Given at the Financial Services Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations meeting for the purpose of authorizing and issuing a subpoena duces tecum to compel the production of records from the Department of Housing and Urban Development related to its oversight and administration of the HOME Investment Partnerships Program

As Prepared for Delivery

We meet today to consider the authorization and issuance of a subpoena to compel the production of documents from the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) related to its oversight and administration of the HOME Partnership Program. The documents we have requested are essential to our ongoing investigation to weed out waste, fraud, and abuse and to see whether the HOME Program can be better run.

Like many of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, I was appalled by the level of taxpayer waste and outright fraud detailed in the Washington Post’s May 2011 report on the HOME program. After reading that article, I asked my staff to take a detailed look at the program and much of what we learned is quite troubling.

What we have found is government waste at its worst: hundreds of millions of wasted taxpayer funds, hundreds of indefinitely delayed or terminated federal projects, no efficient tracking mechanism to monitor projects, and zero accountability for local jurisdictions that continually fail to produce.

To address some of the concerns raised in two previous hearings on the HOME program, in November of 2011 I asked Secretary Donovan to furnish documents related to HUD’s management of the program. The request related to the manner in which HUD closed and cancelled projects in its database after the Washington Post story ran and our investigation commenced.

These documents would give this Committee significant visibility into HUD’s operations to determine, 1) whether the speed in which they accounted for projects can be replicated in a more deliberate and orderly manner; and 2) whether HUD’s Washington office exerted pressure on Participating Jurisdictions to close and cancel projects.

Despite our good-faith efforts to significantly narrow the scope of our original document request, HUD has attempted to obstruct, delay and delegitimize our investigation. In the six months following our original request, we have exchanged 14 letters, held 3 face-to-face meetings, conducted numerous phone conversations, and exchanged countless emails – all in a futile effort to obtain the documents necessary to complete our investigation. All we have to show for these efforts are documents from six employees of HUD’s choosing, well short of our original request.

I think we can agree that we cannot allow agencies – or companies – to dictate the scope of our document requests and the investigative prerogatives of this Committee. For the integrity of our investigation and in defense of the legitimate prerogatives of this Committee, I ask for my colleagues support in issuing the subpoena before us today.

###