cdbg hurts mayors, if you take that away. i joke that it's a french apreviousation for mayors ribbon cutting slush fund. i think that's how it often gets used and why it's a good lever, though it doesn't hit every community. mr. kustoff: i could follow up on cdbg. i didn't state this, my district -- i represent west tennessee. i have part of memphis, part of the city of memphis. city of jackson, and rural parts of west tennessee. memphis is a community that uses cdbg grants quite a bit. as it relates to the formula, and i know i am getting in the weeds, but formula b if i could, which in part is based on, as i understand it, 1940's ousing data, or 1940's data is weighted around 50% appropriation. so some older suburbs benefit from the pre-1940 or 1940 formula. even though they are kind of low need communities. my bottom line question is, should h.u.d. look at redoing the formula -- reformulating it in order to better distribute funds? dr. furth: h.u.d. can't. i would urge the committee to revisit the formulas. they were writt

cdbg hurts mayors. if you take that away. that is the, i joke that it is a french abbreviation for mayors ribbon cutting slush fund. and i think that's how it often gets used and that's why it is a good lever. although it doesn't hit every community. >> if i could follow up on cdbg, and i didn't state this so the witnesses in my district, i represent west tennessee, so i've got part of memphis, part of the city of memphis, the city of jackson, rural parts of west tennessee. and memphis is a community that uses cdbg grants quite a bit. as it relates to the formula, and i know i'm getting a little bit in the weed, but the formula, if i could, which in part is based on, as i understand it, 1940s housing data, or 1940s data, is weighted at around 50% appropriation. so some older suburbs benefit from the pre-1940, or the 1940 formula, even though they're kind of low-need communities. so my bottom line question is, should hud look at redoing the formula, reformulating it, in order to better distribute funds? >> yes, well, hud can't

importantly, even if it were the issue, which i don't believe it is, puerto rico could use this example, cdbg funding to meet any kosher requirement. it does not appear that access to resources for cost share is actually an issue in puerto rico. according to the treasury department, puerto rico has billions of dollars in on restrictive cash on hand. in fact, the treasury reports they have 5.6 billion in unrestricted cash to be precise. what's more, the island of puerto rico continues to collect tens, if not hundreds of millions of dollars that caused revenues like costs only adding to that $5.6 billion fee. despite all these resources, we've agreed that the government afford regal needs additional funding for nutrition assistance. you have been in the forefront. the question is, why? because this money has actually been spent and it's running out. not only to the democratic colleagues the folks in the midwest behind when they rejected that amendment earlier this week, they also passed up an opportunity to help the people of puerto rico immediately. know where we go from here? ... concern of t

>> certainly, but we wouldn't say that the cdbg program is the only -- >> so on what analysis, on what basis, have you come to the conclusion that the cdbg program does not contribute to a reduction in crime? i mean do you have, for example, any published peer reviewed studies that demonstrate that the cdbg program does not deliver economic value to the federal government? >> we don't -- >> and even specifically on the issue of reduction in crime, or any other subject. any other category. >> we believe it is important to reduce crime. we believe it is something that we adequately fund with the department of justice resources. >> so do you think crime is adequately funded, fighting crime in this country is adequately funded. we don't need to do anything else to help communities create infrastructure that reduces crime. let me just give you an example because this is a very sore subject for me. having spent a lot of time working in communities across the country, and in my own hometown, to deal with blight and abandoned property, and seeing the impact. i have here a published per-reviewe

president, congress has approved $20 billion in community development block grants or cdbg funding for puerto rico. $20 billion. in february 2018, the department of housing and urban development allocated $1.5 billion of this amount to the island. yet, more than a year later they have only spent $42,000 out of a $1.5 billion allocation. still h.u.d. allocated another, mr. president, $8.2 billion just over a month ago. in addition, puerto rico has been granted an enormous amount of flexibility to expend these resources. fema used its administrative authority to extend the 100% federal cost share for emergency work in puerto rico longer than it has for any other disaster in more than ten years, and not once has fema denied puerto rico access to funding on the basis of their ability to provide its own share of the costs when required. more importantly, mr. president, even if cost share were an issue, which i don't believe it is, puerto rico could use its example cdbg funding to meet any cost-share requirements. however, it does not appear that access to resources for cost share is actuall

puerto rico so people won't starve when they're not getting the same aid that everybody else gets -- cdbg, fema -- that is not right, that is not fair, and at that fig leaf will not -- not -- cover up the real motivation president trump, which unfortunately i don't think most of our republican colleagues agree to with, but they go along with. everyone is afraid on the other side of anything president trump does, right or wrong. unfortunately, it's wrong far too often. puerto rico needs access so they can rebuild. they need the food aid, but they need more than that. trump wanted to cut out all of it. someone on this side said, well, you've got to at least do food aid. well, i'll do that. nothing else. that's not right. should we do food aid for every other state? no rebuilding? less all those houses and -- let all those houses and homes and factories and stores suffer? no, we wouldn't do it for those states. we shouldn't. and we shouldn't do it for puerto rico. so then we decided even more to compromise. there's $20 billion of aid already for puerto rico that hasn't been allocated. the pr