 

Mr. KILDEE. Not much of a question there. 

BU00-A363290 with DISTILLER

19 

Chairman WOMACK.——the young lady from the great Pacific 

Northwest who has joined us, Ms. Jayapal. And welcome. 

Ms. JAYAPAL. Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman WOMACK. Turn that mic on. If you got a—— 

Ms. JAYAPAL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman WOMACK. Kildee is just trying to dominate the entire 

member—— 

Mr. KILDEE. I am. 

Ms. JAYAPAL. He does that well. 

Mr. KILDEE. I kicked everybody else out. 

Ms. JAYAPAL. We are proud of Mr. Kildee for dominating. We appreciate that. 

I just was curious if you could talk a little bit about CDBG funds 

and how CDBG funds get used in your district. I know in my district they are incredibly important in a whole range of areas. And 

so it would be interesting. I am always curious about how that happens in other places. So maybe you could elaborate on that. 

Mr. KILDEE. Well, it is a good example of how—thank you for the 

question. It is a good example of how this urban/rural question is 

actually reconciled pretty well. In my home county we have two direct grantees, the City of Flint and the County Metropolitan Planning Commission. I served in county government for 25 years, so 

I am obviously quite familiar with that. 

The way the money is used is really flexibly tailored to the 

unique needs of the communities. In Flint, for example, as you 

might expect, a significant amount of the money would be used for 

blight elimination, for dealing with the fallout of population loss, 

to try to reset those markets; to eliminate the reminders of past 

failure; and to provide some leverage to invest in development 

projects that will not sustain themselves, you know, in a normal 

market operation. 

In the county program, very often they are buying tires for the 

fire trucks or supporting their senior programs, because they just 

cannot make ends meet and they use it in a way that clearly benefits low and moderate income individuals, but the needs are different. 

And this is one of the strengths and weaknesses of the Community Development Block Grant program. And many of us, when the 

program was designed—I have been around long enough to recall 

those days—predicted this problem. The strength is that it is tailored to the unique needs of a community and the process of making those funding decisions requires public involvement. That is a 

real strength. 

The weakness, of course, is the uses are so diverse and so different that when we hear about it, we hear about it in a thousand 

different ways. It is not a program that you can easily define; that 

you can say yes, CDBG does this. Because what it does is provide 

tools for a community, flexible tools, that are not so dependent on, 

you know, the sort of ebb and flow of their local budgets that allow 

them to make critical investments that may help grow their economy. 

And so there is not a strong constituency for a program that has 

so many diverse uses that does not get the attention in some ways 

that it should. And I think that is a great way of explaining why 

BU00-A363290 with DISTILLER

20 

over the years, to be fair, under Democratic and Republican administrations, we have seen the commitment to CDBG, at least in the 

proposed budgets from the administration, decline. I think Congress should pay more attention to that. 

Ms. JAYAPAL. Can I ask a follow-up question, Mr. Chairman? 

How would you target those investments? I mean if it were up to 

you, how would you make it so that we preserve the flexibility, we 

preserve the necessary elements, but we perhaps as a Federal Government target those funds in a particular way? Or do you think 

it is more about just telling people what we are doing with them? 

What is your proposal for that? 

Mr. KILDEE. Well I think there are two ways I think to address 

CDBG in terms of targeting. One, I think honestly is to make sure 

that there is realistic oversight of the CDBG program. I think 

sometimes we tend to over correct as a result of, you know, bad actors in a few instances. And to a certain extent, having been in 

local government for a while, it felt like for a long time that the 

CDBG program went something like this: Here is some money. Do 

not steal any of it. And if you do something good with it, we will 

not be mad at you. 

I think we have to be much more focused on providing to target, 

providing significant technical assistance to really weak communities so that they have the capacity to put together projects that 

are not designed just to be in compliance because they are simple, 

but actually can leverage the CDBG dollar, say with other private 

investment that is more complex, but—and this goes to this issue 

of capacity in these cities that Mr. Ferguson also mentioned. 

Communities that are facing fiscal stress and really deep austerity measures lose the capacity to put together complex projects. 

So targeting for me really starts with the Federal or State government perhaps in partnership providing much more substantial 

technical support to those communities so that they have the capacity to, one, conceptualize, organize, and execute more significant 

projects that leverage the CDBG dollar much stronger with the use 

of other public and ideally significant private investment. 

That, to me, would be the most significant change that we would 

want to see happen. 

Chairman WOMACK. How do you do that without seeing more 

money siphoned off of the available dollars of CDBG money for administrative purposes? At the end of the day, what we want is we 

want any money coming out of here going down to where they actually meet the demand, meet the need. And I believe in more oversight and I believe in more accountability for sure. But how do we 

do that without continuing to erode the available money for 

projects, you know, to pay the costs of the administrative overhead? 

Mr. KILDEE. Yeah. I think one way is to measure the cost of not 

providing higher degree of technical assistance, because the cost in 

enforcement, the cost in de-obligating grants, the costs in actually 

recapturing and chasing those communities that fail to use the 

money properly is a real cost. Number one. 

And secondly, I do think that we have to think about the optimal 

use. In other words, I think it makes sense to provide additional 

technical support, even if it means some additional admin, if the 

use of that money leverages private capital in a way that makes 

BU00-A363290 with DISTILLER

21 

the dollar look a lot bigger. In other words, if a community gets $1 

million of CDBG, it is going to spend $1 million without a lot of 

technical help in the most careful way they can to make sure they 

are in compliance. 

If they are able to get some real support, technical support, 

maybe that $1 million is one of the layers of financing of a $20 or 

$30 million redevelopment project. In that way, our $1 million 

equals $20 million. I would rather spend a little bit to leverage 

much higher capacity in those communities than take the approach 

that we are going to keep it simple and not see these dollars be 

used in the most effective way they can because—this is just based 

on years of experience working in communities—they are petrified 

very often of getting it wrong because there is an economic, there 

is a fiscal, and a political consequence to blowing it. 

And I think what we need to do is not just think about this as 

more robust enforcement, because the effect that I have seen is it 

scares them away from more creative uses of the dollars. If we 

could provide more technical help for those communities that do 

not have the capacity to put together more complex projects—and 

again, that is disproportionately the subset of cities that are really 

struggling—then I think we are using our dollars more wisely. 

Ms. JAYAPAL. You know, Mr. Chairman, I think that is a really 

good question, because I think that there are projects that do require technical assistance because they are more innovative, they 

require complex putting together of public and private dollars. But 

there are some projects that people already know how to do. You 

know, housing projects, a dilapidated building that just needs to be 

refurbished, access to ramps for senior citizens. I know that that 

is how CDBG funds were used in Louisville. 

In my home district we have a lot of, you know, affordable housing, homelessness issues that get addressed in part through CDBG 

funds. 

So I think the real question is what do we want to see out of 

these programs, and how do we define the outcomes clearly? There 

may be a couple. There may be some outcomes that are about increasing access for people, addressing some critical issues that are 

in the community where you do not need a lot of technical assistance. You just need dollars. And federal dollars are leveraged all 

the time by state, county, other public funds, as well as some private funds. So I do not think we should discount how they get leveraged, you know, in multiple ways. 

But then maybe we do want to have a part of CDBG funding 

that is for the kinds of things that Mr. Kildee is talking about. I 

do not think that they necessarily need to be exclusive, but I do 

think we have to know what we want to get out of it. And that is 

the question. 

Mr. KILDEE. I think there is a good example, if you do not mind, 

Mr. Chairman. There is a good example in a program that maybe 

not everyone supported, but as you recall is a part of the economic 

recovery after the housing crisis. There was a program called the 

Neighborhood Stabilization Program, NSP. It basically had three 

iterations. One, two and three. It was about a $7 billion program 

overall in the three iterations. 

BU00-A363290 with DISTILLER

22 

There was one, NSP–2, that was a competitive round that also 

included really robust technical assistance. The reason I am somewhat familiar with it is that the organization that I was leading 

back then conducted a lot of technical support to communities in 

implementing the Neighborhood Stabilization Program. It was a 

10-year program, so the program had a beginning, a middle, and 

an end. 

And what we saw is that in those places where we were able to 

bring in not just technical support in the sense of creative help, but 

actually bring in operating capacity, they spent the money much 

more wisely, and I think much more effectively. 

To me that program had its flaws, do not get me wrong. 

But I think it is a better starting point in some ways for the conversation because we have some experience with it. And I think 

there is pretty good data that shows that where the NSP program 

was coupled with significant technical assistance—in the case of 

my organization, we were funded—I just called the Center for Community Progress. 

This is what I did before I was in Congress. We were funded to 

provide help. And what we did is we literally hired people to go sit 

at a desk in City Hall and make sure that that program was operating the way it should and literally carry the paper from one end 

to the next. 

And it goes again to Mr. Ferguson’s point. Often those communities either cannot get or do not have access to the technical expertise it takes to get this stuff right. This is where the Federal 

Government I think would be really smart to realize that, you 

know, in some cases, along with the money, providing expertise 

makes the money go further and decreases the likelihood that it is 

going to be misspent. 

Chairman WOMACK. We appreciate your testimony today. 

Mr. KILDEE. Thank you. I really appreciate it very much. 

Chairman WOMACK. Really do. Thank you so much. 

Mr. KILDEE. All right. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman WOMACK. That completes the—not recognizing any 

other Members who wish to make a statement before this Committee on Members’ Day, this completes the Committee’s business. 

I would like to thank all the members. I would like to thank the 

Member who shared his views before the Budget Committee. My 

staff, when they drafted these remarks, maybe assumed at least 

two. We had one. But thank you so much, Dan, for doing this. 

And with that, unless there is anything else for the good of the 

order, this Committee stands adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 9:57 a.m., the Committee was adjourned] 

BU00-A363290 with DISTILLER

23 

BU00-A363290 with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 6 here 30544.006

Congressman Visclosky Testimony before the House Committee on the Budget 

Fiscal Year 2019 Member's Day Hearing 

I would like to thank Chairman Womack, Ranking Member Yarmuth, and all of the members of 

the House Budget Committee f(lr holding today's hearing and providing this invaluable 

opportunity for myself and all members to address the Committee about our legislative priorities 

for Fiscal Year 2019. 

My priority this year remains my resolute support for economic and transportation investments 

in the infrastructure of our country, including investments through the Federal Transit 

Administration's (FTA) Capital Investment Grant program. This essential program supports 

transit projects across our country, including the expansion and recapitalization of the South 

Shore Rail Line in Northwest Indiana. 

The Capital Investment Grant program is an integral component of creating economic growth in 

communities across our nation. I believe that people today, when considering where they want 

to live, work, or raise a family. are looking at public transportation options. When businesses are 

considering where they want to locate, and where they think vibrant new employees and markets 

exist, they are looking at public transportation options. When individuals and families are 

considering what they want to do this weekend, they arc looking at events and attractions that 

have close proximity to public transportation options. 

The investment to improve and expand the South Shore Rail Line in Nmihwest Indiana is but 

one example of the vast benefits that this program provides to communities throughout our 

nation. We have made great strides in Northwest Indiana because of the bipartisan commitment 

from local officials, state officials, businesses, and non-profit organizations. And we cannot 

allow this progress to go for naught. 

I believe that through the Capital Investment Grant program we arc creating a model in 

Northwest Indiana for how to maximize the potential of taxpayer dollars and make 

transformational investments that will grow regional economics. I want people to be able to look 

at Northwest Indiana and say this is how we garner bipartisan support from all levels of the 

community and the federal government. This is how we attract new people, new businesses, and 

new jobs through public transportation infrastructure investments, and this is how we improve 

the lives of all cmTent residents in a community and for future generations. 

As you proceed with your work in Fiscal Year 2019, I encourage you to keep in mind the untold 

benefits and growing economic activity associated with a robust transportation infrastructure 

system and how we can create budget savings from a return on public transit investments. 

Thank you again f(lr this opportunity to submit testimony.