    [House Hearing, 111 Congress]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

    [DOCID: f:53757.wais]

     DEPARTMENTS OF TRANSPORTATION, AND HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT, AND
                    RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS FOR 2010

    _______________________________________________________________________

                                    HEARINGS

                                    BEFORE A

                               SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE

                           COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS

                             HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                          ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS
                                  FIRST SESSION
                                    ________
       SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE DEPARTMENTS OF TRANSPORTATION, AND HOUSING AND
             URBAN DEVELOPMENT, AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS
                     JOHN W. OLVER, Massachusetts, Chairman
     ED PASTOR, Arizona                          TOM LATHAM, Iowa
     CIRO RODRIGUEZ, Texas                       FRANK R. WOLF, Virginia
     MARCY KAPTUR, Ohio                          JOHN R. CARTER, Texas
     DAVID E. PRICE, North Carolina              STEVEN C. LaTOURETTE, Ohio
     LUCILLE ROYBAL-ALLARD, California
     MARION BERRY, Arkansas
     CAROLYN C. KILPATRICK, Michigan

     NOTE: Under Committee Rules, Mr. Obey, as Chairman of the Full
    Committee, and Mr. Lewis, as Ranking Minority Member of the Full
    Committee, are authorized to sit as Members of all Subcommittees.
                Kate Hallahan, David Napoliello, Laura Hogshead,
                        Lisa Pena, and Alexander Gillen,
                               Subcommittee Staff

                                    ________

                                     PART 5
                                                                       Page
     Department of Housing and Urban Development......................    1
     Livable Communities, Transit-Oriented Development, and
    Incorporating Green Building Practices Into Federal Housing and
    Transportation Policy.............................................   39
     Part II: Livable Communities, Transit-Oriented Development, and
    Incorporating Green Building Practices Into Federal Housing and
    Transportation Policy.............................................  103
     Member's Request.................................................  163
     Outside Witnesses Written Testimony..............................  199

                                    ________

             Printed for the use of the Committee on Appropriations

    PART 5--TRANSPORTATION, AND HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT, AND RELATED
                               AGENCIES FOR 2010

     DEPARTMENTS OF TRANSPORTATION, AND HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT, AND
                    RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS FOR 2010

    _______________________________________________________________________

                                    HEARINGS

                                    BEFORE A

                               SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE

                           COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS

                             HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                          ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS
                                  FIRST SESSION

                                    ________

       SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE DEPARTMENTS OF TRANSPORTATION, AND HOUSING AND
             URBAN DEVELOPMENT, AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS
                     JOHN W. OLVER, Massachusetts, Chairman
     ED PASTOR, Arizona                          TOM LATHAM, Iowa
     CIRO RODRIGUEZ, Texas                       FRANK R. WOLF, Virginia
     MARCY KAPTUR, Ohio                          JOHN R. CARTER, Texas
     DAVID E. PRICE, North Carolina              STEVEN C. LaTOURETTE, Ohio
     LUCILLE ROYBAL-ALLARD, California
     MARION BERRY, Arkansas
     CAROLYN C. KILPATRICK, Michigan

     NOTE: Under Committee Rules, Mr. Obey, as Chairman of the Full
    Committee, and Mr. Lewis, as Ranking Minority Member of the Full
    Committee, are authorized to sit as Members of all Subcommittees.
                Kate Hallahan, David Napoliello, Laura Hogshead,
                        Lisa Pena, and Alexander Gillen,
                               Subcommittee Staff

                                    ________

                                     PART 5
                                                                       Page
     Department of Housing and Urban Development......................    1
     Livable Communities, Transit-Oriented Development, and
    Incorporating Green Building Practices Into Federal Housing and
    Transportation Policy.............................................   39
     Part II: Livable Communities, Transit-Oriented Development, and
    Incorporating Green Building Practices Into Federal Housing and
    Transportation Policy.............................................  103
     Member's Request.................................................  163
     Outside Witnesses Written Testimony..............................  199

                                    ________

                         U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
     53-757                     WASHINGTON : 2009

                              COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS

                       DAVID R. OBEY, Wisconsin, Chairman

     JOHN P. MURTHA, Pennsylvania              JERRY LEWIS, California
     NORMAN D. DICKS, Washington               C. W. BILL YOUNG, Florida
     ALAN B. MOLLOHAN, West Virginia           HAROLD ROGERS, Kentucky
     MARCY KAPTUR, Ohio                        FRANK R. WOLF, Virginia
     PETER J. VISCLOSKY, Indiana               JACK KINGSTON, Georgia
     NITA M. LOWEY, New York                   RODNEY P. FRELINGHUYSEN, New
     JOSE E. SERRANO, New York                   Jersey
     ROSA L. DeLAURO, Connecticut              TODD TIAHRT, Kansas
     JAMES P. MORAN, Virginia                  ZACH WAMP, Tennessee
     JOHN W. OLVER, Massachusetts              TOM LATHAM, Iowa
     ED PASTOR, Arizona                        ROBERT B. ADERHOLT, Alabama
     DAVID E. PRICE, North Carolina            JO ANN EMERSON, Missouri
     CHET EDWARDS, Texas                       KAY GRANGER, Texas
     PATRICK J. KENNEDY, Rhode Island          MICHAEL K. SIMPSON, Idaho
     MAURICE D. HINCHEY, New York              JOHN ABNEY CULBERSON, Texas
     LUCILLE ROYBAL-ALLARD, California         MARK STEVEN KIRK, Illinois
     SAM FARR, California                      ANDER CRENSHAW, Florida
     JESSE L. JACKSON, Jr., Illinois           DENNIS R. REHBERG, Montana
     CAROLYN C. KILPATRICK, Michigan           JOHN R. CARTER, Texas
     ALLEN BOYD, Florida                       RODNEY ALEXANDER, Louisiana
     CHAKA FATTAH, Pennsylvania                KEN CALVERT, California
     STEVEN R. ROTHMAN, New Jersey             JO BONNER, Alabama
     SANFORD D. BISHOP, Jr., Georgia           STEVEN C. LaTOURETTE, Ohio
     MARION BERRY, Arkansas                    TOM COLE, Oklahoma
     BARBARA LEE, California
     ADAM SCHIFF, California
     MICHAEL HONDA, California
     BETTY McCOLLUM, Minnesota
     STEVE ISRAEL, New York
     TIM RYAN, Ohio
     C.A. ``DUTCH'' RUPPERSBERGER,
       Maryland
     BEN CHANDLER, Kentucky
     DEBBIE WASSERMAN SCHULTZ, Florida
     CIRO RODRIGUEZ, Texas
     LINCOLN DAVIS, Tennessee
     JOHN T. SALAZAR, Colorado

                     Beverly Pheto, Clerk and Staff Director

                                      (ii)

     DEPARTMENTS OF TRANSPORTATION, AND HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT, AND
                    RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS FOR 2010

                                  ----------

                                                 Friday, June 19, 2009.

                  DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT

                                    WITNESS

    HON. SHAUN DONOVAN, SECRETARY, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND
        URBAN DEVELOPMENT

                       Opening Remarks of Chairman Olver

        Mr. Olver. The subcommittee will come to order.
        We are going to start off here even though we are waiting
    for Members because today's schedule could be a weird and
    wondrous process.
        I want to welcome the Secretary of the Department of
    Housing and Urban Development, Shaun Donovan, to the
    subcommittee.
        Mr. Secretary, thank you for appearing before us for the
    second time this year. We are pleased to have you with us this
    morning to discuss the fiscal year 2010 budget request for HUD.
        HUD is requesting $46 billion in budgetary resources,
    recognizing the key role affordable housing plays in our
    communities. This fact is especially poignant as we enter the
    second year of an economic recession in which foreclosure rates
    continue to increase and unemployment approaches 10 percent.
        I am particularly pleased that, for the first time since I
    became chairman of this subcommittee, HUD has presented the
    subcommittee with an honest budget that better reflects the
    public housing and community development needs that face the
    Nation. The $3 billion increase requested for project and
    tenant-based Section 8 arguably fully funds these core housing
    programs for the first time in many years. In addition, the
    $550 million increase in the Community Development Block Grant
    program acknowledges the important role that CDBG plays in the
    economic development in cities and towns across the Nation.
        The fiscal year 2010 budget also includes a number of new
    initiatives. I am not sure I could enumerate them all, but
    there are a number of them.
        I am particularly pleased to see that the Sustainable
    Communities Initiative you announced at the subcommittee's
    livable communities' hearing a few months ago is proposed to
    receive $150 million within this budget. As you know, I have
    long advocated for the better coordination of transportation,
    housing and energy policy. I look forward to hearing more about
    how HUD is coordinating with DOT, EPA, and DOE to ensure that
    we are creating not only affordable housing but also affordable
    communities.
        I also look forward to discussing the Choice Neighborhoods
    Initiative and how this initiative will replace Hope VI. The
    goal of integrating schools into our neighborhood
    revitalization efforts is commendable. However, there are many
    cities that still have a signification stock of severely
    distressed public housing that we must ensure don't get left
    behind as a result. In addition, I am interested in learning
    more about the energy innovation fund and what role you expect
    this program will play in advancing energy efficiency in public
    housing.
        There are areas in your budget that I believe lack
    sufficient details and need additional clarification. In
    particular, the budget proposes using up to $434 million for
    the transformation initiative. As I understand it, this program
    will focus on modernizing HUD systems and providing a new
    office for strategic planning. While I support these broad
    concepts and intended goal of creating a new, efficient HUD, I
    have a number of questions about how this flexibility will be
    used and what impact it will have on existing programs.
        Additionally, I hope to discuss the administration's
    forecast that FHA will provide $1.7 billion in receipts in
    fiscal year 2010. As you are probably aware, the Congressional
    Budget Office has contested whether FHA will, in fact, incur a
    receipt balance. As we move forward, the difference between the
    two estimates will have important impacts on the subcommittee's
    budget resources.
        Last, I want to commend the Department's implementation of
    the Recovery Act. As of June 5, your Department reports that
    over $10 billion has been allocated to State and local agencies
    for immediate investment in local communities. These funds are
    crucial to creating thousands of new jobs and providing
    assistance during the current economic and housing crisis.
        I appreciate your cooperation on the implementation of
    these programs, and hope we can continue discussion about how
    best to expend these important funds. In the NSP II program, I
    am greatly concerned that the congressional intent on this
    program may have been disregarded and that HUD's grant
    eligibility requirements may jeopardize the Department's
    ability to leverage these funds to help thousands of other
    families.
        Mr. Secretary, while there are areas within the budget
    request that I have concerns about, as I have indicated, I am
    committed to working with you towards our shared goal of
    strengthening HUD's ability to provide affordable housing.
    Frankly, it is a breath of fresh air to have leadership in
    place that believes passionately in the Department's mission.
        Before we hear from you, I will recognize our ranking
    member, Tom Latham, for any opening remarks he would like to
    make.

                    Opening Remarks of Ranking Member Latham

        Mr. Latham. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. And welcome,
    Secretary Donovan. Thank you for taking on this Department. It
    is a real challenge. If there is ever an agency in need of a
    reform of some its programs, or even some of its partners and
    stakeholders, it is probably HUD. It seems like we are always
    asking what did HUD do with the money? And it is usually the
    case that HUD gave the money to the next agency or group or
    entity that was supposed to receive the money, and then we in
    Congress really don't get a chance to hold that group, whether
    it be a mortgage bank, public housing authority, project based
    building owner or community developer accountable for their
    performances. I hope you can make some progress on that.
        In the interest of time, Mr. Chairman, I know we will be
    voting here shortly. Mr. Secretary, I look forward to your
    testimony. I hope everyone on the committee gets a chance to
    ask their questions.
        I yield back.

         Opening Remarks of the Honorable Shaun Donovan, Secretary, HUD

        Mr. Olver. Thank you, Mr. Latham.
        Mr. Secretary, your complete written statement will be
    included in the record. If you can keep your oral remarks close
    to 5 minutes, then we will get on to questions.
        Secretary Donovan. Understood.
        Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Latham, members of the
    subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to appear before
    you today to discuss HUD's 2010 budget proposal.
        I want to thank the committee in particular for securing
    nearly $14 billion for HUD programs as part of the Recovery
    Act, and assure you HUD is working quickly to get these funds
    to nearly 12,000 grantees across the country. I am equally
    proud of the large number of competitive funds we have made
    available, including the $2 billion in the neighborhood
    stabilization program that the chairman discussed, and the $1
    billion for greening our public housing stock. In fact, we had
    the largest amount of competitive funds available today than at
    any other time during the Department's history.
        As you know, we have already begun to address the housing
    and economic crises. Given our expectation that FHA loan
    volumes will continue to be high until the credit crisis
    passes, we have requested expanded loan commitment authority
    for both FHA and Ginnie Mae. We are asking Congress for the
    authority to endorse up to $400 billion in FHA insurance. And
    in 2010, HUD is projecting that FHA will generate nearly a $1
    billion more income than will be paid out in losses over the
    life of those loans. In other words, we project our 2010
    business to be in the black.
        We also must have better informed housing consumers, and
    this budget requests $100 million for HUD's housing counseling
    program, a $35 million increase over 2009. HUD is also
    requesting $37 million to better protect consumers and
    taxpayers against those who commit mortgage fraud.
        The second objective of the 2010 budget is to restore a
    balanced, comprehensive housing policy, one that supports
    homeownership, but also provides affordable rental
    opportunities and ensures nobody falls through the cracks.
        The President is proposing several key initiatives,
    including $1 billion to capitalize the national housing trust
    fund; full funding of the public housing operating fund; 12
    months of funding for project based rental assistance; a $117
    million increase in funding for homeless programs; and a $1.8
    billion increase in calendar year funding for the voucher
    program that will preserve affordable housing for more than 2
    million households and give HUD and housing authorities new
    tools to more efficiently allocate budget authority in order to
    serve the maximum number of households within the funding
    provided.
        The third objective of the 2010 budget is to invest in
    urban and rural communities. That includes full funding for the
    Community Development Block Grant program at $4.45 billion, a
    $550 million increase over 2009; creation of the university
    community fund and the rural innovation fund; a $250 million
    Choice Neighborhoods Program. And let me be clear, Choice
    Neighborhoods is, in fact, a celebration of the successes of
    Hope VI in that it takes the best practices of Hope VI and
    expands them to encompass not just public housing, but also
    privately owned assisted housing and the surrounding
    neighborhoods of extreme poverty.
        Choice Neighborhoods is based on a simple principle: When
    you choose a home, you also choose the schools your child
    attends. You choose transportation to work; you choose a
    community. We look forward to working closely with the
    authorizing committees to make Choice Neighborhoods a powerful
    tool for creating viable neighborhoods with decent, affordable
    housing, improved access to jobs, better schools, and increased
    public transportation options.
        The fourth objective of the budget is to drive energy
    efficient housing and sustainable inclusive growth. In March
    when I testified before this committee, I spoke generally about
    our budget proposals to address the twin challenges of
    coordinating housing and transportation investments and
    improving energy efficiency. Today, families spend nearly 60
    percent of their budgets on housing and transportation costs.
    That is not only unacceptable, during an economic slowdown, it
    is unsustainable. Building off of the work of Chairman Olver
    who compelled HUD and FTA to work together on program and
    policy integration, we are proposing a $150 million Sustainable
    Communities Initiative to integrate housing and transportation
    planning and support development of new land use in zoning
    plan.
        The proposed $100 million energy innovation fund would
    support several pilot efforts within FHA and in a few
    innovative communities in order to identify strategies that can
    foster new approaches for financing energy improvements in new
    and existing housing.
        The fifth objective of this budget is to transform the way
    HUD does business. We need better data and research about our
    existing programs and the housing market in general.
        Mr. Chairman, as I told you before, I am a numbers guy. We
    need to be forward thinking and use demonstrations to test
    ideas on how to transform our existing programs so they serve
    more people with the same or less money. For example, HUD
    spends about $5 billion on energy for our public housing and
    Section 8 operations alone. Saving just 5 percent annually
    could generate a savings of $1 billion over the next several
    years that we could invest in affordable housing. We need the
    flexibility to target technical assistance where it is most
    needed, such as planning assistance for communities dealing
    with the economic fallout from the troubles in our auto
    industry, and we must transform HUD's procurement, hiring
    practices, and data systems. For example, modernizing our FHA
    and voucher management systems to meet 21st century housing and
    community development challenges.
        We are requesting that the Congress permit HUD to set aside
    up to 1 percent of its total funding to be used for four
    specific activities: Next generation technology;
    demonstrations; research; and technical assistance.
        So Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, with this
    $44 billion request, I believe we are poised to meet our
    current economic challenges and lay the foundation for building
    the strong, sustainable communities America needs to prosper in
    the decades ahead.
        I thank you for the opportunity to be here today, and look
    forward to your questions.
        [The information follows:]

        [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Mr. Olver. Thank you, Mr. Secretary, for your statement. We
    would usually go directly to questions and follow 5 minute
    sessions by myself and the ranking member and then the other
    members who have come in in their order, but I would like to
    recognize our big ranking member, Mr. Lewis from California,
    and allow Mr. Lewis time to make what comments he would like to
    make.

                               SECTION 8 HOUSING

        Mr. Lewis. Thank you very much, Chairman Olver. Secretary
    Donovan, I apologize for interrupting in this fashion. We have
    some crazy things that are happening on the House floor these
    days, and people like me and my big chairman have to be
    attending them.
        In the meantime, Chairman Olver, I want to raise with the
    Secretary a very, very important item in my mind and raise by
    way of that to the members of the committee concerns I have
    long had.
        Mr. Secretary, I had the privilege of chairing this
    committee in the mid-1990s, and during that time, took note of
    the fact that in the many years I had been on the committee, we
    had been sending virtually millions and millions of dollars
    around various communities for Section 8 funding. That housing
    program is designed to provide opportunity for housing and
    maybe even opportunity to climb up the ladder for middle
    income, really low income and poor America.
        Secretary Cisneros and I became very good friends during
    that time because we had similar concerns. The Secretary spent
    time with me going out and looking at Section 8 housing. While
    he didn't attend this trip, he was certainly attentive to what
    I experienced. The trip to New Orleans I will never forget,
    where we had been sending $10 million to $15 million every year
    for all the years, maybe for 10 to 15 years that I had been on
    the subcommittee, to New Orleans. And the visit there was
    startling. To visit Desire Homes, and I would urge you to spend
    some time at Desire Homes. As a New York housing commissioner,
    you know problems of impacted housing. But in turn, the place
    was a shambles. Huge facilities that were built during the big
    war years to bring people to work in the shipyards. The two
    major buildings in the center were controlled by the gangs, and
    they ran drugs and other kinds of activities out of there.
        I met with the inspector general. I met with the inspector
    general in the offices of the FBI because we could find almost
    no other significant public housing in spite of the millions in
    New Orleans. And as we were discussing these challenges with
    the inspector general, the guy from the FBI who was sitting
    there interrupted and said, Congressman, if I could just say
    something, it seems to me that the least you could do if you
    want to get a handle on providing housing dollars in New
    Orleans, you would bring a full-time inspector general here
    because this guy flew in from Houston today to talk with you.
        Well, that led to a significant, $9 million that I
    remember, recalling off the top, increase of the inspector
    general funding for the housing authority. That led to work
    that looked at largely urban centers around the country. And as
    a result of the work and investigation, a number of people went
    to jail. That particularly impacted communities of significance
    in California. The then-secretary is now attorney general of
    New York, and he was very unhappy with my involving myself with
    the inspector general because the inspector general is somewhat
    of an independent voice. My God, can you imagine, inspector
    general, the authority dare being independent. Well, in turn,
    that led to the housing fraud initiative in which we were
    trying to broaden that base. Leadership changed after the next
    election. I went to another subcommittee. The following staff
    was not particularly interested in having an inspector general
    have this kind of expanded funding. But nonetheless the problem
    continues. There is not any doubt that you and I are committed,
    if at all possible, to provide an opportunity for especially
    the poorest of the poor to climb these ladders. But if the
    money we spend does not get to those people, and maybe by way
    of local authorities is used in different ways, then to say the
    least, we have been a disservice perhaps not just to the
    poorest of the poor, but to ourselves.
        I would urge you, Mr. Secretary, to look at that background
    and consider what we can do to expand our ability to measure
    what is really happening at those commissions, especially in
    the urban centers.
        Mr. Chairman, I appreciate so much your allowing me to take
    our time. You are a chairman who is willing to get into the
    nuts and bolts. Between you and Mr. Latham, if you would take
    this on, and do this with Secretary Donovan, it could make the
    biggest contribution this subcommittee has made to the housing
    process. Thank you.
        Mr. Olver. Mr. Lewis, thank you for your comments. I am
    sorry I had not heard this from you at some point earlier.
        Mr. Lewis. I have said it so many times, I almost forget.
        Mr. Olver. Not before me, not when I have been present at
    least. Thank you for that.
        Mr. Secretary, would you like to make any comment or would
    you rather have time to explore this before you comment?

                               Inspector General

        Secretary Donovan. I very much look forward to following up
    on that. A couple of things, first of all, I couldn't agree
    more that the inspector general has an incredibly important
    role to play. I meet almost weekly with Ken Donohue. In just
    the first few months, our teams have begun working. They meet
    weekly on Recovery Act funding, and we have asked Inspector
    General Donohue not just to tell us mistakes after we have made
    them, but to be there right up front as we were designing the
    processes of distributing the close to $14 billion in Recovery
    Act funds, the largest share of which is going to public
    housing, to make sure, particularly on the troubled housing
    authorities, that we are preapproving literally every line item
    that they were going to be spending in the Recovery Act
    funding.
        So I think the Recovery Act, in particular, has been a very
    good start in a collaborative relationship, knowing in prior
    times there have not been those kinds of collaborative
    relationships. I think that is very, very important.
        The last thing I would say is that an area I am
    particularly concerned about is mortgage fraud, more generally
    in the market as well as within FHA. The President recently
    signed a bill that expanded funding for the inspector general
    at HUD as well as the Department of Justice, Federal Trade
    Commission, and gave us more authority to go after bad actors
    in the FHA program. I could agree with you more that we need to
    do everything we can to ensure that funds are spent for the
    right people in the right way.
        Mr. Lewis. I thank you for that.
        Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

                            SUSTAINABLE COMMUNITIES

        Mr. Olver. We will then go on to questioning.
        Mr. Secretary, I would like to just get a little further
    thought from you about the sustainable communities program. You
    announced earlier this year with the Secretary of DOT the
    sponsorship of the Sustainable Communities Initiative to
    incentivize regional planning efforts, combining housing and
    transportation, and I think you then included energy along the
    way. I applaud that effort because I have always considered
    that energy and housing and transportation are part of a three-
    legged stool and you have added a fourth. I think that adds
    some additional stability to it with EPA.
        Can you tell us a little bit about the structure of the
    program? Are there local efforts that you are trying to emulate
    or guide what you have in mind that you think that we ought to
    be replicating around the country? What are your hopes for the
    communities, how communities will react to this initiative?
        Secretary Donovan. Well, just to take that last question
    first, we have seen enormous excitement and interest about
    this. I have seen it myself at the local level, at the
    metropolitan level. There has been a great interest and already
    a great deal of work that has happened frankly without much
    support from the Federal level to try to bring together
    housing, transportation and other types of planning,
    particularly around energy.
        Really what we are trying to do through the Sustainable
    Communities Initiative is to support and expand state and local
    efforts that are underway. There are three key components, $100
    million that would support regional planning efforts that would
    better link transportation funding with housing funding.
    Transit-oriented development is a perfect example of the kind
    of planning that funding would support.
        $40 million would go to support planning at the municipal
    or local level rather than at the regional level. In order for
    transit oriented development and other types of sustainable
    development to be successful, it depends on first of all
    getting many barriers out of the way, we are focused on
    remaining barriers whether zoning or other barriers, that stop
    the development often of multi-family and denser development.
    Again, we must remove barriers, whether they are barriers in
    terms of impact fees or other things that have traditionally
    stood in the way of intelligent development. We must also look
    at strategies like inclusionary zoning or others that would
    ensure where you have transit-oriented development, which can
    spur walkable communities. Our vision is not just to have
    luxury housing development, but a mix of workforce development
    that is available for a broad range to create truly sustainable
    communities from an income level as well. That is the second
    part.
        The third part is $10 million dedicated to research. In
    particular what we have begun working with the Department of
    Transportation to pursue a relatively simple transportation
    efficiency measure that takes a house or a home in one
    community and considers, the expected transportation costs in
    that area, versus in other places. I think this could be
    enormously powerful because if I am a lender providing a
    mortgage to a home where I would expect that family to spend 30
    percent of their income on transportation costs, that is a lot
    less safe a mortgage than one where the family spends 10
    percent of their funds on transportation costs.
        I think we can do a lot to unleash the power of the
    financial markets, and others, if we can get good information
    about transportation costs that are easily available to
    consumers and to the market more broadly.
        So those are the three components of the initiative. I am
    also happy that we made real progress since we testified here
    in developing six livability principles, and also beginning to
    really analyze the barriers to this kind of development. There
    are many ways that HUD programs stand in the way of in-fill
    development and other kinds of development that contribute to
    sustainable communities.
        So we have begun a full analysis of that across the
    Department, and I look forward to coming back to you with the
    results of that to talk about what legislative changes we might
    need to really support those.

                                     NOFAS

        Mr. Olver. Have you done regional meetings with people from
    States and so forth to describe this out in the broader
    community? I suspect from the way you have described this,
    there is going to be some sort of notices of funding
    availability for the three categories that you mentioned, or
    two of the three, because the research may well be something
    that you are going to do internally, but the other two look
    like they lead to NOFAs?
        Secretary Donovan. Absolutely. Should the Sustainable
    Communities Initiative be part of the budget, we would run
    competitions through--NOFAs to support the planning efforts at
    regional levels and local levels.

                              SUSTAINABLE HOUSING

        Mr. Olver. Have you reached out, because if you just send
    out a NOFA, and if it comes as a surprise to everybody, I don't
    know what you will get except more from several communities
    that maybe have already learned how to do this sort of thing?
        Secretary Donovan. I couldn't agree more. We have had
    initial discussions, and we hope to be able to announce a
    director of our new offices, Sustainable Housing and
    Communities, within the next few weeks. And once that person is
    on board, that person would lead exactly the kinds of
    discussions that you are talking about. And we are planning to
    do that over the summer in a range of different communities.
        Mr. Olver. I could continue this. I am particularly
    interested in what dollars transportation may be bringing to
    this and other organizational things, but I am well on red.
        Mr. Latham.
        Mr. Latham. I was enjoying every second of it, Mr.
    Chairman.
        Mr. Secretary, normally in the Federal Housing
    Administration, the Administration and the Congressional Budget
    Office agree somewhat about how well the portfolio in FHA is
    going to perform; and that disagreement is normally about
    volume of business and not about the subsidy rate. But this
    year, the CBO estimate was basically a complete rejection of
    the administration's estimate in practically every respect. The
    estimate rejects the notion that the fund will operate
    profitably. Absent the underlying Credit Reform Act, there
    would be a demand that we treat the program as if it were
    losing money. This has real life consequences for the committee
    since we have to make up for the shortfall that CBO estimates
    will occur relative to your total budget. Quite frankly, it
    seems just from appearances only that the administration
    overstated the performance of the funds so it wouldn't have to
    reduce programs or reduce the increases in the initiatives that
    it wants.
        Has your staff met with the Congressional Budget Office to
    determine what specific elements of the administration's
    estimates were rejected and can you tell us what those
    differences were?

                              DIFFERENCES WITH CBO

        Secretary Donovan. We have requested a meeting with the CBO
    to discuss this. I have also had some discussions with the
    Budget Committee and OMB about this, and we have provided some
    information to them about it.
        I think fundamentally, what we have seen, and I spent an
    enormous amount of time personally with the Office of
    Management and Budget analyzing these numbers, there have been
    two major changes in FHA that may not be reflected in CBO's
    numbers and I think it is important that we do get to the
    bottom of this with them.
        First of all, given the change in credit markets, the
    average credit scores for FHA have gone up over 50 points
    during the last year. So that for loans to be originated in
    2010, we expect a significantly higher credit score on average
    than we have had historically.
        Second, and I thank Congress for working with HUD on this,
    the elimination of the seller-funded downpayment loans in the
    portfolio, that change alone, our estimate is, contributes a
    $2.5 billion swing to the performance of loans that will be
    originated in 2010.
        So I do feel quite confident in our estimates, and we are
    pursuing a resolution with that of CBO. And any support that
    the committee could provide in doing that, we would greatly
    appreciate.
        Mr. Latham. So you intend to--our problem is that we have
    to live by CBO. Whether you talk about OMB or whatever, but
    that is not the reality here for us. But you are going to work
    with them to try to revisit your methodologies. How are you
    going to address this?

                                  METHODOLOGY

        Secretary Donovan. We have approached them, requested a
    meeting, and supplied information how we got to our estimates.
    I hope we will get into the details with them to be able to
    resolve the difference.
        Mr. Latham. Okay. Just another item that has kind of popped
    up; you are proposing to continue the reverse mortgage program
    for seniors even after it has been shown to be a huge drain on
    the taxpayer, and the program is not part of the basic mission
    of FHA, has never been implemented by the private sector.
    Moreover, many have warned since the inception of the program
    that it is doomed to fail; now, a lot of people believe it has
    failed, and the Department wants to continue it anyway.

                                     TAXES

        Why would you ask the taxpayer to incur, I think it is
    about $800 million, to incur such a huge, long term liability
    on top of all of the other long term liabilities?
        Secretary Donovan. During this time in the economic crisis
    that the country is facing, which has been particularly
    difficult for our seniors, reverse mortgages continue to be an
    important opportunity for seniors to face these difficult
    economic times and to do longer-range planning to support their
    health care and other needs.
        We looked carefully at this and felt that it made sense to
    continue to support seniors during these difficult times.
    Having said that, I would also note that the proposal that we
    have put forward was dependent on not changing the underwriting
    terms for the HECM program. There are some relatively simple
    changes we could make that would limit participation in the
    program, but that could offset that request for credit subsidy.
    I would be very happy and look forward to our staffs discussing
    those options and making decisions together with the committee
    about whether we ought to make changes to the program.
        Again, we are not advocating those, but there are options,
    whether it is around the premiums, or around effectively the
    loan to values that seniors could take which would enable the
    program to be credit subsidy neutral for 2010.
        Mr. Latham. I just would note the reserves are basically
    deleted or gone now as a result of the foreclosures, and it is
    going to be a real problem. I thank you.
        Secretary Donovan. Just to be clear, the FHA program, the
    reserves continue to be above the congressionally mandated 2
    percent overall. I want to be very clear that the program is
    not in a negative position overall. And we do continue to
    monitor that very closely. We expect to have a reestimate this
    summer, and I think based on our latest estimates, the
    likelihood is it does remain above that 2 percent. But
    depending on the way that the market goes over the summer, that
    could change. We will keep the committee very closely apprised
    of that.
        Mr. Olver. Thank you, Mr. Latham.
        We will now go down the line in order of seniority for
    those who were here when the gavel came down, and then those
    who arrived after the gavel came down. That procedure leads me
    to Mr. Pastor.
        Mr. Pastor. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Good morning. Congratulations.
        Secretary Donovan. Thank you.
        Mr. Pastor. And best of luck.

                                      CDBG

        The questions I am going to ask deal basically with CDBG. I
    am from the city of Phoenix, and its population has doubled. It
    was 600,000 in 1970, and now it is 1.4 million. And so the past
    30 years has brought a lot of change. And the growth has
    brought with it 18 percent poverty level in the city's
    population. Phoenix has experienced increases in the low income
    single parent household; housing overcrowding; aging housing
    stock; and moderate and low income senior citizen housing.
        The CDBG program formula was developed in 1974, about 30
    years ago, and has not been revised since the program's
    inception, as you well know. This year you request $4.18
    billion for CDBG. And as I understand it, you are requesting
    the fiscal year 2010 funding to be distributed using a revised
    formula. What does that mean?
        Secretary Donovan. Well, first of all, the $4.18 billion
    that you talked about, we are also proposing--that would just
    be for formula funding, and we are proposing beyond that new
    initiatives, like the Sustainable Communities Initiative, that
    brings the total up to over $4.5 billion. But even just the
    $4.18 billion of formula funding, represents a significant
    increase over last year for filling the President's commitment
    to fully fund CDBG.
        I think there is broad agreement, as you discussed, that
    the formula created more than three decades ago has not kept
    pace with changes in metropolitan areas and in rural areas
    across the country, for example, in Phoenix, other parts of the
    southwest and the west. And so we do believe that there needs
    to be an updating of the formula. We also understand that is a
    difficult discussion because there are different interests in
    different parts of the country.
        That is why it is so important that we have proposed a
    significantly increased level of funding which would allow us
    to implement a hold harmless provision for jurisdictions across
    the country so that no jurisdiction, even with a formula
    change, would lose funding for the 2010 budget years.
        So we believe that with this increase of funding now is the
    time to relook at the formula and to develop a formula that is
    more closely targeted at needs, while at the same time, looking
    at ways that we can continue to provide the flexibility that
    CDBG provides, but to have greater accountability in terms of
    measuring progress and impact for the CDBG program which has
    been difficult given the broad flexibility the program has.
        Mr. Pastor. I would agree it is going to be very difficult
    politically because over the last 30 years, you have had
    population changes and there have been major shifts as you see
    in the makeup of Congress. Yes, it would be very difficult
    because there are regions today that probably would be very
    much opposed, and regions that would be very supportive,
    especially in the west and southwest. So to hold harmless, it
    would be for 2010?
        Secretary Donovan. I think there are a number of ways to
    implement that.
        Mr. Pastor. But you said hold harmless 2010? That is what I
    heard.
        Secretary Donovan. Certainly at the very least for 2010.
    There are a number of ways to implement this that would have
    budget consequences in future years.
        Mr. Pastor. That is what I am getting to. What are you
    going to do in 2011? You are still going to have the political
    pressure and the redistribution in the formula?
        Secretary Donovan. We believe, at the very least, that the
    budget proposal for 2010 needs to hold harmless across the
    country. We have not made a proposal in the budget for 2011
    given that is not part of the budget proposal.
        Mr. Pastor. It is too early. I will take your answer.
        The fiscal year 2010 budget proposal mentions that economic
    need will be used to target CDBG moneys. Can you tell me what
    factors will be used to determine economic need?
        Secretary Donovan. There is a proposal that we would be
    happy to discuss in more detail and provide you. There are a
    range of factors that we have looked at in terms of income
    levels, condition of housing, and a range of others. I think
    the best might be for me to provide to you and the committee
    more detail about what possible formulas would be.
        Again, I think we believe strongly this is an important
    discussion to have with the Congress. We are not locked in, I
    would say at this point, on a specific formula, and we have a
    number of options that we have developed that have differently
    weighting of different factors. I believe it is very important
    that we have a discussion about the merits of various formulas
    and come to a joint conclusion about that rather than for us to
    simply say there is a single formula that we think would work.
        Mr. Pastor. That is why I bring up the issue because when
    you talk about formulas, especially those formulas that have
    not been changed for 30 years, and there is the likelihood they
    haven't been changed for 30 years because the people who
    benefited 30 years ago don't want to give it up.
        So I would highly recommend to you that your attitude of
    working with Congress and looking at the various formulas, the
    various factors, is very important, that you consider that and
    work with the Congress because if it is something you spring on
    Congress or do not have much conversation about, you are going
    to get caught in the crossfire. So I highly suggest that you
    continue your dialogue just so that your future initiatives
    will progress forward and will be able to be implemented.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
        Mr. Olver. Just to add to that slightly, the formula was
    authorized in law once in the middle seventies. It has been the
    same for all of those years. We are going to have a census that
    will be out before the 2011 budget gets completed. And seeing
    the history of it, one ought to deal with whatever this new
    census data are around the factors that are you talking about.
    But the communication has to be with the authorizing committee,
    so start that communication.
        Secretary Donovan. Yes. I would also just add, I want to be
    very clear, there has been discussion about the formula for a
    number of years, but it has taken place in the context by
    attempts, by the last administration, to dramatically cut the
    CDBG program.
        The President made a pledge during the campaign, which we
    are living up to in this budget, to fully fund CDBG. I believe
    it shows a commitment to the importance of this program to
    local communities. And in addition to that, it gives us the
    ability to implement changes, as difficult as they might be, in
    a context where nobody will lose funding under a hold harmless.
        So I believe we have an opportunity to have a discussion
    about it in a different kind of way than we have had in the
    last few years, and I look forward to that conversation with
    this committee and with the authorizing committees.
        Mr. Pastor. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Olver. Mr. Rodriguez.
        Mr. Rodriguez. Thank you very much, and welcome to the
    committee and congratulations, Mr. Secretary.

                                    OVERRUNS

        Let me follow up on a comment made by the minority ranking
    member, and that is in terms of making sure that we look at
    past abuses. And I was just wondering, and this is an open-
    ended question, have you done anything to do an assessment
    through GAO or others to look at cost overruns in the past 4 to
    8 years, or whatever, in some of those programs, and I would
    ask you to comment on that. Like anyone who comes new to a
    program, you want to know that it is up and running
    appropriately. I know we have found some $300 billion cost
    overruns in just 4 years in the DOD facility from 2004 to 2008.
    Have you done anything on that aspect or asked for anything to
    be done?
        Secretary Donovan. Two things I would mention on that
    front. I talked earlier about the close working relationship
    that we have established with our inspector general; but that
    also goes beyond HUD to other agencies, Department of Justice
    and others, around mortgage fraud which given the growth of
    FHA's programs and many of the new lenders that we have had
    come into the program, we have begun to step up significantly
    our efforts, whether it is through swat teams, whether it is
    enhanced legal authority that we just got from Congress and
    signed by the President just a few weeks ago, to go after. One
    of the problems that we have had historically is we had powers
    to go after companies, but not the individuals that made up
    those companies. So we could debar, suspend a lender. They
    could then reconstitute.
        Mr. Rodriguez. Please let us know if we need to do anything
    legislatively that would help you in cleaning that up.

                                RESOURCES/NEEDS

        Based on the numbers that we are seeing, there is a big
    disparity between the need that is out there versus the
    resources we are providing. And it seems that gap is even
    bigger now than ever before. Have you made any plans in terms
    of looking at some alternatives that you might come up with or
    looking at any specific goals that you want to accomplish to
    try to meet those gaps?
        Secretary Donovan. A couple of things on that. I couldn't
    agree more that particularly given the economic crisis that we
    are facing, the needs are substantial. That is why I think it
    is so important that you passed a Recovery Act that had almost
    $14 billion to try to meet some of those needs. One thing I
    would mention in particular, is a billion and a half dollars
    for homeless prevention and rapid rehousing, that has been a
    very important effort that we have been working with over 500
    jurisdictions around the country to make sure that we help
    those families that on the edge of homelessness to be able to
    stay in their homes. It is also why we have proposed a
    significant increase in funding for Section 8 vouchers, which
    are a particularly important tool in these economic times in
    the budget proposal; as well as for the very first time funding
    for a national housing trust fund for extremely low-income
    families.

                       NEIGHBORHOOD STABILIZATION PROGRAM

        Mr. Rodriguez. Just a little more specific on one item,
    there are a lot of national organizations and groups that want
    to participate and have been participating, yet your guidelines
    also kind of discriminate and put them at a disadvantage. I
    would ask you to look at those guidelines that you have for
    national organizations because what you request on some of
    those specific targets in areas puts those national
    organizations at a disadvantage, and I would hope that you kind
    of look at that and go back, just like you should go back in
    terms of those formulas for areas that have continued to grow.
    I represent a more rural area than anybody else on the
    committee. I have 20-something counties in west Texas, and so
    housing is essential and is important. I know that there is a
    big waiting period and there is a waiting list of people
    waiting to get access to the resources there. So please look
    specifically at the national organizations. There are some
    specific items that your organization asks for that places them
    at a disadvantage. So when the scoring comes up, they are not
    going to be able to compete, especially as it deals with the
    neighborhood stabilization program and those kinds of things.
        I don't know if you have any comments on that or if you are
    looking at that now.
        Secretary Donovan. In fact, based on the feedback we got
    from the committee and others, we did make changes to our
    neighborhood stabilization program NOFA that we have published
    to try to provide as much flexibility as possible so national
    organizations could compete effectively, as well as giving
    points in that NOFA for things like leveraging, working across
    jurisdictional areas which obviously national organizations are
    particularly well suited to do. So we think we have constructed
    a NOFA for neighborhood stabilization and made changes to it
    that will be particularly useful in getting more national and
    regional organizations involved.
        Mr. Rodriguez. The comments that Congressman Pastor talked
    about, looking at changes in the last decade in growth patterns
    and those kinds of things, I would ask on the recovery
    resources, you look at those and prioritize those in terms of
    where the greatest needs are.
        Secretary Donovan. Thank you.
        Mr. Olver. Thank you. Ms. Kilpatrick.
        Ms. Kilpatrick. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Good morning, Mr. Secretary.
        I am loving the HUD budget for the first time in my 13
    years here. I appreciate the creativity and future vision that
    you have, as well as the President, and I commend you for that.
        I don't think we can express enough how important it is
    that you go through the authorizing committees. Chairman Frank
    on our side and Senator Mikulski on the other side have worked
    hard on our issues, and they support what we are doing.
    Chairman Obey always says we are appropriators, and we are not
    authorizers and there is a distinction. I think that is
    important. As much as I like it, I see a roadblock coming. If
    not now, on the floor; and if not today, soon. I can't express
    how important that is.

                         CHOICE NEIGHBORHOOD INITIATIVE

        I want to talk about the Choice Neighborhood Initiative. I
    really like how it sounds. You also talked about a couple of
    categories that you have put together that you are looking at.
    The Harlem Children's Zone sounds, as I read a bit about it,
    might fit in some of these categories. I know that it takes
    Hope VI, which has been zero funded for several cycles in this
    committee, and the Senate always puts it back in, but we are
    not sure that we are going to do that this time because of the
    new initiative that you have. I am not sure that it needs to be
    authorized first. But setting that aside, can you talk about it
    and how it parallels the Harlem Children Zone?
        Secretary Donovan. Absolutely. First of all, I completely
    agree on the importance of working not just with this
    committee, but also with the authorizing committees. And Choice
    Neighborhoods is a perfect example. My staff is meeting today
    with Senator Milkuski's staff, and we have many on the calendar
    and others we are setting up with the various authorizing
    committees on both sides of the Hill, to make sure that we have
    a full discussion about what is appropriately done as part of
    the budget and what is appropriately done in authorizing
    language. So thank you for that comment.
        Specifically on Choice Neighborhoods, I think the
    importance here, and I want to go back to something you said,
    Mr. Chairman, in your remarks, we believe very strongly that
    public housing and the work that has been done in Hope VI not
    only has worked and been effective, but needs to be expanded.
    And that is why we are proposing an increase from the current
    funding level from $120 million to $250 million for Choice
    Neighborhoods.
        Based on our analysis, there are roughly three times as
    many distressed public housing units as there are distressed
    assisted housing units in neighborhoods of concentrated
    poverty. We would expect that public housing will get an
    increase of resources under the proposal in Choice
    Neighborhoods. So I want to be very clear about that.
        We also know that assisted housing and privately owned
    housing can be a big part of the problem. I have often heard
    directly from housing authorities, wanting to be able to
    include, whether it is foreclosed homes or other types of
    housing surrounding public housing, if we are going to truly
    remake neighborhoods. That is one point I would make.
        Ms. Kilpatrick. Juxtapose schools into that last
    discussion, please.

                                    SCHOOLS

        Secretary Donovan. It is exactly the same issue. If we
    don't fundamentally remake the schools and create schools of
    opportunity in these neighborhoods, we are not going to be
    successful long term in creating sustainable communities there.
    That is why I have begun work with Secretary Duncan around
    integrating early childhood education and secondary education
    into the Hope VI efforts, not even just in Choice Neighborhoods
    but this year, we are looking at making more explicit
    connections with school reform in those communities. And then
    specifically on Harlem children's zone, the President talked
    about a Promised Neighborhoods Initiative modeled on what the
    Harlem Children Zone has done, which is really almost from
    birth through finishing high school, an effort to follow
    children, to give them not just at school but full day supports
    where they may need it with tutoring and other things, and it
    has been extremely successful in raising the academic
    performance and college attendance of kids in that neighborhood
    in Harlem, and we are looking to model it and link it.
        One of the reasons that we called this initiative Choice
    Neighborhoods is to explicitly make that link with the Promised
    Neighborhoods Initiative that the Department of Education will
    be implementing as promised by the President during the
    campaign. So we are working closely to bring together not just
    different types of housing but also school reform efforts and
    early childhood education efforts with the efforts around
    housing in the Choice Neighborhoods Initiative.
        Mr. Kilpatrick. I like it, and I hope you keep Members of
    Congress and this committee and subcommittee involved. It is
    very important as you go out that we become leaders in that as
    it rolls out. I like the coordination and it is the way to go.
    Thank you.
        Mr. Olver. Mr. Carter.
        Mr. Carter. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

                                  LOCAL MATCH

        I want to start off with when we had Hurricane Ike hit
    Texas, the communities were told that they could not use CDBG
    money to fulfill the Federal match required for other grant
    programs that would have aided disaster relief. This was a
    reversal from the previous disasters. Is there a reason CDBG
    money cannot be used in local matches; and was it just
    particular to some reason for Hurricane Ike, or do you know? Is
    there a chance we could reduce the 75-25 percent Federal-local
    match that many communities face to receive grants that would
    help them when they are in the middle of a big disaster?
        Secretary Donovan. This is an issue I have discussions with
    Governor Perry, Senator Cornyn and others about. There is a
    specific provision in the legislation that established the CDBG
    funding for Hurricane Ike that required that match to be in
    place. That was as you say accurately, different from prior
    statutory authorizations for CDBG disaster funding. So it was a
    statutory restriction that we have implemented as directed by
    Congress.

                                   HURRICANES

        Mr. Carter. We don't have any concept of why all of a
    sudden one particular hurricane is different than the one
    before it? You have to ask Congress.
        Secretary Donovan. This was passed well before my time, and
    I don't know well enough the history of why that was added. But
    it has been an issue, particularly in Texas, that I have heard
    about a number of times.
        I would just add as well that one of the issues in
    effective disaster recovery has been exactly this, that each
    time there is a disaster, there is a different CBDG
    authorization that is created. They have been different in
    different circumstances. And it is almost like we have had to
    reinvent the wheel each time. And I think it is very important
    that we have begun work with a number of the committees and at
    the White House to think about a way to create a sort of model
    CBDG program that would be specifically tailored to disaster,
    remove some of the barriers like the one you are talking about
    and others to make it more flexible and more effective in
    recovery and speed up recovery efforts.
        So I think it is important that we think about this issue
    in a broader context to make sure that we have an effective
    program to be able to respond.
        Mr. Carter. That is a satisfactory answer, and I thank you
    for that answer.
        And by the way, I apologize for being late.

                               SECTION 8 HOUSING

        The other question I have, this is kind of off-the-wall,
    because I don't know the names of the programs. But I did a lot
    of work with Section 8 housing back in my youth, and now I did
    a ribbon cutting on a program where the HUD was actually
    assisting people in purchasing homes. I don't know if you are
    familiar with that. But it was a fantastic concept because
    these people were actually buying a house.
        And one of the things that I have always been concerned
    about since--for 30 years--is that as we subsidize housing for
    people, we never give them the opportunity, that caused you and
    I, and our families to have risen out of where we started, and
    that is the ability to accumulate wealth. You never accumulate
    wealth if you are renting in a subsidized housing project.
        And let's face it, even though our real estate market is in
    the tanks right now, historically Americans accumulate--they
    begin to accumulate wealth in their home. Are you familiar with
    that? It is a very small program being experimented with, but
    it was hugely successful where we did it because, all of a
    sudden, people who had never owned anything owned something.
        Secretary Donovan. And this would be specifically the
    Section 8 voucher homeownership.
        Mr. Carter. But it was homeownership, not rental.
        Secretary Donovan. In fact, in my prior work, I ran the
    fourth largest voucher program in the country, and we did have
    a voucher home ownership program as well. It is a program that
    has frankly remained small, and I think it is one we could look
    at ways to try to create more flexibility and to expand. But
    more broadly, I agree with you that we need to continue to
    provide opportunities for low- and moderate-income people to
    become homeowners.
        I do not take the lesson from the recent crisis that we
    have seen, that low- and moderate-income people can't become
    homeowners. In my own work, we created or preserved 17,000
    units of home ownership at the local level with only 5
    foreclosures. So I think it is really a question of doing it
    right, get back to basics on underwriting, providing the right
    kind of counselling and assistance and also benefits, like the
    $8,000 first-time home-buyer tax credit that Congress provided
    in the recovery bill which has been an important benefit to get
    families into homeownership for the first time and to help to
    begin to stabilize housing markets around the country.
        Mr. Carter. I believe my time has expired.
        Mr. Olver. Thank you, Mr. Carter.
        Ms. Roybal-Allard. Thank you for being patient.
        Ms. Roybal-Allard. Welcome, Mr. Secretary.
        In recent years, HUD has given funding incentives to
    agencies that offer permanent housing for the chronically
    homeless. The unintended result has been providers have shifted
    away from offering support services in favor of creating
    housing. In the absence of support-service dollars, the
    homeless population loses access to critical services, such as
    those addressing mental health, substance abuse and medical
    services.

                              HHS/HUD PARTNERSHIP

        It seems to me that a coordinated effort between the
    responsible Federal agencies would help to make the
    availability of housing with complementary support services
    more sustainable and efficient. Since most of the support
    services are provided by the Department of Health and Human
    Services, would you consider developing some kind of a
    partnership or coordinated efforts between HHS and HUD that
    would allow for a more dedicated stream of funding for these
    very, very important services?
        Secretary Donovan. I could not agree more with everything
    that you said, that this is both, based on my own experience in
    developing support of housing in the nonprofit sector and
    private sector as well as in the public sector, the linkage
    between services and housing is absolutely critical and in fact
    has led to real progress on this issue. In fact it has led to a
    30 percent decline in chronic homelessness between 2005 and
    2007 based on these advances.
        And oftentimes, frankly, local areas have had to do it in
    spite of a lack of help and even barriers between Federal
    agencies. So I think what you are talking about is absolutely
    critical. In fact, yesterday, we had our first Interagency
    Council on Homelessness meeting of the administration, and I
    became the new Chair of it.
        And one of the things we discussed at the meeting--I was
    sitting next to Secretary Sebelius. And we have begun
    discussions already but are very committed to expanding them
    around linking up, whether it is Medicaid or other forms of
    funding, because ultimately not only do we serve people better,
    but we can actually reduce costs by serving people effectively
    in supportive housing.
        There have been good studies now showing that we reduce
    costs of emergency room care, shelters, even prison time for
    the chronically homeless by bringing services that can be
    funded through HHS's budget directly into supportive housing.
    So I couldn't agree with you more. And I would be happy to
    share more information as that partnership develops.
        Ms. Roybal-Allard. I would appreciate that.
        I hear quite a bit from the Asian-Pacific Islander
    community, which has not been immune to the foreclosure crisis
    but yet, as you know, has a very specific linguistic and
    cultural need in terms of service. And although they have been
    highly impacted, less than 1 percent of HUD-approved housing
    counseling agencies throughout the country have the capacity to
    meet the unique needs of the API community. Can you please tell
    the committee what is being done to ensure that the API
    community is adequately served in home foreclosure prevention
    and mitigation efforts?

                                 API COMMUNITY

        Secretary Donovan. Two things I would say on that. One is,
    in this budget proposal, we have proposed a significant
    expansion in housing counseling funding from $65 million to
    $100 million, and we feel, given the current crisis that we are
    facing, that it is an absolutely critical investment in
    resources. So that should open up the opportunity for more
    groups to be funded.
        But second of all, we need to go beyond that to make sure,
    just as you said, that we are targeting linguistically isolated
    groups. And that is why we have begun an effort under our fair
    housing programs as well as our counseling programs to publish
    information in many more languages. We are moving to 12
    different languages, from fewer than that in all of our
    materials.
        And also we need to work effectively--I was meeting earlier
    this week with a group called Esperanza, which works with
    Latino communities around the country and has the same issue,
    that they are trying to get into significant mortgage
    foreclosure issues in their communities and are trying to
    expand counseling. And we are working with them closely.
        I would be happy to follow up with the particular groups
    that you are hearing from to see how we could get training and
    information to them and connect them to groups like
    NeighborWorks that do effective training for housing counseling
    work.
        Ms. Roybal-Allard. Thank you.
        Mr. Olver. Thank you.
        Mr. Price.
        Mr. Price. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Welcome, Mr. Secretary. Glad to have you with us, and I
    appreciate your testimony.
        I was listening very carefully to your answer to Ms.
    Kilpatrick, and I want to follow up on the question of Choice
    Neighborhoods and the link with the considerable Hope VI
    backlog that I know the department is facing due to the drastic
    cuts in recent years in that program.

                                    HOPE VI

        I want to know a little more about that transition and what
    it portends for communities that are still waiting and have
    been waiting for the particular kind of comprehensive support
    that Hope VI provides. I know you are familiar with that issue
    and with the way this program had a kind of checkered history
    but got refined and improved. I can show you in my district--in
    both Raleigh and Durham--the difference that the Hope VI
    program has made.
        And there is more to do. In the last 8 years, the public
    housing advocates, including our chairman and myself, have had
    to struggle to push back against the Bush administration's
    attempts to actually zero out Hope VI. Now the new
    administration is advertising Choice Neighborhoods as, on the
    one hand, a celebration of Hope VI, but also as a way
    presumably of incorporating and going beyond Hope VI's key
    goals. That is what I want to explore with you because, as you
    can tell, my assessment is that the work of this program is far
    from complete, and I want to make sure we don't celebrate Hope
    VI prematurely in a way that leaves behind unfinished business.
        Let me give you an example and a couple of questions that
    will let you know what I am getting at. We have a major need in
    Raleigh, North Carolina. It is a great candidate for Hope VI.
    We have a good track record there. I wonder how well we would
    fair under Choice Neighborhoods.
        Walnut Terrace houses 700 residents in an outdated,
    inadequately-equipped and poorly designed facility. The first
    question has to do with the link to neighborhood schools, which
    I think all of us would agree is a very positive linkage, but I
    want to be wary here of unintended consequences. Because of a
    progressive diversity policy in the countywide school system,
    the children who live in this particular development attend a
    variety of schools.
        Under Choice Neighborhoods, as I understand it, funding
    preference would be given to projects that link housing
    redevelopment to school reform, which sounds like a good idea,
    and in many places would be a good idea, but I worry that it
    could inadvertently disadvantage public housing communities
    that aren't served by community-wide schools. In the case of
    Walnut Terrace, this example I am citing, I am not sure their
    application would make the cut under the kind of scoring system
    you have described.
        I will ask my second question, and then I will stop. Right
    now, Hope VI is funding four to five projects per year. I know
    you are going to double that funding; you have offered
    assurances about that here this morning. But you are also
    expanding eligibility to projects of privately-owned stock. And
    here, too, there is a lot good about that idea. But combined
    with these new preferences, I am not sure whether you are going
    to dilute the funding available to publicly-owned housing.
        So beyond this celebration aspect, I would like to know how
    you envision Choice Neighborhoods, vis-a-vis Hope VI? How do
    you address this Hope VI backlog? This work is not done. And
    the supply and demand imbalance under the current funding
    level, how do you address that? What can we expect as we make
    this transition in terms of the needs that have piled up,
    frankly, all over this country due to the drastic reductions
    that we experienced in Hope VI?
        Secretary Donovan. Very important questions.
        First of all, I would say that one--we believe strongly in
    the administration that public housing needs investment, that
    it has been underfunded for years, and that is one of the
    reasons why there was $4 billion in the recovery bill that we
    have moved to get out very quickly, and in fact the type of
    development that you are talking about would be a good
    candidate for a competition we have available right now with a
    billion dollars in competitive funding for public housing,
    transformation and other efforts.
        So we have more resources available right now than we have
    had in any time in HUD's history to do this kind of work. So I
    think it is important to recognize that we are trying to attack
    that backlog in many different ways, not just through Hope VI
    and Choice Neighborhoods.
        The second thing I would say is, on the dilution question
    that you asked, we have looked very carefully at the stock of
    dilapidated public housing around the country, as well as the
    stock of dilapidated assisted housing, privately owned, and
    there is roughly a 3-to-1 ratio of public housing to assisted
    housing. So with the more than doubling of funding that we are
    talking about and the demand in the eligible housing, we expect
    and are targeting a significant expansion of the number of
    public housing projects that could be eligible. So I do believe
    this will not in any way dilute the funding available to public
    housing redevelopment; it will significantly expand it, even
    with the broader eligibility.
        The last thing I would say is, we are not looking to be
    prescriptive about exactly what local communities should be
    doing to create successful schools. If you have got a
    development in a neighborhood where that school reform has been
    effective and there is quality--quality educational options
    available to those children, my sense is that we haven't
    written the NOFA yet because obviously we are in discussions
    with you all about the development of the program. But my
    expectation is that if there are quality educational
    opportunities available in that community, that that would
    score well on a NOFA looking to ensure quality education rather
    than poorly.
        We are not looking to knock down schools if they are
    already functioning effectively or if there are opportunities
    available in that community. So this sounds to me like a
    question of making sure that, if the program gets enacted, that
    we work closely with you and the committee to ensure that it is
    written in a way that is flexible, that meets local needs in
    the way that we intend.
        Mr. Price. Thank you.
        I know my time has expired.
        As to your first point, very quickly, I understand the need
    to look to various sources to get the support we need, and
    believe me, our housing advocates are very good at that, but I
    am also very wary of assuming that there is a ready substitute
    for the kind of comprehensive assistance that Hope VI has
    offered.
        My experience has been that this is a unique program in
    many ways and that we have really suffered from its decline.
    And so we want to deal with this backlog and with the needs
    that have built up.
        Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Olver. Ms. Kaptur.
        Ms. Kaptur. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Welcome, Mr. Secretary. Great to have you here.
        I want to focus on a few areas in my questioning. The first
    is areas of our country enduring very high foreclosure rates
    that are not going down but are rising, and I would ask your
    particular attention to meeting with Members of Congress who
    represent these areas.
        Our foreclosure rate is now over 12 percent and rising in
    the greater Toledo area, and I daresay I guess Congresswoman
    Kilpatrick and perhaps other on the panel have the same
    problem. Here are some of my recommendations. You use your
    considerable power within the administration to ascertain
    whether unemployment benefits that have been passed by this
    Congress can be used as income in calculating the mortgage
    agreement where we are trying to work out and help people save
    their homes at the local level. There is some problem with some
    of the banks and mortgage companies, but since the Federal
    Government is sending in that stream of income every month, I
    would think you might be able to do something about that. If we
    don't, we are going to get more foreclosures in areas that
    don't need any more foreclosures. That is number one.
        Number two, I want to make you aware of a situation in
    districts like I represent where auction houses are now coming
    in, and they are buying off these properties at fire-sale
    prices before the local communities can even get in there and
    bid on their own behalf. There was a dysfunction between the
    arrival of HUD money and auctions that are ongoing. I would ask
    you to draw your staff's attention to this problem.
        I can tell you, in my community, since the beginning of the
    year, nearly 90 percent of the homes that have been sold have
    been sold to outside investors. This is appalling. They don't
    take care of their properties. And for what they are being sold
    for, we could have put the original owners back in those homes.
    There is something really wrong when Citigroup and J.P. Morgan
    and all these same characters can come in and end up owning the
    property, and the local community can't even defend itself.
        So again I ask for your perhaps meeting with Members of
    Congress. I am sure Congressman Cardoza is one of these people.
    There are many of us in this situation, and we cannot get a
    handle on what is happening at the local level. Our real estate
    communities are outraged, and none of what is passed up here is
    making all that much difference. So I wanted to communicate
    that message to you.
        Number three, in terms of a stimulus, I would urge you to
    look at the possibility of working with the director of FEMA.
    In communities like my own, we have had flash flooding and lots
    of difficulties with flooded houses and so forth. And there is
    a real possibility in places like Toledo and Fort Wayne to use
    this moment to look at FEMA's prehazard mitigation funds and
    some of the HUD funds to begin acquiring properties that are in
    these areas, some of which are vacant, some of which are
    occupied. We could rip them down. We could relocate people. We
    put money into the local economy, and we could take up some of
    the other extra housing stock that is around the communities.
    It is a real opportunity right now. But it would need some type
    of strike force on your part to go to those communities that
    have this type of profile. It would help us ease some money
    flow into our regions using both your funds and the funds of
    FEMA.
        The other point I would like to bring up, sort of a
    different subject, relates to the proposal for university
    development in your--I don't totally understand what that is--
    but it sounds pretty good. But I have noted, in my community,
    where we have dilapidating areas, we have people with no
    building skills. And the programs of the Federal Government and
    the localities don't work very well to try to seed building
    skills in areas where we have significant housing need. The
    need for building skills is as great as the need for housing.
        And I would urge your attention to legislation that existed
    back in the 1970s and 1980s, called Neighborhood Self-Help
    Development that HUD had authority to work with Community
    Development Corporation, and they became the mechanisms to
    access labor money, HUD money, local money, building trades
    money to do really incredible things in those neighborhoods. So
    many of those authorities have just died, and as a result,
    neighborhoods die.
        Finally, I wanted to just mention something. Every year in
    a community like mine, a community of about 320,000 people in
    the biggest city, we get about $4 million to $6 million, to $7
    million of HUD money through CBDG. Meanwhile every year we get
    over $100 million in food stamp assistance, and I really
    believe that food stamps are the largest source of economic
    development dollars that a community like mine has. It has been
    really hard to get the public housing authorities to look at
    extra land that they own and properties adjacent to them and
    become part of greening the city.
        I think the President has a real commitment to this, and I
    think what we could do there is unbelievable with new modern
    agriculture. Tom Vilsack really cares about this. And if you
    mention my name, he will say ``urban agriculture.'' It can
    happen, and it can certainly happen in the Midwest where land
    is arable. I know my time is up. But I just wanted to urge you
    to look at demonstration programs in places where HUD and USDA
    can cooperate to grow product where it is desperately needed
    through local efforts and then to turn those efforts into food
    stamp redemption sites. So you begin to capture the dollars
    that people could earn through the sale of food, and some of
    your housing authorities could actually create credit unions
    and capture those dollars on site. None of that is happening in
    regions like mine, and I think it is really needed, and it
    could work in other places of the country.
        I thank you very much for listening. I don't think I have
    any questions. If you want to respond, go right ahead.

                          MAKING HOME AFFORDABLE PLAN

        Secretary Donovan. I won't respond to all of those points.
    I think they are excellent points, and we will follow up on a
    number of them and get you more information on a few of them.
        One thing--two things I would say, first of all, that this
    issue of unemployment benefits where families are at risk of
    foreclosure is very important. One of the important pieces of
    our Making Home Affordable plan, which has really now been
    stood up and implemented, and we are starting to see
    significant takeup. We have had now about 200,000 modification
    offers under the plan, including 40,000 alone last week. So we
    are really starting to see the scale ramp up.
        And one of the critical things about that is that it was
    intended to establish a standard modification process on many
    different issues, including on what can be considered income.
    And actually, in the plan we have explicit guidance about using
    unemployment benefits as income for the plan. So I would be
    happy to get you more information about that. But that is--as
    the program takes hold, hopefully many of the less-than-
    satisfactory modifications that were happening before get
    replaced with modifications that used the standardized guidance
    and process that we established.
        The other thing I would mention, in addition to the idea
    about FEMA, is that we do right now have the Neighborhood
    Stabilization Program competition available, $2 billion to buy
    up foreclosed homes. That could be used in a number of
    different ways, land banks and other things. And I would just
    encourage, particularly communities like yours that have been
    hit by the foreclosure crisis, to be looking carefully at that
    and coming in and applying for those funds in addition to a
    discussion that we could have about FEMA.
        Ms. Kaptur. Could I ask you, Mr. Secretary, what can you do
    about these auction houses coming in and sort of ripping the
    local market apart basically?

                                 AUCTION PRICES

        Secretary Donovan. It is difficult for us at the Federal
    level, obviously, to stop them from coming in.
        Ms. Kaptur. It is the same boys. It is the same boys. J.P.
    Morgan, Citigroup, Wells Fargo, the same ones. They use Hudson
    and Marshall out of Texas, and they are going right through our
    areas.
        Secretary Donovan. One major real problem for many of the
    neighborhood groups, localities that want to be at those
    auctions and want to be able to compete for those properties,
    particularly using Neighborhood Stabilization funds, is a lack
    of information about what is happening with those properties.
        So one of the things we are doing through the Making Home
    Affordable Plan, all of those services that you talk about
    participate in the plan. We are now, as of next month, we will
    be able to access very detailed data about loans where
    modifications haven't been successful and are likely to be
    foreclosures. And what we are looking at doing is creating a
    centralized database where we can provide information very
    early on, before it ever gets to foreclosure, to localities, to
    community groups, so they can be prepared to come in and
    negotiate even ahead of a foreclosure sale or to be prepared to
    go and bid earlier than they are. That is at least one aspect
    that we have been working on.
        There are others that we can do to go after some of the
    speculators who have not been--whether it is committing fraud
    or doing other things that are really problematic in some of
    the communities.
        Ms. Kaptur. Thank you.
        Mr. Olver. Thank you.
        We are going to try to do some more here. I am not quite
    sure exactly when the votes will be. But I am told within half
    an hour or so. So we will try to get through another round. I
    am going to cover some things rather quickly.
        I just want to comment to Ms. Kaptur, because she may not
    be able to have a second round. She has pointed out that the
    big boys that were a part of the creation of the problem in the
    first place are in there at the base of those auctions, and
    they have all the information, but the people who might be at
    the communities to know when or to create the auctions in the
    first place, they are not in as good as a position to get the
    information. So they are really at a competitive disadvantage,
    plus the fact that the Neighborhood Stabilization moneys came
    rather late in the process in getting out. So, yeah, they have
    a problem.
        I am noticing--this is quite a different thing. In one
    sentence in your testimony you mention the University Community
    Fund and then the Rural Innovation Fund, and leaving a few
    words out, for addressing the problems in distressed
    neighborhoods and rural communities. Well, the Rural Innovation
    Fund For Rural Communities, the University Community Fund
    sounds like distressed neighborhoods. My guess is the graduate
    students at those universities would agree that they were
    probably being housed in distressed communities.

                              CHOICE NEIGHBORHOODS

        To go back to the Choice Neighborhoods and the relationship
    to Hope VI, I had commented at the beginning the worry that two
    others have now reiterated that one cannot move on to a new
    concept without realizing that there is a lot of the old
    concept that still hasn't gotten where it ought to be. And
    there are several things that come to mind in that.
        I think there is a great need for technical assistance when
    you are working with any of those communities, and we have, on
    Hope VI, we have a number of projects which have barely
    gotten--either not or barely gotten off the ground within a 5-
    year period. There has to be some other reason for some lack of
    technical assistance, or there is some disconnect in the
    choice--in the original competition process as to who has the
    capacity and who has the will to get things like that done. We
    have a number of projects, unlike what Mr. Price had mentioned,
    where they have had such good experience. Some communities have
    had exceptionally good experience with it, and some others just
    can't seem to get off the ground after they have been awarded.
    That is number one.
        And then on the question of Choice Neighborhoods, it is a
    difficult question because we have had an authorized Hope VI
    program which has been underfunded deeply for quite a number of
    years, and there have been--there are lots of large
    communities, but also a lot of medium-sized communities. Ms.
    Kaptur's community was 300,000, or it was; the Census is down.
    But it is a perfect community to be having the Hope VI program.
    They never had one. There are a lot of communities in the
    500,000 down to even those in the 50,000 to 100,000 range that
    have never been in such a thing, and they need to be considered
    and be allowed to come into it. So there is all of those going
    on.
        And my final comment I guess here because I am going to be
    on red in just a moment, my final comment on this one is that
    we had an authorization that passed the House of
    Representatives for an extension of Hope VI last year with
    about $750 million or $800 million intended per year. It never
    was taken up by the Senate. Our side is thinking about doing
    another authorization for Hope VI. They have particular angst
    because they have done an authorization and might be inclined
    to do essentially the same thing again. And you better get
    talking with the authorizers because there is angst about the
    Choice Neighborhoods program there, though your comment about
    recognizing that there is three-quarters of the need remains in
    communities where there is public housing, and maybe a
    quarter--I am not sure that you are specifically saying that
    there may be distressed housing in the HUD-assisted group that
    is at the proportion of 1 to 3 in the public housing remainder.
    That is a reason for having demonstrations.
        Do you want to comment?
        Secretary Donovan. Sure. I want to reiterate very, very
    clearly that I believe strongly Hope VI is an outstanding
    program, and one of the things that we are trying to do with
    Choice Neighborhoods is expand the funding available to exactly
    those types of developments. And I have heard consistently from
    housing authorities that the ability to include privately-owned
    housing or other forms of housing as part of Hope VI
    developments would really help to transform those neighborhoods
    even further than the existing programs do. Because there are
    times when you can rebuild the public housing, but if there are
    foreclosed homes or other abandoned housing nearby, you simply
    don't have the same kind of impact. So this would give public
    housing authorities doing Hope VI type developments or wanting
    to do Hope VI developments broader opportunity to expand what
    they are doing.
        You may be arguing that $250 million isn't enough. That is
    something that if you believe there ought to be more funding
    for a program like this to expand the opportunity, I would be
    happy to talk about that. But fundamentally, I have heard from
    many, many mayors that Hope VI has been terrific. They have an
    assisted-housing program that is as bad a blight on communities
    as Hope VI. It is not as many, but where there is one, it has
    been devastating, and I have seen them very personally myself.
    So I believe that we need to take the opportunity to learn from
    the success of Hope VI and be able to take on new efforts.
        I don't think it is an either/or. And I am concerned that
    the committee seems to be seeing this as an either/or choice. I
    don't think it is an either/or choice. We need to expand the
    funding available to Hope VI type redevelopments, and we need
    to expand those lessons to other types of housing that have the
    same kind of negative impacts on communities. And I believe
    strongly that we can find a way to do that to assure that we
    expand the amount of public housing that gets redeveloped as
    well as to expand those lessons to other kinds of housing.
        Mr. Olver. Well, I thought I was giving you a chance to
    knock the transformation initiative out of the ballpark.
        Mr. Latham. Thank you. Thank you very much.
        Mr. Latham. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        I saw recently there is an announcement about livability
    grants, which I guess is interesting.

                               LIVABILITY GRANTS

        Just for the record, would you define what ``livability''
    is and tell me where these grants are going and what is
    supposed to be done with these grants? And I think for the
    committee's sake, what funds are you using for these grants?
    There is no line for livability grants.
        Secretary Donovan. These grants are actually not HUD
    grants. If I understand correctly, the announcements that you
    are talking about; they are not HUD-funded grants. We are
    proposing in the budget Sustainable Communities Initiative----
        Mr. Latham. Where would that come from?
        Secretary Donovan. I believe the ones you are talking about
    come from the Department of Agriculture. But I am not--I am not
    sure. I would have to--if you could get me more information
    specifically about the ones that you are thinking about, I
    believe they are Department of Agriculture, but I am not 100
    percent sure about that.
        Mr. Latham. Sometimes it gives the appearance that maybe
    the administration is kind of working at cross purposes. We are
    promoting the notion of livability and people living close
    together and in near proximity. Being from Iowa and coming from
    a big town of 168 people, I would not consider that to be
    livability. I like the open spaces. I live in the suburbs a
    mile outside of town there.

                              LIVABLE COMMUNITIES

        And on the other hand, we have through the stimulus
    package, there is huge investment as far as extending Internet
    and broadband out into the most rural areas all over the
    country. Obviously I am supportive of that, but it would seem
    somewhat at cross purposes. We are talking about having these
    clusters, and then we are also talking about having more people
    live out farther away or being able to live out farther away. I
    don't know, who wins the battle here? Are we just throwing
    money at both and seeing which one can come out on top?
        Secretary Donovan. I guess, Congressman, I see it
    differently, that what livable communities is about is
    providing more choices for people in terms of how they get to
    work, how they get to shopping, how they live their lives.
    Right now, I think folks are voting with their feet frankly and
    saying, we don't want to be spending hours and hours in traffic
    and cars. We want to be home with our kid. We want to have a
    better quality of life. And so we are both in urban areas,
    suburban areas, rural areas. The livability partnership that we
    have established, including--I was talking to Secretary Vilsack
    about this yesterday.
        He is creating more options for people in all of those
    different areas. We are not looking to tell people where they
    should live. The opposite. We are trying to make sure that,
    whether it is in rural areas, through access to broadband or
    other things, that they have more choices.
        Just to give you an example of that, as you know, Secretary
    Vilsack is from Iowa as well, and one of the big issues facing
    many towns of 1,000 people or 5,000 people is vacant stores in
    those towns with vacant units up above, and we were talking
    about the opportunity to provide more retail and maybe to even
    provide senior housing in places where, without getting in a
    car, because often seniors can't drive, being able to get
    access to the pharmacy, to the grocery store right there within
    the town.
        So I think there are lots of things that we can do through
    this agenda to provide more choices, and frankly, the Federal
    Government has often been in the way, and I think a big part of
    this is getting out of the way of allowing people to make those
    choices and local communities to develop in the way that they
    want.
        Mr. Latham. Well, I am keenly aware--I have a 92-year-old
    mother that lives in this town of 168 people, and she has to
    drive 10 miles to get a gallon of milk or a gallon of gasoline.
    There are virtually no stores. You don't want to be on the road
    when she is going to the grocery store. God bless her. I love
    her. What is HUD's role in a town like that? We just passed a
    bill yesterday in Ag Appropriations, $3 billion through USDA
    for grants, $18 billion through rural development. Does HUD
    need to be in Alexander, Iowa, along with USDA?

                                HUD'S RURAL ROLE

        Secretary Donovan. Not only do we need to be, we already
    are. We fund, through our range of programs, tens of thousands
    of rural housing units and others. Let me just give you----
        Mr. Latham. As far as handling those, it often goes through
    USDA?

                                      USDA

        Secretary Donovan. We often provide subsidies to be
    available to them. Let me give you an example. We have a senior
    housing program which, because of a number of restrictions in
    that program, tends to support new construction on greenfield
    sites, whether it is environmental restrictions and other
    things. Exactly the example I just used, for a senior living
    where they have to drive 10 miles to get to something, maybe
    the answer is the Department of Transportation providing more
    options for vans or other kinds of transit that would support
    those seniors being able to have a better quality of life. That
    might be a transportation answer.
        On a housing side, the answer might be to change our senior
    housing program so that we could redevelop the second floors of
    those buildings in the town that can walk to those services or
    have them readily accessible with a service coordinator or
    other folks. So really this is about providing options that
    will improve the quality of life, not just through transit
    options like I talked about, but as well as making sure our
    programs don't stand in the way of towns like the ones we are
    talking about being able to develop in ways that support the
    residents with a good quality of life. It is a simple example,
    but that is the kind of thing we are looking at to try to get
    all the barriers in our programs out of the way of this
    sustainable community agenda.
        Mr. Latham. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Olver. We now have had votes called. But if we could do
    3 minutes and the remaining 5 people can have their time
    before--Mr. Pastor.

                                    HOPE VI

        Mr. Pastor. Mr. Secretary, I will make the offer.
        At your convenience, I would like to sit with you and just
    give you a history of Hope VI at this side so maybe you might
    understand it is not either/or, but some of the encounters you
    are going to have both in Congress and what is causing probably
    some of our doubt. You are starting another program, an
    initiative which I hope you have a great success. But in this
    committee, we don't legislate on an appropriation bill. And
    many of your initiatives are going to have to be authorized. So
    that is our reluctance.

                                   PRIORITIES

        But let me ask the question, how do you justify taking
    funding in the coming fiscal year from programs that are sorely
    needed in this economy to fund longer-term priorities? Why do
    you decide on this particular structure to transfer authority,
    rather than putting more money into the working capital fund or
    into the policy development and research office? And this deals
    with your transformation initiative.
        Secretary Donovan. Two things I would say about that. The
    working capital fund, I think it is clear based on the systems
    that--and the working capital fund funds our information
    technology development and maintenance that there has not been
    the kind of investment that would be necessary to make HUD an
    effective, efficient agency, whether it is not having effective
    systems to count and provide to this committee what we are
    spending on Section 8 and what will be needed in the following
    years.
        And in a range of other areas, we simply haven't invested
    in technology. And that technology, frankly, can ultimately
    lead to more people being served in our programs, because
    today, without the kind of information technology, without the
    research to know what is working, it has been very difficult
    for us to make sure that our programs are effective and as
    efficient as possible. So I believe that the transformation
    initiative, which would give us the ability to expand funding
    for technology, for research, is intimately linked to the
    department being more effective and ultimately being able to
    serve more people with the same amount of money.
        Right now, because we haven't been able to invest in that
    technology, whether it is on Section 8, whether it is in the
    FHA programs, I think, frankly, we waste money that should go
    to people with real needs on the ground. So I see it
    particularly as a time of great economic need in this country
    that an effective, efficient HUD will only go to greater
    support the fundamental mission of the agency. And that is why
    this transformation initiative, which would increase the amount
    of money we have in addition to the working capital fund for
    systems, is so important.

                              WORKING CAPITAL FUND

        The working capital fund in our proposal would fund the
    maintenance of existing systems, and then we could use the
    transformation initiative to fund new development of technology
    at the agency.
        Mr. Pastor. Thank you.
        Mr. Olver. Mr. Carter, 3 minutes.
        Mr. Carter. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This committee
    recently spoke with Secretary LaHood regarding the Livable
    Communities Initiative between DOT and HUD. I will direct the
    same question to you that I asked him. Currently EPA gets $50
    million for Smart Growth programs. Is this Federal money
    duplicative of your efforts? If not, where are the lines drawn
    regarding responsibility for these efforts? Which agency, DOT
    or HUD, is leading the effort?

                              LIVABLE COMMUNITIES

        Secretary Donovan. We have formed a working group with the
    Department of Transportation and EPA to work jointly on these
    issues because the fact is that ultimately we can't be
    successful in this initiative if we don't have EPA programs,
    transportation programs and housing programs, all working
    together rather than at cross purposes. EPA specifically has
    responsibility for issues like water quality, brownfields, a
    range of issues that are critical to the sustainable
    communities initiative. HUD has responsibility, lead
    responsibility for housing; and Transportation, obviously, has
    lead responsibility for transportation.
        So I don't think these efforts are duplicative in any way.
    This is about getting out of the old way of operating just in
    silos where we don't communicate, where we work at cross
    purposes to each other, to make sure that we are coordinating
    the Transportation investments--that Transportation is making,
    the housing investments that HUD is making with the kind of
    brown fields and water quality investments that EPA is making.
    So we are not taking each other's responsibility.
        I think it is clear who has lead responsibility in each of
    these areas. What we are doing with this initiative is trying
    to make sure those are coordinated in ways that they don't work
    against each other in the future.
        Mr. Carter. So you are working in tandem is what you are
    saying?
        Secretary Donovan. Absolutely.
        Mr. Carter. Thank you.
        Mr. Olver. Thank you.
        Mr. Rodriguez, 3 minutes.

                                   SECTION 8

        Mr. Rodriguez. Real quickly, following up on Congressman
    Pastor's comments regarding the transformation. In terms of
    your plans, how are you going to prioritize that? Is it going
    to be a pilot program or in specific areas? Have you figured
    that one out? Are you going to be looking at that?
        Secretary Donovan. We have begun to develop detailed
    information about the efforts that we would pursue under the
    transformation initiative under systems; very specifically
    improving FHA systems will be a very high priority as well as
    improving our Section 8 systems. Again, HUD has not been able
    to provide to this committee in the past adequate transparency
    and information about the voucher programs, and that would be a
    very high priority.
        We would be happy to share greater detail about the
    committee about what we proposed. We would also propose that
    there be a very strong accountability that we have on these
    funds, proposing plans for your approval and feedback and any
    changes reported to the committee during the year in terms of
    how those funds are being used?
        Mr. Rodriguez. Are you still flexible in some of those
    areas? They asked me to ask you specifically on the--if there
    is any compromise between the flexibility of that 1 percent
    transfer authority or no flexibility without the initiatives?
    Is there a middle ground that can be reached or----
        Secretary Donovan. Absolutely. And we have already begun
    some of those discussions with the staff, and I think we are
    very happy to meet your needs in terms of specificity and
    reporting on it. Let me just give you an example of the kind of
    thing that we are trying to get to. FHA, given the economic
    crisis we are facing and the mortgage crisis, FHA's volume
    expanded dramatically quite quickly, and yet FHA didn't have
    the flexibility to go out and buy fraud systems that would have
    helped us effectively limit the fraud in the FHA program.
        So there are examples, and I would be happy to share
    others, where not having this kind of flexibility I believe has
    stood in the way of us using taxpayer resources as wisely and
    as effectively as we possibly can. But I do think there are
    ways that we can give you the kind of assurance that you need
    to ensure that this funding is being spent well and the kind of
    specificity in advance that you are looking for.
        Mr. Rodriguez. Thank you.
        Let me quickly, I know Congressman Carter talked about the
    importance of home ownership, and there are programs where
    people participate and provide, for example, the lot and
    provide some of the work that is done to build those homes. I
    would ask that you come and look at that, especially in some of
    the rural communities and urban areas that have empty lots and
    where people own the lot but might not have property because
    that is a key point.
        Mr. Olver. Thank you.
        Ms. Roybal-Allard, there are still 364 people who have not
    yet voted. So I think we can get 2 more 3s in here. Go ahead.

                                     HOPWA

        Ms. Roybal-Allard. Mr. Secretary, as the Housing
    Opportunities for Persons With AIDS, known as the HOPWA
    program, has successfully allowed about 91 percent of clients
    to achieve housing stability and has to a large extent been
    instrumental in helping to end homelessness among persons with
    HIV/AIDS. In light of the success of this program, it was
    disappointing to see that the administration has proposed flat
    funding for HOPWA. And since this flat funding, as I understand
    it, is expected to not only serve the 131 existing city and
    State programs but also to serve any new jurisdictions that
    become eligible this year. This level funding is essentially a
    cut to the program, and I would like to know what the rationale
    is for essentially cutting this very important and very
    successful program.
        Secretary Donovan. First of all, I would say that, given
    the set of choices that we had and overall the growing deficit
    that we have, we felt that--and HOPWA is not alone. There were
    many programs, in fact most programs in the budget that we have
    proposed, flat funding for. So HOPWA was not singled out in any
    way relative to other programs that also have significant
    needs, but we had to make choices in the budget, and we did
    that, given the overall budget environment.
        I would also say with HOPWA, having worked closely with the
    program in my prior job, I know the effectiveness that it can
    have. I also believe at that time we have made significant
    progress under HOPWA and have not seen the kind of enormous
    growth caused by the economic crisis, for example, around
    family homelessness and other types of funding that were
    particularly needed during the economic crisis. We didn't see
    the same kind of growth and needs around the HOPWA program that
    we saw in other programs, and that is really what led to our
    decision.
        Ms. Roybal-Allard. But the problem is it is going to undo
    much of the progress that has already been made, and we could
    provide you with information showing that in fact there is a
    growing need for this program and that--the fact that is not
    only flat funded but expected to deal with any additional new
    jurisdictions, that it is going to have a very negative impact
    on this population.
        Secretary Donovan. I would be happy to look at that
    information.
        Mr. Olver. Thank you.
        Ms. Kaptur.
        Ms. Kaptur. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you for your
    interest on many levels. Thank you.

                                  FORECLOSURES

        Mr. Secretary, very quickly, would you be willing to serve
    as a convener among a meeting that would involve J.P. Morgan
    Chase, Bank of America, HSBC, Wachovia, Wells Fargo, major
    foreclosers and servicers and Members of Congress who come from
    districts where these firms are still wreaking havoc?
        Secretary Donovan. I would be happy to do that.
        Ms. Kaptur. I would hope we could bring our mayors to that.
    I would urge you to look at districts that have over 10 percent
    foreclosure rates as a start. And I know Congressman Cardoza
    and I are very, very of like mind on this, though we represent
    very different districts.
        The FHA is very important to these companies. So is Fannie
    and Freddie. And I think you have a unique position where we
    can have a direct dialogue. There are serious questions to be
    addressed at such a convening. Thank you.
        If I were to ask for information, and this will be my last
    request very quickly, if I were to ask HUD in historical order
    to provide a list of the first financial companies to invent
    and to promote the subprime mortgage instrument and then to
    securitize it, could your staff do it?
        Secretary Donovan. Let me find out for you.

                               FREDDIE AND FANNIE

        Ms. Kaptur. And also, does your staff have the ability to
    take a look at Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae between the years of
    1995 and 2005 and address the issue of what happened to the
    risk standards and the risk evaluations of the mortgage
    instrument that allowed the crisis to occur? Do you have the
    ability to look up what was done as they changed their risk
    standards, particularly between 1999 and 2002?
        Secretary Donovan. We recently did put together a report on
    the history and the causes of the subprime crisis that included
    some information there. We would be happy to provide that to
    you. If that is not sufficient, we can certainly try to get you
    more information on that on this issue.
        Ms. Kaptur. I thank you very, very much.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Olver. Thank you very much for your testimony. It is
    very helpful to us, and I think very informative for all the
    members who are here. Thank you, Mr. Secretary.
        And this hearing will be closed.
                                             Wednesday, March 18, 2009.

     LIVABLE COMMUNITIES, TRANSIT-ORIENTED DEVELOPMENT, AND INCORPORATING
    GREEN BUILDING PRACTICES INTO FEDERAL HOUSING AND TRANSPORTATION POLICY

                                   WITNESSES

    HON. SHAUN DONOVAN, SECRETARY OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT
    HON. RAY LAHOOD, SECRETARY OF TRANSPORTATION

                       Opening Remarks of Chairman Olver

        Mr. Olver. The subcommittee will come to order. I was
    reluctant to stop you. You were conversing so casually there
    that I thought you might be making big decisions that we would
    hear about in the process as we go along. And so I didn't want
    to stop you at all from that.
        But anyway, this subcommittee of Appropriations is the
    Subcommittee on Transportation, Housing and Urban Development,
    occasionally called the THUD committee. And we have a
    confluence of the stars today, in that both of our Secretaries,
    the gentlemen chosen to lead the administration in
    Transportation and in Housing and Urban Development, the two
    are both here to testify on the issue of Livable Communities,
    and subtitled Transit-Oriented Development and Green Building
    in Federal Housing and Transportation.
        So let me welcome the Secretaries, the Secretary of
    Transportation, Ray LaHood, an old colleague. We are happy to
    have you before us. And Secretary for Housing and Urban
    Development, Shaun Donovan. Happy to have you as well.
        And I want to let both of you know that I am really very
    pleased both of you are testifying about this issue in this
    way. In my mind, a livable community is a neighborhood that
    links the transportation mobility needs of old and young alike,
    with affordable housing, shopping, job opportunities and green
    infrastructure.
        In my view, transportation, housing and energy policy have
    been conducted as separate spheres, like silos, with little or
    no coordination on the Federal, State or local level for far
    too long. Improving Federal policies among agencies and
    creating a Federal partnership with local communities to build
    livable communities that combine transit-oriented development,
    affordable housing and green infrastructure should be a
    national priority. And we finally have two agency heads that
    share a belief in livable communities and a willingness to work
    together across agencies to better coordinate the Federal role
    and prioritize this type of development.
        Over the last 2 years, our Subcommittee, working with our
    friends on the Authorizing Committees, when appropriate and
    necessary, have worked to make communities that are livable. We
    have promoted green building and access to transit within the
    HOPE VI affordable housing program, and we have urged the FTA
    to work with grantees to incorporate green building practices
    for newly constructed transit facilities. We have provided
    funding for the Departments of Transportation and HUD to
    explore ways the two agencies could better coordinate
    transportation and housing programs to promote affordable
    housing near transit.
        I believe that the Federal Government should be a partner
    and a resource for local communities that would like to create
    livable communities. I also strongly believe in efforts to
    promote green building and transit access in Federal housing,
    because green housing is cost effective and can create
    substantive energy savings and healthier living environments
    for families.
        Each of you has given voice to the challenges and
    opportunities we face as we strive to build such livable
    sustainable communities. Secretary LaHood, you stated during
    your confirmation hearing, and I quote, ``The era of one-size-
    fits-all transportation projects must give way to one where
    preserving and enhancing unique community characteristics, be
    they rural or urban, is a primary vision of our work rather
    than an afterthought.''
        And similarly, Secretary Donovan, at your hearing you
    stated, ``HUD can help develop communities that are livable,
    walkable and sustainable. By joining up transportation and
    housing, HUD can give families the choice to live closer to
    where they work and, in the process, cut transportation
    costs.''
        This afternoon we will have an opportunity to learn more
    about each of your visions for livable communities and what you
    hope to accomplish in the short and long term in this regard.
    Tomorrow we are going to hear from a panel of outside witnesses
    who will share some additional thoughts on how we can better
    coordinate transportation and housing.
        And so, with that, let me recognize our ranking member, Mr.
    Latham, Tom Latham from Iowa, for any comments that he would
    like to make.

                    Opening Remarks of Ranking Member Latham

        Mr. Latham. All right. Well, thank you very much, Mr.
    Chairman. I appreciate your interest in this issue and your
    fervor, I guess, in this whole subject matter.
        And Secretary Donovan, it is nice to meet you. I look
    forward to getting better acquainted over time here and to work
    with you.
        Ray LaHood, classmate of mine--you are missed; there are
    fewer of us all the time, Ray. But I welcome you here. And
    congratulate both of you on your appointments. That is
    tremendous, and I think you will do a great job.
        On the outset, I would like to say that we might want to
    revise the term ``livable community'' simply because I think
    what is livable to some might not be livable to others; and in
    our large, very diverse Nation, we know there are significant
    demographic shifts taking place in our country. But we also
    know that the experts don't agree on the trends--totally on the
    trends that are under way.
        Some assume that the aging and young populations all want
    to live near public transportation and that jobs are moving to
    the cities and that we should break large areas into villas
    surrounded by public transportation. The reality probably is
    closer to the notion that the use of cars today is a larger
    part of our daily life than ever before, as both parents of
    young families today work full-time, carry out a lot of
    different tasks in a day.
        I think it is important to note that many jobs are moving
    out of the cities to suburban areas where the skills are and
    the new opportunities are, where schools are, you could say,
    unfortunately, oftentimes better, and the crime rates can be
    lower. These characteristics are going to also influence people
    in their choices of where they are going to live.
        If people continue to migrate to the suburbs, the
    marketplace, I think, will dictate costs and land uses. And it
    is a hard thing to overcome the marketplace and what actually
    happens in those communities. In that context, a bus or a train
    may not be a viable alternative for a working parent who must
    get to daycare, the dry cleaners, go to work or the grocery
    store all in the same day.
        The D.C. Metro system is a good example of the truths on
    both sides of the public transit systems. On the one hand, rail
    transit has resulted in residential areas that are not
    affordable to many people, but who would like to have Metro
    access. On the other hand, the rising land values have been
    good for the local economies. So it is a trade-off.
        I think there are many positives in the area of transit-
    oriented development for some communities, but probably not for
    all communities. One-size policies do not always fit well into
    the broad, diverse nation, and we need to recognize that fact
    as we go forward here.
        But I look forward to hearing from our witnesses today and
    exploring the subject more in depth. I appreciate it very much,
    Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Olver. Thank you.
        Now let's hear from the Secretaries. Your complete
    statements will appear in the record. If you manage to keep
    your comments under an 8-minute limit, we will be happy. And
    then we can get on to questions, because I am sure this can be
    quite a good conversation among us today. Thank you.
        And with that, Mr. LaHood.

                         Opening Remarks of Ray LaHood

        Secretary LaHood. Mr. Chairman, thank you. I may have spent
    maybe a total of 8 years in this room. I am very glad to be
    back. When people ask me if I miss Congress, what I tell them
    is, I don't miss the roll calls, but I do miss the
    relationships. And it is wonderful to be back in the
    Appropriations room and to see friends across the dais here. I
    thank you for the opportunity.
        I think the stars have really aligned for you today, Mr.
    Chairman. You have both the Secretary of HUD and the Secretary
    of Transportation together here talking about something that I
    know you have been passionate about: livable communities. It
    must truly be a great day for you and for those that have been
    promoting this idea.
        And so I would like to read my testimony, but first say to
    you, sir, congratulations. You have hung in there long enough
    to see this day finally occur when both of our Departments, as
    well as others, are working together on a very, very important
    concept, not only for this administration, but for the
    Congress, too.
        Mr. Olver. I will admit that I am pleased.

                               Opening Statement

        Secretary LaHood. Chairman Olver, Ranking Member Latham and
    to the other members of the committee, I thank you for inviting
    me here today with Secretary Donovan to discuss the U.S.
    Department of Transportation's goals and actions in support of
    livable communities.

                              LIVABLE COMMUNITIES

        Fostering livable communities is a key aspect of President
    Obama's urban policy agenda and Vice President Biden's Middle-
    Class Initiative. The way we design our communities has a huge
    impact on our citizens' social, physical and economic well-
    being, yet many Americans live in neighborhoods without
    sidewalks or access to public transportation. Therefore, one of
    my highest priorities is to work closely with Congress, other
    Federal departments, and the Nation's Governors and local
    officials to help promote more livable communities through
    sustainable surface transportation programs. By focusing on
    livability, we can help transform the way transportation serves
    the American people and create safer, healthier communities
    that provide access to economic opportunities.
        As you know, over the last 4 years, our Department has
    worked closely with the Department of Housing and Urban
    Development on a range of initiatives to promote transit-
    oriented development. Last year, your Committee directed the
    Department of Housing and Urban Development and the Federal
    Transit Administration to continue this work.
        Specifically, you asked us to identify creative ways to
    support transit-oriented development with an affordable housing
    component. I am pleased to report we have made good progress
    and are building on that work.

                               DOT/HUD TASK FORCE

        Today, my Department and HUD are announcing the creation of
    a new, high-level interagency task force to better coordinate
    Federal transportation and housing investments. This
    partnership will help American families gain better access to
    affordable housing, more transportation options and lower
    transportation costs. We have identified strategies to give
    American families more choices for affordable housing near
    employment, access to shorter commutes and safer and healthier
    sustainable communities. We will do more than ever before to
    ensure that these goals are realized.
        Our Departments will work to coordinate regional
    transportation, housing and land use planning. We will
    encourage metropolitan planning organizations to conduct this
    integral planning to help them assess their future growth
    alternatives.
        Transportation is the second highest cost for American
    families, behind housing. So fostering mixed-use, high-density
    development and affordable housing near transit hubs is key to
    reducing this cost and fostering economic growth.
        We will identify best practices. We will create new ways to
    measure, track and evaluate livable factors at the local and
    regional level, and we will engage in joint research. These
    efforts will help communities to plan effectively for the
    future and encourage them to focus on livability issues.
        In addition to our partnership with HUD, the DOT policy
    office is also developing a Departmentwide livability
    initiative. Fortunately, many on-going programs already
    contribute to this effort, ranging from bicycling programs to
    congestion mitigation and airport noise reduction. But more
    needs to be done to promote strong and connected communities.
    Everyone in urban and rural communities alike needs safe and
    affordable access to work, medical services, schools, shopping,
    recreation and other essential activities.
        And our transportation investment decisions must be
    consistent with our policies on greenhouse gas emissions. These
    and other issues will inform our livability policy.
        In the coming months we will work closely with Congress and
    our stakeholders on a new authorization package for surface
    transportation. I hope and expect to make livability a
    centerpiece of the final proposal.
        We have a clear opportunity at this moment in our history
    to offer bold new approaches to the way we plan, design and re-
    energize cities and communities across America. We must use
    this opportunity wisely to revitalize our downtowns, foster
    walkable neighborhoods and bring people, employers and housing
    closer together through public transportation. Livable
    communities are essential to a vibrant, sustainable America.
        I look forward to working with you, with the Congress, the
    Department of Housing and Urban Development and the
    transportation community on achieving our goals for livable
    communities.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thanks to the subcommittee for
    offering the opportunity to present our testimony today.
        Mr. Olver. Thank you, Mr. Secretary.
        [The information follows:]

        [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Mr. Olver. And now, Mr. Donovan from HUD.

                 Opening Remarks of the Honorable Shaun Donovan

        Secretary Donovan. Thank you. I am also very pleased to be
    here today to testify before the committee on the importance of
    an integrated approach to housing and transportation. It is
    especially gratifying to be here with my colleague, Ray LaHood,
    from the Department of Transportation.
        Our presence here is a tribute to your awareness, Chairman
    Olver, of the need for our Departments to work together to
    address the many intersections of Federal housing and
    transportation policies and programs. I am excited by the
    potential for this partnership to improve housing and
    transportation choices for all Americans.
        HUD's central mission, ensuring that every American has
    access to decent, affordable housing, can be achieved only in
    the context of housing, transportation and energy costs and
    choices that American families experience each day. During my
    confirmation hearings, I indicated that with the economic
    fallout across the country, the first step to fulfilling that
    mission was to address the foreclosure crisis. That is why the
    administration worked swiftly to establish the President's
    Housing Affordability and Stability Plan, a plan that not only
    helps responsible homeowners at risk of losing their homes, but
    prevents neighborhoods and communities from decay.
        As we act in response to the crisis, we must also turn our
    attention to the factors that stressed many families' abilities
    to make ends meet. Over the last few years, many homeowners and
    renters have traded high housing costs for high transportation
    costs in their search for affordable housing.
        Affordable housing was affordable only when gas prices were
    low and the broader economy was strong. The average American
    household now spends 34 percent of their annual budget on
    housing and 18 percent on transportation, a combined total of
    52 percent of their budgets wrapped up in these, the two
    largest single expenses.
        For low-income, working families, the impact is more
    serious, with transportation representing almost a third of
    their costs. For these families the expense of transportation
    poses a particular burden, inhibiting wealth creation,
    hindering home ownership and pushing family budgets closer to
    the brink.
        As decentralization and accompanying sprawl have increased,
    the spatial mismatch between the location of affordable housing
    and employment and educational opportunities in metropolitan
    areas has worsened, hurting metropolitan economies. Fewer low-
    wage families can find housing near their work, as affordable
    housing remains disproportionately located in urban and older
    suburban areas. And businesses located in those areas must find
    workers who can commute, incurring higher transportation and
    energy costs.

                          TRANSIT-ORIENTED DEVELOPMENT

        In response to these challenges, State-, local- and
    regional-level actors have pursued innovative solutions. These
    local projects point to the need to coordinate Federal action
    across agencies. Our local counterparts in Chicago have already
    recognized this and undertaken an ambitious, integrated land
    use and transportation plan, the Go to 2040 plan, to address
    projected growth in population and employment.
        Cities and suburbs across the country have been increasing
    their focus on transit-oriented development. Denver is in the
    midst of a plan that facilitates transit-oriented development
    with special attention to the land use that is appropriate for
    each area of development, recognizing that a civic center
    downtown will support very different development than an older
    urban neighborhood.
        Careful data collection in the cities and suburbs has
    demonstrated that the cost savings associated with living near
    transit are significant. A study of four neighborhoods in
    Minneapolis/St. Paul found that the combined costs of
    transportation and housing are most affordable in areas best
    served by public transit, with an average savings of $3,000
    annually.
        To reinforce and support these local initiatives, HUD will
    work closely with the Department of Transportation in the
    coming months and years. Last year, your committee directed HUD
    and FTA to identify incentives and take other actions to
    support transit-oriented development that includes mixed-income
    housing and other affordable housing choices.
        Mr. Chairman, it is an honor to say here, in light of all
    your hard work over the years to join housing and
    transportation planning, that Secretary LaHood and I will build
    on the principles laid out by that HUD-FTA working group and
    announce today a broader HUD-DOT partnership to address the
    critical issues our Departments jointly face.

                       SUSTAINABLE COMMUNITIES INITIATIVE

        As the President noted in his initial budget submission,
    our detailed plan will include the establishment of a
    Sustainable Communities Initiative. As you know, I cannot go
    into great detail about this plan, but I would like to speak
    generally about some elements I hope you will find compelling.
        First, HUD and DOT will jointly administer a fund to
    encourage metropolitan regions, via competition, to develop
    integrated housing, land use and transportation plans and to
    use those integrated plans to drive the planning and decision-
    making of localities. The goal of this initiative is not just
    to develop plans; it is to set a vision for growth that is
    tailored to distinct metropolitan markets, and then apply
    Federal housing, transportation and other investments in an
    integrated manner that supports that broader vision.
        These efforts will benefit urban, suburban and rural
    communities. Given the decentralization of people and jobs,
    estimates show that nearly 50 percent of people who live in
    rural places live within the boundaries of metropolitan
    statistical areas. This requires a level of integrated planning
    that spans jurisdictional boundaries in new and unprecedented
    ways.
        As we work towards an integrated planning process, we will
    refine the definition of affordability in America. The costs of
    transportation now approach or exceed those of housing for many
    working families, yet Federal definitions of housing
    affordability fail to recognize their interdependence. We will
    work to jointly develop with the Department of Transportation a
    housing and transportation affordability index that will inform
    consumers and businesses about their choices in real time.
        In the coming months, we will be conducting an intensive
    review of programs to ascertain how to support the marrying of
    housing and transportation and to emphasize location efficiency
    in all that we do. In housing programs, for example, perhaps we
    can preference those projects that give participants choices
    for public transit, employment opportunities and other
    important advantages. I pledge to you that we will subject all
    of our programs, including FHA, to a rigorous review that
    determines how we can orient the business of our Department in
    support of this integrated planning.
        Finally, we will also establish a jointly administered
    research and evaluation effort. This effort will aggressively
    engage in joint data development, information platforms,
    analytic tools and research to better track housing and
    transportation expenditures by location. It will establish
    standardized and effective performance measures, engage in
    rigorous analysis of the transit-oriented development projects
    already in existence to identify best practices and evaluate
    location-efficient mortgages and energy-efficient mortgages.
    This data collection, research and evaluation will serve not
    just Federal programs, but will be shared to move information
    into the marketplace and inform private investment decisions.
        This partnership between DOT and HUD is part of a broader
    effort to ensure that Federal housing policy supports not only
    sustainable communities but also enables the construction and
    renovation of energy-efficient homes and building. In the face
    of sweeping climate change, our two Agencies and others we have
    partnered with and will partner with, like the Department of
    Energy and EPA, can have a significant impact on creating an
    energy-efficient-built environment in the coming decades.
        Your efforts in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act
    have given us a jump-start on that effort. A significant share
    of this funding is eligible for energy efficiency and green
    building practices in public and assisted housing: $4 billion
    for public housing modernization, $510 million invested in
    Native American housing, and $250 million for energy retrofits
    of assisted housing.
        The steps we have already taken and the partnership we have
    committed to today will help us integrate the Federal
    Government's policies and investments in housing and
    transportation. In the coming months, HUD will work with DOT to
    improve coordination between our Agencies and apply the
    principles I have discussed with you today to programs
    throughout my Department.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I look forward to answering your
    questions.
        [The information follows:]

        [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                           REGIONAL PLANNING AGENCIES

        Mr. Olver. Well, thank you very much. The two of you have
    given us a great deal to think about, and I think we will have
    a very interesting conversation here today.
        First, let me say I really want to applaud you for this
    announcement of the partnership with HUD, between the two of
    you, HUD and Transportation, to develop your Sustainable
    Communities Initiative. I am going to be waiting with almost
    bated breath, certainly impatiently, to see the details of that
    and how that works out in the budget submission later on in the
    year. We may have some questions along those lines along the
    way.
        I would like to ask you, Mr. Donovan--you had mentioned
    some experiences in Chicago and Denver and Minneapolis; I think
    I have them right. You work with the exact same regional
    planning agencies on affordable housing issues that
    Transportation works with for all of the transit-oriented
    issues as they go into the States and to the local, regional
    planning agencies.

                       SUSTAINABLE COMMUNITIES INITIATIVE

        Can you give me a sense, the two of you together--not
    exactly speaking at the same time, but to the question of how
    you are going to actually reach out to those regional planning
    agencies--to get them into the swing of things as you roll out
    the Sustainable Communities Initiative?
        And I guess I should let--well, Mr. LaHood, do you want to
    answer that first or----
        Secretary LaHood. Well, we haven't choreographed this, Mr.
    Chairman, but I think the way that we should approach this is
    to invite all the stakeholders to Washington, or a
    representative group of them. We can tell them sort of what we
    have in mind, but more importantly, listen to them about how we
    can work with them and use the talents they have in the
    communities from which they are coming in terms of their
    ability to carry off the kind of coordination that both
    Secretary Donovan and I want to accomplish.
        I say that because even before the President signed the
    American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, we at DOT
    invited all the Secretaries of Transportation to Washington.
    Forty-three of the fifty-three came. We wanted to ask them if
    it was possible to implement the $28 billion program in the
    time constraints established by the law.
        It was a very, very good meeting. Forty-three came and
    shared good ideas about how we could work with them to do what
    was necessary under the law to get this money out the door.
        I think we need to get a good representative group of
    stakeholders involved and bring them to Washington to share
    with them what our vision is, but also to find out if that
    comports with what they would like to do out in the
    communities.
        Mr. Olver. Mr. Donovan.
        Secretary Donovan. I think that is exactly right. And we
    have--this is not just a question of us going out. We have
    already heard around the recovery act and, more broadly,
    enormous interest. Many folks are already coming to see us
    about those plans.
        And as you know, the real energy and initiative around
    these ideas has been at the local and the regional level, to
    date; I know from my own experience in New York, as well as the
    other plans that I have seen, that I talked about in my
    testimony.
        I think the issue we are really trying to address with this
    Sustainable Communities Initiative and the broader partnership
    is that, if anything, at this point, the Federal Government
    does very little to help and, if anything, hurts those efforts.
    We have, in Community Development Block Grant and other funding
    programs at HUD, requirements for 1-year and 5-year plans.
    Transportation has requirements for 1-year and 20-year plans
    that don't link up in any way currently.
        We also have done very little, frankly, to provide funding
    for the kind of regional, integrated planning that we are
    talking about; and I think the Sustainable Communities
    Initiative is directed at trying to support some of those
    efforts.
        I think also the research that I talked about in my
    testimony is guided at really trying to build a set of best
    practices. I hear from many areas--rural areas, metropolitan
    areas, urban areas--that they are very interested in this kind
    of planning, but don't know how to proceed. I talked about some
    of the best examples, but many others that haven't made much
    progress and need the kind of guidance and assistance that, I
    think, really developing jointly best practices could help to
    lead to in those areas.
        So those are a few ideas.
        Secretary LaHood. Can I just say one other thing, Mr.
    Chairman?

                              LIVABLE COMMUNITIES

        There are actually communities such as Portland, Oregon
    that are right on the cusp, thanks to people like Earl
    Blumenauer and Mr. DeFazio and the Senators. If we give them a
    few more resources, particularly transit opportunities for
    streetcars they can create a truly livable community. I have
    talked to them at length about this.
        We have inhibited their ability to do it, but some
    communities have done it in spite of Washington, D.C.
        Mr. Olver. Well, I think there may be some regional
    planning agencies which will be enormously pleased to hear that
    you might come out and listen to them at some point or draw
    them here. You may want to go there, but after it quiets down
    here a while--things are a little bit hectic at the present
    time in getting your Departments together.
        And the second thing, I think, would be a joint plan for
    getting your vision to the two authorizing committees for the
    areas that you of T&I and, of course, Financial Services, to
    get some of the ideas directly into the legislation, as
    appropriate.
        Thank you.
        Mr. Latham.

                                    GAS TAX

        Mr. Latham. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I am sure Mr.
    LaTourette down here, having been an authorizer for a long
    time, will learn the wisdom of the Appropriations Committee
    here very soon.
        I, too, I want to congratulate both of you for your efforts
    in working together. It is not often in government today that
    we see the kind of coordinated effort that you are talking
    about to address a real problem. And I do congratulate you on
    your announcement today.

                 FUNDING FOR SUSTAINABLE COMMUNITIES INITIATIVE

        Ray, Secretary LaHood--do I have to call you Secretary
    LaHood? Okay. In the report, you are recommending major
    subsidies for housing, community development, infrastructure;
    and I make the presumption that that would mean probably fewer
    cars and ideally, less gas burned. And I guess the big question
    is always how you pay for it, and under that scenario, who
    would be responsible for maintaining the Nation's roads and
    infrastructure? Gas tax isn't sufficient today to do that, as
    we all, unfortunately, well know.
        I do look at the effect--and, you know, my district is
    probably more rural than what yours was even--how this affects
    rural America. When the gas prices go way up, a lot of these
    people who are low-income have to drive the farthest, have
    the--least energy-efficient vehicles to get to their jobs that
    are 20, 30 miles away.
        Do we raise the gas tax, raise tolling, some kind of
    driving penalty somehow, or just take it out of the general
    fund? Is there an answer to this question?
        Secretary LaHood. We have benefited in America from the
    Highway Trust Fund. It built the Interstate Highway System.
    People from around the world come here to look at our
    Interstate System because it is the model, just as we go over
    to look at their high speed rail because it is the model.
        But I, along with many of you gathered here, voted for an
    additional $8 billion to restore the balance in the Highway
    Trust Fund last year because it was running low, and it will
    probably run low again towards the end of the fiscal year. So
    we have to think creatively. I have consistently talked about
    thinking outside of the box, and building on the Highway Trust
    Fund.
        This Administration is not ready to raise gasoline taxes
    when the economy is as bad as it is.
        But the Highway Trust Fund can still be a part of how we
    pay for our transportation system. Another part of it can be
    public-private partnerships; perhaps an infrastructure bank,
    which has been proposed in the Senate. For example, I rode on
    I-95 in Miami about 2 weeks ago. They built another lane along
    I-95, and they paid for it with tolls. It works, and it has had
    public support.
        In Los Angeles County, they passed a referendum to help pay
    for their infrastructure needs. So there are lots of ideas out
    there, and I think we should consider them seriously.
        I hope all of you will consider them. I hope the T&I
    Committee will consider them because the Highway Trust Fund is
    not going to fund all our transportation needs. And so we have
    to think outside the box, and I hope people are willing to do
    that.

                                  RURAL AREAS

        As far as the rural areas go, I represented a 20-county
    district for 14 years. Almost all of it was rural, and so we
    worked in many different, creative ways to try and get transit
    districts that were close to these rural areas to provide
    service. We also tried to provide programs to help aging people
    who needed medical care to reach big hospitals. Again, we have
    to think creatively, because some people age to the point where
    they can't drive their cars anymore, but they still need to get
    to a health care center or their doctor.
        The purpose here is for Secretary Donovan and myself to
    begin to think outside of the box about how we meet these needs
    in a way that reflects the values of the communities in which
    people want to live.
        Secretary Donovan. If I could just add to that, to build on
    what Secretary LaHood has said, I think what we are talking
    about here is not a zero sum game either; that what we can do,
    as I mentioned in my testimony, given the size and the growing
    size of transportation expenses for the average family, what we
    are looking at here is the opportunity to lower those costs in
    both urban and rural areas.
        If you think about the kind of spread-out development
    patterns that the kind of planning that we have has encouraged,
    what you have done is to not only raise costs, hurt the
    environment, you have also hurt rural areas where pressure on
    farmers and other areas within those rural areas has been a
    significant problem; and you have, overall, raised the cost of
    infrastructure development by having it spread out.
        Whether it is as simple as being able to make a single
    vehicle trip into a town in a rural area, and have development
    centered there, rather than spread out in the way that we have,
    whether it is laying sewer lines and electric lines that are
    much more expensive in spread-out development patterns, I think
    what we are talking about are things that can lower costs--not
    just the distribution of costs between different types of
    transportation, but, in fact, lower costs for families and
    lower costs for government.
        As well, I also think there is the opportunity to bring
    private investment into this by providing greater information.
    To date, when you go out and buy a car, there is a number on
    the window that says what kind of energy efficiency that car
    achieves. We have never done that with houses. We haven't done
    that by pricing in location to mortgages very extensively.
        All of those things, by giving consumers the power of
    information, the private market can begin to price that in to
    get private capital flowing to where decisions make sense.
        Mr. Latham. Okay.
        Thanks, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Olver. Mr. Rodriguez. The tradition on the committee is
    that we go back and forth in order when people arrived here on
    the scene. So in that vein, Mr. Rodriguez.
        Mr. Rodriguez. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And good seeing
    you, Mr. Secretary, once again. Let me just also--Mr. Secretary
    of HUD, also thank you for being here with us today, and having
    both of you.
        Let me just--I know you initially started by making some
    comments, and I want to just open it with some remarks and then
    ask you to make any comments that you think might be
    appropriate.
        One is, in terms of getting down some of the regulations,
    not only at the Federal level, but what we might be able to do
    from a State perspective in terms of--the States also have a
    lot of guidelines and regulations, and we need to work with the
    States in reducing some of that.
        Secondly, just an overall comment about, I know that we
    have been somewhat, maybe, negligent in some areas in not
    putting enough resources into our infrastructure. And if it is
    true that the number two cost for families is transportation,
    how do we begin to bring down that cost as a Federal
    Government? And what role can we play in making that happen?

                       LIVABLE COMMUNITIES IN RURAL AREAS

        And thirdly, from a rural perspective, my district is
    probably the most rural in the country and probably one of the
    largest. How--what does it mean to have, you know, livable
    communities in a rural setting?
        And I will ask you to--you know, first with housing?
        Secretary Donovan. I think I mentioned a couple of things
    that are quite important about thinking in sustainable and
    livable ways development in rural areas as well. We have many
    areas where the kind of spread-out development patterns that we
    have have encouraged the sprawl of neighboring urban areas and
    suburban areas to encroach on farmers and have raised taxes,
    have raised infrastructure costs that have hurt the traditional
    rural way of life in this country. I think it is very
    important.
        We have seen examples in a number of metropolitan areas
    where denser, more compact urban development has helped to
    preserve agricultural land and to support the continued ability
    of farmers to make a living and to contribute to those areas.
        I think smarter, more coordinated growth across counties
    that are rural can mean that we don't have traditional towns
    within those areas that die out, whose retail ends up being
    lost to larger suburban tracts that encourage three vehicle
    trips rather than one vehicle trip to go shopping.
        So I think there are a number of ways that thinking about
    what smart growth means not just in urban or suburban areas,
    but in rural areas, can contribute to lowering costs as well as
    promoting the traditional farming way of life that is so
    important to this country.

                                  REGULATIONS

        Mr. Rodriguez. Anything on the regulations of both State
    regulations as well as Federal? Because we really need to move
    on getting some of those barriers out of the way.
        Secretary Donovan. Well, we sure have lots of regulations
    that we could talk about.
        My own experience has been that one of the biggest problems
    in--let's say, we are trying to do in-fill development in urban
    areas where it makes sense, accessible to transit, but the
    combination of brownfields and the inability to develop
    brownfield sites, complex building codes, a whole range of
    overregulation, I think, is a real issue.
        And I worked very hard in New York to completely revamp the
    building code, working with our buildings department there.
    That is one example of the kind of things we can do to get out
    of the way of the kind of smart growth and development that we
    are talking about.
        Mr. Rodriguez. Secretary LaHood.
        Secretary LaHood. Well, Mr. Rodriguez, let me say this: I
    was at a Senate Banking Committee hearing with Chairman Dodd,
    and there were probably seven or eight Senators there, and just
    about every one, to a person, complained about the numerous
    rules and regulations surrounding transit funding. I have
    spoken with our transit team about creating a process that
    people can understand that follows the rules and regulations,
    and does it in a way that is much more efficient.
        And so, I take your point on this. I have heard this on the
    other side of the Rotunda, and we are committed to looking at
    these rules and regulations and collaborating between our two
    Departments. I think we can be very helpful in establishing
    rules and regulations, but not overburdening people, and making
    sure that our staff are working together to get these programs
    going in the most effective way possible.
        Certainly in the transit area, which is a big part of what
    we are talking about as far as livable communities, we are
    going to try and make that coordination happen.
        Mr. Rodriguez. Thank you very much.
        Mr. Olver. Thank you.
        Mr. LaTourette.

                               HIGHWAY TRUST FUND

        Mr. LaTourette. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        And I thank both of you for coming. And to you Secretary
    LaHood, congratulations. It is nice to see one of our class
    make it and do well.
        One of the sadnesses that I have in this Congress, for 14
    years, the scoreboard in the House Chamber said LaHood, Latham,
    LaTourette. And I could always come in and see how you voted,
    and then I could see how Latham voted, and I knew I needed to
    vote like you did, and not like him.
        And now I am completely rudderless. I don't know what to
    do.
        Mr. Latham talked about the Highway Trust Fund and although
    they are attempting to reorient my thinking from an authorizer
    to an appropriator, you have laid out the case: It is broke. A
    1956 model doesn't work at 18 cents a gallon. There is no
    political will to raise the gas tax.
        Somebody recently talked about vehicle-miles traveled, and
    somebody said, we are not talking about that anymore.
        Your predecessor, Mary Peters, when she was the Secretary
    of Transportation, came in and talked about the many diversions
    from the Highway Trust Fund. It was started to build a National
    Highway System, and now it does transit. It is probably the
    biggest diversion.
        If you look at ISTEA, the allocation in SAFETEA-LU for
    transit is double what it was in 1991 when they did ISTEA. And
    everybody has an important program, a worthy program, like the
    programs that you gentlemen are talking about today. But there
    is only so far you can spread 18.4 cents a gallon.
        Have you taken--I know you are new on the job, but have you
    taken a look at or a thought about that argument that highway
    funding should be highway funding; and if you want covered
    bridges in Madison County, Iowa, if you want transit funding,
    that should be the responsibility of the general fund and it
    should stop throwing things onto the Highway Trust Fund?

                                HIGH SPEED RAIL

        Secretary LaHood. Well, the President personally put $8
    billion in the recovery plan for high-speed rail, and following
    this budget, there will be $1 billion in each year for the next
    5 years. Some people have suggested that we should create a
    trust fund for high-speed rail. It is something we ought to
    think about.
        The Highway Trust Fund is not going to support everything
    we want to do. We need to build on it and think about other
    ways to do these things.
        Transit is really coming into its own, and people are very
    interested in the transit funds in the recovery plan, because
    they see them as a way to get people out of their automobiles,
    onto buses, and onto light rail. Transit is an efficient way to
    move people around their congested communities.
        So we need to think about transit. We need to think about
    high-speed rail, and we need to think about how we fund it all.
        Mr. LaTourette. And I am all with you. I think that as you
    continue to dilute the Highway Trust Fund--and by the way, my
    office is across the hall from Chairman Oberstar, the chairman
    of the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee; and the
    President's budget initiative to tear down the fire walls and
    make everything budget authority and eliminate contract
    authority has his blood pressure up. I saw the attending
    physician in his office a couple of different times.
        Let me talk to you about the high-speed rail, because we
    have been joined now by my Ohio colleague, Ms. Kaptur. We are
    more than interested in that initiative. And if you talk about
    getting people out of the cars, saving the planet, becoming
    more like the Europeans and the Asians when it comes to that
    mode of transportation, I can't applaud more that $8 billion.
    When you put it on top of the $350 million a year that Mr.
    Oberstar put in the Amtrak reauthorization last year, it is
    real money for the first time.
        What we are concerned about, we have read news accounts
    that a line is going to go from Los Angeles to Las Vegas and so
    forth and so on. Have you developed a strategy or a plan as to
    how you are going to dole out the $8 billion? Just selfishly,
    the Midwest is ready to go. Ms. Kaptur and I would love to see
    a line from Chicago to Cleveland. And to make it more
    palatable, we will even have it to go up to Duluth, Minnesota
    so we get Oberstar's support.
        But have you figured out how we are going to compete for
    those funds? And are you able to tell us that we are going to
    have just as good a shot, if we have a worthy project, as
    somebody else?
        Secretary LaHood. I want to make it very clear, this $8
    billion was put in the recovery bill by the President. He
    directed his chief of staff to put the money in there. I
    believe that this President really believes that we need to
    jump-start our ability to develop high-speed rail in America.
    And we have sent the President a memo which outlines several
    prime corridors in the country. Some are just in the beginning
    stages, and could use some money for a study. Some are at
    another stage where they have passed referendums to set aside
    money to help themselves get high-speed rail going. Other
    communities are in between.
        So my point is, the President has a memo, and we are
    waiting for some guidance in terms of where we can begin to
    talk about how many dollars are needed, over what period of
    time, to really get high-speed rail in two or three places in
    the country.
        And as soon as we do, we will let you all know about it.
        Mr. LaTourette. Thank you so much.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Olver. Ms. Kilpatrick.

                                    PLANNING

        Ms. Kilpatrick. Thank you very much, sir.
        To Secretary LaHood, it is certainly good to see you. It is
    refreshing to see a former Congressperson, who understands how
    we work, in that seat. Congratulations.
        And to you, as well, Mr. Donovan--Secretary. Thank you very
    much.
        This is an opportunity in time that we have in our country,
    with the downturn and all that it represents, to do exactly
    what you are talking about: livable communities that are
    connected through transit and housing, that everything else
    stems from through transit, is all kind of development. So I am
    excited about it. The downturn of the economy is bad, but it is
    also an opportunity; and that is how I like to look at this.
        With what you have brought us today in the planning and
    understanding of the President, how we move forward from here
    using the resources that we have, it is important that we not
    miss the opportunity.
        The MPO in my area, every year we put--every 10 years, this
    10-year plan. You have probably seen them on your shelves--this
    thick, and we never get through them. I want to throw that
    playbook out; I think it is time for a new playbook, and what
    you all have presented to us today is the beginning of that.
        How we get to it depends on how the two of you work
    together and how we move forward on that. So the first thing I
    want you both to do is, in Transportation, the MPO, the book
    they are using, please have them throw it out and let them know
    what we are talking about this morning. That has got to be
    first because everything is going to be local.
        I almost think we need a local transit-oriented development
    person both locally and in our State DOTs to be on the same
    page so that we kind of march together.
        And then, between your two organizations, there are some
    conflicting rules and regs that relate to, for example,
    duplicate planning, zoning--something has been mentioned about
    that--parking requirements, other kinds of permitting. That--as
    you bring that together, not only will it change the
    administration and free up some dollars, because we are moving
    now into sync in another way in this decade.
        By the end of the decade, phased in over time, we will see
    some of this happening. It is a real opportunity.
        So, Mr. Donovan and Mr. Secretary, first of all, all of
    what I just said, what do you think about--if we just leave it
    here in D.C., it won't happen. It has got to be State--MDOT, in
    my case, Michigan, and all the other DOTs as well.
        It may even have to be a local something; and even the MPOs
    that are put together and authorized in Federal legislation, we
    need to take a look at those, too. If we leave it here just
    with us, I am afraid we will lose the moment.
        Can you comment?

                      SUSTAINABLE COMMUNITIES INITIATIVES

        Secretary Donovan. I couldn't agree more. So much of the
    energy and engagement around these issues has been at the State
    and local level.
        And I know from my own experience, when we were looking
    under Mayor Bloomberg's leadership in New York to significantly
    expand both the capacity for housing, to grow the housing
    supply in a transit-oriented way, but also to begin to use
    inclusionary zoning as a way to make sure that we got a mix of
    market-rate and affordable housing, we were looking for models
    around the country. HUD was not able to be of assistance to us.
        So I think that the first thing that we need to do is to be
    able to provide technical assistance, to provide leadership to
    local areas around what are the best practices, who has the
    best examples of these programs.
        And then I think we need to move to actually support these
    kinds of integrated planning efforts with funding. It is
    something that, again, you will see as we release more details
    of the budget proposals, that this Sustainable Communities
    Initiative that we are talking about can operate at a
    metropolitan planning organization level, but it can also
    operate, in terms of zoning and other planning, to support
    local efforts to have best practices, to have new ways that
    this is done, building on what has been done in local areas.
        Just to be very clear, planning is one of the most
    important local responsibilities. We are not talking about
    dictating that they have to have follow in these directions,
    but supporting local areas that are interested in these things
    with planning dollars, with best practices, I think, is a very,
    very important direction that we need to move.
        Ms. Kilpatrick. Okay. Thank you.
        Secretary LaHood, any comments?
        Secretary LaHood. Well, I do think that the partnership
    that Secretary Donovan and I are forging is the kind of
    partnership we want to form with the communities, whether they
    be metropolitan planning organizations, cities, or the
    Governors. When it comes to transportation issues' we need to
    form these partnerships if we are going to develop livable
    communities in the areas where people want to move.
        We are going to have to be flexible, too, in trying to
    develop the kinds of opportunities that both of us and, I know,
    all of you believe are possible.
        So I think partnership is probably the best word, and we
    need to take what is going on in Portland, Oregon, in terms of
    livable communities, and see if they can share that expertise
    with some of us.

                           PRESIDENT'S BUDGET REQUEST

        Ms. Kilpatrick. And when will we get the budget numbers? We
    are waiting with bated breath for the budget. When will we get
    that?
        Secretary Donovan. There has been the broad outline of the
    budget that included some discussion about sustainable----
        Ms. Kilpatrick. That is words and paragraphs that
    authorizers use. We do dollars and decimals.
        When might we get that.
        Secretary Donovan. I believe that it will be mid to late
    April is my understanding of when these details will be
    available.
        Ms. Kilpatrick. And then you expect us to pass a budget
    before we get that?
        That is rhetorical; that wasn't really--thank you, Mr.
    Chairman.
        Secretary LaHood. You need to get Mr. Orszag to come by and
    talk to you.
        Mr. Olver. Thank you.
        Mr. Carter.

                                 WESTERN STATES

        Mr. Carter. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        And welcome, both of you. I am especially glad to see my
    friend, Ray LaHood. He always gave me good advice when I was
    here and kept me out of trouble most of the time. So I am glad
    to be able to talk to you.
        Of course, I live in a little different environment than
    the one you are describing. There are 254 counties in Texas,
    and at least three of them are the size of several States on
    the eastern seaboard. And so we have a little bit different
    challenge.
        And I may be wrong, but I think--my wife is from Holland;
    they have probably got one of the best transportation systems
    on the face of the Earth. If you want to see bicycle paths done
    right, go to Holland. They have their own signals. They have
    their own cement roads and brick roads. And it is a whole
    integrated transportation system.
        I used to ride from Schagen on the North Sea all the way to
    Delft and beat every car that left my neighborhood by 30
    minutes. So I understand bicycle paths and concentrated
    efforts.
        But, in turn, in Texas, the city that I grew up in is
    Houston. In 1959, I made the mistake of hitchhiking back home
    to see my folks. It turned out they weren't there, and I found
    out it was 68 miles across Houston for me to get to my house.
    It was a bad day; we won't go into that.

                                  URBAN SPRAWL

        Right now it is about 150 miles across Houston, okay, so it
    is urban sprawl defined. And if I understand what you are
    trying to do, you are trying to develop what I think very much
    fits the East Coast and Midwest model of cities, but doesn't
    seem to fit the Texas model of cities too well, concentrating,
    reconcentrating the--and redensifying existing cities and
    basically stopping the growth outside of the cities.
        Texas is land rich, a lot of other things poor--well, we
    won't admit that, but that's the way we have built our State.
    So land is the cheapest thing we have got, and that is why our
    cities spread out all over the world.
        I am 34 miles from Austin. If I got to Austin without a
    car, I couldn't go anywhere, okay, not at any time. So when you
    put this transit plan--as you apply it to a large Western State
    like the State of Texas, some real adjustments are going to
    have to be made or else you are going to have to put an awful
    lot into inside-the-city mobility. Because, quite frankly,
    there is just limited bus service in Austin, and Austin is
    probably the most progressive city in the State.
        So those are the--these challenges. I hear about rail; in
    fact, we are opening up a rail project, supposed to have opened
    on the 15th of April, from Leander, which is 35 miles from
    Austin, into Austin. Unfortunately, the mobility group lost
    $200 million, and so it is going to be delayed a little bit.
        But the point is, the real question is going to be on
    whether, when people ride that train and get to town, can they
    get to work? Because really there is not any way--if you drop
    them off downtown, they are 16 miles from IBM; they are 14
    miles from Motorola. So there are big spaces that have to be
    covered, and there is no transportation authority that will get
    you there in any reasonable length of time.
        So as you plan this out, have you thought out the real
    complications of, we are a barrier-less State. We don't have
    any national land barriers or anything else in our State. So--
    whereas California is limited by mountains and so forth. So are
    you looking at the sprawl that we have, by the very nature of
    our cities? And how would you resolve those issues with your
    idea of a European-style city?
        Mr. Olver. May I just say, Mr. Carter, has taken all of his
    time to lay out that question, a very short question as it
    comes down to it. So take not more than a minute between the
    two of you, 30 seconds each as an answer here.
        At this point, we also have a set of votes that has just
    been called. So we have about 10 or 15 minutes before we have
    to go, and we will get as far as we can here.

                          DEVELOP NEW TRANSIT OPTIONS

        Secretary Donovan. Very quickly, I would love to talk to
    you more about the specifics.
        As I think we both indicated, this is not a one-size-fits-
    all kind of planning that needs to happen. Smart growth means
    very different kinds of things in Texas, just in Houston; and I
    know exactly what you mean about the different type of
    development from the East Coast, not being landlocked. But
    still, as we look at future development, there is the
    opportunity, if there is rail coming in, to think about how
    denser development can happen around those rail stops, for
    example, so that as future development happens, it encourages
    lower transportation costs for the kind of--whether it is
    office development, residential development that can be built
    around those stops.
        That doesn't mean stop serving existing development, the
    way it is, but it means, think about, as we develop new transit
    options, as we develop a range of transportation investments,
    that we integrate the way that we plan our housing with that,
    and be able to provide, whether it is energy efficient
    mortgages or other incentives that will help consumers be able
    to benefit from those lower costs that they get by living
    closer in those areas.
        Mr. Olver. Secretary Donovan has taken your time and his
    time on the next question as well. So I would like--we have a
    group of seven votes, and it seems to me it would be at least
    an hour once we do recess.
        I think we will give each person 2 or 3 minutes--Mr. Berry
    is next--and if you will do that, we will get a quick answer
    from one of them. And see if you can do the question in 1
    minute, and we will get one round through and get the four of
    you.
        We will have other chances to talk with each of the
    Secretaries later on, but probably not together.
        Mr. Berry.

                               AFFORDABLE HOUSING

        Mr. Berry. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will do my best.
        Secretary LaHood, there was much applause; it was like--
    when you were appointed Secretary of Transportation, it was
    like your team making the NCAA tournament. We were all proud
    and pleased.
        And, Secretary Donovan, even though I don't know you, it
    sounds like y'all got some good ideas, and I applaud that and
    encourage you to keep on.
        I have to tell you, it makes me a little nervous; you know,
    the Secretary of Agriculture last week said the solution to
    farmers' support was going to be for them to some way or other
    sequester carbon. I don't know exactly how that works. I have
    been on a farm all my life. But I can tell you this, there is
    nothing that takes the place of cash money. So it makes me a
    little nervous when I hear someone from the Administration from
    New York expressing concerns about farms, especially, I
    suspect, you have never lived on one or made a living there.
    And I offer that as no criticism of you personally, but if you
    are going to take any action, I would encourage you to talk to
    somebody that knows something about it first.
        I also become a little concerned as I hear you talk about
    national land use planning and getting off into that from the
    Federal level. I think that is real dangerous, and it concerns
    me a lot. And I hope that you would consider these partnerships
    with State and local and city and county governments as you
    develop these ideas. I think they are good ideas.
        As far as paying for all of these things, I don't know what
    the method is going to be, but I can tell you this, we have got
    to figure it out and get it done. If we don't, we are going to
    be a Third World country. We are all going to be riding
    bicycles, and hope we don't hit a pothole in the road in the
    process.
        But having said that, I will conclude my remarks and thank
    you for being here, both of you.
        Mr. Olver. Ms. Roybal-Allard.
        Ms. Roybal-Allard. Welcome, Secretary LaHood. Welcome,
    Secretary Donovan, as well.

                          FEDERAL FUNDING ALLOCATIONS

        Let me just get straight to the point. Some States like
    California have created public funding programs to support
    affordable housing projects located near transit hubs. And
    California, which prioritizes these projects and their existing
    funding programs, as well as other States, would greatly be
    aided in meeting our mutual goals.
        If there was a Federal funding stream allocated to support
    the construction of TODs, will you consider a Federal TOD
    program that would allocate construction funds, either
    competitively or through a participating jurisdiction formula
    like the HOME program?
        Secretary Donovan. I think, as you know, the vast majority
    of our funding that we provide to development of affordable
    housing runs through State and local governments. HOME is a
    perfect example. And there are many, if not most, allocating
    agencies that have begun to use energy efficiency and other
    kinds of criteria, like you are talking about, to allocate that
    funding.
        We have not considered at this point imposing requirements
    on HOME that transit-oriented development or something like
    that be a criterion, but it is certainly an idea that we would
    be happy to look at as part of this broader partnership that we
    have.
        Ms. Roybal-Allard. And creating separate funding.
        And let me just say one more thing: When a Federal TOD
    program is finalized, I know that cities like Los Angeles are
    hoping that definition of transit-oriented development includes
    projects that are located within a half-mile radius of public
    transit and that it includes clearly defined transportation
    modes such as light rail, which is being used more and more
    particularly in cities like Los Angeles that hope that its new
    and existing light rail infrastructure would be competitive in
    any new or modified Federal transportation funding program.
        So I just wanted to make you aware of that and hope that
    that will also go into the mix of what you are considering.

                            SURPLUS FEDERAL PROPERTY

        Secretary LaHood, under the McKinney-Vento Homeless
    Assistance Act, which has been a very successful program,
    surplus of Federal property is made available to State and
    local government agencies and nonprofit organizations to be
    used to provide services to homeless persons. Given the high
    cost of land near metro stations, a similar Department of
    Transportation regulation to make surplus property available
    for the development of affordable housing near transit would
    help to address a very huge obstacle to the development of TOD
    projects.
        Would your agency consider a regulatory requirement that
    SAFETEA-LU grant-receiving transportation authorities first
    make surplus properties available to the locality for
    affordable housing development?
        Secretary LaHood. Well, I don't know enough about that to
    really give you a definite answer, but it is certainly
    something I will look into and get back to you.
        Ms. Roybal-Allard. I would appreciate it.
        Secretary LaHood. Of course.
        [The information follows:]

        FTA does not have authority to direct transit agencies to offer
    surplus property to localities for housing. However, as we develop our
    reauthorization proposals, we are closely examining our policies and
    regulations to identify ways to better link housing and transportation
    at the local level.

        Mr. Olver. We will get that question for the record, and
    you can answer it specifically.
        Ms. Roybal-Allard. Okay. Thank you.
        Mr. Olver. Thank you.
        Mr. Price.

                                    HOPE VI

        Mr. Price. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Let me also welcome our
    two Secretaries, especially our friend and former colleague,
    Ray LaHood.
        I want to reflect briefly on what seem to me to be two
    implications of the partnership you have announced and the
    program you are embarking on. And since we have a limited time
    for responses, I will simply accept ``yes'' for an answer, but
    you may want to elaborate.
        The first has to do with you, Secretary Donovan. As you
    know, the HOPE VI program is a shadow of its former self. That,
    I think, is an accurate statement. Yet, it is a program that
    has been uniquely useful and productive in my district and in
    many others. It is one of the most--probably the most--
    comprehensive housing program we have in terms of transforming
    entire neighborhoods and integrating transportation elements
    into a healthy kind of development.
        So I would assume that one implication of this joint
    initiative is that we are going to revitalize HOPE VI and that
    we will see that reflected in the President's budget.
        Secretary Donovan.
        Secretary Donovan. Yes.

                        ELIGIBILITY FOR TRANSIT FUNDING

        Mr. Price. Good. All right. That is what I am looking for.
        The second has to do with you, Secretary LaHood.
        Many have touched on eligibility for transit funding and we
    all, or many of us, I think, hope to get past some of the
    limitations and the rigidities of the past formulae. We are
    going to, of course, be reauthorizing that program this year. I
    would assume that this initiative would bespeak the need for a
    new kind of flexibility in the way transit funding is thought
    about and is approved--the funding formulae, the eligibility
    criteria.
        I would gladly swap a lesser Federal share for more
    flexibility, for example, in taking into account creative
    public-private partnerships which often would include a large
    housing element.
        So I would hope that the implications of this initiative
    won't be lost on any of us as we reauthorize our surface
    transportation programs.
        Secretary LaHood. I had mentioned before you came that I
    was at the Senate Banking Committee, and this issue was raised
    by every Senator who was at that meeting. We are going to work
    very hard at the Department to develop an opportunity for more
    flexibility and less bureaucracy when it comes to our transit
    program.
        Mr. Price. Thank you.
        Mr. Olver. I would just comment that the House passed a
    HOPE VI reauthorization with a quite substantial number, in the
    $500 million range, last year that never was moving the Senate
    at all. But it had the strongest provisions for green building
    in it that any such authorization has seen.
        So, with that, Ms. Kaptur, we actually have--you have your
    full 3 minutes.

                              RECOVERY ACT FUNDING

        Ms. Kaptur. Wow. See how fast I can talk. Thank you, Mr.
    Chairman, very much.
        And obviously to Secretary LaHood, welcome back to your
    real home. And we wish you great success in your current
    responsibilities. We are very proud of you.
        And, Secretary Donovan, to you as well, I don't know you,
    but we look--your reputation is very good, and we look forward
    to working with you.
        My request to both of you is probably the same, and that
    is--and I think if we take different districts and we make them
    a microcosm of what you deal with in the other 434 districts,
    maybe a pattern will become evident.

                      TELEVIDEO MEETING OF DOT/HUD ISSUES

        I would like to request a televideo meeting with both your
    Departments, where you would sit here in Washington and gather
    for us the key officials that are important to be in the room,
    and we would do the same back home in the following areas:
        For the Department of Housing and Urban Development, in the
    area of foreclosure mitigation right now, there is great
    separation between various programs.
        Here would be my idea: You find the best people you have at
    HUD. We gather them here in Washington. I am sitting out there
    in Ohio with the best people we have in Toledo and surrounding
    counties where we have 10 percent of our stock foreclosed.
        The various Federal moneys that are coming at us are coming
    down different chutes. I spoke with Chairman Rangel about this
    yesterday, and I said, we need some bigger thinkers about how
    to make the best use of the dollars that are coming at us.
        For example, in the Neighborhood Stabilization Program our
    community of Toledo received $12 million. And I just want to
    focus on Toledo, but--there are other communities, but I will
    just use Toledo as the main example of the largest city.
        Neighborhood stabilization, $12 million; public housing
    authority through the recovery bill, $6 million; CDBG, an
    additional $2 million infusion; the additional funds that were
    there for Section 8; the tax credit funds that are coming to
    us; the housing counseling moneys; the weatherization moneys;
    over at Treasury, the CDFI program; and then the recovery
    bonds. And there may be other relevant bond programs.
        We would like to use the dollars, the hard dollars we are
    getting. We would like to have a conversation about how to
    leverage those. And in a community where you have, last year,
    4,100 foreclosed units, we have to have more than 34 units
    helped by the funding that is coming to us.
        We need to link the discussion certainly between HUD and
    Treasury; I would ask you to please think about that. And
    perhaps you could--John Buckley from Ways and Means, here is
    the person who wrote the recovery bond language. I think we
    need to think about these various dollars and how best to use
    them. And right now they are just--you know, they are coming at
    us in different ways; and I don't think we are getting the
    maximal solution.
        Then, for the Department of Transportation, Mr. Secretary,
    I would like to ask the same, particularly focused with Mr.
    LaTourette on the high-speed rail. If I would have a wish, it
    would be that we could find an easement that would get us off
    the freight rail line. And between Chicago and Cleveland, there
    is a natural gas pipeline that runs. And there are lots of
    issues dealing with how we prepare ourselves for this freight
    rail--or, excuse me, passenger rail discussion. What is the
    role of the Feds? What is the role of the localities?
        We want to involve our county commissioners--frankly, they
    are more knowledgeable than the State people are about what is
    actually on the ground--our county commissioners across the
    northern band of Ohio. And it would really, when you are ready,
    that would be, I think, very valuable to us.
        Beyond that, I wanted to give you a sense of how recovery
    dollars had come down to us in Toledo versus Dayton, two cities
    of similar size, both high rates of unemployment, over 15
    percent. Dayton got $20 million through the transit money.
    Toledo got $8 million.
        We love Dayton. The reason Dayton got $20 million through
    the transit money is because they had some kind of fixed
    guideway system from 25 years ago or something. We don't have
    anything like that. But we have two universities--well, two
    campuses of a university that want to interconnect; and we have
    a plan in place to do that.
        For some reason, our transit authority didn't get anything.
    I just think that somehow in the recovery dollars and the
    transit, if we are really serious about this, maybe a
    discussion there could help.
        And I also just want to throw this idea out. What we really
    need is a new garage in our area. Talk about carbon footprint.
    The city, county and transit authority ought to have one green
    garage. They have three carbon-producing garages, every one of
    them.
        Secretary LaHood. Well, the money could be used for that,
    Ms. Kaptur. The transit money could be used for that kind of a
    facility, and there is no match required.
        Ms. Kaptur. They are so stressed for that, Mr. Secretary,
    right now they have laid off people, they have cut back routes.
    The money just isn't there.
        Secretary LaHood. The transit money in the recovery plan
    can be used for that kind of facility with no match.
        Ms. Kaptur. They are going to use it to retrofit their
    engines.
        Secretary LaHood. Well, we are not going to decide how they
    are going to use it; they will decide that. But if you think
    they need a building, you ought to tell them that and apply to
    the Department for that money. It is available for that
    purpose.
        Ms. Kaptur. But the allocation is $8 million and--I mean,
    frankly, they need the motors in the buses, the engines in the
    buses to be converted, I guess.
        Secretary LaHood. Well, you know what? I will get their
    names and call them. But we ought to start with what their most
    important needs are and then try and build on that in the
    future.
        Ms. Kaptur. But my point is, if we had--though our guideway
    isn't in, we have the proposals. So Dayton gets $20 million and
    we get $8 million; I would appreciate somebody looking at that.
        Secretary LaHood. I will give you an explanation for it.
        Ms. Kaptur. Great. And Columbus got $20 million, too.
        Mr. Olver. Columbus is somewhat larger.
        Thank you very much.
        Mr. LaTourette. Mr. Chairman, could I just ask unanimous
    consent to submit a question to Secretary LaHood, for the
    record, relative to the application by Continental Airlines on
    their ability to enter the Star Alliance?
        Mr. Olver. Everyone, you don't need unanimous consent. We
    will have certainly 3 days to offer questions for the record
    and get those kinds of answers.
        Mr. LaTourette. Thank you.
        Mr. Olver. Yes, that will be possible. I should have said
    that at an earlier point.
        [The information follows:]

        The reason for the difference in funding provided under the
    American Recovery and Reinvestment Act to Dayton and Columbus versus
    Toledo is based upon each city's specific transit system size and type.
    The formula used to apportion Transit Capital Assistance and Section
    5340 Urbanized Area funds uses several factors including: population,
    population density, bus vehicle revenue and passenger miles, fixed
    guideway track miles, fixed guideway vehicle revenue and passenger
    miles, and operating costs. In simple terms an urbanized area (UZA)
    receives a share of the available funds relative to its calculated
    percentage of the national total for each factor.
        The Toledo, OH-MI urbanized area transit data for these factors are
    significantly less that those for the Columbus, OH and Dayton, OH
    urbanized areas. As a result Toledo's percentages of the national
    totals are significantly lower than Columbus and Dayton, as is its
    apportionment.

        Mr. Olver. Well, I want to just thank you very much for
    being here. We have got to go--in fact, everybody should leave.
    I will have to walk a little faster to get to these votes. And
    we will be seeing you, as I said before.
        I thank you very much. And I just wish you the best of luck
    with the initiative that you have taken today. And really, we
    will do our best to work with you as you proceed on this. And
    we will see you again. Thank you.

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                                              Thursday, March 19, 2009.

        PART II: LIVABLE COMMUNITIES, TRANSIT-ORIENTED DEVELOPMENT, AND
        INCORPORATING GREEN BUILDING PRACTICES INTO FEDERAL HOUSING AND
                             TRANSPORTATION POLICY

                                   WITNESSES

    GRACE CRUNICAN, DIRECTOR, DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, CITY OF SEATTLE
    MARY A. LEARY, SENIOR DIRECTOR, EASTER SEALS TRANSPORTATION GROUP
    JOHN O. NORQUIST, PRESIDENT AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, CONGRESS FOR
        THE NEW URBANISM
    ROBERT PUENTES, SENIOR FELLOW, METROPOLITAN POLICY PROGRAM, BROOKINGS
        INSTITUTION

                       Opening Remarks of Chairman Olver

        Mr. Olver. The subcommittee will come to order. This is the
    fourth hearing of the Subcommittee on Transportation and
    Housing and Urban Development, and we are now engaged in
    talking about livable communities.
        Over the past few years this subcommittee has urged the two
    agencies that are part of this subcommittee's jurisdiction to
    work together to help communities coordinate their
    transportation and affordable housing plans.
        Yesterday we heard from the Secretary of Transportation,
    Ray LaHood, and the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development,
    Shaun Donovan, on their vision for how we could create more
    livable, sustainable communities across the nation, and I was
    very pleased to hear that the two Secretaries have come
    together to establish a Sustainable Communities Initiative.
        Specifically, this initiative will provide planning grants
    to help communities integrate housing, transportation and land
    use planning, as well as better coordinate DOT and HUD programs
    on research. We will see the details of that when we see the
    budget a little bit later, but they both assured that there
    would be comprehensive plans for how that initiative might
    function.
        As I mentioned yesterday, to me a livable community is a
    neighborhood that links the transportation mobility needs of
    the old and young alike with affordable housing, job
    opportunities, shopping, and green infrastructure. In my view,
    transportation, housing and energy policy have been handled as
    separate spheres or silos with little or no coordination on the
    federal, state and local level for far too long.
        Over the last few years, our subcommittee has promoted
    green building and access to transit within the Hope VI
    Affordable Housing Program. We have urged the FTA to work with
    grantees to incorporate green building practices and standards
    for newly constructed transit facilities, and we have provided
    funding for the Departments of Transportation and HUD to
    explore ways that the two agencies could better coordinate
    transportation and housing programs to promote affordable
    housing near transit.
        This morning we have a distinguished panel of experts and
    practitioners who will help us further explore the
    opportunities and challenges associated with building
    communities that link transportation and housing in order to
    achieve more sustainable, livable communities that serve the
    young and old alike.
        From my left to my right is Robert Puentes, Senior Fellow
    in the Metropolitan Policy Program at the Brookings Institution
    and an expert in transportation and housing policy. We have
    Mary Leary, the Senior Director of Easter Seals Transportation
    Group, who has extensive experience in transportation, housing
    and health care issues facing our aging population.
        We have John Norquist, president and CEO of the Congress
    for the New Urbanism and former mayor of Milwaukee, Wisconsin,
    and, last, to my right, we have Grace Crunican, Director of the
    Department of Transportation in Seattle, and previously served
    as the Secretary of Transportation for the State of Oregon and
    the Deputy Administrator of the Federal Transit Administration.
        So we have government people, former and present, at the
    municipal levels, we have the think tanks, and we have the
    nonprofit organizations that do work in this field. We look
    forward to a lively discussion among the few of us who are
    here.
        But usually some more people do come in, and always on this
    day there are a number of different subcommittees that are
    meeting at the same time so we take what we get. We are looking
    to have a good discussion as we seek to build these sustainable
    communities for America.
        With that, let me recognize the Ranking Member, Tom Latham
    from Iowa, for any comments that he would like to make.

                    Opening Remarks of Ranking Member Latham

        Mr. Latham. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am not going to
    really make any statement other than to note that yesterday our
    hearing was abbreviated somewhat by votes, and I am looking at
    the schedule here. I see this morning, that the same thing may
    happen again. I look forward to the testimony. Thank you.
        Mr. Olver. If everybody is merely waiting for the votes,
    then we will have a quick discussion among ourselves and maybe
    get it all discussed before anybody else can get their words
    in.
        So let us hear from the panel. Your complete written
    statements will be in the record. If you would sort of contain
    your comments at this stage to five minutes or thereabouts that
    would help us move forward, and we will perhaps have questions
    of you for the record from us or the staff or from other
    Members as they come in afterward. I hope you will respond to
    those.
        So with that, we will start first with Robert Puentes.

                     Opening Remarks of Mr. Robert Puentes

        Mr. Puentes. Thank you very much, Chairman Olver, Ranking
    Member Latham and Members of the committee. I am pleased to be
    here today and very much appreciate the invitation.
        The purpose of my testimony is to discuss the connections
    between housing and transportation and the need for integrated
    planning as a way to drive decisions that lead to productive,
    sustainable and inclusive growth. In so doing, I would like to
    share some thoughts about how I think federal policy can
    strongly influence those decisions.
        Between now and 2030, it is anticipated that this nation
    will develop another 213 billion square feet of homes, retail
    facilities, office buildings and other structures. That is two-
    thirds the amount of built space in the United States today.
        How and where we accommodate that growth carries far
    reaching implications for the health of our environment, our
    energy security and our economic recovery and will continue to
    impact our metropolitan areas' success and our ability to
    compete globally.
        Unfortunately, at the precise time when this nation
    desperately needs to prioritize its limited investments and
    resources, given the economic downturn, federal policy is only
    slowly coming into focus. There are several problems.
        First, the federal government is absent where it should be
    present on such critical matters as stimulating metropolitan
    problem solving. Next, federal policies addressing housing and
    transportation are compartmentalized and ultimately fail to
    make the necessary connections with land use. Third, in
    addition to being separated, some related federal policies
    actually seem to work at cross purposes.
        Mr. Chairman, the subcommittee should continue to play a
    critical role in the push for better and more integrated
    decision making and reward problem solving that crosses
    disciplines and joins up solutions. Going forward, we need a
    three-pronged strategy.
        First, the federal government should lead by embracing a
    new, unified vision for transportation and housing policy. As
    directed by this subcommittee in 2007, the Federal Transit
    Administration and the Department of Housing and Urban
    Development established a joint working group to coordinate
    activities between the two agencies.
        This has been a worthy effort, and the recommendations from
    this group should be prioritized. However, given the myriad of
    additional needs to coordinate between HUD and other
    transportation agencies, especially the Federal Highway
    Administration, the FTA/HUD Working Group should be elevated to
    a DOT/HUD Working Group.
        The federal government should also lead by directing the
    coordination of long-range housing and transportation plans. At
    minimum, consolidated housing plans should be required to
    report on the relationship of HUD investments to transit, and
    transportation improvement plans should be required to report
    on how the proposed transportation investments support the need
    for affordable communities.
        The federal government could also condition large pots of
    federal funds, especially transportation, on achieving new
    performance goals that would require localities to coordinate,
    innovate and make land use changes.
        For instance, meeting a specific jobs/housing balance by
    increasing accessibility indices; eliminating or converting
    vehicle trips to other modes; providing a fair share of
    affordable housing; or requiring certain percents of housing at
    transit sites to be affordable.
        Second, the federal government needs to empower states and
    metropolitan areas by challenging them to develop truly
    integrated transportation, land use, and economic development
    plans in order to envision how, in what form and what kind of
    infrastructure will be necessary to serve the projected growth
    over the next couple of decades.
        In this regard, the federal government should assist states
    and metropolitan areas in one of their hardest tasks:
    Transcending the stovepiping of disparate programs that remains
    a serious cause of undesirable development outcomes.
        Sustainability challenge contracts could be awarded in the
    competitive process to those that devise the boldest, most
    interdisciplinary proposals to link up local objectives such as
    employment growth, development of low-income housing and
    alternative transportation choices and accessibility with
    national objectives of promoting energy independence and
    environmental sustainability.
        The applications should demonstrate real partnerships
    between some combination of states, localities, metropolitan
    areas, the private sector and citizen advisory groups, and
    eligible projects and activities could include blueprint style
    metropolitan planning and technical assistance, strategic
    implementation, such as regional workforce housing initiatives
    or taking local initiatives like conclusionary zoning and
    making it metropolitan, as well as certain capital investments.
        The third strategy is for the federal government to
    maximize not just its own workings, but that of its partners,
    to optimize metropolitan prosperity. In order to commit to a
    paradigm of integrated decision making, a major overhaul is
    needed in how the federal government collects, assembles and
    provides data and information.
        For one, the definition of affordable housing should be
    redefined to take into account not only the cost of the
    housing, but also the cost of transportation and energy that is
    associated with that housing. Only the federal government can
    ensure that multi-agency coordination necessary to keep the
    databases that such disclosure is dependent on of high quality
    and up-to-date.
        With the nation's housing and transportation challenges
    escalating at the same time that growth and development and
    climate change and energy security issues are on the rise, many
    are calling for the federal government to chart a new path
    forward. Mr. Chairman, I believe rewarding greater coordination
    between housing and transportation would help address these
    related challenges.
        Thank you very much for the opportunity to appear before
    you today, and I look forward to your questions.
        [The information follows:]

        [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Mr. Olver. Thank you very much. Ms. Leary.

                      Opening Remarks of Ms. Mary A. Leary

        Ms. Leary. Good morning, Chairman Olver, Ranking Member
    Latham and distinguished subcommittee Members.
        It is an honor and privilege to have time this morning to
    share why livable communities with seamless access to
    accessible transportation is such an essential element of long-
    term health, wellness and quality of life for older adults and
    people with disabilities.
        The need is great. A compelling example is a story we were
    told at one of our events associated with safe mobility. It is
    about an older gentleman from a rural community. At a town hall
    meeting, this man told local officials that when he can no
    longer drive he did not want to live. A hush went through the
    room and people said oh, my goodness. He shot himself. And that
    is exactly what he did. When he went to a local DMV and he
    could no longer drive, he went home and killed himself.
        So at Easter Seals Project ACTION, a longstanding center at
    Easter Seals, and the National Center on Senior Transportation
    where we partner with the National Association of Area Agencies
    on Aging, we focused on improving the lives of people with
    disabilities and older adults through enhancing mobility
    options. These are cooperative agreements with the Federal
    Transit Administration where we provide training, technical
    assistance, applied research and outreach.
        Over the next few minutes, I will share information and
    best practices from our centers' activities, and from our
    working partnerships we know that collaborating and innovating
    to streamline access to services is the right approach. Now
    with movements such as livable communities, we are gaining even
    more insight into what is needed to enhance the health and
    wellness of Americans.
        Here are a few facts about older adults. They volunteer.
    They help raise grandchildren. They are caregivers. To support
    older adults in these roles, we need to expand sustainable and
    livable communities where everyone can remain at home whether
    or not they have mobility impairments. This is especially true
    given the difference in quality of life and cost between aging
    in place versus aging in an institution.
        Evidence of this need is reinforced by three very, very
    well-documented realities. First, when people lose the ability
    to drive they become depressed, as we have seen. When people
    are depressed, they have reduced health status, and reduced
    health status equates to higher health care costs. If we can
    keep people safely mobile through livable communities with
    transportation options, we will ensure that no one is stranded.
        One of the most compelling practices we see is mobility
    management. We believe that an investment in mobility
    management is one of the single, most effective things that
    Congress can do to help communities assure that the mobility
    needs of people with disabilities and older adults are met and
    thus make their communities livable.
        Mobility managers link appropriate service to individuals'
    specific mobility abilities. They help identify service gaps
    and expand transportation options so that people who can no
    longer drive have other ways to get around.
        Volunteer driver programs are cost effective and popular
    ways to expand services for older adults, especially in rural
    and frontier communities, and in urban regions they are useful
    ways to expand and connect service to existing transit systems.
        Technology is an area of great potential, and several
    grantees are fielding information technology scheduling,
    dispatching and cell phone-based callback systems to increase
    customer satisfaction and coordinate rides. Transystems of
    Massachusetts has also done research for us that studies bus
    rapid transit, approaches to stop announcements and
    transportation service for people with disabilities in rural
    and small urban communities.
        Just as the recent FTA/HUD action plan on better
    coordination of transportation and housing programs suggests,
    in our activities we have found that coalition building is an
    essential and a highly effective way in increasing mobility.
        Planning activities should be pervasive and include leaders
    from the transportation, health and human services, local
    officials, nonprofit, faith-based and business communities so
    that they incorporate the perspectives of key stakeholders. For
    success, we found it is especially important that the users and
    the consumers of these services, older adults and people with
    disabilities, are at that table.
        Coordination creates change and acts as a catalyst for a
    variety of policy approaches to increasing transportation
    access. In one of our publications called Stories of Changed
    Lives, a woman who uses a wheelchair talks about how when she
    was told that she could no longer use paratransit services
    because a fixed route system had become more accessible she was
    actually very concerned about her ability to do that, but once
    she learned how to do it and used it all of a sudden she had so
    much more independence and mobility, and she was so, so happy.
        So we have a vision for livable communities. They are
    places where housing is located adjacent to transportation
    choices, where people can be healthier, where cars are not the
    only means of transportation, where everyone has access to
    walking/rolling paths, safe street crossings with appropriate
    signage and signals and curb cuts and public rights-of-way that
    are easily navigable.
        Where bus stops are safe, well lit and plentiful, where
    light rail and major bus routes have neighborhood feeder
    systems with enough on-demand transportation and where all of
    these services are affordable, well advertised, available, and
    planned and reviewed regularly with user involvement across
    rural, urban, suburban, and frontier environments. The American
    dream cannot be realized without a viable and sustainable
    transportation infrastructure that is a part of the whole
    community.
        Thank you for your time, your support and your vision. We
    need your guidance and leadership to help our country be a
    place where everyone can live inclusive, independent lives and
    we can continue to benefit from the wisdom and experience of
    older generations and ensure the multi-generational
    neighborhoods that we all know we need.
        Thank you very much.
        [The information follows:]

        [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Mr. Olver. Thank you. Mr. Norquist.

                    Opening Remarks of Mr. John O. Norquist

        Mr. Norquist. Thank you, Chairman Olver and Ranking Member
    Latham. I am John Norquist, the CEO of the Congress for New
    Urbanism, a group of 3,500 architects, planners, traffic
    engineers, developers, real estate investors, and in this
    climate some former real estate investors.
        We are proud to have been involved in some federal policy
    in the past. The design guidelines for Hope VI were written by
    some of our members under Henry Cisneros' administration at
    HUD. We are very concerned about the design criteria in federal
    programs, and so today I want to talk to you about
    transportation and its intersection with housing.
        I want to compliment you and your committee for bringing
    housing and transportation together. It is a tragedy when
    programs are often silos by themselves, when specialties take
    over the thinking instead of bringing them together with
    synergy, so thank you for doing that.
        One of these specialties is traffic engineering. Current
    road policy has focused on highways, arterials and collectors
    as individual road segments with the goal of reducing
    congestion by adding lane capacity and separating the street
    from the built environment. In other words, getting everything
    out of the way of the traffic.
        The system depends on large road types that attract traffic
    and ultimately grow congested, particularly at rush hour when
    you need them the most. For thousands of years of human
    history, urban thoroughfares have served three purposes:
    Movement, commerce and social interaction.
        This is the street that engineers were trained to build in
    the first half of the twentieth century. It was called the two
    rod street: 50 feet of pavement, eight foot sidewalks, two rods
    from the center lane to the building line.
        This street, Kinnickinnic Avenue in Milwaukee, an old
    neighborhood in Milwaukee Bayview, clearly fulfills the three
    traditional functions of an urban thoroughfare. Here are three
    sets of streets coming together in Wicker Park in Chicago, a
    successful neighborhood that has done well in this economy and
    held its value.
        Most streets today, however, are built for only one
    purpose: Moving traffic. There are huge setbacks so that roads
    can be widened later. There is no money left over then for
    sidewalks, so people end up having to walk on a dirt path along
    an arterial or, as an alternative, they can walk in the gutter.
        When you have lots of streets on small blocks, as in say,
    for example, Northampton, Massachusetts, the streets do not
    need to be so big. Many streets share the burden, giving
    travelers lots of choices, including walking. Networks like
    Northampton are a great setting for jobs, good living, and they
    hold high value per square mile.
        And yet federal and state road policies put over half the
    monies spent on pavement in the United States on grade
    separated highways, the top end of the functional
    classification system.
        We now understand that freeways do not last forever. In
    1973, New York's Elevated West Side Highway collapsed and was
    replaced eventually by a street. With views of the Hudson
    restored, Manhattan's Lower West Side gained residents, jobs
    and vitality.
        In 1989, an earthquake damaged the Embarcadero Freeway,
    which had replaced the Boulevard in 1950. The Boulevard is now
    restored. The freeway is gone, and jobs and residents are back.
    Even the traffic has improved since the Boulevard helps
    distribute cars more evenly across the grid.
        In Milwaukee, without an earthquake, we removed a freeway
    segment, replacing empty lots and surface parking with the
    beginnings of good redevelopment, but by far the most dramatic
    change of all can be seen in Seoul, South Korea, where an
    elevated roadway built on top of a river at the end of the
    Korean War was replaced in 2005 with two surface streets on
    each side of the restored river.
        This is the man responsible, Lee Myung-bak, who was elected
    mayor in 2001. See how happy he is? He had the courage to do
    the right thing, and now he is president of South Korea and
    maybe not quite so happy. He was successful because he embraced
    the complexity of the city. Rising above the narrow concerns of
    traffic specialists, he saw the whole; the combination of
    river, neighborhood and infrastructure, as greater than the sum
    of its parts.
        CNU and our allies at the Institute of Transportation
    Engineers have collaborated on exciting reforms to make
    transportation work for people in communities, not just for
    vehicle movement.
        In cooperation with FHWA and EPA, we developed a manual
    that provides design guidelines to resurrect the street, the
    avenue and the boulevard. These are road types that federal and
    state departments of transportation should allow and encourage.
        Let us start to plan urban and suburban transportation
    movements around highly connected networks of streets and
    transit rather than just individual road segments. We need to
    better appreciate the value of networks like this one, the plan
    of Washington, D.C. by Pierre L'Enfant.
        The street network absorbs and distributes traffic just as
    wetlands absorb and cleanse water. The grid serves as a setting
    for valuable economic and social activity, just as the wetlands
    provide rich habitats for diverse plant and animal life.
        We have learned that paving street beds is not always the
    best answer. Street networks, especially connected with
    transit, make life convenient and strengthen the bonds of
    communities. They also dramatically reduce household driving
    and lower household greenhouse submissions.
        Residents of Atlantic Station, a new neighborhood with a
    walkable street network on the site of an abandoned can plant
    in Atlanta, drive an average of eight miles per day compared to
    the regional average of 34 miles per day.
        Through its partnership with the U.S. Green Building
    Council and the Natural Resource Defense Council, CNU helped
    create the nation's first certification system for green
    development on a neighborhood scale.
        To qualify, these green neighborhoods must have highly
    connected networks of walkable streets with at least 150
    intersections per square mile, including alleys, which just
    happens to be less than the 158 intersections per square mile
    in, for example, Wausau, Wisconsin, just to name a community at
    random of your Chairman, David Olver.
        Anyway, the oversized highways and arterials that the
    federal government typically fund lead to not only higher
    infrastructure costs and carbon emissions, but less viable
    neighborhoods. These road designs should no longer be the
    centerpiece. They should no longer be promoted as the preferred
    option by federal policy. They should be an option, but not the
    preferred option.
        Research by the Center for Neighborhood Technology of
    Chicago and the Brookings Institute confirm that neighborhoods
    with connected street networks and transit service give
    families real relief from high transportation costs. Consumer
    preferences show that people are eager to live in complete,
    convenient, walkable neighborhoods. Future transportation
    policy should support that preference.
        Transportation investments should be at a compatible scale
    with the neighborhood. They should build on rather than
    undermine the efficiency and environmental performance of
    walkable mixed use neighborhoods.
        I urge you to take advantage of the opportunities to
    realign federal transportation policies around sustainable
    networks. Thanks to Senators Carper and Specter and
    Representatives Latourette and Blumenauer, the CLEAN TEA
    legislation now being considered includes language about local
    street and transit networks.
        Likewise, T4 reauthorization is an opportunity to further
    direct investment toward infrastructure that actually adds
    value to communities. Key CLEAN TEA provisions could be
    incorporated in T4 to help move it beyond the predictable
    highways versus transit modal split debate.
        States and regions that receive T4 funds would benefit from
    plans that take into account the carbon impact of their
    transportation investments. Such planning will lead to high
    performance street and transit networks that achieve
    transportation and environmental goals through effective use of
    federal dollars.
        Transportation engineers at CNU and ITE realize that the
    federal highway program must evolve into a federal networks
    program. Congress can help speed that transition by asking FHWA
    to extend its successful contact sensitive thoroughfares
    project to provide research and guidelines for sustainable
    networks formed by those streets.
        Our new President, Barack Obama, has declared his
    commitment to reforming and improving transportation. We need
    only look to the internet, employed so effectively by his
    election campaign, for a telling example of how 21st century
    transportation systems should work.
        Internet traffic makes use of a network of linkages,
    breaking up large volumes of data into small packets and
    distributing them through a web of available nodes. It is fast,
    and it is reliable. The same model applied to transportation
    networks will allow all modes of traffic to flow over multiple
    routes, reducing travel times, making driving, walking and
    bicycling easier and making transit service and emergency
    response more effective.
        CNU, the Institute for Transportation Engineers, the Center
    for Neighborhood Technology and the T4 American Coalition,
    which we are a partner in, are ready to help you to get
    transportation moving in the right direction, adding real value
    to America's communities and economy.
        Thank you.
        [The information follows:]

        [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Mr. Olver. Thank you. Grace Crunican.

                     Opening Remarks of Ms. Grace Crunican

        Ms. Crunican. Thank you, Chairman Olver and Mr. Latham.
    Thanks for holding this hearing today. I think it is an
    important one. It is long overdue, and I am very pleased to see
    that the two Secretaries were here yesterday. It is a good step
    forward.
        When you said experts and practitioners, I would be on the
    practitioners side of things, and I would like to walk you
    through several projects in Seattle. I am first going to start
    with three of the key principles we use in doing our
    transportation and housing coordination.
        As I go through the presentation I just want you to keep in
    mind that Seattle is already built out for the most part. If
    you are going to build a new project, you are going to tear
    down what is there now and recreate. We do not have any
    greenfields to speak of. It is mostly in-fill and
    redevelopment. We have narrow streets and relatively dense
    neighborhoods.
        We have accomplished a lot through leadership and
    coordination of the mayor, council and the region, and there is
    a lot that we have learned from CNU and others as we have made
    progress in Seattle. We have a long way to go, but I would like
    to walk you through some of what we have done.
        In 1994, Seattle adopted an urban village strategy to
    concentrate new jobs, new housing and services near one another
    in a small, tight area. These policies make walking, biking and
    transit, as the other speakers have noted, very viable options
    for us.
        Our concern for housing and housing affordability has been
    enhanced by Mayor Nickels' Race and Social Justice Initiative,
    and he has asked us to coordinate with the communities much
    more closely than we have in the past. It has made a big
    difference, as was mentioned by Mary, that the citizens most
    affected have the most intelligence, in my opinion, to add as
    to what they are looking for.
        The mayor also challenged us to make Seattle the most
    walkable and bikeable city in the nation, and that is no small
    feat in Seattle because we have quite a few hills. Seattle is a
    desirable place to live, and we have enjoyed a strong housing
    and economic market over the last two decades.
        We were sort of the last to slow down with the most recent
    recession, but during the time from 2000 to 2008 the median
    price of a single family home increased 73 percent in eight
    years--it went from $270,000 to $468,000 by the end of 2008--
    while the annual median income only increased 31 percent, which
    was from $49,000 to $64,000.
        To combat this, Seattle has in place some requirements and
    incentives for affordability and new development. Three of
    Seattle's aging subsidized housing communities have seen a
    rebirth through the Hope VI funding over the last 10 years.
    This housing has been built near transit and in coordination
    with transit.
        I think an important thing for the committee to understand
    in the relationship in a person's pocketbook, the single
    highest expense that most people have is housing, and the next
    highest expense is transportation. The difference between
    owning a car average about $667 a month for a car and $72 for a
    bus pass in Seattle.
        If you take that difference and you turn that into a
    mortgage, a 30 year mortgage, you can buy $90,000 more of a
    mortgage if you give up a car. With that in mind, we have a
    little thing on our website where citizens can go in and
    measure what the situation is and figure out if they want to
    try a program we have, which is Way To Go, which individually
    allows people to figure out the change in their life from what
    they can do to use bus passes, and we have a program, Zip Car
    Rent-A-Car, in order to make their lives equal to what they had
    before, but leverage that $90,000 toward a mortgage.
        We are working hard to protect our region's landscape from
    heavy commuter traffic and environmental damage. Mayor Nickels
    began an initiative with the Conference of Mayors in order to
    take up the Kyoto challenge at the local level. We now have 900
    mayors that have accepted this challenge to reduce greenhouse
    gases and improve our carbon footprint.
        I have up on the screen New York's carbon footprint. Every
    city has to do their own analysis, and we do not have the tools
    in place right now. I do not think the science is there yet.
    That is something that some of the think tanks could help us
    with, but on the whole you will see from these slides that New
    York City has in the transportation related areas, 20 percent
    of their carbon footnote comes from transportation. In Seattle
    it is 59 percent.
        So we are not that much worse. It is that we have
    hydropower for our electricity, so our buildings are using a
    green source from the beginning. Therefore, our focus has been
    largely oriented towards transportation.
        So in Seattle in 2007 we adopted as a challenge to meet
    this global climate change a complete street policy. The
    complete street policy provides for facilities encouraging more
    people to walk, bike, take transit and support freight
    movement, and it was very much in line with what John Norquist
    was saying about roads that have specialty functions. Instead,
    we are trying to integrate the function; make them accessible.
        So every time we go to repave a street we have a process
    where we go back and look and see; could we add a bike lane
    here? We have a bike plan that calls for certain streets to be
    improved, but as we go through our pavement program if we can
    add a Share-O, which is a shared use lane, or a bike lane, we
    make that improvement.
        This is especially important for those who do not have a
    car, or cannot drive. It provides a place for people to walk.
    We also have a sidewalk improvement program that is underway.
    Twenty-three percent of our city, though it is all built out,
    has no sidewalks.
        The key to our complete streets policy is continuous review
    and improvement and to remember that the car is no longer the
    organizing principle. In some of our western cities and rural
    communities the car has been the organizing principle. We are
    trying to make it one of the organizing principles.
        As I mentioned earlier, Seattle is in the retrofit
    business. Everything we build is usually within an existing
    urban fabric. The three projects I would like to quickly walk
    you through describe how we are trying to put our principles to
    work.
        The first one is in South Lake Union. This is a segment of
    the South Lake Union streetcar. It opened in 2007. It is a 2.6
    mile line constructed in 17 months in financial partnership
    with adjacent property owners. They put in about half the
    money. We did receive about $15 million from the federal
    government, but it was mostly through the process where at the
    local level we distributed the money.
        It was not through the New Starts category. We did have
    some earmarked, but it came through the Federal Highway
    Program, so that is why we were able to construct it in such a
    short period of time. We were not using the FTA New Starts
    process.
        It carries over 500,000 passengers, but, more importantly,
    since 2004 with just these couple of miles of streetcar line we
    have connected 2.9 square feet of commercial office space,
    1,980 new dwelling units, and that is on a base of 2,800 units,
    so we will almost double by the time this gets going, and there
    is about 9,000 new jobs that have come on-line.
        We have connected with that 2.5 miles--those jobs, those
    housing units and commercial office space--with our main, soon-
    to-be-open light rail line in a hub called Westlake Center, so
    this extension of downtown has been enabled through this
    streetcar.
        By 2024, the neighborhoods expect to build an additional
    4.4 square feet of office space and add 9,000 new dwelling
    units--that is again on about 2,800 units that were there to
    begin with--and 20,000 new jobs.
        One can see the changes happening in the neighborhood.
    There are grocery stores being built. Parks are being
    redeveloped. These are essential components to shape a
    neighborhood, especially for transforming industrial and one
    story retail to six stories, and in the future possibly 20
    story buildings which will house the mixed use of office,
    residential and retail.
        My second example is a 15 mile light rail segment, which
    will begin operation this summer. It will connect from downtown
    to the airport. It runs through the middle of Seattle's most
    diverse neighborhoods and is shown here by this purple line.
        Building walkable communities sends a signal to the car. It
    says that the car will be put in this place, which is park
    here, and it should fit here. It takes away the dominance of a
    car and puts the dominance--you can build a community for
    people or for cars, and in this case we are orienting toward
    the people and putting the car in its place, so to speak. This
    promotes biking and walking and transit that was not available
    or as available before.
        Over 67 languages are spoken in this particular part of
    Seattle. There is a large immigrant community, and it is
    important to keep the housing affordable. This has always been
    the entryway to Seattle, whether you are talking about the
    Italian community as it moved to Seattle or the African-
    American community, and now we have communities coming from
    Africa that land here. It needs to be affordable. It is the
    role that community plays.
        With help from $35 million in Hope VI grants, we replaced
    484 worn out public housing units that were built in 1940. We
    built 850 households that are mixed apartments, townhouses and
    single family. We replaced low income housing with 310 on-site
    units and 174 off-site units.
        New Holly is another example of light rail attracting
    investment, receiving $47 million of the Hope VI grants to help
    replace 871 units. We built 1,400 affordable units and market
    rate housing units with 100 percent low income housing replaced
    on-site with this one.
        Our third example in planning is a project that is in the
    planning stages. We would be transforming Yesler Terrace,
    providing housing and office and retail space. Yesler Terrace
    was built in 1939 and was the first racially integrated housing
    project in the nation and currently houses about 1,200
    residents in 561 apartments.
        The existing community is actively involved in planning for
    the future. The project is solely locally funded and will
    include an existing number of low income units, as well as a
    sustainable amount of market rate housing. We believe
    sustainability and affordable housing can go together, and we
    are trying to achieve a lead gold standard with this
    development.
        The community will be served by an extension of another
    Seattle streetcar project, which was funded through local
    levies. The next segment will connect this Yesler Terrace with
    the regional light rail system and with the major medical
    centers in the city. The retrofit of Yesler Terrace community
    is scheduled to be accomplished by 2014 and will be served by
    the streetcar, as I said before, linking.
        As I said in the beginning, Seattle is retrofitting our
    transportation system. We are improving our productivity, and
    we know we can move many people in different ways. Here you see
    200 people being moved in 177 cars, this is 200 people that can
    travel in three buses, and this is 200 people that can travel
    with 200 bikes. We do not have any bikes made for two,
    apparently, in this slide.
        We are trying to find new ways to manage our right-of-way
    to move more people and goods. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Latham, we
    know resources are tight, and we are trying to get a better
    return on taxpayer dollars.
        Thank you for your efforts to do the same with the multiple
    public policy goals we have been discussing here today.
        [The information follows:]

        [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Mr. Olver. These have been very interesting, very
    provocative, I must say, comments that have been made by each
    of you. I may go back to the written questions the staff has
    prepared, but let us start here.
        We are going to go back and forth for five minutes with me
    and then five minutes with Mr. Latham, and we will go back and
    forth until we get reinforcements here or we get the bell which
    takes us off to the next thing. I have thoughts with each of
    your testimonies.
        Mr. Puentes, you put forward a very strong case for
    comprehensive planning. We have regional planning agencies
    which do the planning for all of our transportation
    infrastructure, in that silo, and they also have the
    responsibility of doing the economic planning, at least in my
    area.
        They have the same responsibility for doing regional
    economic development planning and for the concept of the
    regional housing plan, but then in my state--and it must
    change--we do not have strong counties. We have virtually
    eliminated them in the southern part of New England at least,
    but I think in some places, in other places in the country, the
    counties are strong and I do not know exactly how those relate
    then to the local communities.
        In my state, the real question of who plans land use and
    who plans zoning and so forth, ends up being done at the local
    level, and you have a patchwork quilt. The overall regional
    plans may be required for getting certain federal funds in some
    of our silos, ways of looking at it. How do we get around that
    I guess is the question?
        The other point I wanted to make is that in your
    comprehensive plan we really need something in all those
    comprehensive plans that ties energy in. Energy and economic
    development and housing, more broadly economic development and
    transportation, are a three-legged stool in essence for our
    future it seems to me, at least those.
        Ms. Crunican has mentioned the carbon footprint, so the
    question of the carbon footprint and what are the implications
    for energy usage in any of our transportation or our housing
    plans seem also to be how do we get around, though, the
    business? How do we bridge that gap between the local community
    plan? How do we do that in a political way and effectively?

                       CARBON FOOTPRINT AND ENERGY USAGE

        Mr. Puentes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It is a very
    difficult question to answer. I would not pretend I have all
    the answers. The local prerogative for local planning is
    something we hold very dearly, no doubt about it, and trying to
    understand that they are not going to voluntarily give up their
    prerogative for local planning is not going to be easy.
        There is, however, a new imperative I think that we are
    facing in metropolitan areas all across the country, and there
    is an understanding that the uncoordinated nature of how we
    plan our communities has ramifications that are not always that
    positive.
        In the northeast and the midwest--you gave examples in your
    district--and other places, the hyperfragmentation of locality
    within metropolitan areas is well understood. Metropolitan
    areas or localities in Pittsburgh and Chicago, places with
    literally hundreds and hundreds of local jurisdictions, each
    with their own local land use by any power, is very difficult
    to overcome, so we know all that.
        The large counties in some southern metropolitan areas like
    this one here in Washington present a different problem. They
    are very powerful, large counties with a million people, more
    like here in Fairfax County, and so they kind of act as their
    own kind of de facto regional organization and so that regional
    planning is a challenge to them as well.
        All that said, I think that there is an opportunity for the
    federal government to incentivize the kind of planning that I
    think many localities and metropolitan areas are now willing to
    experiment, to innovate with. We have seen tremendous examples.
        We have heard from Seattle and from other places--
    Minneapolis, Denver, Sacramento. There are numerous examples of
    where metropolitan areas and localities are coming together
    voluntarily and trying to devise their own solutions to bridge
    these tremendously difficult challenges that you have talked
    about.
        I think the federal government, just through leadership and
    a little bit of money, can incentivize those kinds of plans.
    Not direct how it is done, but allow localities and
    metropolitan areas to define their own visions for how they are
    going to grow in the future.
        It is certainly not easy, but I think if there are some
    incentives there that the federal government can provide we can
    start to bridge those gaps.
        Mr. Olver. It sounds like bribing them to do this rather
    than extorting them or something like that.
        Mr. Puentes. Well, indeed, but I think it is more about
    unleashing the innovation that we know that is there. The WIRED
    program, the federal program, I think did that as well.
        There was an Urban Partnerships Initiative that the federal
    government had with the Transportation Department over the last
    couple of years with maybe a little bit of money, but it helped
    unleash those great ideas that are out there.
        And the willingness I think for folks to do something
    different is possible, and I think this program----
        Mr. Olver. I think we are going to need to talk more about
    the incentivization, how we set up incentives that can be
    effective and will work. Mr. Latham.
        Mr. Latham. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would indulge you if
    you wanted to go longer on your questions also.
        Mr. Olver. We do not have anybody else here. We can break
    the rules.
        Mr. Latham. I am always interested in the notion that, and
    I think Mr. Puentes mentioned sometimes government programs or
    initiatives are at cross purposes.
        In the economic stimulus bill I think there is $7 or $9
    billion that will be going to have rural America hooked up to
    broadband so that we can keep people in rural areas, keep them
    dispersed out in the countryside, and in fact what we are
    talking about is more urban sprawl when you think about the
    areas that are going to get these funds so that everybody has
    access to high speed internet.
        This is for the whole panel; does anybody have any comment
    on that? I mean, just so you know where I am coming from, I,
    until two years ago lived in a town of 160 people. I lived a
    mile outside of town in the suburbs of 160 people. Rush hour in
    Alexander, Iowa, was when Nancy Schermer went home from the
    bank at 3:00 in the afternoon.
        So we have a lot of different ideas, I guess, about how
    things affect rural America, but are we at cross purposes on a
    bunch of these initiatives? Can you comment? Go ahead, John.
        Mr. Norquist. Well, yes.
        Mr. Latham. Good answer.
        Mr. Norquist. I think your example of the broadband--you
    know, as a former mayor in Milwaukee I always had second
    thoughts about the Rural Electrification Program and all this.
    You know, our constituents----
        Mr. Latham. Be careful.
        Mr. Norquist [continuing]. Subsidize everybody else. Yes.
        Mr. Latham. Okay.

                               ECONOMIC FUNCTIONS

        Mr. Norquist. But then I stopped them after I visited with
    Paul Carver in Dave Obey's office, and I understood the purpose
    of the Rural Electrification Program.
        Just to answer your point, I think there can be cross
    purposes, and that is inevitable in politics, but there are
    things that the federal government does that are
    counterproductive that are not just at cross purposes, but are
    actually counterproductive to economic goals and environmental
    goals, which actually often converge.
        You know, using less energy per unit of production is a way
    to make the economy function better, and that is when the
    metrics are bad and the never ending problem with how do
    regional planning commissions do better work and all that sort
    of thing. It is going to be hard, you know, whether it is
    incentives or anything else.
        But the one thing that really works against good planning
    is bad metrics. In the 1920s there were good metrics. If you
    take the average main street, any main street in a city in Iowa
    if you go around and check--Cedar Rapids, Des Moines, Ames,
    whatever--you are likely to find that exact street with two
    rods from the center lane to the building line, 50 feet of
    pavement and an eight foot sidewalk.
        When somebody went to Iowa State and learned civil
    engineering, that is what they learned, to build that street.
    Now they go there, and they are going to learn to build a 72
    foot arterial with a 20 foot median so you can have a double
    left turn lane with a blown out side, a 100 foot setback on
    each side.
        You cannot build the American main street that you see on
    cookie cans and everything else. You cannot build it anymore.
    It is illegal in most of America. That is a bad metric.
        And so the federal government does not need to necessarily
    intervene more. It actually needs to allow these urban types to
    be part of the federal pavement program. You can see this over
    and over again where there are examples, you know, in terms of
    Republicans trying to be for less government.
        You put your finger on one that is probably popular in most
    rural districts, the broadband thing. It would be hard to
    oppose. But in this case the road metrics should not be looked
    at as pro rural because every little town in Iowa that was
    built before World War II has urbanism.
        You know, the little village of Decorah, Iowa, which I am
    very familiar with because I had a related town in my district,
    well, Decorah, Iowa, has a nice, charming little downtown that
    could not be built new because the metrics that Iowa DOT and
    the FHWA have out there encourage just the exact opposite, and
    that needs to change.
        Male Voice. And we have a great Nordic Fest parade that
    goes right down that beautiful street every year.
        Male Voice. Yes. Yes, sure.
        Male Voice. Go ahead.

                               RURAL COMMUNITIES

        Ms. Crunican. I would point out two areas that might be of
    help. One is on coordinated transportation, which is in the
    rural areas. Some of it does come back to Congress.
        When you have a rural community and you need transportation
    to get to the hospitals--which are not in the rural community;
    they are in an urban area--we have stovepipe programs for
    transportation, and some of them allow both the service and
    transportation in the money that flows to them, and some of
    them have discrete money that goes just for transportation.
        So, you know, in the community everybody knows each other,
    but it is not okay if you get money through the AAA, the Area
    Association on Aging. What is it? Someone in the audience
    knows.
        But the aging program will fund a trip for someone who
    qualifies in that program, Veterans Affairs will fund the trip
    to the hospital for the vet, and there may be a disability
    program either through schools or through welfare programs for
    a child to go, but very often the AAA cannot carry the child
    and the vet to the hospital at the same time.
        It is convenient for everyone to go on Tuesday, but the
    programs do not allow that sharing. It is common sense.
    Everyone out in the rural area knows it is common sense, knows
    that someone goes or would take all three, and breaking down
    those walls is something Congress could do.
        The second area is in highway and transit, the money. You
    have to be very creative and know how to work the system to be
    the most productive with the money. The programs are set up.
    The state FHWA is very comfortable dealing with the state. They
    are very uncomfortable dealing with the cities or the
    metropolitan areas. They feel comfortable getting the okays and
    the certifications through the state.
        Well, in our state the metropolitan area, the Seattle Puget
    Sound area, state highways are extremely important, but the
    orientation Olympia has is the same orientation when I ran the
    DOT in Salem, Oregon. You have to find the right people to go
    work with in the urban areas, but they still have to go home to
    John's traffic engineers that were educated at the state
    college and were told certain standards back in 1965 or 1975.
        They approach the problem like this: The money that federal
    transit gives to the transit system, we have two large transit
    systems. Nobody gives money to the city. I mean, you have to
    really work hard to get the money to come to the city. The city
    is the entity most likely to address the housing problem you
    are talking about and try and make that coordination.
        While we have STP and CMAT, those are the most flexible
    funds, and that has been a success at the local level in the
    three areas I am familiar with--San Francisco, Portland and
    Seattle--because it allows flexibility and it allows the locals
    give and take, but short of that the institutions are all set
    up to really fund a certain provider. They are not looking on
    the ground where the jurisdictions are quite different.
        Mr. Latham. Can we continue with more answers, here Mr.
    Chairman?
        Mr. Olver. Sure.
        Mr. Latham. Okay. Go ahead. Mary, go ahead.
        Ms. Leary. You know, five years ago GAO admonished federal
    agencies on that very issue as it related to transportation,
    and it said there are over 50 transportation programs, over $3
    billion, and that is probably maybe 20 percent.

                           UNITED WE RIDE INITIATIVE

        And so the United We Ride Initiative was born, and the
    really exciting part that we have seen in that, and I was
    privileged to be part of that for the Administration on Aging,
    was there is something called BORPSAT. I do not know if you
    guys have heard this. Doug Birnie always talks about it at
    Federal Transit Administration, but it actually came from
    Connecticut. It is called Bunch of Right People Sitting Around
    the Table.
        What we found across communities in the United States is
    when people have gotten together and they have talked to each
    other; the aging community using Older Americans Act funds
    getting together with the transportation community and
    utilizing Federal Transit Administration funds, whatever they
    are, including the exciting new Freedom Initiative Program or
    Veterans funds or Labor, Education. We have found that they
    have done some absolutely amazing things.
        You know, in some places there were perspectives that they
    were going to have to cut Medicaid funds and then therefore
    there were not as many medical rides available and they were
    actually able to reduce Medicaid funds for rides by opening up
    and increasing the accessibility of the fixed route system.
    They did that in Pennsylvania in Pittsburgh, which they are
    doing a lot of really interesting things there and interesting
    things across the United States.
        And just recently--I mean, this has continued on--the
    Administration on Aging and the Federal Transmit Administration
    just fixed the longstanding cost sharing issue that has just
    been making people crazy at the local level. You can now take
    Older Americans Act Title III-B funds or any Older Americans
    Act funds for transportation, connect that with Federal Transit
    Administration funds to put some of these programs together.
        So there are some successes. We have been trying to break
    down those barriers, and that work is ongoing and there are a
    lot of people still very dedicated to that.
        Mr. Latham. Thank you. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Olver. Okay. I think we are going to have to put
    together some questions from the staff, new ones around this
    issue of stovepipe examples that all of you I think know about
    and of incentives that some of you I think have very clear
    ideas about.
        I have a couple of other thoughts here. There will be other
    categories I think that will come forward that we could benefit
    from I think.
        Anyway, I have to go, Mr. Latham. I was wondering what was
    it that was causing the traffic jam when the banker left the
    office? I was thinking that when the banker left the office
    everything else closed up and the roads rolled up.
        I was brought up in a very similar community, about 200
    people, in Pennsylvania. We had a roller skating rink and a
    bowling alley. They were in the same building. The roller
    skating rink was above the bowling alley. That was the only
    recreational thing there in the community. It was 100 miles
    from New York City and had a lake nearby.
        In the early 1900s it had a group of about a dozen boarding
    houses, so it was a summer tourism thing because of the lake.
    Otherwise it was a farming community. I was thinking the only
    traffic jam was at the time that the bowling alley and skating
    rink opened in the evening each evening.
        By the 1950s, the skating rink and the bowling alley were
    dead, and the boarding houses, because cars and motels and so
    forth, people traveling, everybody having a car; those were
    dead. The community was dead. You could have not found anybody
    around.
        But you raised the issue and I was very much taken, Ms.
    Leary, about the example of the gentleman who when his car was
    going to be taken away ended up committing suicide ultimately.
    I suppose we have more than a few of those. That is one of the
    biggest problems for a family when their parent becomes 85 or
    90 or something. You have to take the driver's license away.
        It made me send my staff out because going along with that,
    a couple of times you made a point that especially in rural
    communities there was a difference. We have been talking
    largely about planning in urban areas; the practitioners here,
    largely about urban areas.
        That map over there. I sent my staff out to bring that map
    in. That map shows the pink areas are the counties that are
    losing population in this country, losing population census by
    census for several censuses. When that happens, what is
    happening is that the young people in large measure are going
    away for education and staying away for opportunity. There is
    disinvestment in the services, in transportation, in the
    medical capacities, and so forth.
        You mentioned the problem of where you could get medical
    services and how that might happen. Ultimately of course once
    the young people, the people who are of childbearing age, have
    left then those counties are actually counties that have in
    general the oldest profile of its population, and eventually
    that means that there is going to be a further dive in
    population.

                                   BROADBAND

        Now, broadband might provide an opportunity for--might--
    education learning, long-distance learning and maybe for some
    jobs to be created there, but I am not sure that we can turn
    that around. I do not know whether you think that can be turned
    around. I think that is part of your question, Tom.
        So I am wondering. How do you think we deal in those kinds
    of communities? It is happening, and really there is a long
    group of those--Iowa and Illinois and in Appalachia. You see
    the pink ones up and down the Appalachian area. The same thing
    is happening. It is the same.
        Those are states and areas that are going to lose
    representation eventually. They are losing population or at the
    point of stagnant population where the population is moving
    from the rural areas into the urban areas where we really need
    to plan with good planning what is going on when we do move
    into the urban areas, but what do we do with the rural areas?
    Tell me.
        Ms. Leary. Well, it is a really, really difficult question,
    Mr. Chairman, and one of the reasons why that story is so
    compelling, sometimes when we talk about things like depression
    and mobility management it seems so clinical. You know, when
    you hear the story you really feel it. It is your gut.
        We learned so much with the civil rights movement for
    people with disabilities over the last 20 years, about the
    triumph of the human spirit, and particularly in rural
    communities what we really find is there is a lot of activity
    around volunteer driver programs and the whole concept of
    mobility management, and taxi services are kind of in some
    cases on the resurge.
        There are also a lot of social services, services that are
    still there. You know, as you have noted, there often times are
    not a lot of services in some of these communities, and you
    really have to leverage what you have so the whole concept of
    mobility management, that is really what it is.
        Mobility managers, when we have them at that local level,
    are those--I like to call them the Marines because every
    mobility manager I have ever met, they have such a esprit de
    corps. They love what they do. They get very connected to the
    people in the community. They understand what they need. They
    get connected to the resources in the community, and they bring
    them together.
        So we really believe that with a strong infrastructure
    connected by some capacity building mechanisms to share best
    practices that a network of mobility managers could be one of
    the most important elements to create mobility.
        Also, we have to redefine what mobility is. You know, so
    often mobility is getting in my car and driving, but if we can
    help people understand that mobility in the United States is
    related to this fabulous transportation infrastructure that we
    have built so citizens can get around whether or not they have
    a car and whether or not they have a mobility impairment, well,
    that would be an amazing thing.
        And then we would not have people being very concerned when
    they can no longer drive, and we would have the greening of
    America. People would be healthier. They would walk more. They
    would stroll more. We always like to say walk and roll in our
    world. And so those are the two things I would say.
        You know, I just got back from listening to either further
    demonstration and grant successes at the American Society on
    Aging/National Council on Aging Conference, and these volunteer
    driver programs and these volunteer programs, you would just be
    so amazed at what they are doing. They are doing really
    essential things, and many folks are using mobility managers as
    a connector for these processes.
        Mr. Olver. In a way you are suggesting we need a much
    broader type of conversation with people who are in the health
    services area, for instance, and other kinds of social service
    areas with what we are talking about about transportation
    disincentives from rural areas either. One of the people who
    came and talked to us earlier said we ought to remove a whole
    lot of the roads in order, I guess, to make the possibilities
    for agri business to be more successful and allow for larger
    family farms, at the very least, if there were going to be any
    left, I am not sure.
        But mobility management, the question of incentives and
    what connection our two departments have to make with other
    departments and other subcommittees to think about this in a
    more comprehensive way. Anybody else want to talk about this?
    Yes?

                          REPOPULATION OF RURAL AREAS

        Mr. Norquist. Well, first of all, on the question of
    repopulating rural areas or any area where you have a
    government program, I would approach it with a little bit of
    humility. I mean, Mao Tse Tung tried to repopulate the rural
    area with the cultural revolution and that did not work out so
    well. So instead I think a better way to look at it is not what
    program could cause a place to repopulate but look at maybe
    there are some programs that are actually causing the problem
    in the first place.
        I have already mentioned road metrics, but let us just look
    at Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, which have been in the news a
    lot. One aspect that they have which was not intended but ended
    up having some side benefits that have been devastating for
    rural small towns, medium sized towns--getting back to Decorah,
    Iowa, let us look at that, for example.
        Freddie and Fannie both have rules that say that no more
    than a certain percentage, 20 percent in the case of Freddie,
    25 percent in the case of Fannie, can be nonresidential, and so
    the impact on that in New York City is not much because you
    have the first floor and then 30 stories of housing so the
    building is not going to be more than 25 percent of
    nonresidential, but if you go to Decorah, Iowa, and you have a
    traditional main street with the first floor and then two or
    three stories of apartments which was built, you know,
    throughout the history of these midwestern or northeastern
    cities, then all of a sudden it does not fit into Fannie's
    secondary mortgage market and then all the other banking
    institutions copy that regulation.
        Why did they do it? They did it because they wanted to have
    Fleet and Magic and all the other mortgage companies, you know,
    have some way for them not to be dominating the business, so
    that was a restriction they came up with. The unintended side
    effect of it was to not be able to build Main Street. It was an
    unintended side effect, but it should be removed. When you are
    reviewing Fannie and Freddie now and looking at it and trying
    to figure out what to do with it, I would get rid of those, the
    20 percent and the 25.
        You mentioned bowling alleys. Why is not that bowling alley
    in that town in Pennsylvania anymore? Well, one of the reasons
    is parking restrictions. If you look particularly in the
    midwest where this started, somebody went to a planner, maybe
    it was an alderman--we think it started in Ohio. If you talk to
    Don Schoop at UCLA, he sort of studied this, and somebody went
    to a planner and they said how many parking spots should we
    require for a bowling alley?
        For some reason, the planner said five. Five per lane.
    There are only four bowlers in each lane, but five parking
    spots. All of a sudden you started seeing these mega bowling
    alleys being created with giant parking lots everywhere, and so
    you get down to, you know, what it should be. There should be
    no regulation. That should be between the property owner and
    the person that is going to the place.
        You know, if they want to have parking, you know, you could
    restrict it maybe, but you do not want to encourage it. So that
    is why your bowling alley is missing, and that is why small
    bowling alleys started disappearing all over the country. So
    the intervention turned out to be counterproductive. It was in
    a silo, like Grace was talking about. This is an issue that I
    think could bring Democrats and Republicans together.
        If you look at these things, a lot of the impacts are
    really nasty from a social justice standpoint. You get rid of
    the grid, you get rid of all the streetcars in the country like
    federal policy did in the end, and then you start hurting poor
    people really badly. When you look at the expense on the
    taxpayer from doing these, from a Republican standpoint, it is
    the same thing.
        Mr. Olver. I still think that I am looking for ways of
    repopulating the rural areas so much as I am feeling great
    concern for the degradation of the quality of life for those
    who remain to the point where somebody turns out the light
    essentially, so do not mistake my thought for thinking that in
    all but four of the counties of North Dakota that we are going
    to suddenly switch. I do not even think that they particularly
    want it, but whatever. Anyway, back to you, Tom.
        Mr. Latham. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Interesting debate. I
    enjoy the references to Decorah, Iowa. It is a great community
    there. Mary, just a couple things. First of all, thank you for
    all the work you have done; the same for Jennifer, on the
    agribility over the years. That has been a great partnership.
        My mother is probably going to kill me if she ever finds
    out that I say this, but your point about the health and mental
    health, well-being of the senior citizens is a good one. My
    mother is 90 years old, she was just turning 90, she is 92 now,
    but at that time she was just diagnosed with breast cancer and
    had a mastectomy, which I know she will kill me for saying. At
    the same time she had lost her driver's license and is living
    in Alexander, Iowa, where you have to go 10 miles to get a
    gallon of gas, gallon of milk, and any kind of services, doctor
    or anything.
        Of the two, it was not even close. Losing her driver's
    license and losing her mobility was far more devastating to her
    than her medical condition. The Chairman was just talking about
    repopulating and growing those communities back; I am not sure
    it is possible, but there is no alternative for her, really, as
    far as getting anywhere, other than to drive herself.
        Fortunately, she has got a daytime driver's license now.
    She can go 10 miles. I am not sure about the other people on
    the road. But she is back, so she can go to church and all
    these good things. In Seattle there was an article about the
    restrictions on land use. I do not know if you want to say
    anything, Mary, about that, but I am curious about how the
    restrictions there are have increased.
        You mentioned in your testimony an increase in the cost of
    a dwelling by $200,000. There are different aspects to that,
    but is it going to be affordable for anyone? You were talking
    about the median income of $60,000, $70,000, something like
    that. How can a middle or lower income person live in the
    community like that? It is virtually impossible, is not it, to
    purchase?
        Ms. Crunican. It is getting that way. I mean, we have the
    blessings of success, we have some industries that are going
    great guns, but the price of housing in Seattle proper has gone
    fairly high, as has the entire region, so we have passed a
    housing levy, I think it is up this year for the third
    installment of a seven year housing levy, to help create
    affordable housing and provide incentives.
        We have provided height incentives to developers, so if you
    want to go up a little higher, you have to create a certain
    number of affordable units of housing, and we are looking at
    our HOPE VI grants to help convert, but it is the curse of
    success, I think. The livability also, it is a highly desirable
    place, assuming you do not mind a little rain once in a while,
    to live.
        The jobs are, I think we have something like over 80
    percent of people have high-speed internet service in the city.
    It is an extremely literate city, and it has got high density
    so it is a high-performing city, but the cost of housing is
    beginning to scare everybody so we are looking at how to make
    those prices affordable. One of the things to do, frankly, is
    to have a transportation system that means you pay less for an
    automobile. Maybe your family does have a car, but they do not
    have two or three, which you do have in more rural settings or
    even more suburban settings.
        Mr. Latham. Does not the price of the home increase next to
    your light rail?
        Ms. Crunican. Right.
        Mr. Latham. If your home is closer to that, is not the
    price higher? Does not it make it more expensive?
        Ms. Crunican. It does. It increases the value of your home
    to be located next to a transit station, but, again, the
    tradeoff is there, as I talked about, the $90,000 difference in
    mortgage that giving up the car can buy you, that translates
    back the other way, too, if you have the transit pass. In many
    cases the employer provides the transit pass. That is another
    program we have fairly successfully instituted in Seattle.
        Mr. Latham. In your testimony, I was caught by one
    paragraph in it. The federal government should act to ensure
    that housing consumers and suppliers are made aware of the full
    direct costs of housing. The definition of affordable housing
    should be redefined to take into account not only the cost of
    the housing but the transportation and the energy associated
    with that. Is there a definition or is there a matrix or
    something out there that you use to demonstrate this definition
    now?

                       CENTER FOR NEIGHBORHOOD TECHNOLOGY

        Mr. Puentes. We are working on it. I think we are getting
    there. The reference was made to a thing called the Center for
    Neighborhood Technology in Chicago. It has been doing some work
    across the country trying to make this direct connection. For a
    long time in this country our formal housing policy was drive
    until you qualified. And as gas prices peaked about $4 a gallon
    last summer, this became front and center I think in most
    people's minds, that transportation as the number two household
    expense really had a dramatic impact on household budgets.
        So the Center for Neighborhood Technology has created this
    Housing and Transportation Affordability Index. We worked with
    them on this. They are trying to take this nationally I
    believe. I think it is an excellent opportunity for DOT/HUD
    joint working groups to use that and maybe pilot that for
    something for the future. Certainly getting us ready for census
    2010, it will be very helpful, not just for those transition
    things.
        Mr. Latham. Right. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Olver. Ms. Crunican, your description of what Seattle
    has done is very compelling. The examples that Mr. Norquist has
    given were also very compelling in a broader kind of a picture.
    Yours were very much associated with one large city, yours were
    a few here, there, good practices and so forth.
        In the case of Seattle, the geography has sort of dictated
    that you do not really have more space, I think, in part. You
    are sort of between the Sound and a large lake or something
    like that or a mountain, and maybe it is a mountain that is
    beyond the lake, or whatever, and you are contained, and so you
    are doing infill and things are being removed and better things
    put in place, and each time you have made big improvements.
        I think that must be essentially the way major European
    communities have functioned. I am thinking of Copenhagen, for
    instance, which is quite contained. It could sprawl out into
    its island but they do not allow that to happen. Instead they
    have good, wide boulevards and a lot of narrow streets, and one
    way streets and bicycles down those streets.
        There are safety problems, because in Copenhagen you have
    one-third of all commutation by bicycle, one-third of it by
    transit and one-third of it by personal vehicles, essentially,
    and all of those function within that city. It is quite
    remarkable. They make it work and it seems to be quite a
    livable place. There are a couple of places that I have had a
    lot of contact with recently.
        In Denver I was struck by the fact that if you look, the
    sprawl went in all directions to the skyline, to the horizon
    essentially, and now they are trying to figure out how, after
    all that had occurred, to correct for that by some transit
    operations. But also, downtown they have done some major
    things. My impression is that Phoenix is a place, it is a very
    similar, that has sprawled long before they got to the point of
    thinking seriously about how to correct that and now they are
    working hard at that.
        That is the other end. We need to figure out, I suspect,
    ways of helping them, being flexible enough to help them in all
    of their various programs and to help them get to where they
    want to go once they have figured out what has to happen for
    them, that it just not working or going to work that way. You
    have gone through that and you are contained by your geography.
        Gets me back in a way to the original business of how do we
    overcome this planning problem, providing the incentives in the
    process, to help people do the right things and to just not
    allow them to do what is ultimately going to be bad in the
    whole way for the society in a whole? Anybody want to further
    comment on that?
        Mr. Norquist. I think you are hitting exactly on the
    question, which is what I appreciate about this committee
    combining housing transportation because then it gets you to
    think outside the box. If you look at any of these communities,
    if they are going to be dealing with FHWA, or the ASHTO
    standards, or their own DOTs, they are going to fall into the
    trap of having these large, blown out roads.
        Phoenix is trying to figure out how to urbanize itself
    again, how to have a community that is walkable, at least in
    the places where they can achieve it. The law needs to allow
    that to happen, it needs to encourage that to happen. That is
    why it is important for the Congress to work with the DOT and
    work with the ASHTO and everybody and allow these urban forums
    to reemerge.
        Then you will start to see it come back, whether it is a
    small village, or whether it is a big city like Phoenix, or
    whatever, but right now it is not even allowed. You can see it
    with coding and zoning in California. For years they had a law
    that almost required separate use zoning throughout the state
    except in a few places that were so dense, like San Francisco,
    they could not impose it.
        A few years back they changed the law to allow, they did
    not force it, but they allowed mixed use or form-based codes to
    be adopted by communities around California. Now the majority
    of the communities in California have adopted those codes. Now
    their planners know that they can legally create the kinds of
    things that people want that are more efficient.
        That is what your Committee is uniquely set up to do,
    because you go to like the transportation committees in each
    House of the Congress, and they are so focused on the
    equipment, the paving machines, the different interest groups
    that are around, and they do not see the impact on the rest of
    society. So when you take Housing, Transportation and Economic
    Development, put them all together and you can change these
    things, and then the communities can start to heal themselves.
        Mr. Puentes. Just to build off that, I think that is a
    great comment. There are a lot of places where the federal
    government should lead because of the sheer size and scope of
    some of these issues. There are other places where the federal
    government frankly should get out of the way and enable places
    to do good things.
        I think that there is an assumption in this country that
    the decentralizing nature of growth that we have seen over the
    last couple of decades is only the result of people voting with
    their feet, and this is the preferred lifestyle and the reasons
    are growing because that is what people wanted to do. Certainly
    some of that is true, but there are direct policies that
    actually encourage this kind of growth to occur.
        So on the federal level we know that the modes operate on a
    very unlevel playing field, for example. The highway program,
    highway funds are sent out of the state level at an 80/20, 90/
    10 match with no restrictions, really, on how that money can be
    spent. The states have almost complete discretion in deciding
    where the money goes. On the transit side it is very different.
    It is a much lower match.
        The process to get the funds approved is hypercompetitive,
    hyperbureaucratic. It focuses, frankly, we think, on the wrong
    things, on time savings as opposed to the ability to build the
    right kind of communities, as Mr. Norquist mentioned.
        So at least letting the federal government enable places to
    make their own decisions based on equal requirements and rules
    and regulations and weeding out that subsidy for sprawl, and if
    it is going to occur, it is going to occur for lots of
    different reasons, but it should not be incentivized as it is
    right now on the federal, state and local policies. But the
    things this Committee could do is to weed some of that out.
        Mr. Olver. Okay. That sounds to me like lead or get out of
    the way, laying out good guidelines, but that has to take into
    account a broader vision than just transportation and housing.
    That does need to take into account energy issues and energy
    balance. What is our carbon footprint, and things of that sort.
    Dave, you originally talked about incentives. Well, he says
    there has to be some sticks as well, and you agree with that.
        You say disincentives for doing the wrong thing, which is
    sticks if you are doing the wrong thing. It is not necessarily
    penalties for doing the wrong thing after the fact, but just
    not disincentives for doing the wrong thing if you have proper
    goals in the first place.
        Mr. Norquist. Just one quick point on this. The goal needs
    to be the right goal. The goal has been over simplistic.

                                   CONGESTION

        Mr. Olver. We could agree on the right goal, could not we,
    rather easily. Probably quickly.
        Mr. Norquist. I hope so, but one goal that I think has been
    the wrong goal is the idea of defeating congestion. You will
    sometimes hear people say, well, you know, you cannot build
    your way out of congestion. Actually, you can. Detroit has
    built its way out of congestion. Congestion is a really low
    priority problem in Detroit. They built every road that
    Michigan DOT ever dreamed of, and they have created a community
    where congestion is not a big problem inside the city at all.
        Mr. Olver. But it is depopulating very quickly.
        Mr. Norquist. Right. So it was the wrong goal. The goal
    ought to be what adds value? What adds value to the American
    economy? What adds value to the local economy?
        Ms. Crunican. Mr. Chairman, I assume those bells mean you
    are going to be voting soon, is that fair? Maybe, maybe not.
    Okay. There is something I would like to throw on the table as
    a little history, a little perspective on how these programs
    came together. In the 1960s the federal transit program known
    as UMTA, the Urban Mass Transit Association, was created, and
    it was created in the late 1960s basically because the private
    transportation systems had failed.
        The autos had been successful, people were escaping to the
    suburbs and the economics of the private transportation systems
    was failing, so new transportation systems, public
    transportation systems, were forming. Because they were new,
    this is my opinion having worked in the program a little bit,
    the rules were created assuming that the new people were either
    corrupt or inept, or could be, and so there is a lot of got to
    watch out, gotcha kinds of elements to the late 1960s, early
    1970s rules that were created for UMTA, then to be FTA.
        The federal highway program started with the public road
    system a long time ago and was basically, you know, the theory
    if we can get out there, we grow, and it was not assumed that
    there was a lot of corruption underway. Instead, there were
    some well-intentioned grads out of state school going out
    building some roads and some standards were set.
        Very frequently the federal program is merely the
    reflection of ASHTO, American State Highway Association
    Official, and their guiding principle from a state road systems
    point of view, and so they are bigger and wider. Just the
    element, if you go back to the program of one of incentive and
    the American dream versus we are going to get you if you do
    something corrupt, you now have after, you know, 40, 50 years
    worth of the public transit programs up and running, they are
    quite competent, they are quite intelligent, they are quite
    well-educated, the people that run these systems.
        I am not saying that some bad things could not happen, but
    no more so than some of the corruption you hear about
    contractors at the state DOT. The programs themselves, the
    federal highway is one of trust. Here is your allowance, you
    get it pretty much, Congress sometimes provides some earmarks,
    which I think are good. I used to be on an appropriations staff
    where I did not think they were all that they are made out to
    be in the press, but they can be for good projects.
        In the transit world they have what is called the New Start
    Program which is kind of a no start program. They hold the
    money, they have less money than they have demand for, and so
    they had to come up with some ways to judge the programs. It is
    in that judgment if you are at the local level, you have got an
    allowance coming your way at the state level, money
    automatically flowing, and you have got a much smaller
    allowance through STP and CMAC to make decisions for transit.
        If you want to get transit money, for the most part, most
    systems are beholden and coming to Washington and walking
    through the Federal Transit Administration which has much more
    control than the Federal Highway Administration does. So the
    imbalance of the programs is one thing that is, I think, within
    the control of Congress.
        There is a lot of imbalance at the local level. People have
    different utilities. The utility commissions in different
    states operate different and provide incentives for development
    or disincentives for the sprawl. That is an important role in
    terms of development. Whether the big city gets along with the
    little cities, we do not do that so well. I have made Seattle
    out to be the golden city on the hill with some mountains in
    the background and the water, as you mentioned.
        You know, we do not do a great job of getting along with
    some of our neighbors and the region has different policies. In
    Portland the policies are pretty much the same: invest in
    transit first, and highways have a place. In Seattle, that is
    what Seattle would say, but that is not what our suburban
    cities would say. They would say they have some huge highway
    needs that need to be met. So I think, as Rob I think tried to
    say, there are multiple parts to this problem.
        The piece that is in Congress' hands can be to equalize the
    programs, highway and transit, and can be to help. Just ask for
    some of those connections, you know, the education programs,
    the vet programs, the area agency on aging programs. I think
    you can do a good job there.
        Mr. Olver. You know, I am impressed in the case of Seattle,
    and Washington more in general. For a big state, big state
    population-wise, sort of right among the top 15, certainly at
    the lower end of that top 15, you have probably the smallest
    impact from the foreclosure crisis of any state that size or
    larger by a large margin. Seattle does not seem to have enough
    of a foreclosure problem to even have triggered HUD's
    definition of how a city might get money for neighborhood
    stabilization programs.
        So Seattle has something to be emulated, I think, in a way.
    I think perhaps Oregon is in a similar way. It is more or less
    of an aside. We have probably 10 minutes here. Marcy, if you
    are ready. We have been waiting for reinforcement here.
        Ms. Kaptur. I am so sorry.
        Mr. Olver. I am sure you would have had a great deal to
    say. If you have something to say, I will let you go, and then
    Tom.
        Ms. Kaptur. Has Mr. Latham had an opportunity to----
        Mr. Olver. Well, we have had several rounds, actually. We
    have gone back and forth here several times, so we will let you
    go for a bit here, or, if you want to, I will give several
    minutes to Tom, and then you, and then we will close and I will
    not speak again. Whichever way you want to go.
        Ms. Kaptur. All right. Well, I just wanted to thank you
    again, Mr. Chairman, for a most interesting set of hearings as
    we begin this new Congress. Cutting across programs, more
    thematic, more, I think, valuable to the American people. So I
    just want to really thank you for your leadership in that
    regard. I am very proud of what you are doing and I am proud of
    our subcommittee. We want to thank all those here who have come
    to help instruct the country and for your dedication to the
    communities you represent and the organizations you represent.
        I apologize for being late. I just left a hearing in my
    other committee, Defense on AFRICOM. Totally different subject,
    but, you know, really, it is about development, whether it is
    on another continent or here, in our country, how to do it
    best, how to do it wisely. I was very interested to come in and
    to see this map up here. That is very instructive.
        I am actually a city and regional planner by training and I
    spent half my life doing that before I ever got elected to
    Congress, so I think this must be the first hearing in my
    entire career where somebody actually thought about population
    and actually had a map when you walk in the room, so I feel
    this is really comfortable, I can get along here, and to have
    it instruct us as we move down into those census tracks as to
    how to build livable communities.
        I think for the part of the country that I represent, the
    northern part of Ohio along Lake Erie's south coast, the fact
    that our economy is different than other places in the country
    makes it particularly stressful right now. Unlike most of the
    growth communities in our country which are capital cities and
    finance centers--I had a little discussion with Steny Hoyer
    yesterday.
        I said well, Mr. Leader, you know, you have got an easier
    district than I do, you have got all these government jobs that
    insulate you in downturns. I do not think he took offense at
    that, but I said, you know, we do not have any landing pads.
    When something goes wrong in the economy, we crash, because we
    are a production platform, both in industry and agriculture,
    and so we meet the global market head on.
        I was very interested in the representative, is it
    Crunican, from Seattle. You talk about the growth community in
    Seattle. I am curious. You talk about Bio Tech. Are these
    private companies or do they spin off a university hospital?
    Could you describe why that area is growing, that particular
    neighborhood that you talked about in your testimony? I am
    interested in the economic underpinnings of it.
        Ms. Crunican. Yes. We have both spin offs from the
    University of Washington Research, the University of Washington
    Health Life Sciences is there, as well as private firms,
    ZymoGenetics is there, the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation is
    locating there, a rather unique opportunity, but for the most
    part it is Biomed Tech and private firms that are locating
    there.
        We have other combinations. It is because of its diversity
    as well, Amazon is locating there, and so we have a synergy of
    a lot of different companies. I think in part, the Chairman
    mentioned before you got here the difference in the housing
    foreclosures. It is because of two things, I think. Our diverse
    economy. We started with Boeing in the 1970s, of course before
    that, timber, but Boeing in the 1970s and we have expanded to
    Microsoft, to Amazon, to Starbucks, and we have a range of
    different economies in our base.
        The second thing is that he mentioned growth management, I
    mean, he mentioned a lack of housing and us not qualifying for
    some of the housing that has been abandoned and walked away
    from, mortgages abandoned, and I think a common element between
    Oregon and Washington is the growth management policies that
    have been in place which are sort of a substitute for energy
    management policies 20, 30 and 40 years later.
        Oregon started in the 1970s, Washington I believe passed
    those in the early 1990s, so we have had some time to have that
    contained growth happen, and so you do not live further out so
    that if you do lose your job you have got maybe a more
    affordable mortgage end. Though the price of housing is up,
    your transportation bills are a little bit lower than they are
    in the average. So I think it is a combination of things that
    are going on there.
        Ms. Kaptur. Well, what is really interesting, the way I
    look at the world is that, okay, Boeing, I mean, that was
    bedrock, those contracts relating to the defense of this
    country, and they provided a real secure economic underpinning
    for your region, and the universities that contributed to the
    knowledge, I am sure, that moved that technology forward,
    Microsoft locating there.
        I do not know the whole history of Bill Gates in your
    region, but there is no question that the defense industry spun
    off the computer industry and the high tech industry all across
    California to Silicon Valley and then up, and so regions like I
    represent never had that.
        When I look at where federal dollars have been invested,
    and, you know, what they have yielded, to me, the way I look at
    a community like mine now which is suffering under so much
    unemployment, and has for a long time, if one looks at our
    university corridors, and you referenced Bio Tech off your
    university there, I really think in many ways our universities
    are our growth corridors even though they are subsidized by the
    taxpayer, either statewide.
        They are a new spine. So the Bio Tech you are spinning off
    in my region is translated to our university, which obviously
    is all publicly subsidized, but we are spinning off research
    that we are now the third largest solar center in the
    hemisphere, and new knowledge that grew out of our glass
    industry, which is an unsubsidized industry.
        What is interesting about your pattern and our pattern is
    that the proximity to knowledge and to the knowledge base and
    to neighborhoods that may be adjacent to that, as we think
    about new spines for development I think in many places the
    university corridor becomes extraordinarily important. We look
    at it in a different way than we did 30 years ago where it was
    just an adjunct or it was just out there somewhere.
        It has come into its own in a way. My community compared to
    30 years ago, we now have a medical university, a graduate
    university in medicine and we are talking about, you know, we
    have a research technology park there and slowly we are
    beginning to see companies that grow off of that. There is a
    slow transformation, I think, occurring across our country, in
    some places faster than others, where you can see a new urban
    form taking shape.
        What is interesting about it is that our bike trails, where
    are they anchored? They sort of are anchored in our metro parks
    but they all lead to the university. So it is just very
    interesting. Now, do they lead there perfectly? No. Do we have
    a long way to go? Yes. Do we need help in reshaping the urban
    core? Our university is not located in the urban core but
    proximate to it, not that far. The urban core for us will
    become our government center.
        But thinking about what are the job generators, and how do
    you get jobs in job tight regions, you have to create them off
    new knowledge. When you have no federal investment for the most
    part other than in subsidy dollars--frankly, one of the
    largest, and I will end with this, set of subsidy dollars
    coming into our region, and I think Tom Latham will be
    interested in this, every year in my little county $100 million
    comes in in food stamps.
        One of the issues we have been looking at in a very
    agriculturally rich region like northern Ohio is how can we
    weave ribbons of green and begin producing product for people
    right back in the city in our food desert so that agricultural
    corridors also are reintegrated back into our urban core? We
    have the ability to do that. So I just appreciate your
    testimony, and I will yield back the no time that I have. I
    just appreciate your listening to me, and thank our Chairman
    again.
        Mr. Olver. I am deeply sorry that you were not here to
    listen to Mr. Norquist's description of Detroit, which I
    thought was an incredibly powerful cogent description. Toledo
    is obviously, from what Marci is saying, in better shape, but
    it is a little Detroit in a sense, a little like Detroit. We
    have zero time left on the roll call but there are 283 people
    who have not voted, so if you have a comment, or otherwise you
    can go and I will stay until you folks have your chance to say
    a couple of words and then we will go.
        Mr. Norquist. Well, I was just going to say last summer my
    wife and my two kids and I had the pleasure of wandering off
    our trip across Ohio to Sandusky, which is kind of hard to find
    because it is not on the normal routes people go, but it used
    to be. It had good train service and all that sort of thing.
        So as the transportation priorities change and there has
    been a lot more investment in rail and so forth some of these
    cities, like Toledo and Sandusky and so forth, their beauty
    will be revealed again to people, and I think it will help it
    capture some of the prosperity that places like Seattle have.
        Mr. Olver. That is a hopeful thing.
        Ms. Kaptur. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate that comment. Just
    to say, Carolyn Kilpatrick, Congresswoman Kilpatrick and I, we
    want to tour Detroit together and look at urban farming in
    Detroit because it is the very same issue and we want to ripen
    it. Frankly, I think the biggest job generator for you besides
    that has got to be your farmers' market. You could not do
    enough there and build a wing on that to produce all winter
    long off Eastern Market, but in any case, thank you.
        Mr. Olver. Mr. Latham.
        Mr. Latham. Thank you very much for all your testimony.
        Mr. Olver. Indeed. I will simply second that. Thank you
    very much. We will have good reasons to talk with each of you
    more, okay? Have a good day.
                                               Wednesday, May 20, 2009.

                  MEMBER'S REQUEST TO THE SUBCOMMITTEE HEARING

                                   WITNESSES

    HON. JOHN BOOZMAN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF
        ARKANSAS
    HON. BETSY MARKEY, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF
        COLORADO
    HON. DIANE E. WATSON, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF
        CALIFORNIA
    HON. HENRY CUELLAR, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF
        TEXAS

                       Opening Remarks of Chairman Olver

        Mr. Olver. The subcommittee will come to order. Good
    morning, everyone, even some of our members. We are here to
    take testimony from Members of the House on issues related to
    the Transportation, Housing and Urban Development
    Subcommittee's jurisdiction.
        It has been a number of years since this subcommittee has
    provided Members with an opportunity to discuss issues related
    to their districts, and I am happy to be here to learn more
    about the challenge that individual Members are facing at home.
    The testimony provided by the Members that have taken the time
    today to talk about their interests will assist the
    subcommittee in crafting a bill that is responsible to both the
    national needs and the needs of the Members' local districts.
    This input is vital to the subcommittee in meeting its
    responsibility to provide strong fiscal stewardship.
        With that, I would recognize my ranking member, Mr. Latham
    from Iowa, for any comments he would like to make.

                    Opening Remarks of Ranking Member Latham

        Mr. Latham. It will be very, very brief. I look forward to
    the testimony from our colleagues.
        Let's proceed. Thank you.
        Mr. Olver. Thank you. Our first witness is Representative
    John Boozman from Arkansas. You may proceed with your
    testimony. We have a written statement which we will place in
    the record, but go ahead.

                 Opening Remarks of Representative John Boozman

        Mr. Boozman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member
    Latham, and members of the subcommittee. I really do appreciate
    the opportunity to be here today and testify concerning
    transportation appropriation requests.
        Today, I have come to talk about the regional and the
    national significance of the I-49 corridor. I-49 is a north-
    south corridor from the Port of New Orleans, Louisiana, to
    Kansas City, Missouri, where it connects with I-29 and I-35,
    which run all the way up to the Canadian border.
        A large portion of the interstate in my district is
    complete. A large portion of the interstate from New Orleans
    all the way up is actually complete, and a lot of that was due
    to Congress in the past and especially the hard work and
    dedication of one of my predecessors, John Paul Hammerschmidt,
    who served with distinction for many, many years.
        The uncompleted portions in the Third District are segments
    from Bentonville north to the Missouri border and from Fort
    Smith south to Greenwood. The Arkansas Highway Department is
    supportive of this project and are committed to seeing it
    through to completion.
        The highway department is actively working on the northern
    portion from Bentonville to the Missouri border. It will be
    constructed as a bypass of the town of Bella Vista, Arkansas.
    This bypass is extremely important because Bella Vista is a
    retirement community and has the highest traffic count within
    the Arkansas portion of the corridor.
        The second uncompleted portion in Fort Smith is a project I
    have submitted to your subcommittee for consideration. Work on
    this portion of the corridor is vital to the economic
    development in the region and will create a large number of
    jobs, both those working on the interstate and those stemming
    from businesses locating near the interstate.
        Once completed, this portion of the interstate will assist
    major companies locating in Chaffee Crossing to transport
    products. Companies like Graphic Packaging, Mars Petcare,
    Umarex and Pradco Outdoor Products are located at Chaffee
    Crossing because of the central location and because it is an
    area ripe for redevelopment. The completion of this segment of
    I-49 will not only bolster industry in our area, but it will
    also ensure that products can successfully move throughout the
    country.
        I am here today to not only educate the committee about the
    status of I-49, but also to encourage you to give great
    consideration to the north-south corridors while appropriating
    money to transportation projects. These corridors are about
    more than politics and more than the usual regional rivalries.
    The corridors will provide an economic stimulus for the entire
    country.
        The fact is, our national highways must complement NAFTA.
    In order for companies to remain competitive, they must be able
    to ship goods in and out of Canada and Mexico. Companies are
    striving to increase economic efficiency in our global economy
    by keeping prices down, making their products more marketable,
    and making their companies more successful. We have the
    obligation to assist them by building the north-south
    corridors. We must provide companies with choices of shipping
    routes and the ability to keep their freight out of congestion.
        The old system of warehouses across the country no longer
    exists. The warehouses now, with on-time delivery, are the
    trucks on the road and the trains; and it is crucial that we
    keep the trucks moving.
        The long-range economic benefit of building the north-south
    corridors is incredibly powerful. Our Nation is connected from
    east to west and now we must connect it from north to south. I
    believe the map is truly our best argument. I-49 will not only
    connect northern and southern Arkansas, but, more importantly,
    will be part of a larger vein running through the middle of the
    entire country.
        In light of our unstable economy, we need to remain focused
    on building the roads and infrastructure. Build it, and the
    capital will come. With connectivity comes industry, and with
    industry comes jobs.
        Mr. Chairman, committee, I-49 is crucial to Arkansas, but
    more importantly, is crucial to the entire country; and I ask
    that you and your committee give this request your utmost
    consideration.
        Mr. Olver. Thank you very much and thank you for staying
    within your time. You actually leave me a moment or two.
        I had intended to pull out my atlas and see exactly where
    I-49 went. My understanding of Arkansas is that this probably
    doesn't go through Little Rock, does it? It passes west of
    Little Rock----
        Mr. Boozman. Yes, sir.
        Mr. Olver [continuing]. Angularly?
        Tell me what the three largest communities are, other than
    Bentonville. Or maybe Bentonville is one of the three largest.
    It goes by Fayetteville?
        Mr. Boozman. Yes, sir.
        Mr. Olver. And then on the south, Fort Smith is it?
        Mr. Boozman. Fort Smith, and then down in Mike Ross' area,
    down in Texarkana, in that region, in the southern part of the
    State. So it comes from New Orleans, it goes through Louisiana,
    through Shreveport, that area, running up, which--Louisiana has
    been totally committed to the project and done a tremendous
    amount of work--goes on up into Texarkana, up into Mike's
    district, and then keeps going. And it really kind of hugs the
    Oklahoma-Arkansas line, and goes up into Missouri, on up to
    Kansas City, and there it divides into two interstates and goes
    to the Canadian border.
        Our interstate system was built primarily east and west.
        Mr. Olver. That is the other thing I was curious about. You
    commented and made the case that we really need to pay
    attention it the north-south corridors. Well, the north-south
    corridors are the odd-numbered routes, and in the east, 95, of
    course, is the critical one. The major ones are 5, 15, 25, and
    so forth.
        The farther you get away--in the odd numbers away from the
    5-numbered routes, the less important they seem to be, although
    in our Northeast, 81 is quite important, and I have always
    viewed 75 as very important. So your comment that we weren't
    really paying attention to the north-south corridors was of
    interest to me.
        Mr. Boozman. It really is. I-35 going through Texas, those
    corridors really are at full capacity. So this route would take
    pressure off of some of those other routes.
        The nice thing about this project is, some of the other
    projects, again which I am committed to and which I think we
    need to do, are right in the beginning stage. This is something
    that with a fairly small amount of money, truly you can have a
    north-south corridor that is complete; and that interstate
    system would, again, run from New Orleans all the way up.
        The Port of New Orleans, with more and more shipping going
    to that area, more and more shipping going to Houston, things
    are becoming more and more important.
        Mr. Olver. I have exceeded my time.
        Mr. Latham.
        Mr. Latham. I just have two questions. This is not going to
    restrict my access to the golf courses, is it?
        Mr. Boozman. No. Not at all. In fact, it will make your
    access easier.
        Mr. Latham. If you have ever been down there, it is
    absolutely an incredible area as far as a retirement community;
    and lots of folks from Iowa actually live down there or winter
    down there.
        What is the request? How many dollars specifically are you
    looking for in the appropriations bill?
        Mr. Boozman. Well, again, I don't know that. I can't tell
    you the specific amount. I should be able to do that.
        But you guys on the back, you know----
        Mr. Latham. Here we go.
        Mr. Boozman. $10 million.
        Mr. Latham. What would that do? What section?
        Mr. Boozman. What I believe in, Mr. Latham, is I think you
    go from the areas that have the most population density in the
    sense that you are doing what you want to do, you are building
    the interstate; but along with that you have the opportunity to
    have economic opportunity on top of that.
        So this would be south of Fort Smith, in that area. And not
    only, like I say, are you building the interstate at that
    point, but you are providing great economic opportunity in that
    area also with some major industries that are coming in.
        Mr. Latham. Thank you very much.
        Mr. Boozman. Thank you all very much.
        Mr. Olver. Mr. Pastor.
        Mr. Pastor. No questions.
        Mr. Olver. Ms. Kilpatrick.
        Ms. Kilpatrick. No questions.
        Mr. Olver. Thank you very much for bringing up this
    interstate completion project. I thought the interstate system
    was complete. You are raising a whole awareness. Thank you very
    much.
        Mr. Boozman. Thank you very much.
        [The information follows:]

        [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Mr. Olver. Representative Betsy Markey from Colorado.

                 Opening Remarks of Representative Betsy Markey

        Ms. Markey. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the
    subcommittee, for the opportunity to testify today.
        I just want to give you a sense of where my district in
    Colorado is. I represent the northern suburbs of Denver, so the
    northern and eastern part of the State, and then also it is
    like a big ``7'', the entire eastern plains of Colorado. My
    district borders Wyoming to the north, Nebraska and Kansas to
    the east, and Oklahoma to the south.
        I have five projects that I am requesting appropriations
    for. The first one is U.S. highway 287 in Berthoud. Berthoud is
    a fast-growing community about an hour north of Denver. It is
    about $330,000. The funding will accommodate much-needed
    improvements along Highway 287 and the town of Berthoud,
    including surface overlay, paving marking, seeding, mulching
    and traffic control. This is a major connection road between
    Loveland and Longmont, which also connects to the Boulder area.
    As I mentioned, it is one of the fastest-growing communities in
    the area, and traffic on this highway is going to only
    increase.
        The second request is for $1.5 million, a timber bridge on
    U.S. highway 24 in Limon, Colorado. Limon is in eastern
    Colorado. As you are coming in from Kansas on Highway 70, you
    pass through Limon. This funding will accommodate the
    reconstruction of a timber bridge just east of Limon. The
    structure was originally constructed in 1934 and has now been
    deemed structurally deficient.
        The bridge is along the Ports-to-Plains corridor, which has
    heavy traffic use. The bridge literally sways when cars, let
    alone 18-wheeler trucks, drive over it. My staff was there just
    a couple of weeks ago and said as soon as even a car or truck
    goes over it, it shakes. It is a narrow bridge with low
    guardrails. The Colorado Department of Transportation patches
    up the bridge at least once a month.
        The third is also a bridge replacement, the Upper Big
    Thompson Canyon bridge replacement at a cost of $2.5 million.
    This funding would replace two bridges on U.S. Highway 34 in
    the Big Thompson Canyon near the town of Estes Park. The
    improvements will include bridge replacement along with
    pavement markings, guardrail improvement, seeding, mulching and
    traffic control. These bridges are labeled as poor bridges by
    the Colorado Department of Transportation. This highway, U.S.
    Highway 34, is the gateway to Rocky Mountain National Park,
    which receives over 1 million visitors a year.
        The fourth is State Highway 96, four bridges near Eads,
    Colorado, in the eastern plains of Colorado. It is at a cost of
    $600,000. The funding would be used for preliminary and final
    design of structures on Highway 96 west of the town of Eads,
    remove and replace existing structures. The work consists of
    structural concrete, reinforcing steel, embankment, hot mix
    asphalt, signing, stripping, seeding and mulching. These
    bridges are also labeled poor bridges by the Colorado
    Department of Transportation.
        The last is Highway 385 in Julesburg. Julesburg is just
    over the Nebraska border in northeastern Colorado. It is
    $880,000. This is the first town you come into when you are
    coming into Colorado in the northern part of the State.
        The funding would be used to accommodate the much-needed
    improvements along 385 south of Julesburg. The improvements
    will include surface overlay, pavement markings, guardrail
    upgrade, seeding, mulching and traffic controls. This road is a
    very heavily used ag road. It is very important for local
    agricultural producers. It has no shoulders whatsoever. Also
    the natural gas industry is very active in this area and they
    also use this a lot. So this is another and important road,
    again needed improvements for agriculture.
        The bridges, I believe, are also very, very significant. I
    think they are disasters waiting to happen.
        Thank you very much for the opportunity. I would be happy
    to answer questions.
        Mr. Olver. Thank you very much, Ms. Markey. You have really
    focused on bridges. I didn't know you had that many rivers in
    eastern Colorado. Of course, you stretch into the mountains as
    well there.
        Ms. Markey. Right.
        Mr. Olver. There toward the north.
        Ms. Markey. We have 36 structurally deficient bridges in my
    district, according to Colorado--36 total.
        Mr. Olver. And you have only hit 10, I think.
        Ms. Markey. I have hit the ones that are most heavily used
    and most in need of repair.
        Mr. Olver. Just a quickie.
        On your fourth one where you have the list of three or four
    different bridges there, what is the estimated cost of
    construction of those bridges, with the design funded here, by
    what we might do?
        Ms. Markey. About $1 million a bridge.
        Mr. Olver. $1 million a bridge. They are relatively small
    bridges.
        Ms. Markey. They are small bridges. They are small bridges.
    The rivers in Colorado are not as wide as they are in the
    eastern part of the country.
        Mr. Olver. I thought they were miles wide, like South Platt
    and the Arkansas.
        Ms. Markey. No. They are smaller bridges, but again, lots
    of traffic along these. So about $1 million a bridge, $600,000
    for the design of the four bridges.
        Mr. Olver. Virtually all of these are on U.S. highways. I
    notice most of them are on numbered U.S. highways.
        Ms. Markey. They are on U.S. highways, correct.
        Mr. Olver. Thank you very much.
        Mr. Latham.
        Mr. Latham. I really have no questions, other than to say I
    am surprised you don't have something for Brush, Colorado,
    here, because that is where my in-laws live.
        Ms. Markey. I am sure I can find something.
        Mr. Latham. I actually lived in your district going back to
    the early 1970s, and 34 years later we are still married.
        But thank you.
        Ms. Markey. Congratulations.
        Mr. Olver. Mr. Pastor.
        Mr. Pastor. No questions.
        Mr. Olver. Ms. Kilpatrick.
        Ms. Kilpatrick. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        And good morning. Nice presentation. You mentioned these
    are 5 of 30-some that need repair.
        Ms. Markey. Yes.
        Ms. Kilpatrick. Are they prioritized in terms of your ask?
        Ms. Markey. Yes, these are prioritized.
        Ms. Kilpatrick. What is the population around these
    bridges? For example, take the first three.
        Ms. Markey. The Berthoud area, that is not a bridge. That
    is a road. But that is a community of 30,000, but it is just
    outside of Denver and Boulder, which are the two major cities
    in Colorado.
        Limon has about 8,000 people in the Town of Limon, but
    again, it is a major thoroughfare for truck traffic. Limon is,
    if you are coming from Kansas into Colorado, you first hit
    Burlington and then hit Limon, so it is a major truck route
    along the east-west corridor of I-70.
        And the Big Thompson, the two bridges near Estes Park:
    Estes Park has about 11,000 people; however, it is the gateway
    into Rocky Mountain National Park, which gets well over 1
    million visitors a year. You have to go through Big Thompson
    Canyon in order to get to Rocky Mountain National Park. So that
    is heavy tourist traffic along those bridges.
        Ms. Kilpatrick. In the Colorado DOT, that is how you found
    out they are critically needed structures?
        Ms. Markey. Yes.
        Ms. Kilpatrick. I don't think we fund bridges 100 percent.
    I am trying to see if it is 80-20 or whatever, but the chairman
    or staff would know better than I.
        Are they recommending these?
        Ms. Markey. Yes, these are all supported by the Colorado
    Department of Transportation. In Colorado, we are under
    constraints of what is called the Taber amendment, so
    transportation in Colorado, we have not had any money to fund
    much-needed transportation projects in Colorado.
        Ms. Kilpatrick. Thank you very much.
        Mr. Olver. Is Rocky Mountain National Park in your
    district?
        Ms. Markey. Yes, Rocky Mountain National Park is in my
    district. Yes, it is.
        Mr. Olver. Thank you very much for your testimony.
        Ms. Markey. Thank you.
        [The information follows:]

        [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Mr. Olver. Let's see. I have Representative Watson from
    California. Representative Diane Watson.

               Opening Remarks of Representative Diane E. Watson

        Ms. Watson. Mr. Chairman and committee, I want to thank you
    for allowing me to testify before your subcommittee today on
    two top priorities for the fiscal year 2010 appropriation
    request for the 33rd Congressional District. I sincerely hope
    that today's testimony will encourage the subcommittee to fund
    these projects at their requested levels.
        The first project I request is a $250,000 appropriation for
    the Hollywood Business District Streetscape Improvement
    Project. This is one of the shovel-ready projects that we have
    been referring to.
        The Hollywood Business District is one of the many diverse
    business communities in Los Angeles that is in need of
    revitalization. Project funding would be used to repair 80
    stars and 184 squares of terrazzo on the Hollywood Walk of
    Fame. Funding would also provide for the removal of debris and
    curb repairs, which are primary activities of the restoration
    work, which includes rehabilitation of the depth and the
    anchorage of the zinc divider strips and the terrazzo topping
    of each star and square; restore concrete underlayment; and
    repair the utility vaults and service connections.
        Completion of this project would help the Hollywood
    Business District generate revenues and create jobs, as this is
    a major tourist attraction and vital to the local economy.
        My second project request is $250,000 for the Vermont Child
    Development Center Project. The entity requesting the funding
    is Para Los Ninos. Their goal is to ensure that when children
    and youth leave their educational programs, they go home to
    families that are prepared to provide a healthy, nourishing
    environment, one that is well-equipped to meet their emotional
    and developmental needs. Funding for this project would be used
    to renovate restrooms at the Vermont Child Development Center.
        These are projects that we have reviewed. I live in the
    area, and as I travel worldwide and I reference my district as
    Los Angeles, I get nice nods. But when I say Hollywood, I get
    big smiles. It is a destination of millions of people that come
    to the United States. They come directly to Hollywood thinking
    they are going to see a star on every corner. They will see a
    ``star'' in the pavement.
        So I want to thank you for the opportunity to testify
    before the committee today, and I hope that you will give
    strong consideration to my top two requests for fiscal year
    2010.
        Mr. Olver. Thank you very much.
        Now, let me just ask, the Walk of Fame, how long is the
    Walk of Fame?
        Ms. Watson. I would say that in Hollywood it would go for
    about 2 miles.
        Mr. Olver. The section you are talking about where there
    are 80 stars and 184 squares, how large are the squares of
    terrazzo?
        Ms. Watson. I would say, just off the top of my head, in
    measurements, they would be about 2 by 3.
        Mr. Olver. Two by three feet?
        Ms. Watson. Yes. Those are the terrazzo boxes that the
    stars are in.
        Mr. Olver. Is this walk two terrazzos wide or three
    terrazzos wide?
        Ms. Watson. I would say it is about four terrazzos wide.
        Mr. Olver. And a couple miles long?
        Ms. Watson. Do you know the Grauman Chinese Theater?
        Mr. Olver. I have been in Los Angeles once for a
    convention.
        Ms. Watson. It is a big attraction. This is where they put
    their hands and feet and so on in the cement, so that gives you
    some idea of where the walk is located.
        Mr. Olver. I am curious, this sounds to me like it has an
    important job creation kind of a role or business role. It is
    an economic development job.
        It is not a transportation job, is it? Is this an economic
    development initiative request under the HUD Department? Or is
    this under transportation?
        Ms. Watson. Let me just say we are building the
    transportation route down Hollywood in the Hollywood area. It
    is all part of the connections that start with downtown Los
    Angeles. The sidewalks on either side and the businesses on
    either side will thrive from the fact that we have a
    transportation system running there. They are in a catchment
    area; and years ago I carried legislation that the businesses
    will contribute to the maintenance of the Metro line that will
    go near there, and also the businesses would thrive from the
    tourism that is alongside.
        So the catchment area is very important, the transportation
    catchment area.
        Mr. Olver. Okay. Your other project, the child development
    center, is this a phased project? If I remember correctly, in
    last year's legislation there was an earmark under EDI that was
    sponsored on the Senate side by Senator Boxer and by you on the
    House side.
        Ms. Watson. Sustainability.
        Mr. Olver. Is this a continuation, a second phase in the
    same project?
        Ms. Watson. Maybe even a third phase. It is the second
    phase.
        Mr. Olver. When you say the Vermont Child Development
    Center, it is the same child development center, basically the
    second phase of development?
        Ms. Watson. It is.
        Mr. Olver. Mr. Latham.
        Mr. Latham. I have no questions, but thank you for your
    testimony.
        Mr. Olver. Mr. Pastor.
        Mr. Pastor. I just have one question. What line is this
    that is coming to Hollywood? The Red Line? Which line is it?
        Ms. Watson. I think this is the Aqua Line.
        Mr. Pastor. So going through Hollywood. Where will it
    continue?
        Ms. Watson. It will go out to the Pacific. We are hoping it
    will go all the way to the airport as well.
        Mr. Pastor. So are you under construction yet?
        Ms. Watson. Yes, we are.
        Mr. Pastor. To be completed?
        Ms. Watson. Who knows. It is year by year by year. It
    depends on the funding.
        Mr. Pastor. So this development with the terrazzo----
        Ms. Watson. Is all part of that catchment area, runway
    area, all the way out to the Pacific, to the sea, and we hope
    eventually to the airport.
        Mr. Pastor. Thank you.
        Mr. Olver. Ms. Kilpatrick.
        Ms. Kilpatrick. Mr. Chairman, I have no questions.
        Good presentation. Thank you.
        Mr. Olver. Thank you very much. You are kind to be with us
    today.
        Ms. Watson. Thank you very much. My pleasure.
        [The information follows:]

        [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                Opening Remarks of Representative Henry Cuellar

        Mr. Olver. Representative Cuellar, Representative Henry
    Cuellar from the 28th District of Texas.
        Mr. Cuellar. South Texas, yes.
        Mr. Olver. South Texas. I understand you might get two or
    three more districts in Texas----
        Mr. Cuellar. Three minimum and maybe four, but probably
    three. It has been growing very fast.
        In fact, my district is one that has grown a lot, the south
    Texas part of it, so I have to give up at least 120,000 to
    150,000 individuals, because my districts has grown a lot down
    there.
        Mr. Olver. Do you get to choose exactly which ones you are
    going to give up?
        Mr. Cuellar. We will have some sort of input. That is why I
    make it a point that I go visit. I was 14 years in the State
    legislature, and I make it a point to go visit my former
    colleagues at least every session without missing them.
        Mr. Olver. Go ahead. Your testimony will be put in the
    record so you can just proceed as you wish.
        Mr. Cuellar. Yes, sir. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, members of
    the committee. I appreciate it very much for allowing me to be
    here.
        First of all, I want to thank you. You all have been very
    generous in the past, and hopefully, you will be generous
    again. I appreciate your work and that of the committee staff.
    I know the staff does a lot of work, and I appreciate the work
    that they do.
        Mr. Chairman, my earmarks have always been very small. They
    are small. I have 12 counties, so I try to see if I can get one
    or two because of the different counties.
        The first one is just a nonprofit to a theater in Laredo.
    That is my number one request. It is $300,000. It is a theater
    that has been there for young kids for years and years and
    years and years, and it is basically helping them with
    electrical wiring and audio equipment and some rehab. It was
    put in a former Air Force base. The base was closed in 1974, so
    it is one of the buildings that was there since the Air Force
    base was built in 1945.
        The second request is a hike-and-bike pathway, and it is
    just trying to some hike-and-bike paths in that area. It is
    $300,000 also. So it is 300 and 300.
        The third one is a bus terminal for $650,000.
        Those are my top three. My number one is the theater, and
    number two is the hike-and-bike pathway.
        I have some language also, my first report language, I
    would ask you all to look at the FAA radar relocation. It is
    basically in the border area. Mr. Pastor, you are from the
    border area.
        The Feds, we were pretty good at building walls on the
    southern part of the area, billions of dollars we are talking
    about in investment. But one of the things we have been trying
    to do is have wind farms down there. The problem has arisen
    down there on the border that you have radars; and on the
    radars down there, we have been trying to work with the FAA to
    help them relocate one of the radars.
        For example, in my district we are trying to put a $2
    billion investment in a wind farm, but the FAA has got in the
    way saying, We have got a radar and we want to make sure we
    catch the airplanes coming in.
        So we are asking them, because apparently it is going to
    cause problems in other parts of the border area, and it is one
    of those things that I know can be worked out, where you can
    relocate the radars and still not affect a $2 billion
    investment in my area. So we are asking you to look at that
    language itself.
        The other things are just basically high-speed rails and
    transportation infrastructure for the ports of entry, just
    report language. But my main one is that FAA relocation,
    because it has been a problem, because the Feds have been good
    at putting a border wall, but now that we are trying to put a
    $2 billion investment, they have been giving us a hard time.
        I am on the Homeland Security Committee, and we were able
    to put $10 million for the radar relocation, but FAA still
    gives us a difficult time. So I would ask for your assistance
    on that.
        That is it, Chairman. I don't want to take up your time,
    members of the committee. And I appreciate your help.
        Mr. Olver. Thank you. Your district reaches into San
    Antonio?
        Mr. Cuellar. Yes, sir.
        Mr. Olver. Do you have some of the city of San Antonio, or
    do you have just the suburbs?
        Mr. Cuellar. I have the suburbs. I have Randolph Air Force
    Base in northeast San Antonio, and I go from San Antonio down
    to Laredo, my hometown.
        Mr. Olver. Laredo is your largest city?
        Mr. Cuellar. Yes.
        Mr. Olver. How large is Laredo?
        Mr. Cuellar. Probably right now it is about 225,000 or
    more.
        Mr. Olver. And growing?
        Mr. Cuellar. And growing.
        Mr. Olver. The theater you mentioned is in Laredo?
        Mr. Cuellar. In Laredo.
        Mr. Olver. And the park and ride, or what was the term you
    used for that?
        Mr. Cuellar. That is a park in Laredo.
        Mr. Olver. That is in Laredo.
        Mr. Cuellar. 14,500 is the population I represent in
    Northeast San Antonio, which is mainly the Randolph Air Force
    Base. The largest block of population is Laredo. Roma is down
    there in the southern part of the district.
        Mr. Olver. Roma is where you were asking for the assistance
    with a bus terminal?
        Mr. Cuellar. That is correct.
        Mr. Olver. That is in the Laredo area?
        Mr. Cuellar. No, it is not.
        Mr. Olver. Where is Roma then?
        Mr. Cuellar. Roma is about 90 miles south of Laredo.
        Mr. Olver. South of Laredo. Oh, I see. Toward McAllen.
    Somebody, knowing that I love maps, has provided me with maps.
    Sometimes I can't follow quickly enough.
        Tell me where the radar--you are asking for language in
    relation to that. I have not looked at it yet.
        Mr. Cuellar. The radar is between Webb County, my hometown,
    Jim Hogg, and Zapata. Basically, that area covers three
    counties. There is an investment of $2 billion to put a wind
    farm, but the problem has been----
        Mr. Olver. Is this a Pickens investment?
        Mr. Cuellar. No, it is not.
        Mr. Olver. This is the State of Texas?
        Mr. Cuellar. No, it is not. It is actually some folks from
    the Corpus Christi area. It has nothing to do with wind farms
    on the coast. This has to do with three counties that are in my
    district. We have been working at it for a while. They are
    talking about putting $2 billion. That is a huge investment
    that would really transform those small counties--Zapata, Jim
    Hogg and part of Webb County. It covers those three areas.
        Basically, they have had a radar there for years. And like
    I said, we got some money from Homeland, $10 million, and now
    FAA is saying, Oh, it probably is more than $10 million.
        It is almost one of those things where they are coming up
    with excuse after excuse. First, it was the money. Here is the
    money. Now they are saying, Oh, we have to look at it, because
    we don't want a mistake with something that has a propeller.
    And I said, Well, propellers are the ones that kind of move on
    airplanes, and a windmill is one that stands stationary. So I
    think we can work that out.
        But, nevertheless, they are saying they have a problem.
    They keep saying they are going to work it out. But here we
    are.
        It is a poor area, an extremely poor area of the country,
    and we are trying to work with the FAA. I can understand border
    security, because I am on Homeland and am from the Laredo
    border area. But at the same time I am sure we can relocate
    radars in such a way that it won't affect us or the windmills
    in such a way that they won't affect a balance between an
    investment and border security.
        Mr. Olver. This must be a wind farm that is somewhere
    between 500 and 1,000 wind turbines?
        Mr. Cuellar. Right. Forty have been authorized already, but
    the main part of it hasn't been authorized.
        Texas, as you know, is the number one State in wind farms,
    mainly in West Texas. But now we have a wind corridor in my
    district and we are talking about investing, like I said, $2
    billion. But we have had this trouble with the FAA.
        I wish we could sit down. I have sat with them in Homeland
    so many times. Now they are saying, We are waiting for the new
    administrator. It is impeding our $2 billion, and for South
    Texas and the border area, $2 billion is a lot of money. I
    guess that would be anywhere else.
        Mr. Olver. In my district we have had 2 years of delays on
    one turbine, maybe two, somewhere within 5 miles of a very
    small-capacity airport. So the FAA does have problems.
        Mr. Latham.
        Mr. Latham. I would just ask whether you want to move it,
    or is it to get a different type of radar?
        I had a similar problem in my district. They were building
    a natural-gas-powered electrical generation plant and the
    chimneys were going to affect the radar. Basically, we just had
    to go to a modified Doppler system and that took care of the
    problem.
        Is it movement or is it the type of radar?
        Mr. Cuellar. We are open, because the same experts that FAA
    uses are the same experts that the folks are using from the
    Corpus Christi area. They are saying, Look, we can move them,
    we can adjust the height, we can do whatever you want us to do.
    Just work with us on that.
        They did authorize 40 of them. But this is a much bigger
    project than just 40. It is huge. And it is either adjustment
    of the radar--and by the way, without getting into too much
    detail, the lease has expired; and now that the lease has
    expired, FAA says we are going to condemn or use eminent
    domain. It is like they are using every way they can. And we
    are saying, Look, we are using the same experts that FAA uses;
    we will work with you in any way you want to, either move them
    up and down, move the radar.
        If they talked about moving the radar, Homeland came up
    with $10 million. Now FAA says, Oh, that is not enough. Every
    time we come up with something, they come up with a reason.
        It is an issue that I can understand. I can understand. But
    it is something that--I always say there is always a solution;
    there is always a way to try to figure it out. But trying to
    get some of our bureaucratic friends up here, it can be
    difficult.
        Mr. Latham. What does the report language say? What do you
    want them to do?
        Mr. Cuellar. Basically we wanted them to sit down and come
    up with a solution. It is kind of like put them in a locked
    room, close the door and get them to come up with a solution.
    Their own experts and our own experts, my constituents are
    saying, it can be done, but FAA just keeps saying no, no, no.
        Mr. Latham. Thank you very much.
        Mr. Olver. Mr. Pastor.
        Mr. Pastor. No questions.
        Mr. Olver. Well, thank you very much then for your
    testimony and for being with us today.
        Mr. Cuellar. I appreciate it.
        I know there are not too many members here, but I certainly
    am one of those that I feel is giving us an opportunity. I sat
    10 years in the house appropriations in Texas, and we always
    gave this opportunity. Just giving Members an opportunity to
    sit down means a lot. I wish more Members would take advantage.
    It means a lot to me.
        Mr. Olver. You were the fourth. The others had just left as
    you came in, had gone as they finished their testimony.
        Mr. Cuellar. Thank you very much.
        [The information follows:]

        [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Mr. Olver. Thank you. Have a good day.
        The hearing is closed.

        [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                               W I T N E S S E S

                                  ----------
                                                                       Page
    Anthes, R. A.....................................................   269
    Bernstine, Nancy.................................................   245
    Boozman, Hon. John...............................................   163
    Bordallo, Hon. M. Z..............................................   191
    Capon, R. B......................................................   278
    Cook, Kristina...................................................   204
    Crunican, Grace..................................................   103
    Cuellar, Hon. Henry..............................................   163
    Donovan, Hon. Shaun.............................................. 1, 39
    Friend, P. A.....................................................   229
    Hannig, Gary.....................................................   208
    Howard, Bryan....................................................   215
    LaHood, Hon. Ray.................................................    39
    Leary, M. A......................................................   103
    Lofye, Andrea....................................................   226
    Markey, Hon. Betsy...............................................   163
    McNickle, Larry..................................................   282
    Millar, W. M.....................................................   259
    Monks, Janice....................................................   282
    Mumford, Dr. G. K................................................   254
    Narvaiz, Susan...................................................   249
    Norquist, J. O...................................................   103
    Olson, Hon. Pete.................................................   193
    Puentes, Robert..................................................   103
    Tsoodle, Chuck...................................................   217
    Tulipane, Barbara................................................   252
    Watson, Hon. D. E................................................   163
    Wilson, Hon. Joe.................................................   195

                                   I N D E X

                                  ----------

                  DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT

                                                                       Page
        API Community................................................    24
        Auction Prices...............................................    29
        CDBG.........................................................    16
        Choice Neighborhood Initiative

    American Public Transportation Association                   259
    American Society of Civil Engineers                      199
    Capital Metropolitan Transportation Authority, Austin, Texas 226
    City of San Marcos, Texas                                    249
    Coalition of Northeastern Governors                          265
    Illinois Department of Transportation                        208
    National Affordable Housing Management Association           204
    National AIDS Housing Coalition                              245
    National Association of Railroad Passengers                  278
    National Recreation and Park Association                     252
    Oklahoma Tribal Transportation Council, Inc.                 217
    Town of Lexington, South Carolina                            222
    University Corporation for Atmospheric Research              269
    U.S. Green Building Council                                  215
    American Public Transportation Association                   259
    American Society of Civil Engineers                          199
    Capital Metropolitan Transportation Authority, Austin, Texas 226
    City of San Marcos, Texas                                    249
    Coalition of Northeastern Governors                          265
    Illinois Department of Transportation                        208
    National Affordable Housing Management Association           204
    National AIDS Housing Coalition                              245
    National Association of Railroad Passengers                  278
    National Recreation and Park Association                     252
    Oklahoma Tribal Transportation Council, Inc.                 217
    Town of Lexington, South Carolina                            222
    University Corporation for Atmospheric Research              269
    U.S. Green Building Council                                  215
    American Psychological Association                           254
    American Public Transportation Association                   259
    American Society of Civil Engineers                          199
    Capital Metropolitan Transportation Authority, Austin, Texas 226
    City of San Marcos, Texas                                    249
    Coalition of Northeastern Governors                          265
    Illinois Department of Transportation                        208
    National Affordable Housing Management Association           204
    National AIDS Housing Coalition                              245
    National Association of Railroad Passengers                  278
    National Recreation and Park Association                     252
    Oklahoma Tribal Transportation Council, Inc.                 217
    Town of Lexington, South Carolina                            222
    University Corporation for Atmospheric Research              269
    U.S. Green Building Council                                  215

    �08

    Attendant_CWA, AFL�09CIO                 229
    Air Line Pilots Association, International                   273
    American Association of Service Coordinators                 282
    American Psychological Association                           254
    American Public Transportation Association                   259
    American Society of Civil Engineers                          199
    Capital Metropolitan Transportation Authority, Austin, Texas 226
    City of San Marcos, Texas                                    249
    Coalition of Northeastern Governors                          265
    Illinois Department of Transportation                        208
    National Affordable Housing Management Association           204
    National AIDS Housing Coalition                              245
    National Association of Railroad Passengers                  278
    National Recreation and Park Association                     252
    Oklahoma Tribal Transportation Council, Inc.                 217
    Town of Lexington, South Carolina                            222
    University Corporation for Atmospheric Research              269
    U.S. Green Building Council                                  215

    �08

    Transportation Association                   259
    American Society of Civil Engineers                          199
    Capital Metropolitan Transportation Authority, Austin, Texas 226
    City of San Marcos, Texas                                    249
    Coalition of Northeastern Governors                          265
    Illinois Department of Transportation                        208
    National Affordable Housing Management Association           204
    National AIDS Housing Coalition                              245
    National Association of Railroad Passengers                  278
    National Recreation and Park Association                     252
    Oklahoma Tribal Transportation Council, Inc.                 217
    Town of Lexington, South Carolina                            222
    University Corporation for Atmospheric Research              269
    U.S. Green Building Council                                  215

    �08

                       254
    American Public Transportation Association                   259
    American Society of Civil Engineers                          199
    Capital Metropolitan Transportation Authority, Austin, Texas 226
    City of San Marcos, Texas                                    249
    Coalition of Northeastern Governors                          265
    Illinois Department of Transportation                        208
    National Affordable Housing Management Association           204
    National AIDS Housing Coalition                              245
    National Association of Railroad Passengers                  278
    National Recreation and Park Association                     252
    Oklahoma Tribal Transportation Council, Inc.                 217
    Town of Lexington, South Carolina                            222
    University Corporation for Atmospheric Research              269
    U.S. Green Building Council                                  215

    �08

        Differences with CBO.........................................    14
        Foreclosures.................................................    37
        Freddie and Fannie...........................................    38
        HHS/HUD Partnership..........................................    23
        HOPE VI

    American Public Transportation Association                   259
    American Society of Civil Engineers                          199
    Capital Metropolitan Transportation Authority, Austin, Texas 226
    City of San Marcos, Texas                                    249
    Coalition of Northeastern Governors                          265
    Illinois Department of Transportation                        208
    National Affordable Housing Management Association           204
    National AIDS Housing Coalition                              245
    National Association of Railroad Passengers                  278
    National Recreation and Park Association                     252
    Oklahoma Tribal Transportation Council, Inc.                 217
    Town of Lexington, South Carolina                            222
    University Corporation for Atmospheric Research              269
    U.S. Green Building Council                                  215

    �08

    ssociation                   259
    American Society of Civil Engineers                          199
    Capital Metropolitan Transportation Authority, Austin, Texas 226
    City of San Marcos, Texas                                    249
    Coalition of Northeastern Governors                          265
    Illinois Department of Transportation                        208
    National Affordable Housing Management Association           204
    National AIDS Housing Coalition                              245
    National Association of Railroad Passengers                  278
    National Recreation and Park Association                     252
    Oklahoma Tribal Transportation Council, Inc.                 217
    Town of Lexington, South Carolina                            222
    University Corporation for Atmospheric Research              269
    U.S. Green Building Council                                  215

    �08

             282
    American Psychological Association                           254
    American Public Transportation Association                   259
    American Society of Civil Engineers                          199
    Capital Metropolitan Transportation Authority, Austin, Texas 226
    City of San Marcos, Texas                                    249
    Coalition of Northeastern Governors                          265
    Illinois Department of Transportation                        208
    National Affordable Housing Management Association           204
    National AIDS Housing Coalition                              245
    National Association of Railroad Passengers                  278
    National Recreation and Park Association                     252
    Oklahoma Tribal Transportation Council, Inc.                 217
    Town of Lexington, South Carolina                            222
    University Corporation for Atmospheric Research              269
    U.S. Green Building Council                                  215

    �08

    Attendant_CWA, AFL�09CIO                 229
    Air Line Pilots Association, International                   273
    American Association of Service Coordinators                 282
    American Psychological Association                           254
    American Public Transportation Association                   259
    American Society of Civil Engineers                          199
    Capital Metropolitan Transportation Authority, Austin, Texas 226
    City of San Marcos, Texas                                    249
    Coalition of Northeastern Governors                          265
    Illinois Department of Transportation                        208
    National Affordable Housing Management Association           204
    National AIDS Housing Coalition                              245
    National Association of Railroad Passengers                  278
    National Recreation and Park Association                     252
    Oklahoma Tribal Transportation Council, Inc.                 217
    Town of Lexington, South Carolina                            222
    University Corporation for Atmospheric Research              269
    U.S. Green Building Council                                  215

    �08

    Transportation Association                   259
    American Society of Civil Engineers                          199
    Capital Metropolitan Transportation Authority, Austin, Texas 226
    City of San Marcos, Texas                                    249
    Coalition of Northeastern Governors                          265
    Illinois Department of Transportation                        208
    National Affordable Housing Management Association           204
    National AIDS Housing Coalition                              245
    National Association of Railroad Passengers                  278
    National Recreation and Park Association                     252
    Oklahoma Tribal Transportation Council, Inc.                 217
    Town of Lexington, South Carolina                            222
    University Corporation for Atmospheric Research              269
    U.S. Green Building Council                                  215

    �08

    ssociation                   259
    American Society of Civil Engineers                          199
    Capital Metropolitan Transportation Authority, Austin, Texas 226
    City of San Marcos, Texas                                    249
    Coalition of Northeastern Governors                          265
    Illinois Department of Transportation                        208
    National Affordable Housing Management Association           204
    National AIDS Housing Coalition                              245
    National Association of Railroad Passengers                  278
    National Recreation and Park Association                     252
    Oklahoma Tribal Transportation Council, Inc.                 217
    Town of Lexington, South Carolina                            222
    University Corporation for Atmospheric Research              269
    U.S. Green Building Council                                  215

    �08

        HOPWA........................................................    36
        HUD's Rural Role.............................................    33
        Hurricanes...................................................    22
        Inspector General............................................    11
        Livability Grants............................................    32
        Livable Communities

    Transportation Association                   259
    American Society of Civil Engineers                          199
    Capital Metropolitan Transportation Authority, Austin, Texas 226
    City of San Marcos, Texas                                    249
    Coalition of Northeastern Governors                          265
    Illinois Department of Transportation                        208
    National Affordable Housing Management Association           204
    National AIDS Housing Coalition                              245
    National Association of Railroad Passengers                  278
    National Recreation and Park Association                     252
    Oklahoma Tribal Transportation Council, Inc.                 217
    Town of Lexington, South Carolina                            222
    University Corporation for Atmospheric Research              269
    U.S. Green Building Council                                  215

    �08

    American Public Transportation Association                   259
    American Society of Civil Engineers                          199
    Capital Metropolitan Transportation Authority, Austin, Texas 226
    City of San Marcos, Texas                                    249
    Coalition of Northeastern Governors                          265
    Illinois Department of Transportation                        208
    National Affordable Housing Management Association           204
    National AIDS Housing Coalition                              245
    National Association of Railroad Passengers                  278
    National Recreation and Park Association                     252
    Oklahoma Tribal Transportation Council, Inc.                 217
    Town of Lexington, South Carolina                            222
    University Corporation for Atmospheric Research              269
    U.S. Green Building Council                                  215

    �08

             282
    American Psychological Association                           254
    American Public Transportation Association                   259
    American Society of Civil Engineers                          199
    Capital Metropolitan Transportation Authority, Austin, Texas 226
    City of San Marcos, Texas                                    249
    Coalition of Northeastern Governors                          265
    Illinois Department of Transportation                        208
    National Affordable Housing Management Association           204
    National AIDS Housing Coalition                              245
    National Association of Railroad Passengers                  278
    National Recreation and Park Association                     252
    Oklahoma Tribal Transportation Council, Inc.                 217
    Town of Lexington, South Carolina                            222
    University Corporation for Atmospheric Research              269
    U.S. Green Building Council                                  215

    �08

    Attendant_CWA, AFL�09CIO                 229
    Air Line Pilots Association, International                   273
    American Association of Service Coordinators                 282
    American Psychological Association                           254
    American Public Transportation Association                   259
    American Society of Civil Engineers                          199
    Capital Metropolitan Transportation Authority, Austin, Texas 226
    City of San Marcos, Texas                                    249
    Coalition of Northeastern Governors                          265
    Illinois Department of Transportation                        208
    National Affordable Housing Management Association           204
    National AIDS Housing Coalition                              245
    National Association of Railroad Passengers                  278
    National Recreation and Park Association                     252
    Oklahoma Tribal Transportation Council, Inc.                 217
    Town of Lexington, South Carolina                            222
    University Corporation for Atmospheric Research              269
    U.S. Green Building Council                                  215

    �08

    Transportation Association                   259
    American Society of Civil Engineers                          199
    Capital Metropolitan Transportation Authority, Austin, Texas 226
    City of San Marcos, Texas                                    249
    Coalition of Northeastern Governors                          265
    Illinois Department of Transportation                        208
    National Affordable Housing Management Association           204
    National AIDS Housing Coalition                              245
    National Association of Railroad Passengers                  278
    National Recreation and Park Association                     252
    Oklahoma Tribal Transportation Council, Inc.                 217
    Town of Lexington, South Carolina                            222
    University Corporation for Atmospheric Research              269
    U.S. Green Building Council                                  215

    �08

                 259
    American Society of Civil Engineers                          199
    Capital Metropolitan Transportation Authority, Austin, Texas 226
    City of San Marcos, Texas                                    249
    Coalition of Northeastern Governors                          265
    Illinois Department of Transportation                        208
    National Affordable Housing Management Association           204
    National AIDS Housing Coalition                              245
    National Association of Railroad Passengers                  278
    National Recreation and Park Association                     252
    Oklahoma Tribal Transportation Council, Inc.                 217
    Town of Lexington, South Carolina                            222
    University Corporation for Atmospheric Research              269
    U.S. Green Building Council                                  215

    �08

        Local Match..................................................    21
        Making Home Affordable Plan..................................    28
        Methodology..................................................    14
        Neighborhood Stabilization Program...........................    19
        NOFAs........................................................    13
        Opening Remarks, Chairman John W. Olver......................     1
        Opening Remarks, Ranking Member Tom Latham...................     2
        Opening Statement, Hon. Shaun Donovan, Secretary of HUD......     3
        Overruns.....................................................    18
        Priorities...................................................    34
        Resources/Needs..............................................    18
        Schools......................................................    21
        Section 8 Housing

       254
    American Public Transportation Association                   259
    American Society of Civil Engineers                          199
    Capital Metropolitan Transportation Authority, Austin, Texas 226
    City of San Marcos, Texas                                    249
    Coalition of Northeastern Governors                          265
    Illinois Department of Transportation                        208
    National Affordable Housing Management Association           204
    National AIDS Housing Coalition                              245
    National Association of Railroad Passengers                  278
    National Recreation and Park Association                     252
    Oklahoma Tribal Transportation Council, Inc.                 217
    Town of Lexington, South Carolina                            222
    University Corporation for Atmospheric Research              269
    U.S. Green Building Council                                  215

    �08

                       254
    American Public Transportation Association                   259
    American Society of Civil Engineers                          199
    Capital Metropolitan Transportation Authority, Austin, Texas 226
    City of San Marcos, Texas                                    249
    Coalition of Northeastern Governors                          265
    Illinois Department of Transportation                        208
    National Affordable Housing Management Association           204
    National AIDS Housing Coalition                              245
    National Association of Railroad Passengers                  278
    National Recreation and Park Association                     252
    Oklahoma Tribal Transportation Council, Inc.                 217
    Town of Lexington, South Carolina                            222
    University Corporation for Atmospheric Research              269
    U.S. Green Building Council                                  215

    �08

             282
    American Psychological Association                           254
    American Public Transportation Association                   259
    American Society of Civil Engineers                          199
    Capital Metropolitan Transportation Authority, Austin, Texas 226
    City of San Marcos, Texas                                    249
    Coalition of Northeastern Governors                          265
    Illinois Department of Transportation                        208
    National Affordable Housing Management Association           204
    National AIDS Housing Coalition                              245
    National Association of Railroad Passengers                  278
    National Recreation and Park Association                     252
    Oklahoma Tribal Transportation Council, Inc.                 217
    Town of Lexington, South Carolina                            222
    University Corporation for Atmospheric Research              269
    U.S. Green Building Council                                  215

    �08

    Attendant_CWA, AFL�09CIO                 229
    Air Line Pilots Association, International                   273
    American Association of Service Coordinators                 282
    American Psychological Association                           254
    American Public Transportation Association                   259
    American Society of Civil Engineers                          199
    Capital Metropolitan Transportation Authority, Austin, Texas 226
    City of San Marcos, Texas                                    249
    Coalition of Northeastern Governors                          265
    Illinois Department of Transportation                        208
    National Affordable Housing Management Association           204
    National AIDS Housing Coalition                              245
    National Association of Railroad Passengers                  278
    National Recreation and Park Association                     252
    Oklahoma Tribal Transportation Council, Inc.                 217
    Town of Lexington, South Carolina                            222
    University Corporation for Atmospheric Research              269
    U.S. Green Building Council                                  215

    �08

       254
    American Public Transportation Association                   259
    American Society of Civil Engineers                          199
    Capital Metropolitan Transportation Authority, Austin, Texas 226
    City of San Marcos, Texas                                    249
    Coalition of Northeastern Governors                          265
    Illinois Department of Transportation                        208
    National Affordable Housing Management Association           204
    National AIDS Housing Coalition                              245
    National Association of Railroad Passengers                  278
    National Recreation and Park Association                     252
    Oklahoma Tribal Transportation Council, Inc.                 217
    Town of Lexington, South Carolina                            222
    University Corporation for Atmospheric Research              269
    U.S. Green Building Council                                  215

    �08

    Transportation Association                   259
    American Society of Civil Engineers                          199
    Capital Metropolitan Transportation Authority, Austin, Texas 226
    City of San Marcos, Texas                                    249
    Coalition of Northeastern Governors                          265
    Illinois Department of Transportation                        208
    National Affordable Housing Management Association           204
    National AIDS Housing Coalition                              245
    National Association of Railroad Passengers                  278
    National Recreation and Park Association                     252
    Oklahoma Tribal Transportation Council, Inc.                 217
    Town of Lexington, South Carolina                            222
    University Corporation for Atmospheric Research              269
    U.S. Green Building Council                                  215

    �08

             282
    American Psychological Association                           254
    American Public Transportation Association                   259
    American Society of Civil Engineers                          199
    Capital Metropolitan Transportation Authority, Austin, Texas 226
    City of San Marcos, Texas                                    249
    Coalition of Northeastern Governors                          265
    Illinois Department of Transportation                        208
    National Affordable Housing Management Association           204
    National AIDS Housing Coalition                              245
    National Association of Railroad Passengers                  278
    National Recreation and Park Association                     252
    Oklahoma Tribal Transportation Council, Inc.                 217
    Town of Lexington, South Carolina                            222
    University Corporation for Atmospheric Research              269
    U.S. Green Building Council                                  215

    �08

    Attendant_CWA, AFL�09CIO                 229
    Air Line Pilots Association, International                   273
    American Association of Service Coordinators                 282
    American Psychological Association                           254
    American Public Transportation Association                   259
    American Society of Civil Engineers                          199
    Capital Metropolitan Transportation Authority, Austin, Texas 226
    City of San Marcos, Texas                                    249
    Coalition of Northeastern Governors                          265
    Illinois Department of Transportation                        208
    National Affordable Housing Management Association           204
    National AIDS Housing Coalition                              245
    National Association of Railroad Passengers                  278
    National Recreation and Park Association                     252
    Oklahoma Tribal Transportation Council, Inc.                 217
    Town of Lexington, South Carolina                            222
    University Corporation for Atmospheric Research              269
    U.S. Green Building Council                                  215

    �08

    American Public Transportation Association                   259
    American Society of Civil Engineers                          199
    Capital Metropolitan Transportation Authority, Austin, Texas 226
    City of San Marcos, Texas                                    249
    Coalition of Northeastern Governors                          265
    Illinois Department of Transportation                        208
    National Affordable Housing Management Association           204
    National AIDS Housing Coalition                              245
    National Association of Railroad Passengers                  278
    National Recreation and Park Association                     252
    Oklahoma Tribal Transportation Council, Inc.                 217
    Town of Lexington, South Carolina                            222
    University Corporation for Atmospheric Research              269
    U.S. Green Building Council                                  215

    �08

    American Public Transportation Association                   259
    American Society of Civil Engineers                          199
    Capital Metropolitan Transportation Authority, Austin, Texas 226
    City of San Marcos, Texas                                    249
    Coalition of Northeastern Governors                          265
    Illinois Department of Transportation                        208
    National Affordable Housing Management Association           204
    National AIDS Housing Coalition                              245
    National Association of Railroad Passengers                  278
    National Recreation and Park Association                     252
    Oklahoma Tribal Transportation Council, Inc.                 217
    Town of Lexington, South Carolina                            222
    University Corporation for Atmospheric Research              269
    U.S. Green Building Council                                  215

    �08

             282
    American Psychological Association                           254
    American Public Transportation Association                   259
    American Society of Civil Engineers                          199
    Capital Metropolitan Transportation Authority, Austin, Texas 226
    City of San Marcos, Texas                                    249
    Coalition of Northeastern Governors                          265
    Illinois Department of Transportation                        208
    National Affordable Housing Management Association           204
    National AIDS Housing Coalition                              245
    National Association of Railroad Passengers                  278
    National Recreation and Park Association                     252
    Oklahoma Tribal Transportation Council, Inc.                 217
    Town of Lexington, South Carolina                            222
    University Corporation for Atmospheric Research              269
    U.S. Green Building Council                                  215

    �08

    Attendant_CWA, AFL�09CIO                 229
    Air Line Pilots Association, International                   273
    American Association of Service Coordinators                 282
    American Psychological Association                           254
    American Public Transportation Association                   259
    American Society of Civil Engineers                          199
    Capital Metropolitan Transportation Authority, Austin, Texas 226
    City of San Marcos, Texas                                    249
    Coalition of Northeastern Governors                          265
    Illinois Department of Transportation                        208
    National Affordable Housing Management Association           204
    National AIDS Housing Coalition                              245
    National Association of Railroad Passengers                  278
    National Recreation and Park Association                     252
    Oklahoma Tribal Transportation Council, Inc.                 217
    Town of Lexington, South Carolina                            222
    University Corporation for Atmospheric Research              269
    U.S. Green Building Council                                  215

    �08

    Transportation Association                   259
    American Society of Civil Engineers                          199
    Capital Metropolitan Transportation Authority, Austin, Texas 226
    City of San Marcos, Texas                                    249
    Coalition of Northeastern Governors                          265
    Illinois Department of Transportation                        208
    National Affordable Housing Management Association           204
    National AIDS Housing Coalition                              245
    National Association of Railroad Passengers                  278
    National Recreation and Park Association                     252
    Oklahoma Tribal Transportation Council, Inc.                 217
    Town of Lexington, South Carolina                            222
    University Corporation for Atmospheric Research              269
    U.S. Green Building Council                                  215

    �08

                 259
    American Society of Civil Engineers                          199
    Capital Metropolitan Transportation Authority, Austin, Texas 226
    City of San Marcos, Texas                                    249
    Coalition of Northeastern Governors                          265
    Illinois Department of Transportation                        208
    National Affordable Housing Management Association           204
    National AIDS Housing Coalition                              245
    National Association of Railroad Passengers                  278
    National Recreation and Park Association                     252
    Oklahoma Tribal Transportation Council, Inc.                 217
    Town of Lexington, South Carolina                            222
    University Corporation for Atmospheric Research              269
    U.S. Green Building Council                                  215

    �08

        Sustainable Communities

       254
    American Public Transportation Association                   259
    American Society of Civil Engineers                          199
    Capital Metropolitan Transportation Authority, Austin, Texas 226
    City of San Marcos, Texas                                    249
    Coalition of Northeastern Governors                          265
    Illinois Department of Transportation                        208
    National Affordable Housing Management Association           204
    National AIDS Housing Coalition                              245
    National Association of Railroad Passengers                  278
    National Recreation and Park Association                     252
    Oklahoma Tribal Transportation Council, Inc.                 217
    Town of Lexington, South Carolina                            222
    University Corporation for Atmospheric Research              269
    U.S. Green Building Council                                  215

    �08

    American Public Transportation Association                   259
    American Society of Civil Engineers                          199
    Capital Metropolitan Transportation Authority, Austin, Texas 226
    City of San Marcos, Texas                                    249
    Coalition of Northeastern Governors                          265
    Illinois Department of Transportation                        208
    National Affordable Housing Management Association           204
    National AIDS Housing Coalition                              245
    National Association of Railroad Passengers                  278
    National Recreation and Park Association                     252
    Oklahoma Tribal Transportation Council, Inc.                 217
    Town of Lexington, South Carolina                            222
    University Corporation for Atmospheric Research              269
    U.S. Green Building Council                                  215

    �08

             282
    American Psychological Association                           254
    American Public Transportation Association                   259
    American Society of Civil Engineers                          199
    Capital Metropolitan Transportation Authority, Austin, Texas 226
    City of San Marcos, Texas                                    249
    Coalition of Northeastern Governors                          265
    Illinois Department of Transportation                        208
    National Affordable Housing Management Association           204
    National AIDS Housing Coalition                              245
    National Association of Railroad Passengers                  278
    National Recreation and Park Association                     252
    Oklahoma Tribal Transportation Council, Inc.                 217
    Town of Lexington, South Carolina                            222
    University Corporation for Atmospheric Research              269
    U.S. Green Building Council                                  215

    �08

    Attendant_CWA, AFL�09CIO                 229
    Air Line Pilots Association, International                   273
    American Association of Service Coordinators                 282
    American Psychological Association                           254
    American Public Transportation Association                   259
    American Society of Civil Engineers                          199
    Capital Metropolitan Transportation Authority, Austin, Texas 226
    City of San Marcos, Texas                                    249
    Coalition of Northeastern Governors                          265
    Illinois Department of Transportation                        208
    National Affordable Housing Management Association           204
    National AIDS Housing Coalition                              245
    National Association of Railroad Passengers                  278
    National Recreation and Park Association                     252
    Oklahoma Tribal Transportation Council, Inc.                 217
    Town of Lexington, South Carolina                            222
    University Corporation for Atmospheric Research              269
    U.S. Green Building Council                                  215

    �08

       254
    American Public Transportation Association                   259
    American Society of Civil Engineers                          199
    Capital Metropolitan Transportation Authority, Austin, Texas 226
    City of San Marcos, Texas                                    249
    Coalition of Northeastern Governors                          265
    Illinois Department of Transportation                        208
    National Affordable Housing Management Association           204
    National AIDS Housing Coalition                              245
    National Association of Railroad Passengers                  278
    National Recreation and Park Association                     252
    Oklahoma Tribal Transportation Council, Inc.                 217
    Town of Lexington, South Carolina                            222
    University Corporation for Atmospheric Research              269
    U.S. Green Building Council                                  215

    �08

    Transportation Association                   259
    American Society of Civil Engineers                          199
    Capital Metropolitan Transportation Authority, Austin, Texas 226
    City of San Marcos, Texas                                    249
    Coalition of Northeastern Governors                          265
    Illinois Department of Transportation                        208
    National Affordable Housing Management Association           204
    National AIDS Housing Coalition                              245
    National Association of Railroad Passengers                  278
    National Recreation and Park Association                     252
    Oklahoma Tribal Transportation Council, Inc.                 217
    Town of Lexington, South Carolina                            222
    University Corporation for Atmospheric Research              269
    U.S. Green Building Council                                  215

    �08

        Taxes........................................................    15
        USDA.........................................................    33
        Working Capital Fund.........................................    34
        Written Statement, Hon. Shaun Donovan, Secretary of HUD......     6

     LIVABLE COMMUNITIES, TRANSIT-ORIENTED DEVELOPMENT, AND INCORPORATING
    GREEN BUILDING PRACTICES INTO FEDERAL HOUSING AND TRANSPORTATION POLICY

        Affordable Housing...........................................    82
        Better Coordination of Transportation and Housing Programs...    51
        Develop New Transit Options..................................    82
        DOT/HUD Task Force...........................................    42
        Eligibility for Transit Funding..............................    85
        Federal Funding Allocations..................................    83
        Funding for Sustainable Communities Initiative...............    73
        Gas Tax......................................................    72
        High Speed Rail..............................................    77
        Highway Trust Fund...........................................    76
        Hope VI......................................................    84
        Livable Communities

    ssociation                   259
    American Society of Civil Engineers                          199
    Capital Metropolitan Transportation Authority, Austin, Texas 226
    City of San Marcos, Texas                                    249
    Coalition of Northeastern Governors                          265
    Illinois Department of Transportation                        208
    National Affordable Housing Management Association           204
    National AIDS Housing Coalition                              245
    National Association of Railroad Passengers                  278
    National Recreation and Park Association                     252
    Oklahoma Tribal Transportation Council, Inc.                 217
    Town of Lexington, South Carolina                            222
    University Corporation for Atmospheric Research              269
    U.S. Green Building Council                                  215

    �08

    American Public Transportation Association                   259
    American Society of Civil Engineers                          199
    Capital Metropolitan Transportation Authority, Austin, Texas 226
    City of San Marcos, Texas                                    249
    Coalition of Northeastern Governors                          265
    Illinois Department of Transportation                        208
    National Affordable Housing Management Association           204
    National AIDS Housing Coalition                              245
    National Association of Railroad Passengers                  278
    National Recreation and Park Association                     252
    Oklahoma Tribal Transportation Council, Inc.                 217
    Town of Lexington, South Carolina                            222
    University Corporation for Atmospheric Research              269
    U.S. Green Building Council                                  215

    �08

             282
    American Psychological Association                           254
    American Public Transportation Association                   259
    American Society of Civil Engineers                          199
    Capital Metropolitan Transportation Authority, Austin, Texas 226
    City of San Marcos, Texas                                    249
    Coalition of Northeastern Governors                          265
    Illinois Department of Transportation                        208
    National Affordable Housing Management Association           204
    National AIDS Housing Coalition                              245
    National Association of Railroad Passengers                  278
    National Recreation and Park Association                     252
    Oklahoma Tribal Transportation Council, Inc.                 217
    Town of Lexington, South Carolina                            222
    University Corporation for Atmospheric Research              269
    U.S. Green Building Council                                  215

    �08

    Attendant_CWA, AFL�09CIO                 229
    Air Line Pilots Association, International                   273
    American Association of Service Coordinators                 282
    American Psychological Association                           254
    American Public Transportation Association                   259
    American Society of Civil Engineers                          199
    Capital Metropolitan Transportation Authority, Austin, Texas 226
    City of San Marcos, Texas                                    249
    Coalition of Northeastern Governors                          265
    Illinois Department of Transportation                        208
    National Affordable Housing Management Association           204
    National AIDS Housing Coalition                              245
    National Association of Railroad Passengers                  278
    National Recreation and Park Association                     252
    Oklahoma Tribal Transportation Council, Inc.                 217
    Town of Lexington, South Carolina                            222
    University Corporation for Atmospheric Research              269
    U.S. Green Building Council                                  215

    �08

    an Society of Civil Engineers                          199
    Capital Metropolitan Transportation Authority, Austin, Texas 226
    City of San Marcos, Texas                                    249
    Coalition of Northeastern Governors                          265
    Illinois Department of Transportation                        208
    National Affordable Housing Management Association           204
    National AIDS Housing Coalition                              245
    National Association of Railroad Passengers                  278
    National Recreation and Park Association                     252
    Oklahoma Tribal Transportation Council, Inc.                 217
    Town of Lexington, South Carolina                            222
    University Corporation for Atmospheric Research              269
    U.S. Green Building Council                                  215

    �08

    American Public Transportation Association                   259
    American Society of Civil Engineers                          199
    Capital Metropolitan Transportation Authority, Austin, Texas 226
    City of San Marcos, Texas                                    249
    Coalition of Northeastern Governors                          265
    Illinois Department of Transportation                        208
    National Affordable Housing Management Association           204
    National AIDS Housing Coalition                              245
    National Association of Railroad Passengers                  278
    National Recreation and Park Association                     252
    Oklahoma Tribal Transportation Council, Inc.                 217
    Town of Lexington, South Carolina                            222
    University Corporation for Atmospheric Research              269
    U.S. Green Building Council                                  215

    �08

        Livable Communities in Rural Areas...........................    75
        Opening Remarks, Chairman John W. Olver......................    39
        Opening Remarks, Hon. Ray LaHood, Secretary of Transportation    41
        Opening Remarks, Hon. Shaun Donovan, Secretary of HUD........    62
        Opening Remarks, Ranking Member Tom Latham...................    40
        Planning.....................................................    78
        President's Budget Request...................................    80
        Questions for the Record, Rep. Lucille Roybal-Allard.........    89
        Recovery Act Funding.........................................    85
        Regional Planning Agencies...................................    71
        Regulations..................................................    75
        Rural Areas..................................................    74
        Surplus Federal Property.....................................    84
        Sustainable Communities Initiative

    0259
    American Society of Civil Engineers                          199
    Capital Metropolitan Transportation Authority, Austin, Texas 226
    City of San Marcos, Texas                                    249
    Coalition of Northeastern Governors                          265
    Illinois Department of Transportation                        208
    National Affordable Housing Management Association           204
    National AIDS Housing Coalition                              245
    National Association of Railroad Passengers                  278
    National Recreation and Park Association                     252
    Oklahoma Tribal Transportation Council, Inc.                 217
    Town of Lexington, South Carolina                            222
    University Corporation for Atmospheric Research              269
    U.S. Green Building Council                                  215

    �08

    Transportation Association                   259
    American Society of Civil Engineers                          199
    Capital Metropolitan Transportation Authority, Austin, Texas 226
    City of San Marcos, Texas                                    249
    Coalition of Northeastern Governors                          265
    Illinois Department of Transportation                        208
    National Affordable Housing Management Association           204
    National AIDS Housing Coalition                              245
    National Association of Railroad Passengers                  278
    National Recreation and Park Association                     252
    Oklahoma Tribal Transportation Council, Inc.                 217
    Town of Lexington, South Carolina                            222
    University Corporation for Atmospheric Research              269
    U.S. Green Building Council                                  215

    �08

             282
    American Psychological Association                           254
    American Public Transportation Association                   259
    American Society of Civil Engineers                          199
    Capital Metropolitan Transportation Authority, Austin, Texas 226
    City of San Marcos, Texas                                    249
    Coalition of Northeastern Governors                          265
    Illinois Department of Transportation                        208
    National Affordable Housing Management Association           204
    National AIDS Housing Coalition                              245
    National Association of Railroad Passengers                  278
    National Recreation and Park Association                     252
    Oklahoma Tribal Transportation Council, Inc.                 217
    Town of Lexington, South Carolina                            222
    University Corporation for Atmospheric Research              269
    U.S. Green Building Council                                  215

    �08

    Attendant_CWA, AFL�09CIO                 229
    Air Line Pilots Association, International                   273
    American Association of Service Coordinators                 282
    American Psychological Association                           254
    American Public Transportation Association                   259
    American Society of Civil Engineers                          199
    Capital Metropolitan Transportation Authority, Austin, Texas 226
    City of San Marcos, Texas                                    249
    Coalition of Northeastern Governors                          265
    Illinois Department of Transportation                        208
    National Affordable Housing Management Association           204
    National AIDS Housing Coalition                              245
    National Association of Railroad Passengers                  278
    National Recreation and Park Association                     252
    Oklahoma Tribal Transportation Council, Inc.                 217
    Town of Lexington, South Carolina                            222
    University Corporation for Atmospheric Research              269
    U.S. Green Building Council                                  215

    �08

    an Society of Civil Engineers                          199
    Capital Metropolitan Transportation Authority, Austin, Texas 226
    City of San Marcos, Texas                                    249
    Coalition of Northeastern Governors                          265
    Illinois Department of Transportation                        208
    National Affordable Housing Management Association           204
    National AIDS Housing Coalition                              245
    National Association of Railroad Passengers                  278
    National Recreation and Park Association                     252
    Oklahoma Tribal Transportation Council, Inc.                 217
    Town of Lexington, South Carolina                            222
    University Corporation for Atmospheric Research              269
    U.S. Green Building Council                                  215

    �08

       254
    American Public Transportation Association                   259
    American Society of Civil Engineers                          199
    Capital Metropolitan Transportation Authority, Austin, Texas 226
    City of San Marcos, Texas                                    249
    Coalition of Northeastern Governors                          265
    Illinois Department of Transportation                        208
    National Affordable Housing Management Association           204
    National AIDS Housing Coalition                              245
    National Association of Railroad Passengers                  278
    National Recreation and Park Association                     252
    Oklahoma Tribal Transportation Council, Inc.                 217
    Town of Lexington, South Carolina                            222
    University Corporation for Atmospheric Research              269
    U.S. Green Building Council                                  215

    �08

             282
    American Psychological Association                           254
    American Public Transportation Association                   259
    American Society of Civil Engineers                          199
    Capital Metropolitan Transportation Authority, Austin, Texas 226
    City of San Marcos, Texas                                    249
    Coalition of Northeastern Governors                          265
    Illinois Department of Transportation                        208
    National Affordable Housing Management Association           204
    National AIDS Housing Coalition                              245
    National Association of Railroad Passengers                  278
    National Recreation and Park Association                     252
    Oklahoma Tribal Transportation Council, Inc.                 217
    Town of Lexington, South Carolina                            222
    University Corporation for Atmospheric Research              269
    U.S. Green Building Council                                  215

    �08

    Attendant_CWA, AFL�09CIO                 229
    Air Line Pilots Association, International                   273
    American Association of Service Coordinators                 282
    American Psychological Association                           254
    American Public Transportation Association                   259
    American Society of Civil Engineers                          199
    Capital Metropolitan Transportation Authority, Austin, Texas 226
    City of San Marcos, Texas                                    249
    Coalition of Northeastern Governors                          265
    Illinois Department of Transportation                        208
    National Affordable Housing Management Association           204
    National AIDS Housing Coalition                              245
    National Association of Railroad Passengers                  278
    National Recreation and Park Association                     252
    Oklahoma Tribal Transportation Council, Inc.                 217
    Town of Lexington, South Carolina                            222
    University Corporation for Atmospheric Research              269
    U.S. Green Building Council                                  215

    �08

    an Society of Civil Engineers                          199
    Capital Metropolitan Transportation Authority, Austin, Texas 226
    City of San Marcos, Texas                                    249
    Coalition of Northeastern Governors                          265
    Illinois Department of Transportation                        208
    National Affordable Housing Management Association           204
    National AIDS Housing Coalition                              245
    National Association of Railroad Passengers                  278
    National Recreation and Park Association                     252
    Oklahoma Tribal Transportation Council, Inc.                 217
    Town of Lexington, South Carolina                            222
    University Corporation for Atmospheric Research              269
    U.S. Green Building Council                                  215

    �08

                           199
    Capital Metropolitan Transportation Authority, Austin, Texas 226
    City of San Marcos, Texas                                    249
    Coalition of Northeastern Governors                          265
    Illinois Department of Transportation                        208
    National Affordable Housing Management Association           204
    National AIDS Housing Coalition                              245
    National Association of Railroad Passengers                  278
    National Recreation and Park Association                     252
    Oklahoma Tribal Transportation Council, Inc.                 217
    Town of Lexington, South Carolina                            222
    University Corporation for Atmospheric Research              269
    U.S. Green Building Council                                  215

    �08

        Televideo Meeting of DOT/HUD Issues..........................    85
        Transit-Oriented Development.................................    62
        Urban Sprawl.................................................    81
        Western States...............................................    80
        Written Statement, Hon. Ray LaHood, Secretary of
          Transportation.............................................    44
        Written Statement, Hon. Shaun Donovan, Secretary of HUD......    65

        PART II: LIVABLE COMMUNITIES, TRANSIT-ORIENTED DEVELOPMENT, AND
        INCORPORATING GREEN BUILDING PRACTICES INTO FEDERAL HOUSING AND
                             TRANSPORTATION POLICY

        Broadband....................................................   150
        Carbon Footprint and Energy Usage............................   145
        Center for Neighborhood Technology...........................   155
        Congestion...................................................   157
        Economic Functions...........................................   147
        Opening Remarks, Chairman John W. Olver......................   103
        Opening Remarks, Grace Crunican, Director, DOT, City of
          Seattle....................................................   135
        Opening Remarks, John O. Norquist, President and Chief
          Executive, Congress for the New Urbanism...................   127
        Opening Remarks, Mary A. Leary, Senior Director, Easter Seals
          Transportation Group.......................................   116
        Opening Remarks, Ranking Member Tom Latham...................   104
        Opening Remarks, Robert Puentes, Senior Fellow, Metropolitan
          Policy Program.............................................   105
        Repopulation of Rural Areas..................................   152
        Rural Communities............................................   148
        United We Ride...............................................   149
        Written Statement, Grace Crunican, Director, DOT, City of
          Seattle....................................................   139
        Written Statement, John O. Norquist, President and Chief
          Executive, Congress for the New Urbanism...................   131
        Written Statement, Mary A. Leary, Senior Director, Easter
          Seals Transportation Group.................................   118
        Written Statement, Robert Puentes, Senior Fellow,
          Metropolitan Policy Program................................   107

                  MEMBER'S REQUEST TO THE SUBCOMMITTEE HEARING

        Opening Remarks, Chairman John W. Olver......................   163
        Opening Remarks, Ranking Member Tom Latham...................   163
        Opening Remarks, Representative Betsy Markey.................   170
        Opening Remarks, Representative Diane E. Watson..............   175
        Opening Remarks, Representative Henry Cuellar................   181
        Opening Remarks, Representative John Boozman.................   163
        Written Statement, Representative Betsy Markey...............   173
        Written Statement, Representative Diane E. Watson............   178
        Written Statement, Representative Henry Cuellar..............   186
        Written Statement, Representative Joe Wilson.................   195
        Written Statement, Representative John Boozman...............   167
        Written Statement, Representative Madeleine Z. Bordallo......   191
        Written Statement, Representative Pete Olson.................   193

                      OUTSIDE WITNESSES WRITTEN TESTIMONY

        Association of Flight Attendant--CWA, AFL-CIO................   229
        Air Line Pilots Association, International...................   273
        American Association of Service Coordinators.................   282
        American Psychological Association...........................   254
        American Public Transportation Association...................   259
        American Society of Civil Engineers..........................   199
        Capital Metropolitan Transportation Authority, Austin, Texas.   226
        City of San Marcos, Texas....................................   249
        Coalition of Northeastern Governors..........................   265
        Illinois Department of Transportation........................   208
        National Affordable Housing Management Association...........   204
        National AIDS Housing Coalition..............................   245
        National Association of Railroad Passengers..................   278
        National Recreation and Park Association.....................   252
        Oklahoma Tribal Transportation Council, Inc..................   217
        Town of Lexington, South Carolina............................   222
        University Corporation for Atmospheric Research..............   269
        U.S. Green Building Council..................................   215