[Senate Hearing 112-]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
TRANSPORTATION AND HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT, AND RELATED AGENCIES
APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2012
----------
U.S. Senate,
Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations,
Washington, DC.
NONDEPARTMENTAL WITNESSES
[The following testimonies were received by the
Subcommittee on Transportation and Housing and Urban
Development, and Related Agencies for inclusion in the record.
The submitted materials relate to the fiscal year 2012 budget
request for programs within the subcommittee's jurisdiction.]
Prepared Statement of the American Public Transportation Association
introduction
Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, on behalf of the
American Public Transportation Association (APTA), I thank you for this
opportunity to submit written testimony on the fiscal year 2012
Transportation and Housing and Urban Development, and Related Agencies
appropriations bill as it relates to Federal investment in public
transportation and high-speed and intercity passenger rail (HSIPR).
APTA's highest priority is the enactment of a well-funded, 6-year,
multimodal surface transportation authorization bill, as it is one of
the most important actions the Congress can take to improve mobility
for our citizens and put our Nation's economic engine into high gear.
We recognize the challenge that the absence of an authorization bill
places on the Appropriations Committee, yet we must stress the
tremendous needs that persist for public transportation agencies
throughout the country. A strong commitment to investment in our
transportation infrastructure remains essential to the Nation's
economic prosperity and fiscal health. Failure to invest will force
private sector businesses in the transit industry and other industries
to lay off employees and to invest overseas. For the Nation's tens of
millions of transit riders, it will mean less service, fewer travel
options, higher costs, and longer commutes.
overview of fiscal year 2012 funding requests
The fiscal year 2012 Obama administration budget requests $22.4
billion for public transportation programs, and $8.3 billion for HSIPR.
This includes a one-time, upfront investment of $11.5 billion for the
Federal Transit Administration (FTA) programs and the first installment
of the administration's $53 billion 6-year proposal for high-speed and
intercity rail investment.
APTA strongly supports the President's proposed public
transportation budget request. APTA's authorization recommendations,
which had assumed enactment of authorizing legislation 2 years ago,
proposed a Federal transit investment of $17.9 billion in fiscal year
2012. APTA urges the Congress to resist efforts to make further cuts to
general fund components of the Federal transit program, such as Capital
Investment Grants and research, as these are important elements of
Federal surface transportation investment. We are most disappointed
with the severity of cuts in the Full-Year Continuing Appropriations
Act for fiscal year 2011, as the need for these investments is only
growing, and the costs associated with these investments will be
greater in future years.
Our funding request continues to be instructed by APTA's
recommendations for surface transportation authorization and the
estimated Federal funding growth required to meet at least 50 percent
of the $59.2 billion in annual capital needs by the end of the
authorization period. These levels are intended to support a projected
doubling of transit ridership over the next 20 years. The American
Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials agrees with
APTA's estimate, stating in its ``Bottom Line Report for
Transportation--2009'' that ``if transit ridership grows yearly by 3.5
percent, investment would have to increase to $59 billion annually.''
It is important that steady and growing investment continue despite
economic or fiscal situations, as demand and long-term planning
requirements for transportation investment continue as well.
APTA strongly opposes the elimination of prior-year HSIPR funding.
These funds are needed to ensure that the 32 States and the District of
Columbia which are forging ahead with planning and implementing HSIPR
improvements can continue their efforts to modernize and expand our
Nation's passenger rail services.
Finally, we encourage the Congress to fund the Rail Safety
Technology Grants program (section 105) of the Rail Safety Improvement
Act (RSIA) at a level significantly higher than the $50 million annual
authorization, to assist with the implementation of congressionally
mandated positive train control (PTC) systems. The federally imposed
deadline for implementation of PTC systems is rapidly approaching, and
neither the Congress nor the administration is proposing to put the
necessary funding behind this safety priority.
the need for federal transit investment
In previous testimony to this subcommittee, I have presented the
case for increasing Federal investment in public transportation. APTA
has recommended $123 billion of transit investment over 6 years, and
President Obama has proposed $119 billion in the same period. In either
scenario, new Federal investment would produce much-needed progress
toward bringing our Nation's public transportation infrastructure up to
a state of good repair, improving safety, and building the capacity for
millions of new riders who will want quality transit service in the
coming years. The Department of Transportation (DOT) estimates that a
one-time investment of more than $78 billion is needed to bring transit
infrastructure up to a state of good repair, and this does not include
annual costs to maintain and preserve the existing system. Research on
transit needs shows that capital investment from all sources--Federal,
State, and local--should be doubled if we are to prepare for future
ridership demands.
I want to stress that the demand for public transportation and the
need for Federal leadership will not diminish in the months and years
ahead. As gasoline prices continue to increase, Americans are turning
to public transportation in record numbers, just as they did in 2008
when gas reached an average price of $4.11 per gallon. APTA recently
completed an analysis that reveals if regular gas prices reach $4 a
gallon across the Nation, as many experts have forecast, an additional
670 million passenger trips could be expected, resulting in more than
10.8 billion trips per year, roughly a 6-percent increase. If pump
prices jump to $5 a gallon, the report predicts an additional 1.5
billion passenger trips can be expected, resulting in more than 11.6
billion trips per year. And if prices were to soar to $6 a gallon,
expectations go as high as an additional 2.7 billion passenger trips,
resulting in more than 12.9 billion trips per year. The volatility of
the price at the pump is another wake up call for our Nation to address
the increasing demand for public transportation services.
federal transit administration programs
Capital Investment Grants (New Starts).--The New Starts program is
the primary source of Federal investment in the construction or
expansion of bus rapid transit projects, heavy and light rail transit
systems, and commuter rail systems. Unlike most other FTA programs, the
New Starts program is funded from the General Fund, not the Mass
Transit Account of the Federal Highway Trust Fund. Funding for New
Starts was previously included in funding guarantees for highway and
transit programs, and the success of these major, multi-year capital
projects requires predictable support by the Congress and FTA. The
Congress established Full Funding Grant Agreements to ensure this
predictability. A continued commitment to Federal investment will also
influence the willingness of private financial markets to fund public
transportation projects and it will guarantee that the bond ratings
will remain high and interest rates will remain low. Going forward,
whether the New Starts program is funded out of the general fund or
from a trust fund, APTA believes that the program should grow at the
same rate as the rest of the transit program. New Starts is essential
to enhancing our Nation's mobility, accessibility, and economic
prosperity while promoting energy conservation and environmental
quality.
Formula and Bus and Bus Facilities.--Like other elements of the
program, we urge the Congress to grow funding for existing formula
programs, including urban and rural formula, small transit intensive
cities, fixed guideway modernization, and others at a rate consistent
with overall FTA funding. These formula programs address core needs of
our public transportation systems, and deserve the continued support of
the Congress. In our authorization recommendations, APTA recommends
modifying the current Bus and Bus Facilities program to create two
separate categories of funding, with 50 percent distributed under bus
formula factors, and the remaining 50 percent available under a
discretionary program distributed either through congressional
direction or a competitive grants process administered by FTA. This is
particularly relevant to the consideration of appropriations
legislation as we recognize that the Congress will attempt to address
the issue of earmarks and discretionary spending accounts. It is
important to recognize that certain transit needs like facilities
projects, are often larger than an agency's typical formula allotment,
and as such, will require discretionary decisionmaking on either the
part of the Congress, or the administration, in order to effectively
fund such projects.
federal railroad administration programs
Positive Train Control.--A high priority for APTA within the
programs of the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) is the adequate
funding of the Railroad Safety Technology Grants Program, section 105
of RSIA of 2008. APTA is very discouraged that the Congress has
rescinded fiscal year 2010 appropriations for this program in addition
to the possibility of leaving it unfunded in fiscal year 2011. RSIA
requires commuter rail operators implement PTC systems by December 31,
2015, and APTA is urging the Congress to increase the authorized levels
for implementation of PTC systems required under RSIA. The cost of
implementing PTC on public commuter railroads alone is estimated to
exceed $2 billion, not including costs associated with acquiring the
necessary radio spectrum or the subsequent software and operating
expenses. Our Nation's commuter rail systems are committed to complying
with the PTC mandate and implementing critical safety upgrades.
However, both the costs associated with implementing PTC, as well as
the challenges associated with a technology that is still under
development, are quite substantial. Full funding will help ensure that
these important safety improvements can be implemented within the
required timeframe.
High-Speed and Intercity Passenger Rail Investment.--Ridership in
the overall passenger rail market in the United States has been
steadily growing, with commuter rail being one of the most frequently
used methods of public transportation for those traveling from outlying
suburban areas to commercial centers of metropolitan areas, often to
and from places of employment, education, commerce and medical care.
The most recently published APTA public transportation ridership
report, which provides data on transit passenger ridership for U.S.
transit agencies, shows a continued strong demand for public
transportation despite the economic downturn, with nearly 10.2 billion
trips taken on public transportation nationally in 2010. The demand for
commuter rail service has also remained strong, with 13 of 26 commuter
rail systems in operation for all of 2010 reporting ridership increase.
Similarly, despite the Nation's slow economy, Amtrak experienced record
ridership in the last fiscal year, reporting a ridership increase of
4.6 percent for an overall ridership of more than 28.7 million
passengers. As the current political unrest in many oil producing
nations continues, more and more commuters are turning to public
transportation to escape rising gas prices, and many transit operators
are reporting double digit ridership increases this year.
In addition to commuter rail, it is critical that intercity
passenger rail become a more useful transportation option for travelers
looking for alternatives to high gas prices and congested road and air
travel in many corridors. While much attention has been lavished on
three Governors who rejected Federal rail funding for their States, 32
other States plus the District of Columbia are forging ahead in
planning and implementing rail improvements. Funding from the three
States which opted to cancel their HSIPR programs is being redirected
by DOT to other HSIPR projects across the country.
conclusion
I thank the subcommittee for allowing me to share APTA's views on
fiscal year 2012 public transportation and high-speed and intercity
rail appropriations issues. We look forward to working with the
subcommittee to make the necessary investments to grow the public
transportation program. We urge the subcommittee to invest in making
commuter, intercity, and high-speed rail safer by fully appropriating
the funds authorized in the RSIA. Finally, we support the efforts of
the Congress thus far to invest in a high-speed rail system and
encourage your subcommittee to continue support for this effort. This
is a critical time for our Nation to continue to invest in transit
infrastructure that promotes economic growth, energy independence, and
a better way of life for all Americans.
about apta
APTA is a nonprofit international association of nearly 1,500
public and private-member organizations, including transit systems and
commuter, intercity and high-speed rail operators; planning, design,
construction, and finance firms; product and service providers;
academic institutions; transit associations and State departments of
transportation. APTA members serve the public interest by providing
safe, efficient, and economical public transportation services and
products. More than 90 percent of the people using public
transportation in the United States and Canada are served by APTA-
member systems.
______
Prepared Statement of the Manufactured Housing Association for
Regulatory Reform
The Manufactured Housing Association for Regulatory Reform (MHARR)
is a national trade association representing the views and interests of
producers of manufactured housing. Manufactured housing has
historically been the Nation's leading source of affordable,
nonsubsidized home ownership. But, the manufactured housing industry is
in danger of disappearing, with devastating consequences for affordable
housing, employment, and job creation. Over the past decade,
manufactured home production has declined by more than 86 percent (from
373,143 units in 1998 to 50,046 in 2010), nearly 75 percent of the
industry's production facilities have closed (from 430 to fewer than
110), together with more than 7,500 retail centers, resulting in the
loss of more than 200,000 jobs.
The decline of the manufactured housing industry began long before
the decline of the broader housing market, and has been much more
severe. This disparity is principally a result of two factors. The
first is a costly and unjustified expansion of Department of Housing
and Urban Development (HUD) regulation, in the face of rapidly
diminishing production. Second, this regulatory expansion, imposed by
circumventing or undermining key program reforms mandated by the
Congress in the Manufactured Housing Improvement Act of 2000, has
ensured the continuing status of manufactured homes as ``trailers,''
fueling discrimination against manufactured homes and manufactured home
purchasers.
The HUD program has been able to engage in this unwarranted
regulatory expansion because of an artificially inflated budget which
has not had adequate oversight either within HUD or by the Congress in
recent years. The HUD manufactured housing program was originally
conceived as a self-funding program. In fiscal year 2009, HUD, for the
first time, sought and received a direct appropriation of $5.4 million
in general revenue funds, supposedly as a one-time request, to
implement the new Federal installation and alternate dispute resolution
(ADR) programs mandated by the 2000 law. In fiscal year 2010, however,
HUD requested an additional $9 million direct appropriation. This
infusion of millions of dollars in tax funds, though, has not been used
to implement the new programs of the 2000 law. Instead, these funds
have been used to impose a needless ``make-work'' regulatory expansion
and, with it, an increase in the size of HUD program staff and the
duties and functions of its entrenched inspection ``monitoring''
contractor, all at a time of dramatically reduced production levels,
while revenue allocated to the States for consumer protection has been
significantly reduced.
Now, in its fiscal year 2012 budget request, despite continued
weakness in the manufactured housing market, HUD is seeking $14 million
in total program budget authority. This involves yet another $7 million
direct appropriation of general revenue funds and an announced label
fee increase from $39 to $60 per home section. HUD claims that it needs
$3.8 million for an ``installation inspect and enforcement'' contract
and $1.4 million for a ``dispute resolution enforcement'' contract.
These are the same contracts, however, for which HUD requested tax
revenues in 2009 and 2010, but did not award, while it used the
additional funds provided by the Congress to needlessly expand
regulation and program staff, and increase funding for its inspection
``monitoring'' contractor. In fact, though, there is no legitimate
basis for a budget of this size or further infusions of taxpayer
dollars when industry production continues to decline and the Federal
Government faces a large deficit. Accordingly, the Congress should
carefully scrutinize HUD's fiscal year 2012 budget request, as detailed
below, based on section 620 of the 2000 law, pertaining to program
funding and expenditures.
improper expansion of production regulation
Section 620(a)(1)(A) of the 2000 law provides for the use of the
authorized fee paid by manufacturers to conduct ``inspections and
monitoring.'' Section 620(c), however, as amended by the 2000 law,
prohibits HUD from using ``any fee collected under this section'' for
``any purpose or activity not specifically authorized by this title.''
Section 604(b) of the law specifically requires HUD to bring
proposed regulations or amendments to the Manufactured Housing
Consensus Committee (MHCC) for consensus review and input, followed by
notice and comment rulemaking. Section 604(b)(6) of the 2000 law
further requires HUD to bring any change to ``policies practices, or
procedures relating to . . . inspections, monitoring, or other
enforcement activities'' to the MHCC for consensus review and input,
followed by notice and comment rulemaking. The section further provides
that ``any change adopted in violation'' of its requirements ``is
void.''
Starting in 2008, HUD has systematically imposed on manufacturers a
costly de facto expansion of in-plant regulation without complying with
the requirements of either section 604(b) generally or section
604(b)(6) specifically. Indeed, HUD, through a February 5, 2010,
``interpretive rule,'' issued with no opportunity for public comment,
has effectively read section 604(b)(6) out of the law completely.
Absent compliance with section 604(b) and section 604(b)(6), the
imposition of this program of de facto expanded regulation and
enforcement is not an activity ``specifically authorized'' by
applicable law. As a result, its costs--including additional amounts
paid to contractors for inspections, oversight, or enforcement--should
not be funded.
inadequate state funding
State administrative agencies (SAAs) are the first line of
protection for home buyers living in a growing number of both new and
existing manufactured homes. The law envisions a Federal-State
partnership for the enforcement of the Federal standards. To ensure
State participation in this partnership, section 620(a)(1)(B) of the
law requires HUD to ``provid[e] funding to the States. . . .'' The
proposed HUD fiscal year 2012 budget, however, as with the last three
HUD budgets, keeps funding for the States flat (at approximately one-
half the fiscal year 2005 funding level--$3.7 million in 2012, as
contrasted with $6.6 million in 2005), while artificially and
unnecessarily increasing contractor funding (and program staff), even
though the responsibilities of SAAs are more extensive than the
monitoring contractor. Thus, at the same time that HUD has artificially
inflated the functions performed by its monitoring contractor, HUD is
failing to properly fund State participation in the Federal program.
noncareer program administrator
HUD has refused to appoint a noncareer administrator for the
Federal program, maintaining that such an appointment is discretionary
under section 620(a)(1). This interpretation of the 2000 law, however,
is incorrect. The law, as amended in 2000, grants the Secretary of HUD
permissive authority under section 620(a)(1) to establish a
``reasonable fee'' to fund specific program functions if the Secretary
wishes. If such a fee is established, however, as it has been (i.e.,
the HUD label fee), the use of that fund, to offset expenses in
connection with statutory HUD ``responsibilities'' listed in
subsections (620)(a)(1)(A)-(G), is nondiscretionary. Despite this
nondiscretionary ``responsibility,'' the HUD manufactured housing
program has not had a noncareer administrator since 2004.
unwarranted expansion of program staff
Section 620(a)(1)(D) provides for the use of the authorized fee
paid by manufacturers to provide ``the funding for salaries and
expenses of employees of the Department to administer the manufactured
housing program.'' This provision was designed to encourage HUD to use
its own employees to carry out most program functions, rather than
relying on revenue-driven contractors. Due to HUD's make-work expansion
of in-plant regulation, however, HUD has not only increased program
staff to 14 employees, its highest level ever, but has also
systematically increased the functions of--and payments to--its
monitoring contractor, even though manufactured housing production has
declined by a factor of more than 86 percent.
manufactured housing consensus committee
Section 620(a)(1)(E) provides for the use of the authorized fee
paid by manufacturers to administer the Manufactured Housing Consensus
Committee (MHCC) established by the 2000 law. But the independence,
role, and authority of the MHCC are being emasculated by HUD
regulators.
Among other things, HUD career regulators:
--have refused to trigger the MHCC consensus process for regulations
as required by section 604(b) of the 2000 law;
--have read the ``catch-all'' provision (section 604(b)(6)) requiring
MHCC consideration of all new policies and practices affecting
enforcement out of the 2000 law through an ``interpretive
rule'' issued without public comment;
--have improperly taken control of the MHCC's agenda, focus, and
procedures;
--have undermined the balance of the MHCC required by law through
politicized appointments, by unilaterally selecting the current
chairman, by gerrymandering the composition of MHCC
subcommittees, and by excluding collective industry
representation while appointing four board members and
executives of the same consumer group and two former HUD
employees/contractors to the committee; and
--have attempted to improperly suppress stakeholder and public
participation in MHCC deliberations.
HUD maintains that these restrictions are required by the Federal
Advisory Committee Act (FACA), but that statute does not mandate such
restrictions, as is demonstrated by a review of the bylaws of other
FACA committees. Moreover, FACA, by its express terms, is superseded by
contrary provisions in the authorizing legislation for specific
advisory committees. In this case, section 604 of the 2000 law
specifically describes the role, authority, functions and operation of
the MHCC. To the extent that those provisions conflict with FACA, they
are controlling.
failure to ensure parity of manufactured housing
Section 620(a)(1)(F) provides for the use of the fee paid by
manufacturers to facilitate ``the acceptance of the quality,
durability, safety and affordability of manufactured housing within the
Department.'' This provision reflects the over-riding purpose of the
2000 law--to complete the transition of manufactured housing from the
``trailers'' of the cold war era to legitimate ``housing.'' HUD
regulators, however, have not made any effort--known to MHARR--to
advance manufactured housing as an equal participant in all HUD housing
programs and, by failing to fully and properly implement the 2000 law,
continue to treat manufactured homes as ``trailers,'' thus fueling and
intensifying discrimination that is crippling the industry.
failure to properly implement 2000 law programs
Section 620(a)(1)(G) provides for the use of the fee paid by
manufacturers for ``the administration and enforcement'' of the Federal
installation standards and the Federal dispute resolution system in
``default'' States that do not adopt their own programs under State
law. Under section 605(c)(2)(B) and section 623(c)(12) of the 2000 law,
both of these programs were to have been operational by December 2005.
Yet, according to the latest information available from HUD, neither
has been fully implemented and, to date, no significant implementation
contracts have been awarded, even though HUD has included funding for
contractors for both programs in its budget requests since at least
2008.
announced label fee increase--sections 620(d)-(e)
Section 620(d) of the 2000 law provides that ``the amount of any
fee collected under this section may only be modified as specifically
approved in advance in an annual appropriations Act''. Section
620(e)(2) further provides that ``amounts from any fee collected under
this section shall be available for expenditure only to the extent
approved in advance in an annual appropriations Act''.
HUD's proposed fiscal year 2012 program budget includes a label fee
increase of more than 50 percent--from $39 per section to $60 per
section--in addition to an appropriation of general revenue funds in
the amount of $7 million. HUD provides no specific justification for a
label fee increase of this magnitude, or a $7 million direct
appropriation, other than its unsupported assertion that its
responsibilities remain unchanged notwithstanding a 48-percent decline
in industry production--and corresponding drop in label fee revenues--
just since 2007. The facts, however, do not support this claim. HUD's
assertion that its responsibilities remain ``unchanged'' despite a
sharp decline in industry production is unsupportable. In 2007, the
industry produced 95,752 HUD Code homes. In 2010, the industry produced
50,046 HUD Code homes. Accordingly, the program's raw oversight burden
today is nearly one-half what it was in 2007. This decline should have
meant lower program expenditures between 2007 and proposed fiscal year
2012. Instead, the fiscal year 2007 appropriation of $6.510 million
grew to $16 million in 2009 and 2010, and now a requested $14 million
for fiscal year 2012.
conclusion
For all the above reasons, the Congress should:
--require HUD to appoint a noncareer program administrator;
--require HUD to choose between either a direct appropriation or a
label fee increase, but not both; and
--direct HUD to divert funding from expanded staff and contractor
functions to provide adequate funding for State participation
in the manufactured housing program.
______
Prepared Statement of the National AIDS Housing Coalition
The National AIDS Housing Coalition (NAHC) requests $362 million
for the Housing Opportunities for Persons With AIDS (HOPWA) program for
fiscal year 2012. NAHC is a national nonprofit membership housing
organization founded in 1994 that works to end the HIV/AIDS epidemic by
ensuring that persons living with HIV/AIDS have quality, affordable,
and appropriate housing. NAHC's members are people living with HIV/AIDS
(PLWHA), service providers, developers, researchers, public health and
housing departments, and advocates.
Research findings presented through NAHC's Research Summit Series
overwhelmingly confirm that housing is a strategic point of
intervention to address HIV/AIDS, homelessness, and the concomitant
effects of race and gender, poverty, mental illness, chronic drug use,
incarceration, and exposure to trauma and violence. HIV housing
interventions are a cost-effective means to prevent new HIV infections,
improve HIV health outcomes, reduce mortality, and reduce reliance on
other public systems such as expensive emergency and inpatient medical
services.
The HOPWA program is relied upon by HIV/AIDS service organizations
nationwide to assure that stable, affordable housing and the critical
supportive services that help people remain housed is available to
those coping with the debilitating and impoverishing effects of HIV/
AIDS. HOPWA's hallmark is its flexibility to provide a continuum of
housing and housing-related case management and supportive services for
low-income individuals living with HIV/AIDS and their families. HOPWA
dollars are used for short- and longer-term rents, facility-based
assistance as well as limited rent, mortgage, or utility payments that
play a critical role in homelessness prevention. HOPWA can also be used
for new development and rehabilitation. In the face of shrinking
resources, HOPWA's importance to community strategic planning efforts
cannot be underestimated--facilitating better coordination of local and
private resources and filling gaps in local systems of care to meet
housing need among people with HIV/AIDS and their families.
aids housing is central for hiv/aids health
A now substantial body of research shows that housing status has a
direct, independent, and powerful impact on HIV incidence and the
health of PLWHA, regardless of demographics, drug use, health and
mental health status, or receipt of other services. Housing affects an
individual's ability to avoid exposure to HIV; an HIV-positive
individual's ability to avoid exposing others to HIV; and the ability
to receive and benefit from HIV healthcare. Whatever else makes one
vulnerable to HIV infection--homelessness magnifies the risk. Whatever
other factors lead to disparities in care--for women; for youth; for
sexual minorities; for people of color; for those who experience mental
illness, addiction, violence, abuse, or incarceration--housing
instability amplifies their vulnerability for poor health outcomes and
early death. Research has consistently shown that people without stable
housing are significantly more likely to become HIV-infected, they will
have limited access to care once they are infected, and they will live
less healthy and shorter lives--compared to people just like them who
are fortunate enough to have a home.
Recent findings from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention (CDC) show how that poverty and homelessness contribute to
worsening HIV health disparities. CDC surveillance data reveal that at
least 2.1 percent of heterosexuals living in high-poverty urban areas
in the United States are HIV-positive--an HIV prevalence rate that is
more than 20 times greater than the rate among all heterosexuals in the
United States (0.1 percent), and that exceeds the 1-percent infection
rate that defines a generalized HIV epidemic. Poverty--not race--is the
most important demographic factor associated with HIV infection among
inner-city heterosexuals. Men and women in low-income neighborhoods who
live below the poverty line are twice as likely to have HIV infection
as those living above it, and other social factors--including
unemployment, low-education level, and housing status--are also
independently associated with infection. Within the low-income
communities examined, the rate of new HIV infections almost twice as
high (1.8 times) for inner-city heterosexuals who had experienced
homelessness in the past year, compared to low-income persons with
housing.
aids housing works to improve health and reduce public costs
Research also shows that receipt of housing assistance is
independently associated over time with reduced HIV risk behaviors,
better health outcomes, and sharp reductions in costly emergency and
inpatient services. Recent findings from housing-based interventions
provide new evidence that housing supports create stability and
connection to care for people living with HIV--improving healthcare
outcomes, changing the individual behaviors that put people at risk of
acquiring HIV infection, and reducing overall public costs.
PLWHA who are unstably housed lack ongoing HIV care and rely more
on expensive crisis services including shelters, jails, and avoidable
emergency and hospital care. Housing assistance for people with HIV who
are homeless improves their health outcomes and dramatically reduces
emergency and inpatient health services, criminal justice involvement,
and other crisis costs. A recent study funded by the CDC and HUD found
that more stable housing for people with HIV reduced emergency medical
visits by 35 percent and hospitalizations by 57 percent. Each new HIV
infection prevented through more stable housing saves countless life
years and more than $300,000 in lifetime medical costs. Indeed, housing
assistance for homeless and unstably housed people living with HIV
leads to savings in avoidable health services that can more than offset
the costs of the housing intervention.
This consistent evidence base supports housing assistance as a
cost-effective healthcare intervention for homeless and unstably housed
persons with HIV. Action to meet HIV housing needs costs far less than
inaction, making HOPWA and other low-income housing programs that serve
people living with HIV a wise use of limited public resources.
housing need among people with hiv/aids
More than 56,000 people became infected with HIV in the past year
in the United States. Experts estimate that more than one-half of PLWHA
will need some form of housing assistance during the course of their
illness, while national research has shown that housing is the greatest
unmet service need for people living with HIV disease. Data indicates
that approximately 72 percent of PLWHA have incomes less than $30,000;
the number in need is likely to increase proportionally with the
weakened economy and sustained high unemployment levels.
In 2011, HOPWA will continue providing housing support for more
than 60,000 households in 133 formula-eligible jurisdictions, providing
assistance in all 50 States, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, and
the Virgin Islands. Under the current formula configuration, two to
five new jurisdictions may become available, from cities diverse as
Greenville, South Carolina to Syracuse, New York. In addition, 91
competitive grants are currently operating. The program is tied to
positive client outcomes in the 60,699 households served in the current
fiscal year, making it possible for assisted individuals to better
attend to their health needs, function in their families and society.
AIDS housing is a cost-effective way to end homelessness and achieve
positive individual and community health outcomes. HUD reports that 94
percent of all HOPWA rental assistance households in a recent program
year were able to achieve maximum stability, reducing risks of
homelessness, and participating in healthcare.
NAHC recommends a funding level of $362 million, which would permit
assistance to an additional 4,800 people with HIV/AIDS in need of
housing.
examples of aids housing need across the country
AIDS housing need has exploded in virtually every region of the
country. Though waiting lists are no longer maintained in many
jurisdictions, affordable housing need continues to grow. Below is a
snapshot of the number of HOPWA-eligible households with unmet housing
needs in cities and states across the country:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
No. of
HOPWA-
eligible
City and/or State households
with unmet
housing
needs
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alabama..................................................... 3,621
California:
Los Angeles............................................. > 8,000
San Francisco........................................... 13,000
San Jose................................................ 279
District of Columbia........................................ >700
Tampa, Florida.............................................. 285
Honolulu, Hawaii............................................ 130
Chicago, Illinois........................................... 10,257
Iowa........................................................ 115
Maine....................................................... 110
Lowell, Massachusetts....................................... 624
Minnesota................................................... 309
New York:
New York City........................................... 11,000
Syracuse................................................ 103
Columbus, Ohio.............................................. 115
Oregon...................................................... 202
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.................................. 6,000
Texas:
Dallas.................................................. 617
El Paso................................................. 56
Seattle, Washington......................................... 425
------------------------------------------------------------------------
other low-income housing programs remain crucial
Of course, HOPWA will never fully meet the housing need for all
those living with HIV/AIDS and their families. AIDS housing providers
urge full and adequate funding for the range of low-income housing
programs relied upon in the continuum of housing and services for
people with HIV/AIDS, including Homeless Assistance Grants, Tenant-
Based Rental Assistance, Public Housing, and Section 811 Housing for
People with Disabilities, among others.
In conclusion, NAHC urges the subcommittee to fund the HOPWA
program at the highest level possible for fiscal year 2011 to
accommodate new formula jurisdictions expected to become eligible and
to assist existing programs in moving closer to meeting the actual
housing needs in their jurisdictions.
NAHC respectfully asks the subcommittee to approve funding of $362
million for the HOPWA program for fiscal year 2012.
______
Prepared Statement of the National Association of Railroad Passengers
Thank you for the opportunity to submit this statement. Thank you
also for the positive role that you and your subcommittee have played
over the years in providing funding for intercity passenger trains.
Energy-efficient passenger trains are more important than ever as
Amtrak ridership continues to rise, along with gasoline prices.
Ridership growth is colliding with the realities of a fleet that is too
small.
Thus, our key requests for intercity passenger trains for fiscal
year 2012 are:
--Full funding of the Obama administration's requested $8 billion for
intercity passenger trains, including approximately $4 billion
each for network development (capital upgrades to tracks and
stations and procurement of new or rebuilt equipment) and for
system preservation and renewal. We support this as the
baseline for the multi-year commitment as outlined in the
administration's budget.
--The bare minimum should be $4.7 billion, comprised of Amtrak's
request of $2.2 billion plus the 2010 level at which High Speed
and Intercity Passenger Rail (HSIPR) program was funded, $2.5
billion.
We strongly support the Department of Transportation's (DOT)
approach in HSIPR grants to the States. We applaud the agreements
reached to date with BNSF (Washington State), Norfolk Southern (North
Carolina) and Union Pacific (Illinois). We look forward to the early
conclusion of agreements with CSX, especially for Virginia and New
York.
Failure to meet, at minimum, the funding targets Amtrak identified
in its fiscal year 2012 grant and legislative request puts the country
close to a no-growth scenario, which would be extremely unfortunate
given the likelihood that high gasoline prices are here to stay.
``Smart growth'' housing, intercity passenger trains, and rail transit
have two things in common:
--Both help enable Americans to sustain the highest possible quality
of life in a competitive world economy, and to mitigate what
The Weekly Standard's Christopher Caldwell called ``America's
almost unbelievable demand for oil.'' Caldwell noted that this
demand ``has led [the United States] to diverge from the rest
of the west on energy policy,'' a polite way of saying that we
are headed for trouble if we don't make it possible for more
people to burn less oil. (Quotes: Financial Times column, April
2.)
--Demand for both exceeds supply, indicating that the public is ahead
of the policymakers and moving faster than the market place can
react.
We continue to urge consideration of the use of tax credits and/or
asset depreciation benefits to encourage private leasing companies to
buy equipment and lease it to States and perhaps Amtrak. This could
help reduce the high upfront costs that taxpayer-supported agencies
face when procuring new equipment.
As gasoline prices continue their steady upward climb, airfares are
at historic highs, and intercity bus service has been dramatically
scaled back over the past 4 years, America's growing population is
seeking better, more affordable mobility. Amtrak's historically high
ridership--even though the railroad's fares are as high as the market
can bear, especially on the Northeast corridor--is evidence of this.
The need to maintain mobility for our citizens, bolster our
Nation's economic competitiveness and energy efficiency, provide good
jobs for Americans, and reduce our transportation system's negative
environmental impact all demand that we ramp up investment in modern
passenger trains.
The following table, showing 2008 data, comes from the annual
Transportation Energy Data Book (Edition 29, released in 2010),
published by Oak Ridge National Laboratory under contract to the
Department of Energy, at http://cta.ornl.gov/data/chapter2.shtml:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
BTUs \1\ per
Mode passenger-mile
\2\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Amtrak.................................................. 2,398
Commuter trains......................................... 2,656
Certificated air carriers (domestic).................... 2,995
Cars.................................................... 3,437
Light trucks (2-axle, 4-tire)........................... 3,641
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ BTU = British thermal unit.
\2\ Passenger-mile = one passenger traveling 1 mile.
The table indicates that Amtrak is 20 percent and 30 percent more
energy efficient per passenger-mile, respectively, than airlines and
autos. That is true even though Amtrak's fleet averages 37 years old
while the airplane and automobile fleet is constantly turning over with
energy efficiency generally improving. Thus, the Amtrak 2008 figures
understate rail's true potential.
We are disappointed that negotiations between Amtrak and Union
Pacific Railroad apparently remain stalled regarding Amtrak's
initiative to provide daily service over the entire line between New
Orleans and Los Angeles.
We fully support Amtrak's Gateway Tunnel project, which will create
a long-overdue expansion in track capacity between New York City and
New Jersey, and for the entire Northeast corridor.
We are concerned about the impact of Passenger Rail Investment and
Improvement Act's section 209 which directs States to provide full-
operating support for intercity trains whose routes total 750 miles or
less. It is important that this not become an obstacle to service
continuation. We continue to urge consideration, at least in emergency
situations, of allowing Federal support for such routes' continued
operation on a 50-50 matching basis, without making Amtrak swallow the
difference.
Thank you for considering our views.
______
Prepared Statement of the University Corporation for Atmospheric
Research
On behalf of the University Corporation for Atmospheric Research
(UCAR), a consortium of 76 research universities that manages the
National Center for Atmospheric Research, I submit this written
testimony regarding the fiscal year 2012 appropriation for the record
of the Senate Committee on Appropriations, Subcommittee on
Transportation, Housing and Urban Development, and Related Agencies. I
urge the subcommittee to fully fund the fiscal year 2012 $110 million
request for the Federal Highway Administration's (FHWA) Intelligent
Transportation Systems (ITS) program including the ITS Wireless
Innovation Initiative. Further, I ask that the subcommittee support
$2.87 billion for the Federal Aviation Administration's (FAA)
Facilities and Equipment (F&E) account and $190 million for its
Research, Engineering and Development (RE&D) account.
The Department of Transportation (DOT) relies on its partnerships
with State DOTs, local transportation agencies, the first responder
community, freight community, and the academic community, to meet its
mission of ensuring a fast, safe, efficient, accessible, and convenient
transportation system that meets our vital national interests and
enhances the quality of life of the American people. The academic and
research community contributes directly to this mission with applied
research and development (R&D) of cutting-edge technologies to move
people and shipments safely and expeditiously. Research on the physics
of microbursts, for example, has resulted in the development of wind
shear detection technologies that, since full implementation, have
reduced aircraft crashes caused by downbursts to zero. Applied research
is now being conducted on road snow and ice control, aircraft icing,
and turbulence, and other weather hazards, resulting in products that
are saving industry and States tens of millions of dollars per year and
making the traveling public far safer on the roads and in the skies. I
urge you to support the requested levels for the following programs:
federal highway administration's research, technology, and education
program
Understanding and addressing adverse weather conditions helps to
mitigate the impacts of congestion and accidents, and is a high
priority for the FHWA. The Research, Technology, and Education Program
provides for a comprehensive, nationally coordinated program that will
advance DOT organizational goals and accelerate innovation delivery and
technology implementation. The request includes $257 million for the
following Research and Innovative Technology Administration programs on
which I would like to comment.
Intelligent Transportation Systems
Every year, thousands of people are injured or killed in accidents
on our Nation's highways because of bad weather and poor road
conditions. The consequences go beyond those human costs to include
lost productivity to commercial motor vehicle operators and the expense
to local governments responsible for clearing accidents and repairing
damaged roadways, to say nothing of the inconvenience to motorists.
Because of R&D investments, innovative new wireless technologies
will soon allow cars to share with vehicles behind them important
safety data such as adverse weather and road conditions. Knowing about
icy or foggy road conditions 2 miles ahead, for example, will save
lives and keep traffic moving smoothly. DOT's IntelliDrive (recently
renamed ``Connected Research Vehicle'') program is the centerpiece of
the DOT ITS 2010-2014 Strategic Research Plan. Intellidrive partners
government, industry, academia, and others to specify, develop, and
produce the necessary technology to gather and broadcast a car's
``heartbeat'' continuously, including weather conditions. Road weather-
connected vehicle applications are the next generation of applications
and services that assess, forecast, and address the impacts of weather
on roads, vehicles, and travelers. Such applications will build upon
decision support tools currently undergoing development, testing, and
deployment such as the Clarus Regional Demonstrations, the Maintenance
Decision Support System and Vehicle Data Translator.
To meet its core research and technology transfer mission, I urge
you to support the requested fiscal year 2012 amount of $110 million
for the FHWA's ITS, including IntelliDrive and its V-V and V-I
Communications for Safety program ($43.3 million) and Dynamic Mobility
Applications ($14 million). However, I am concerned about the proposed
consolidation of Road Weather Research with these larger programs. The
risk is that this successful, small program could be seriously
compromised. Road Weather Research has been highly leveraged by States
and localities to save lives and millions of dollars. I urge you to
ensure that at least $5 million for a distinct road weather research
program is included as an important safety and mobility R&D topic in
the previously mentioned programs. This funding is consistent with the
Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Act: A Legacy for
Users (SAFETEA-LU).
Intelligent Transportation Systems Wireless Initiative
DOT's ITS program is launching a new research initiative to improve
transportation safety, relieve traffic congestion, and enhance
productivity. The budget request includes funding for the ITS Wireless
Initiative, which will be managed by RITA and funded out of the
Miscellaneous Appropriations account. This new program will develop
``living laboratories'' where innovative wireless communications
methods and applications can be developed for eventual deployment. To
accomplish its goals, the DOT will leverage the knowledge, expertise,
and experience of the research community. I urge you to support the
fiscal year 2012 request of $100 million for FHWA's ITS Wireless
Initiative.
faa's research, engineering, and development
The FAA's fiscal year 2012 budget request supports continued
aviation safety and capacity R&D, focusing on critical areas such as
turbulence, in-flight icing, storm prediction, oceanic weather, and
restricted visibility. For more than two decades, the FAA has funded
R&D efforts to improve forecasting of weather affecting aviation.
The fiscal year 2012 request continues important work in current
research areas, including aviation weather. This budget supports
enhanced Next Generation Air Transportation System (NextGen) R&D
efforts in the areas of improved weather information for integration
into decisionmaking, weather information for pilots, and environmental
research for aircraft technologies and alternative fuels to improve
aviation's environmental and energy performance. The following programs
can be found within the RE&D section of the fiscal year 2012 FAA budget
request:
Weather Program
The goal of the Weather Program is to increase safety and capacity,
and to support NextGen. A number of aviation weather research projects
are underway, in collaboration with industry representatives, focusing
on in-flight icing, turbulence, winter weather, and deicing protocols,
thunderstorms, ceiling, and visibility. One example of a system that
translates a large amount of weather data into significant safety and
delay improvements is the Consolidated Storm Prediction for Aviation
(CoSPA). Thunderstorms and winter storms have long been recognized as
significant safety hazards, as well as major causes of system delays.
Using CoSPA, accurate forecasts of storms can be translated into
probable impacts to the system. This allows for improved decisionmaking
resulting in improved safety and reduced delays.
I am very concerned that the budget request of $16.4 million will
not support the R&D needs of the Weather Program within RE&D. The
request for this program is reduced more than 2 percent from the fiscal
year 2010 level and is operating at one-half the level of funding
appropriated 10 years ago. To address the pressing challenges and to
meet the research needs of NextGen, the Weather Program must receive,
at a minimum, $18 million for fiscal year 2012.
Weather Technology in the Cockpit
The 2009 crash of an Air France jet over the Atlantic Ocean,
killing all 216 passengers and 12 crew members, is very likely an
example of the limits of pilots' ability to cope with severe weather.
Pilots currently have little weather information as they fly over
remote stretches of the ocean where some of the worst turbulence
encounters occur. Providing pilots with at least an approximate picture
of developing storms could help guide them safely around areas of
potentially severe turbulence.
The Weather Technology in the Cockpit Program leverages research
activities with other agencies, academia, and the private sector by
enabling the adoption of cockpit technologies that provide pilots with
hazardous weather information and improve situational awareness.
I am very concerned that the fiscal year 2012 request for this
small, but life-saving program within RE&D was reduced by almost 4
percent from fiscal year 2010 levels. I urge you to fund the Weather
Technology in the Cockpit program at $10 million, at a minimum.
faa's facilities and equipment
Delays in the National Airspace System (NAS) are primarily
attributable to weather. According to the FAA, during the last 5 years
more than 70 percent of delays of 15 minutes or more, on average, were
caused by weather. Weather also impacts safety. Between 1994 and 2003,
weather was determined to be a contributing factor in more than 20
percent of all accidents. Currently, most operational decision tools do
not utilize weather information effectively or at all. Therefore,
exploring, identifying, and employing better methods for data
collection and communication will help facilitate the flow of
operation-specific weather data and information to end users. Within
F&E, I would like to call your attention to the following two very
important programs:
NextGen Network Enabled Weather.--NextGen Network Enabled Weather
(NNEW) is a transformational, multiagency project dedicated to using
and developing technologies and standards for NextGen that will support
effective dissemination of weather data. NNEW will develop the FAA's
portion of the 4-D Weather Data Cube which will provide standardized
information from multiple contributors and locations to a variety of
end-users including air traffic managers and pilots.
The fiscal year 2012 request for NNEW is $27.35 million, a $7
million increase more than fiscal year 2010. To develop the NextGen
weather dissemination system smoothly and efficiently, I urge you to
support this request.
NextGen Reduce Weather Impact.--The goal of the NextGen Reduce
Weather Impact program is to provide increased capacity in NAS while
reducing congestion and meeting projected demand in an environmentally
sound manner. The current weather observing network is inadequate to
the needs of NextGen and improvements will be central to the work in
the Reduce Weather Impact Program. Working with appropriate scientific,
modeling, and user communities, current sensor information and
dissemination shortfalls will be identified and evaluated.
Investigating technologies for optimizing and improving automated
aircraft weather reporting will also be conducted, to meet NextGen
requirements.
The Reduce Weather Impact portfolio will leverage the NNEW
transformational program that will interface with the National Oceanic
and Atmospheric Administration's 4-D Weather Data Cube, for universal
common access to weather information.
I urge you to increase the NextGen Reduce Weather Impact program
funding to $43.2 million for fiscal year 2012, an increase of $7.6
million from fiscal year 2010.
On behalf of UCAR, I want to thank the subcommittee for its
leadership in supporting research, development and technology transfer
programs within the FHWA and FAA, and for your commitment to ensuring
safer, more efficient air and road travel.
______
Prepared Statement of YWCA USA
Thank you Chairman Murray, Ranking Member Collins, and members of
the subcommittee for the opportunity to submit testimony. My name is
Gloria Lau, and I am the chief executive officer of the YWCA USA. As
the Congress works on priorities for the fiscal year 2012 Federal
budget, I would like to highlight one vital program in particular under
the jurisdiction of this subcommittee: the Community Development Block
Grant (CDBG) which is administered by the Department of Housing and
Urban Development (HUD).
The YWCA USA is a national, not-for-profit (501(c)(3)) membership
organization committed to eliminating racism, empowering women, and
promoting peace, justice, freedom, and dignity for all. We represent
more than 2 million women and girls with nearly 300 local associations
nationwide. We serve thousands of women, girls, and their families
annually through a variety of programs including violence prevention
and recovery programs, housing programs, job training, and employment
programs, childcare and early education programs, and more. Our clients
include women and girls who come from all walks of life, including
those escaping violence, low-income women and children, women veterans,
elderly women, disabled women, and homeless women and their families.
The YWCA is a major provider of social services to women, children,
and families throughout the United States. Today, the YWCA is the
largest provider of battered women's shelters in the Nation and one of
the largest providers of childcare. As a major provider of social
services, the YWCA is extremely supportive of the CDBG. Every day, in
communities across this country, we witness the important role CDBG
plays in helping communities meet the needs of their low-income women,
children, and families. Today, CDBG is one of three main funding
streams for YWCA programs and services nationwide. YWCAs use CDBG
funding for a variety of programs, including programs that assist
victims of domestic violence and sexual assault, children and youth,
and homeless women and children. CDBG also provides flexible funding
for YWCAs nationwide to make capital improvements to their buildings
such as installing wheelchair ramps or security cameras.
Because of our strong support for the CDBG, the YWCA asks the
subcommittee to concur at a minimum to fund the CDBG program in HUD at
$4 billion. This call for support comes directly from local communities
across the country, as local YWCA associations surveyed in December
2010 identified this vital block grant as one of their most critical
funding sources for the services they provide.
As members of the subcommittee know, the CDBG, created in 1974, is
a block grant program that provides funding to local communities across
the United States. The CDBG provides annual grants on a formula basis
to more than 1,200 units of local government and States, which then use
the funds to pay for community development initiatives, affordable
housing programs, and anti-poverty initiatives. CDBG helps communities
provide social services to low-income women, children, and families who
reside in their communities, but cannot afford the cost of services.
While CDBG is often perceived as a funding stream mainly for local
governments, the impact of this program on nonprofit organizations,
such as the YWCA, is substantial. Local governments that receive CDBG
collaborate with community service providers, such as YWCAs, to provide
social services. The local governments then pass through the CDBG funds
to the service providers to help cover the cost of the services
provided.
As a service provider working with women, children, and families
with unique needs, the YWCA values the fact that CDBG is not a cookie-
cutter/one-size-fits-all program; it is a block grant funding stream
that provides local governments and States flexibility in developing
programs and services most appropriate to meet the needs of its low-
income residents. Thanks to the flexibility afforded under the block
grant, YWCAs are able to use CDBG funding for a variety of programs and
services that help countless women, children, and families annually.
For example, YWCAs use CDBG funding to provide:
--short-term shelter and supportive services for homeless families;
--night and day shelter and services for chronically homeless women;
--economic assistance programs that help low-income working women pay
for work uniforms, tools, transportation, background checks,
and certification and licensing fees;
--housing programs such as emergency, transitional, and permanent
housing for women and families;
--programs and services for vulnerable women and children including
programs that help formerly incarcerated women returning to the
community;
--after-school groups and youth recreation programs in at-risk
neighborhoods for girls and boys; and
--programs for adult and child survivors of domestic violence and
sexual assault.
In addition, though often not recognized as an important source of
funding for addressing violence against women and children, CDBG plays
a critical role in the ability of YWCAs to meet the needs of women and
children who are crime victims. For example, YWCAs nationwide are
allocated CDBG funds by their local governments to provide anti-
violence services such as emergency shelters and services for victims
of domestic violence; sexual assault crisis services including 24-hour
hotlines, support group and crisis counseling; hospital, police
department and court accompaniments; and prevention education.
Given the flexible nature of CDBG, it is not surprising that YWCAs
cite CDBG as one of the most vital sources of Federal funds available
to serve people in their communities. Stories abound of how YWCAs have
been able to serve women and families in cities and towns across the
United States because of CDBG funding. The following are just a few
stories:\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Ibid.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The YWCA of Lancaster uses CDBG funding to run its Sexual Assault
Prevention and Counseling Center, which serves 700 to 1,000 direct
service clients annually. Specifically, the YWCA uses CDBG funding to
hire counselors to work directly with the victims of sexual assault. A
loss in CDBG funding for the YWCA of Lancaster would mean sexual
assault victims would not be able to receive services and would be
placed on a waiting list. Maureen Powers, the executive director of the
YWCA of Lancaster, comments, ``One-third of our direct service clients
are children, and we really should not have a waiting list for child
clients. It takes a lot for them to disclose sexual abuse to begin
with.'' Though these are tight fiscal times for our Nation, I think
many of us would agree that funding to help child victims of sexual
assault is taxpayer money well spent.
Another story,\2\ this time from the YWCA of Binghamton/Broome
County in Binghamton, New York, further demonstrates how CDBG helps the
most vulnerable in our communities. The YWCA of Binghamton/Broome
County uses CDBG funding to run its emergency shelter for women, which
serves more than 300 women and children a year. Many of the women and
children served by the shelter are victims of domestic violence. CDBG
funds, which come to the program through the city of Binghamton annual
Emergency Shelter Grant, are the shelter's primary funding source. A
loss in CDBG funding would mean the women and children served by the
shelter would not be able to receive housing and the shelter, the only
facility of its kind in the community, would possibly have to close.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ As reported in ``A Better Budget for All: Saving Our Economy
and Helping Those in Need'' published by Coalition on Human Needs for
the ``For the SAVE for All Campaign: Strengthening America's Values and
Economy for All'', on February 25, 2011, and downloaded from http://
www.chn.org/pdf/2011/BetterBudget4AllReport.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In today's anti-spending climate, people often believe Federal
funding provides total operating funding for social service programs.
That is not the case for local YWCAs that use Federal, State, and local
funding as well as individual, foundation, and corporate donations.
Even if CDBG does not provide total program funding for YWCA programs,
CDBG provides funding for critical components of those programs. For
YWCAs across this country, every dollar counts.
In addition to helping fund vital components of social services
programs, CDBG helps nonprofit service providers leverage other sources
of funding--whether from other government sources or private community
support--to further assist women and children in need. For example, in
2010, the YWCA Seattle/King/Snohomish in Washington used more than $1.4
million in CDBG funding to leverage approximately $19 million in other
funding to support some of its most critical programs such as those for
homeless individuals and families and those with very low incomes.
Though CDBG accounted for just a small percentage of this YWCA's
government grants and operating income, the YWCA would have had to
decrease services without CDBG funds.
In Lewiston, Maine, the YWCA has used support from community block
grant funds to make an aging facility more safe, more energy efficient
and more usable for the 10,000 people from a tri-county area who look
to the YWCA for support and services. With just a modest amount of
funding support, this Maine YWCA is working in close cooperation with
its community to be more green, more accessible to disabled clients and
more responsive to the women and their families who come to the YWCA
for lifesaving support.
As you can see, this call for your support of CDBG comes directly
from communities across the country. CDBG is an invaluable tool that
assists local governments in addressing domestic violence, sexual
assault, homelessness, and poverty. Severely cutting CDBG funding would
cause budget gaps for local governments, lead to the discontinuation of
many vital community services, and place in harm's way some of our
Nation's most vulnerable women and children.
Though my testimony today is on behalf of the YWCA, the importance
of CDBG is also recognized by the leaders of our Nation's cities and
our U.S. Senators. These leaders recognize that cutting CDBG would be
harmful because it promotes private sector growth.
For example, every $1 from the CDBG program brings in $1.62 in non-
CDBG funds.\3\ As noted by the National League of Cities, for nearly
four decades, CDBG has served as a catalyst for financing housing,
infrastructure, and economic development in America's cities and towns.
The program has also been credited with retaining and creating
employment opportunities. According to a letter written in March 2011
to the chairman and ranking member of the Appropriations Committee,
signed by about one-third of the Senate, ``Based on data that grantees
have reported to the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development
over the past 6 years, the CDBG program has . . . created or retained
259,346 jobs for low- and moderate-income persons through a variety of
economic development activities.'' The letter also notes that CDBG has:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ National League of Cities CDBG Issue Brief, downloaded April
12, 2011, from http://www.nlc.org/ASSETS/
4D74A625F6714A6688F93FC892AA0FAC/CDBG-Issue-Brief.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
--Assisted 865,874 low- and moderate-income households through
single-family and multifamily residential rehabilitation, home
ownership assistance, energy efficient improvements and lead-
based paint abatement;
--Benefited 22,998,047 low- and moderate-income households through
such public improvements as the development of senior centers,
childcare centers, and centers for the disabled; and
--Benefited 73,863,286 low- and moderate-income households through
public services such as employment and training, youth
services, meals and other assistance to the elderly, and
services for abused and neglected children.
The contribution of the CDBG program to thousands of communities
across the country and hundreds of thousands of people in the United
States cannot be denied.
In closing, the YWCA recognizes these are unique times in our
Nation's history and we agree that our Nation must address its deficit
and debt. At the same time, the YWCA believes strongly that investments
in local communities and programs are wise uses of Federal funds that
provide substantial returns to our Nation. On behalf of YWCAs
nationwide, we look to you for continued commitment to the women,
children, and families we serve through the CDBG and respectfully ask
the subcommittee to support the President's fiscal year 2012 budget
request for $4 billion dollars in funding for CDBG.
Thank you once again for the opportunity to provide testimony to
your subcommittee. Your attention and assistance are greatly
appreciated.