Flood: Let’s Examine the Best Path Forward for Disaster Recovery
Washington,
June 10, 2026
Today, the House Financial Services Committee is holding a Housing and Insurance Subcommittee hearing, led by Subcommittee Chairman Mike Flood (NE-01), titled “Examining Local Needs in Disaster Recovery.”Read Subcommittee Chairman Flood’s opening remarks as prepared for delivery:"I recognize myself for four minutes for an opening statement. "The topic of this hearing is the role that HUD plays in disaster recovery through what’s called the Community Development Block Grant – Disaster Recovery program, or CDBG-DR. "CDBG-DR is a supplemental disaster recovery assistance grant program. It is intended to meet long-term disaster needs that remain unmet after other sources of assistance from FEMA and the SBA have already been deployed. "CDBG-DR is a very unique program. The program is not authorized in statute. Instead, CDBG-DR funds are typically granted through a supplemental appropriations bill following a disaster. "Because these funds are directed through the CDBG program and not any standing program with a direct disaster recovery nexus, HUD must effectively rewrite the rules around how an affected area can utilize CDBG-DR dollars for each disaster. "This lack of structure makes this unauthorized program a nightmare for both its administrators at HUD and the local governments that need disaster funds. "A quick look at some topline data demonstrates this point clearly: "According to a HUD Office of Inspector General report issued in January of this year, of the $109.8 billion allocated through CDBG-DR since its inception, only $64.7 billion has been spent. "In other words, only about 59% of CDBG-DR funds have been spent. To be clear—I’m not saying only 59% of funds were spent last year or in the last five years. Only 59% of CDBG-DR funds have been spent—EVER. "If you take a look at some individual CDBG-DR allocations, the problem looks even more acute:
"These abysmal statistics stem from both HUD’s slow allocation of funds and grantees' difficulty in utilizing funds when they are allocated. "Additionally, HUD has struggled to conduct proper oversight to prevent waste, fraud, and abuse after CDBG-DR funds are spent. "To sum it up, we have an unauthorized program for which:
"That’s a dizzying set of problems for a program that has received over 100 billion dollars since its inception. "Now that we’ve discussed the problems with the status quo, let’s examine the best path forward for disaster recovery. "There is a proposal out there that would permanently authorize CDBG-DR. It takes the current structure of the program and seeks to enshrine it in statute, creating a permanent fund for CDBG-DR. "I don’t think that approach is prudent given how things are going. "The entire structure of CDBG-DR is one of convenience. Appropriators use it because the allowable uses for CDBG funds most closely resemble long-term recovery needs, not because it’s the optimal way to disburse funds, and this structure creates some inherent flaws within the program. "For example, the CDBG program has three national objectives:
"Because CDBG-DR exists within the CDBG program, those funds must also meet one of these three national objectives. "This creates an odd situation. The intended use of the money—which is to provide recovery dollars in the aftermath of a disaster—must conform with priorities that have nothing to do with recovery or disasters. "That inherent inconsistency does not make this program any easier to administer for HUD, and it creates a headache for grantees. "In this committee, we don’t need to limit ourselves to solutions of convenience, and we can step back and ask the question: what’s a better way to structure federal disaster recovery assistance? "I look forward to a fulsome discussion of our options to accomplish that today. "Thank you to our witnesses for being with us today, and I look forward to their testimony. I yield back."
|