U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

53–243 PDF 2009

LEGISLATIVE PROPOSALS TO INCREASE 

WORK AND HEALTH CARE OPPORTUNITIES FOR 

PUBLIC AND SUBSIDIZED HOUSING RESIDENTS 

FIELD HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON 

HOUSING AND COMMUNITY OPPORTUNITY 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON FINANCIAL SERVICES 

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

JULY 20, 2009 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Financial Services 

Serial No. 111–63 

( 

(II) 

HOUSE COMMITTEE ON FINANCIAL SERVICES 

BARNEY FRANK, Massachusetts, Chairman 

PAUL E. KANJORSKI, Pennsylvania 

MAXINE WATERS, California 

CAROLYN B. MALONEY, New York 

LUIS V. GUTIERREZ, Illinois 

NYDIA M. VELA ́ ZQUEZ, New York 

MELVIN L. WATT, North Carolina 

GARY L. ACKERMAN, New York 

BRAD SHERMAN, California 

GREGORY W. MEEKS, New York 

DENNIS MOORE, Kansas 

MICHAEL E. CAPUANO, Massachusetts 

RUBE ́ N HINOJOSA, Texas 

WM. LACY CLAY, Missouri 

CAROLYN MCCARTHY, New York 

JOE BACA, California 

STEPHEN F. LYNCH, Massachusetts 

BRAD MILLER, North Carolina 

DAVID SCOTT, Georgia 

AL GREEN, Texas 

EMANUEL CLEAVER, Missouri 

MELISSA L. BEAN, Illinois 

GWEN MOORE, Wisconsin 

PAUL W. HODES, New Hampshire 

KEITH ELLISON, Minnesota 

RON KLEIN, Florida 

CHARLES A. WILSON, Ohio 

ED PERLMUTTER, Colorado 

JOE DONNELLY, Indiana 

BILL FOSTER, Illinois 

ANDRE ́ CARSON, Indiana 

JACKIE SPEIER, California 

TRAVIS CHILDERS, Mississippi 

WALT MINNICK, Idaho 

JOHN ADLER, New Jersey 

MARY JO KILROY, Ohio 

STEVE DRIEHAUS, Ohio 

SUZANNE KOSMAS, Florida 

ALAN GRAYSON, Florida 

JIM HIMES, Connecticut 

GARY PETERS, Michigan 

DAN MAFFEI, New York 

SPENCER BACHUS, Alabama 

MICHAEL N. CASTLE, Delaware 

PETER T. KING, New York 

EDWARD R. ROYCE, California 

FRANK D. LUCAS, Oklahoma 

RON PAUL, Texas 

DONALD A. MANZULLO, Illinois 

WALTER B. JONES, JR., North Carolina 

JUDY BIGGERT, Illinois 

GARY G. MILLER, California 

SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West Virginia 

JEB HENSARLING, Texas 

SCOTT GARRETT, New Jersey 

J. GRESHAM BARRETT, South Carolina 

JIM GERLACH, Pennsylvania 

RANDY NEUGEBAUER, Texas 

TOM PRICE, Georgia 

PATRICK T. MCHENRY, North Carolina 

JOHN CAMPBELL, California 

ADAM PUTNAM, Florida 

MICHELE BACHMANN, Minnesota 

KENNY MARCHANT, Texas 

THADDEUS G. McCOTTER, Michigan 

KEVIN McCARTHY, California 

BILL POSEY, Florida 

LYNN JENKINS, Kansas 

CHRISTOPHER LEE, New York 

ERIK PAULSEN, Minnesota 

LEONARD LANCE, New Jersey 

JEANNE M. ROSLANOWICK, Staff Director and Chief Counsel 

(III) 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON HOUSING AND COMMUNITY OPPORTUNITY

MAXINE WATERS, California, Chairwoman 

NYDIA M. VELA ́ ZQUEZ, New York 

STEPHEN F. LYNCH, Massachusetts 

EMANUEL CLEAVER, Missouri 

AL GREEN, Texas 

WM. LACY CLAY, Missouri 

KEITH ELLISON, Minnesota 

JOE DONNELLY, Indiana 

MICHAEL E. CAPUANO, Massachusetts 

PAUL E. KANJORSKI, Pennsylvania 

LUIS V. GUTIERREZ, Illinois 

STEVE DRIEHAUS, Ohio 

MARY JO KILROY, Ohio 

JIM HIMES, Connecticut 

DAN MAFFEI, New York 

SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West Virginia 

THADDEUS G. McCOTTER, Michigan 

JUDY BIGGERT, Illinois 

GARY G. MILLER, California 

RANDY NEUGEBAUER, Texas 

WALTER B. JONES, JR., North Carolina 

ADAM PUTNAM, Florida 

KENNY MARCHANT, Texas 

LYNN JENKINS, Kansas 

CHRISTOPHER LEE, New York 

(V) 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

Hearing held on: 

July 20, 2009 ..................................................................................................... 1 

Appendix: 

July 20, 2009 ..................................................................................................... 45 

WITNESSES 

MONDAY, JULY 20, 2009 

Burris, Lisa, Director of Organizing, Good Old Lower East Side ........................ 28 

Drinane, Suleika Cabrera, President and Chief Executive Officer, Institute 

of Puerto Rican/Hispanic Elderly, Inc. ............................................................... 33 

Graham, Yvonne J., Deputy President, Brooklyn Borough .................................. 13 

Henriquez, Hon. Sandra Brooks, Assistant Secretary for Public and Indian 

Housing, U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development .................... 6 

Jones, David R., President and Chief Executive Officer, Community Service 

Society of New York City ..................................................................................... 25 

Joseph, Keith, Vice President, Homecare Division, 1199 Service Employees 

International Union (SEIU) United Healthcare Workers East ........................ 36 

Mark-Viverito, Hon. Melissa, District 8 Council Member, New York City 

Council .................................................................................................................. 15 

McReynolds, Larry, Executive Director, Lutheran Family Health Centers ....... 34 

Musolino, Mario, Executive Deputy Commissioner, New York State Department of Labor ....................................................................................................... 10 

Rammler, David T., Attorney and Director of Government Relations, National 

Housing Law Project ............................................................................................ 26 

Rhea, John B., Chairman, New York City Housing Authority ............................ 12 

Rice, Douglas, Senior Policy Analyst, Center for Budget and Policy Priorities . 30 

Rodat, Carol A., New York Policy Director, Paraprofessional Healthcare Institute ........................................................................................................................ 31

Trasvina, Hon. John D., Assistant Secretary for Fair Housing and Equal 

Opportunity, U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development .............. 8 

APPENDIX 

Prepared statements: 

Drinane, Suleika Cabrera ................................................................................ 46 

Garcia, Aida ...................................................................................................... 53 

Henriquez, Hon. Sandra Brooks ...................................................................... 55 

Jones, David R. ................................................................................................. 58 

Mark-Viverito, Hon. Melissa ........................................................................... 60 

Markowitz, Marty ............................................................................................. 64 

McReynolds, Larry ........................................................................................... 68 

Musolino, Mario ................................................................................................ 73 

Rammler, David T. ........................................................................................... 81 

Rhea, John B. .................................................................................................... 90 

Rice, Douglas .................................................................................................... 95 

Rodat, Carol A. ................................................................................................. 108 

Trasvina, Hon. John D. .................................................................................... 118 

Yanis, Christy ................................................................................................... 122 

ADDITIONAL MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD

Waters, Hon. Maxine: 

Written responses to questions submitted to Larry McReynolds ................. 127 

Page

VI 

Waters, Hon. Maxine—Continued 

Written responses to questions submitted to Mario Musolino ..................... 129 

Written responses to questions submitted to David T. Rammler ................. 133 

Written responses to questions submitted to Douglas Rice .......................... 136 

(1) 

LEGISLATIVE PROPOSALS TO INCREASE 

WORK AND HEALTH CARE OPPORTUNITIES 

FOR PUBLIC AND SUBSIDIZED 

HOUSING RESIDENTS 

Monday, July 20, 2009 

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON HOUSING AND

COMMUNITY OPPORTUNITY, 

COMMITTEE ON FINANCIAL SERVICES, 

Washington, D.C. 

The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 9:20 a.m., at City 

Hall, New York, New York, Hon. Maxine Waters [chairwoman of 

the subcommittee] presiding. 

Members present: Representatives Waters and Velazquez. 

Also present: Representative Maloney. 

Chairwoman WATERS. This hearing of the Subcommittee on 

Housing and Community Opportunity will come to order. 

Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. Welcome to the Subcommittee on Housing and Community Opportunity’s New York 

City field hearing entitled, ‘‘Legislative Proposals to Increase Work 

and Health Care Opportunities for Public and Subsidized Housing 

Residents.’’ Thank you all for joining us this morning. 

I would like to begin by thanking the New York City Council for 

graciously allowing us to use this very beautiful place for today’s 

hearing. 

Thank you, Speaker Quinn, and especially Thomas Allen and 

Chuck Ferrara for all of your help in arranging the use of this 

chamber. 

The reason we are all here today is because of the bold and admirable leadership of Chairwoman Nydia Velazquez, New York 

City member of the Housing Subcommittee and our very able chairwoman of the Small Business Committee of the Congress of the 

United States of America. 

Ms. Velazquez is a true champion for the rights of residents of 

public and subsidized housing and has been dedicated to the Brooklyn community she serves, as well as the neediest communities 

throughout the country. 

I commend Ms. Velazquez for her tireless work on improving the 

lives of public housing and subsidized housing residents everywhere. 

The very, very special thing about Nydia Velazquez is she is able 

to be the best advocate for small businesses, a distinction in the 

Congress of the United States of America, helping to increase jobs, 

2 

because small businesses are creating more jobs in this economy 

than big business. 

And she does that while keeping a hand right in the district on 

public housing. I’m here today because she has created proposals 

and she asked if I would come and hold this subcommittee hearing 

here. I’m very, very pleased to be here with her in her leadership. 

I would also like to thank our ranking member of the Housing 

Subcommittee, Shelly Moore Capito, who very much wanted to be 

here today but was unable to attend. 

We have some very, very special other members of the House Financial Services Committee who are with us today. Of course, Congresswoman Carolyn Maloney of the 14th District in New York, 

and Congressman Greg Meeks will be joining us, representing the 

6th District, a little later. 

Carolyn Maloney, as you know, did a wonderful job of helping 

this country to deal with the credit card abuses, helping not only 

to pass it, and worked very hard initiating the Credit Cardholders’ 

Bill of Rights. 

Thank you very much, Carolyn, for your work. 

I would also like to thank Congressman Ed Towns of the 10th 

District of New York, and Congressman Anthony Weiner of the 9th 

District. I think they will be here this morning a little bit later to 

support and engage in this important discussion of public housing 

issues. 

And with that, I will ask unanimous consent that Representatives Carolyn Maloney, Greg Meeks, Ed Towns, and Anthony Weiner be considered members of the subcommittee for this hearing. 

Today’s hearing will address the important legislation Ms. Velazquez is drafting to improve and expand opportunities for jobs and 

health care access for residents of public housing and subsidized 

housing. The need to assist public housing residents in accessing 

health care and employment opportunities is significant in New 

York City. 

The New York City Housing Authority is the largest provider of 

Federal public housing units in New York City, with over 178,000 

public housing units and 338 developments. 

Furthermore, the New York City Housing Authority represents 

about 8.4 percent of New York City’s rental apartments and 

houses, 4.8 percent of the City’s population, which amounts to over 

402,700 residents. 

The first legislative proposal is the Earnings and Living Opportunities Act, which would reform the Section 3 Program to expand 

job opportunities for residents of public housing. To help connect 

low-income residents to employment opportunities, HUD established the Section 3 Program in 1968, which requires a certain 

project funded by HUD must meet specific goals for contracting 

hires and training low-income people to work on this project. 

The program serves public housing residents and those who live 

in an area where a citizen’s project is located and have an income 

below either 50 or 80 percent below the median income of that 

area, depending on HUD income limits for the area. 

Unfortunately, there has been little enforcement and compliance 

with this program. Few public housing agencies or other HUD 

grant recipients had met their obligation under the law. 

3 

In 2003, the HUD Inspector General found that HUD lacked 

basic control on compliance. Furthermore, HUD’s Office of Fair 

Housing and Equal Opportunity has few enforcement options under 

current regulation. However, I’m encouraged to know that the potential for job for low-income residents under Section 3 is significant. 

As we saw, a public housing rehabilitation program, some estimated that over 15,000 jobs could be produced annually for public 

housing residents. With the appropriate guidelines and requirements in place, I’m confident that Section 3 can fulfill its original 

purpose to lift poor people out of poverty. Representative 

Velazquez’s bill, the Earnings and Living Opportunities Act, would 

fix the Section 3 Program to increase and create more types of 

training and job opportunities while strengthening the monitoring 

and compliance of the Section 3 Program. 

She certainly has my full support and I look forward to the introduction of her report to Legislature. Her other proposal is the Together We Care Act, which would provide public housing residents 

to become trained as home health care aides for the aging low-income population in public and subsidized housing. 

With that, I’m going to recognize Ms. Velazquez for her opening 

statement. 

Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. 

Good morning, everyone. I want to really take this opportunity 

to thank Chairwoman Waters for holding this important hearing. 

And I would have to say, she has been one of the strongest, leading 

voices in Congress on public housing and tenant’s rights. And we 

have gone so far and we have accomplished so much compared to 

the last 8 years that, I have to say, so many working families in 

our country, Congresswoman Maxine Waters are indebted to your 

commitment and compassion to make sure that working families in 

America have a better tomorrow, especially in cities like New York, 

Boston, and Los Angeles, where the real estate market is going 

through the roof. That is the last frontier that we have and what 

we can offer to working families, public housing. 

So, let me take this opportunity to also thank Speaker Quinn 

and her able staff for hosting us today and the entire New York 

City Congressional Delegation, especially Congresswoman Carolyn 

Maloney. 

Madam Chairwoman, our State is home to the Nation’s largest 

public housing authority. As many New Yorkers know, this program doesn’t just provide affordable housing, it helps foster economic development in underserved communities. Given the economic downturn and the many challenges that our Nation is facing 

today, from housing foreclosure to rising unemployment, especially 

among African Americans, Latinos, and Asians, the timing of this 

hearing couldn’t have been more appropriate. 

Today, we will examine two proposals that came to ensure our 

housing system delivers for working families. 

Currently, the average one-bedroom apartment in New York 

costs $2,600 a month, an amount among the highest in the Nation 

and out of the reach of so many, especially public housing residents. In fact, the average income for a family living in affordable 

housing is just over $22,000 a year. 

4 

If we can help these hardworking families find adequate employment, it will increase their options and help improve their lives and 

communities. Job training and placement has long been the primary purpose of Section 3. The program requires HUD contractors 

to employ working men and women while rebuilding their own 

communities. However, the program has not evolved to its promise 

from from Bush, Sr, to Clinton, to Bush, Jr. They have tried to 

really reform Section 3. They have tried to make it work, but it 

hasn’t. 

In 2005, there were at least 20,000 public housing residents looking for jobs in New York City. Last year, they reported finding 

work through Section 3 for just 10 residents. Especially with the 

unemployment rate today of 9.5 percent, New Yorkers cannot afford for this program to fail. And given the increased Federal investment in public housing that the economic recovery package provides to New York, it is the right time to make sure that Section 

3 lives up to its promise. 

We need to expand training opportunities and promote entrepreneurship within the public and subsidized housing community. It 

is important to place emphasis on hiring benchmarks and make 

clear that when a business accepts a contract with NYCHA or 

HUD, it has an obligation to hire local workers. With solely jobs 

and contracting goals, we can improve oversight and ensure accountability for the Section 3 Program, but most importantly, put 

Americans back to work. 

Since 2003, I have promoted efforts to strengthen and enforce 

Section 3 regulations and I will be working with the chairwoman 

to move legislation again this year. This is not the only area of improvement needed for New York City’s affordable housing. It is no 

secret that our country is aging. 

In my district alone, there are 30,000 seniors living in public 

housing. And nationwide, nearly 1 in 3 HUD households is home 

to an elderly person. While the number of people is expected to 

double by 2030, the number of family members available to take 

care of them is not keeping pace. This presents an opportunity and 

challenge to train public housing residents to meet this home’s 

health care demand. 

This is a win-win. It is a win-win for seniors who live in public 

housing and it is a win-win for residents. Because if they could be 

trained, if they could get a certification, they will be able to get a 

well-paying job. 

NYCHA would win, because then these people will pay more to 

cover their rent. So, in the last Congress, I introduced the Together 

We Care Act. The purpose of this bill is to educate and instruct 

HUD tenants in the field of home health care services. 

Not only will this increase employment prospects for residents, 

it increases health care options for those in their golden years. The 

bill will enable tenants to forge sustainable careers in the modern 

industry. And at the end of the day, that is what housing programs 

should be about, self-sufficiency and financial independence. 

I will be reintroducing this legislation shortly and I look forward 

to working with Chairwoman Waters and all of the members of the 

Financial Services Committee to move it forward. 

5 

And Chairwoman Waters, without objection, I would like a written statement and letters of support of the following organizations 

that I included here be made part of the record for this hearing. 

Chairwoman WATERS. Without objection. 

Ms. VELAZQUEZ. With that, I thank you. Thank you very much. 

Chairwoman WATERS. Ms. Maloney, for 5 minutes. 

Mrs. MALONEY. Thank you very much. 

First, it is a great honor for me to be back in the City Council 

Chambers in which I had the honor of serving for 10 years with 

my good friend, Nydia Velazquez. And a special welcome to council 

member Melissa Mark-Viverito, who is an outstanding advocate for 

public housing, helping people in all good causes. 

And I congratulate and thank Chairwoman Waters who is—I admire her tremendously. She always nails her position to the masthead and she doesn’t move. And when I started on the Credit Card 

Bill of Rights, there were a lot of push-backs and there was one 

person who was there at every hearing, every meeting, always 

speaking up, always working hard, Maxine Waters. 

We are really very privileged in this country to have her as the 

chair of the Housing Subcommittee when there is such a desperate 

need of housing in this country. And she has moved forward numerous bills to help people and worked selflessly to do so. 

And Nydia Velazquez is the first woman to chair the Small Business Committee in history. Her whole life is a series of remarkable 

firsts in her work in Congress and in so many ways. And I am 

thrilled to be a strong supporter of this initiative. 

It takes Nydia’s leadership to take a bill that has been on the 

books since 1968, dust it off, put it back to work, and turn it onto 

a mandate, because this is an unfunded mandate. Since 1968, she 

has been funding it to provide jobs, probably the biggest problem 

in our City now, with unemployment at 7 million since the crisis 

started with the economy. But this money will help create jobs, 

train residents, and provide money for contracting with businesses 

run by low-income people. 

My only addition is that the $2 million is not enough. I would 

support her in pushing it up to $50 million. I think that this is a 

program that is national and it needs more funding to make it happen. But she is not only helping public housing and housing but 

individuals. And I would just say that New York State has a lot 

of the firsts—has a lot of things to be proud of, but one of them 

is our public housing operation. 

When Nydia and I served on the City Council, there were 

700,000 people waiting to get into New York City public housing. 

There are now 200,000 people waiting to get into New York City 

public housing. It is a tremendous success in so many ways. And 

also New York City’s regional HUD, I think, is the best in the Nation. It is creative. As for our housing authority, I would put the 

rest of my remarks on the record, because I’m looking forward to 

hearing what you have to say. 

Thank you so much. And thank you, Nydia, and thank you, Maxine, for having this important hearing. 

Chairwoman WATERS. You are certainly welcome. 

Our first panel, I would like to ask Representative Velazquez to 

read the names of the supporters that we have placed in the 

6 

record. In order to have the record completed, we must have each 

of the names of the organizations. 

Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Yes, Chairwoman Waters. Without objection, I 

would like the written statements and letters of support for the following organizations to be made part of the record for the hearing: 

Commonwealth Housing Legal Services; Corporation for Supportive Housing of New York; Council of Large Public Housing Authorities; Lawyer’s Committee for Civil Rights Under Law; Legal 

Aid Society, New York; National Black Chamber of Commerce; National Low Income Housing Coalition; New York City Comptroller, 

William ‘‘Bill’’ Thompson; Paraprofessionals Healthcare Institute; 

Pastor Frederick Newell of St. Paul, Minnesota; Sam Jackson of 

New Orleans and Willy ‘‘JR’’ Fleming of the Coalition to Protect 

Public Housing; St. Nicholas Neighborhood Preservation Corporation; Supportive Housing Network of New York, Transportation Equity Network; United Job Creation Council of California, United 

Neighborhood Houses of New York. 

Thank you. 

Chairwoman WATERS. Without objection, they will be added to 

the record. 

I would like to introduce our first panel. 

Our first witness is the Honorable Sandra Henriquez, Assistant 

Secretary for Public and Indian Housing, from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. 

Our second witness will be the Honorable John Trasvina, Assistant Secretary for Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity, U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. 

Our third witness will be Mr. Mario Musolino, executive deputy 

commissioner, New York State Department of Labor. 

Our fourth witness will be Mr. John Rhea, chairman of the New 

York City Housing Authority. 

Our fifth witness will be Ms. Yvonne Graham, deputy president, 

Brooklyn Borough Hall. 

And our sixth witness will be the Honorable Melissa MarkViverito, District 8 council member, New York City Council. 

Thank you very much for appearing before the subcommittee 

today. Without objection, your written statements will be made a 

part of the record. You will now be recognized for a 5-minute summary of your testimony, starting with Ms. Sandra Henriquez. 

STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE SANDRA BROOKS 

HENRIQUEZ, ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR PUBLIC AND INDIAN HOUSING, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN 

DEVELOPMENT 

Ms. HENRIQUEZ. Good morning. 

Thank you, Chairwoman Waters, and the distinguished Members 

of Congress. I am Sandra Henriquez, Assistant Secretary for Public 

and Indian Housing. I want to thank you for having me here today. 

I would like to begin by thanking Representative Velazquez for 

her creative and thoughtful work toward addressing the pressing 

needs of not only one, but two groups of citizens in need of assistance to become and remain self-sufficient. The Together We Care 

Act of 2009 proposes a pilot grant program to train work-able 

adults living in public housing to provide necessary in-home perVerDate Nov 24 2008 16:22 Dec 15, 2009 Jkt 053243 PO 00000 Frm 00012 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 K:\DOCS\53243.TXT TERRIE
7 

sonal care services for elderly and disabled residents of public and 

assisted housing. And clearly, this was mentioned as a win-win approach. 

I also commend the fact that this Act allows the services to be 

provided to residents of both public and various types of assisted 

housing. Under the leadership of Secretary Donovan, HUD is looking to cross long standing silos that have artificially divided essentially similar beneficiaries of housing assistance based on the 

source of funding. 

To this end, we recommend that the eligible recipients of this 

training be expanded to Housing Choice Voucher holders as well as 

residents of conventional public housing. 

As can be expected, as the average age of the Nation increases, 

the average age of residents of public housing also increases. For 

the elderly and disabled residents on fixed incomes, public or assisted housing is often their last independent housing option. As 

seniors age, they find themselves in need of assistance with activities of their daily lives. 

However, when on a fixed income, many residents of public and 

assisted housing cannot afford access to in-home personal care that 

can be a vital and sustained step between independent living and 

full nursing home care. 

A recent HUD study showed that the presence of a service coordinator was associated with lengths of resident occupancy that 

were 10 percent, or more than 6 months, longer than at facilities 

without Service Coordinators, controlling other factors. 

The average cost of homemaker services is about $18 per hour. 

If you contrast that with $187 per day in a shared room in a nursing home, you can see the difference is quite dramatic. If limited 

in-home service provision can successfully delay the costly institutionalization of the residents, it has a potential to create substantial savings, in human costs as well as financial. 

In the past several years, HUD has modified its supportive services programs, to conform across housing programs to the Service 

Coordinator model. This model is one wherein HUD provides the 

salary for a Service Coordinator position as part of the housing authority or property management staff. 

The role of the Service Coordinator is to form collaborative partnerships with State- and locally-funded agencies, nonprofits, community colleges, banks, and businesses to offer activities and services to residents. Too often, in the absence of a Service Coordinator, 

we find that although excellent services may be available in the 

neighborhood community, our residents do not access them. 

In assisted housing, the presence of the Service Coordinators has 

been shown to reduce property damage, turnover, and evictions, 

thus assisting residents to move to self-sufficiency or remain independent while saving money for property operations, a preventive 

management tool, if you will. 

With the Service Coordinator model in mind, we will be sure that 

the Together We Can Act’s pilot program allows joint applications 

that leverage existing programs and services through critical partnerships. We should take advantage of the training programs and 

successful businesses already in place, instead of expecting a public 

8 

housing authority to create a new training program or manage the 

employment of its residents. 

Effectively partnering with the local public work force system, 

which was recently encouraged by Secretary Donovan and the Department of Labor Secretary Solis’s joint letter to housing authorities and Workforce Investment Boards, is essential to provide opportunities for residents to continue their path to be self-sufficient 

once they get their foot in the door. 

Involving a home health agency as the employer also opens the 

door for further training and advancement along their career ladder, something that the Public Housing Authority cannot provide. 

Strong partnerships are recommended to execute these programs in 

the most efficient manner. 

The bill proposes funds to pay for the services to be provided to 

public and assisted housing residents. Most residents of public and 

assisted housing will not have the disposable income to hire inhome personal care services independently. 

Residents at below 30 percent of area median income will likely 

qualify financially for benefits with Medicaid, but higher-income 

residents may not. 

In addition, there are specific functional steps to qualify for Medicaid in-home personal care services. Even if these residents qualify, the level of the benefits and availability of funding varies State 

by State. We recommend that the State Medicaid Program should 

be involved as a partner, as well. 

Again, we applaud the effort that went into this bill. We support 

the intent of the program. We look forward to implementing the 

creative approach for self-sufficiency for families and for our senior 

and disabled residents. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Assistant Secretary Henriquez can be 

found on page 55 of the appendix.] 

Chairwoman WATERS. The second witness will be the Honorable 

John Trasvina. 

STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE JOHN D. TRASVINA, ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR FAIR HOUSING AND EQUAL OPPORTUNITY, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT 

Mr. TRASVINA. Good morning. On behalf of the Department of 

Housing and Urban Development, I am pleased to discuss the importance of fostering job opportunities in public housing and the 

Department’s responsibilities related to Section 3 of the HUD Act 

of 1968. I want to thank both Chairwoman Waters and Chairwoman Velazquez for holding this hearing. 

You both represent metropolitan areas that have a significant 

population of low-income residents, the very population Section 3 

is meant to assist with economic opportunities. For too long, we 

have focused on buildings and not people. Section 3 enforcement, 

job opportunities, and residents have suffered by this approach. We 

are determined to fix it, and we will. 

In the few days and weeks the key actors have been in place in 

the Department, we have developed a plan and strategy for Section 

3 and public housing residents giving them the serious attention 

9 

they merit. We must ensure that HUD funds result in meaningful 

employment, training, and contracting opportunities for low-income 

persons throughout the country. 

The new leadership at HUD is ready to make this happen, and 

we appreciate the reforms Congresswoman Velazquez offered in the 

Earnings and Living Opportunities Act to further this effort. 

Congress passed Section 3 to ensure that the effects of HUD investments in local economies reach low- and very-low-income residents in the form of wages, contracts to businesses that are owned 

or who employ them, and sales revenue for those in the community 

who provide services to the community. 

Section 3 requires that when certain HUD-funded recipients hire 

new personnel, they give preference to low- and very-low-income 

persons and/or businesses owned by these persons, or that substantially employ these persons, and that, to the greatest extent feasible, 30 percent of the new hires be Section 3 covered persons. 

Now, one of the obstacles before us is in is in the language, ‘‘to 

the greatest extent feasible.’’ Nonetheless, there are some successes. The Department conducted a compliance review for Kansas 

City, Missouri, after several complaints in regard to compliance. 

The review resulted in a number of findings and corrective actions 

that the Department issued that it instructed Kansas City to implement. Kansas City not only took the Department’s findings seriously, it dedicated a significant amount of time and resources to 

the development of policies and procedures that resulted in a significant increase in employment and contracting opportunities for 

Section 3 residents. 

Kansas City provided 39 percent of its funding for Section 3 residents and awarded 26 percent of the total dollar amount of all contracts to Section 3 business concerns. 

Nonetheless, prior to 1986, FHEO, my office, received reports for 

only about 4 percent of covered recipient agencies. Since then, reporting has increased to 25 percent, and 80 percent of the reports 

showed the recipients failed to meet the minimum goals and did 

not provide an adequate explanation. 

As an incoming Assistant Secretary, I was dismayed to learn 

this, but today’s leadership is committed to do better and bring 

about meaningful compliance with Section 3. 

The Department has been using webinars and satellite broadcasts to provide consistent training on the requirements of Section 

3 to large audiences of recipients and HUD staff. We have appeared before the Public Housing Authority Directors Association 

and the National Council of State Housing Agencies. 

Later this month, we will be conducting more training for all Departmental employees for Section 3. To increase the rate of compliance and quality of information provided, we are revising the annual reporting form. In the next 60 days, we will also remind recipients of their duty to comply with Section 3. 

I am pleased that Assistant Secretary Henriquez and our new 

Assistant Secretary for Community Funding and Development will 

join me in this regard. However, if educational requirements and 

outreach to recipients do not increase compliance, we will impose 

the available sanctions for noncompliance. 

10 

To further establish incentives to create economic opportunities, 

Secretary Donovan and Secretary Solis entered into a partnership 

to promote employment opportunities for residents of public housing. 

We are now focused on the American Recovery and Reinvestment 

Act of 2009 with Section 3 in mind. It has two key purposes: To 

preserve and create jobs and promote economic recovery; and to assist those folks seriously affected by the current economic downturn. 

We agree that a significantly more robust Section 3 program at 

HUD is critical to promote more economic opportunity for low-income residents. 

We now have a leadership in HUD that is committed to more aggressive outreach to HUD recipients, to advise them of their obligations under Section 3. And we’ll work collaboratively to achieve 

compliance. 

Also, as suggested in your discussion draft, the Department has 

already gone beyond the four walls of HUD to collaborate with 

other Federal agencies on joint efforts to integrate Section 3 into 

the wide range of economic recovery activities. 

Thank you for bringing long-needed attention to ways to 

strengthen the promise of Section 3, and for allowing me to testify 

today. I will look forward to answering your questions and working 

on the legislation. 

[The prepared statement of Assistant Secretary Trasvina can be 

found on page 118 of the appendix.] 

Chairwoman WATERS. Thank you very much. 

Mr. Musolino? 

STATEMENT OF MARIO MUSOLINO, EXECUTIVE DEPUTY 

COMMISSIONER, NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF LABOR 

Mr. MUSOLINO. Thank you very much, Madam Chairwoman. 

Thank you, Congresswoman Velazquez, as well. I appreciate the 

opportunity to be here to comment on these proposals on behalf of 

Governor Paterson and Commissioner Smith. I’m particularly interested in this. I have come here not just as executive deputy commissioner of the State Department of Labor, but also as a former 

director of Public Housing—Housing Authority in upstate New 

York. 

I recognize how important this initiative is and I applaud Congresswoman Velazquez for really working on making sure that selfsufficiency is achieved by the residents from all over the State. We 

certainly have many communities in the State that can benefit 

from these initiatives. Unemployment rates and poverty rates in 

the State are on the increase and have been increased dramatically. Persons with low incomes constitute the largest percentage 

of the unemployed in New York State. Many of those living in poverty and low wage earners are residents of public housing subsidized by the Federal Government. 

The pilot program proposed in the Together We Can Act to train 

public housing residents for home and community-based health 

care occupations affords the opportunity to field test a plan that 

serves two purposes: Providing training and job creation for the unVerDate Nov 24 2008 16:22 Dec 15, 2009 Jkt 053243 PO 00000 Frm 00016 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 K:\DOCS\53243.TXT TERRIE
11 

employed and underemployed; and expanding the supply of directcare workers to assist the elderly and disabled. 

The need for direct care workers is being expanded dramatically, 

and I know you’re going to hear testimony about that later today. 

The Bureau of Labor Statistics projects that personal and home 

care aides and home health aides will be the second and third fastest growing occupation in the country between 2006 and 2016, increasing by 51 percent and 49 percent respectively. So, there’s a 

great need to fill these positions. 

In New York, a home health aide training program must include 

a minimum of 75 training hours, including 16 hours of supervised 

practical training. There are more than 350 organizations statewide that were approved to operate home health aide programs. 

And while we believe the scope of the existing home health care 

aide training program includes residents of public or subsidized 

housing, New York State currently has no home health care training programs or office to specifically serve that target population. 

Our department, the Department of Labor, is a State administrative agency under the Federal Workforce Investment Act of 1998, 

the Wagner-Peyser Act. The majority of these funds for the Workforce Investment Act, about 85 percent, are distributed via formula 

to the 33 workforce investment areas around the State, which focuses on preparing individuals for occupations, considering demands in local areas. 

A key challenge for all work force training programs is limited 

resources. The need for these services far surpasses our available 

funds. The Recovery Act also emphasizes the importance of providing services to those mostly in need of employment training 

services. These low-income individuals often need basic and work 

readiness skills development in addition to the occupational training. They usually have many needs for support services, as well. 

Residents of public housing would meet the eligibility requirements 

of many of these programs. 

I would like to note that in New York State, we are trying to implement a sector-based coverage to all of our training programs. 

Health care is one of the sectors that we have targeted as an important growing industry here in New York State. 

We’re focusing on that along with green and renewable resources 

and advanced manufacturing in the State. It’s important that we 

promote wrap-around supportive services to all the clients in the 

employment and training system. Transportation, childcare services, these are often barriers the employed and unemployed individuals need to overcome in order to be able to be gainfully employed. 

To accomplish this, the department has tried to take the lead in 

developing partnerships and collaboration around the State with 

sister agencies from all States and local. For instance, Public Housing Authorities and local Workforce Investment Boards are working 

together to form the connections that work best for their local communities. 

And as mentioned before, HUD and USDOL issued a mass mailing to all PHA and WIB directors encouraging collaborations. So, 

we support that and we also are supportive of the Earnings and 

Living Opportunities Act. 

12 

One thing I would like to point out is the importance about the 

labor unions in discussions around that. There’s a great—and I’m 

sure the chairman will talk about how NYCHA works with labor 

unions, which have been very successful in bringing the right people to the table. So, we applaud the efforts. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Musolino can be found on page 

73 of the appendix.] 

Chairwoman WATERS. Thank you. 

Mr. John Rhea? 

STATEMENT OF JOHN B. RHEA, CHAIRMAN, NEW YORK CITY 

HOUSING AUTHORITY 

Mr. RHEA. Thank you. Chairwoman Waters, Representative 

Velazquez, and members of the subcommittee in the New York 

Congressional Delegation, I am John Rhea, chairman of the New 

York City Housing Authority. Thank you for this opportunity to 

discuss NYCHA and to express a support for the important legislative measures and the economic opportunities for public housing 

residents. 

As you noted, the New York City Housing Authority is the largest provider for low and moderate public houses in the United 

States for over 400,000 New Yorkers living in public houses and 

another 97,000 families receiving rental assistance through the 

Section 8 Program. 

As NYCHA’s newly-appointed chairman administered proving 

quality of life for residents, NYCHA is a powerful economic engine 

to generate significant returns of local companies or citizens of the 

City. 

Sharing their economic benefits with our residents is their key 

priority. This means increasing jobs and business opportunities for 

our residents. NYCHA’s core population is working families who 

comprise nearly 50 percent of our public housing households. These 

families are a stabilizing and contributing force within public 

houses and the City. They continue to be fundamental in NYCHA’s 

success. With the infusion of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act fund and housing authorities nationwide, the focus on enhancing resident employment opportunities cannot be more timely. 

One of the key tools available to housing authorities across the 

country is to promote economic opportunity, a mandate of Section 

3. So, the proposed Earning and Living Opportunities legislation 

modify the current provisions of Section 3 of the Housing and 

Urban Development Act of 1968, to support the goals of Section 3. 

It is a challenge to implement and has long been an unfunded 

mandate to require NYCHA and housing authorities across the Nation to divert scarce resources to administer the program. 

The current expenditure was $2 million annually for resident 

employment with Section 3 compliance for NYCHA alone. We welcome the funding proposal of this bill. Dedicated funding will enhance the capacity of housing authorities certainly to implement 

Section 3. 

However, to make this legislation meaningful, the funding level 

should be significantly increased from $5 million nationwide to at 

least $50 million, with a separate set-aside for funding for residentVerDate Nov 24 2008 16:22 Dec 15, 2009 Jkt 053243 PO 00000 Frm 00018 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 K:\DOCS\53243.TXT TERRIE
13 

mentoring programs to work with residents as they participate in 

Section 3 training. 

Additionally, housing authorities should be granted flexibility to 

include other recipients of HUD assistance, such as Section 8 participating families, in the employment priorities. One of the things 

that the proposed legislation does not address, such as economic restraints and local labor conditions, makes it difficult to achieve the 

numbers contemplated by Section 3. 

The provisions of the draft bill sending an immediate requirement to 30 percent of new hires and 30 percent of hours worked 

be performed by residents, while understood in spirit, is too aggressive. The reality is that few, if any, housing authorities would be 

able to comply with Section 3. 

Alternatively, we recommended 30 percent of new hires be the 

standard, as it is an achievable goal given the contractors in-place 

workforce, and the total percentage of hours worked by Section 3 

employees should be prescribed in the contracts as they are determined during negotiations. 

Finally, we are particularly concerned that the proposed sanctions outlined in the bill include the reductions for future funding 

for housing authorities unable to meet the hiring and contracting 

targets. The bill will inadvertently punish residents and the sanction would adversely impact the ability of non-supplied housing authorities to maintain core services for residents and, most likely, 

result in reduced services. We believe sanctions should be directed 

to contractors and unions that are unwilling to participate in Section 3 programs. 

You should also consider the fact that many of the skills and 

training programs are run exclusively by unions that are unable to 

provide an adequate amount of training slots for the number of 

residents contemplated by this bill. 

Additionally, the bill imposed a requirement that will reduce opportunities for otherwise qualified contracts, particularly the minority/woman-owned businesses. Many subcontractors are unable 

to absorb the hiring requirements contained in the draft bill. 

Very quickly, I would like to address the attention of the proposed home and health care legislation. NYCHA and Congresswoman Nydia Velazquez launched the proposed pilot program involving home and health care training for NYCHA on Lower East 

Side at one community center. 

The proposed bill in 2009 establishes a compelling grant to fund 

training for public housing residents as home and health care aides 

to provide home-based health care. Given the growth in the health 

care industry, we think that this is an invaluable bill, so we look 

forward in working with you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Rhea can be found on page 90 

of the appendix.] 

Chairwoman WATERS. Thank you very much. 

Ms. Graham? 

STATEMENT OF YVONNE J. GRAHAM, DEPUTY PRESIDENT, 

BROOKLYN BOROUGH 

Ms. GRAHAM. Good morning. I’m grateful for the opportunity to 

represent Marty Markowitz. 

14 

Good morning, Chairwoman Waters, and the rest of the Representatives. I’m grateful for the opportunity to represent Brooklyn 

Borough President Marty Markowitz and to present his testimony 

on his behalf. 

First, I want to thank Congresswoman Velazquez for your distinguished record of leadership and for recognizing the need to find 

creative approaches to increase job opportunities and health care 

access for residents and publicly-subsidized houses. 

Let me begin by directing the Together We Care Act, which will 

target Medicaid eligible seniors and the disabled by providing them 

with needed home health care assistance, while at the same time 

providing skills training and job opportunities in the home health 

care field for residents in public housing so they work with those 

seniors. 

Brooklyn benefits from this program in many ways. First, according to the New York City Housing Authority, as of May 2009, 

Brooklyn had the greatest number of conventional public housing 

in New York City with 100 developments and 58,452 apartments. 

Second, our borough has the highest concentration of seniors in 

New York City, with 280,610 in 2005. The Department of City 

Planning projects that by the year 2030, the borough will have as 

many as 410,000 elderly residents, a 45 percent increase since the 

last census in 2000. 

In nearly every category—income, housing costs, disability, and 

linguistic isolation, Brooklyn’s elderly residents face greater health 

challenges and are hospitalized at higher rates for most major diseases compared to other older New Yorkers. 

Of course, we know that people, particularly the elderly who live 

in poor socio-economic conditions, frequently have difficulty accessing medical and preventive services, and experience barriers in obtaining assistance to manage their chronic health conditions so 

that they can stay active and enjoy optimum health. 

Recruiting and training home health aides from public housing 

to offer a variety of elder care services will serve many purposes. 

It will undoubtedly be a cost-effective and dignified way of enabling 

people who are elderly, disabled or ill to live in their own homes 

instead of health facilities or institutions. 

These home health aides have to provide medical, physical, and 

psychological support which adds greatly to the quality and quantity of life for the elderly. 

In addition, the fact that the participants of the program will be 

drawn from public housing and provided with skills training and 

job opportunities will not only ensure that they have an income, 

but also is an expeditious route to self-sufficiency. 

Further, as the baby boomer generation begins to retire, the need 

for this training program will become more pronounced as they 

would require more health care services. We already have a shortage of home-based health care workers. Therefore, this program 

will fill a critical gap. 

Also, dollars that will going to these communities for training 

will create jobs and strengthen the budgets of the community-based 

organizations that are currently losing funding. 

Clearly, this is win-win situation for all stakeholders involved. 

However, in addressing people’s critical needs, the program’s sucVerDate Nov 24 2008 16:22 Dec 15, 2009 Jkt 053243 PO 00000 Frm 00020 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 K:\DOCS\53243.TXT TERRIE
15 

cess should ultimately be judged by the benefits and performance, 

and we offer the following recommendations: 

First, that the program’s efforts to recruit participants increase 

retention and encourage self-sufficiency, and provide home health 

aides with financial incentives or earnings comparative to industry 

standards, so that these paychecks would be more attractive than 

a welfare check. 

Second, that psychosocial support and financial literacy issues 

are included during the trainings and thereafter aimed at increasing program participant’s knowledge about money management 

and how to build the personal and financial resources they need to 

achieve and maintain self-sufficiency, as well as responding to their 

psychosocial needs. 

The second piece of the proposed legislation, the Earnings and 

Living Opportunities Act, would affect over 2.5 million Brooklyn 

residents. Again, with the highest concentration of public housing, 

Brooklyn proves to be a major beneficiary of this legislation. As a 

way to improve compliance, the legislation suggested use of existing local resources. And I would like to suggest that the downtown 

Brooklyn advisory and oversight committee be added to a list of 

local resources for HUD. 

Again, I thank Congresswoman Velazquez for her leadership. 

And Brooklyn looks forward to working with all of you. 

[The prepared statement of Brooklyn Borough President Marty 

Markowitz can be found on page 64 of the appendix.] 

Chairwoman WATERS. Thank you very much. 

Council Viverito, did I pronounce your name correctly? Is it 

‘‘Viverito?’’ 

STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE MELISSA MARK-VIVERITO, 

DISTRICT 8 COUNCIL MEMBER, NEW YORK CITY COUNCIL 

Ms. MARK-VIVERITO. Thank you. Chairwoman, if you would just 

give me a 1-minute preamble and not take it from my time—I just 

wanted to say on behalf of myself and Speaker Christine Quinn, 

and to the Chair of the Public Housing Subcommittee and members, thank you very much for holding these hearings here in our 

chambers and you are very welcome to have them in the future. 

It’s a great pleasure to meet you. And, obviously, we appreciate 

your team leadership as well as Congresswoman Velazquez on behalf of public housing and residents. Thank you very much. 

Chairwoman WATERS. You are welcome. 

Ms. MARK-VIVERITO. Good morning, Chairwoman Waters, Representative Velazquez. My name is Melissa Mark-Viverito and I’m 

a member of the New York City Council representing the 8th 

Council District, embracing the area of East Harlem, Manhattan 

Valley, and a portion of the South Bronx. 

I want to really thank Representative Velazquez and the members of the subcommittee for the opportunity to testify at this hearing regarding two important pieces of legislation. 

Within my district, I represent about 20 housing developments 

comprising about 12,500 units. The public housing is one of the 

largest concentrations of public housing in the City of New York. 

So, this is becoming a passion of mine and it becomes a real issue 

of concern and priority to me, personally. 

16 

Having represented the district for over 31⁄2 years—and I’m just 

speaking with unfortunate familiarity of the difficulties that many 

of my constituents have in obtaining training for jobs that provide 

useful career-oriented employment and the challenge at stake by 

this constituents in seeking and receiving health care services. 

Representative Velazquez’s Together We Can Act—together we 

can act to establish that pilot program, which concurrently tackles 

two of the major hardships affecting public housing residents 

today: the lack of training and skills that leads to gainful employment; and the equally dire need for greater supervision and care 

for elderly or disabled public housing residents, to which I referred 

earlier. 

The pilot program that this bill creates will allow many unemployed and underemployed public housing residents who lack the 

necessary skills to find work in the current economy, to be trained 

in a profession with high demand. 

The competitive grant program will be run by HUD and this 

pilot program will also generate opportunities for a broad array of 

entities, which are public companies, agencies, community health 

centers, home care provider organizations, as well as faith-based 

and legal organizations, of which many applied to receive these 

funds. 

One thought that I would like Representative Velazquez to consider is that the bill would require that the grant funds be spread 

out among two or more different types of organizations in each 

area in which the pilot program take place. It’s better to evaluate 

the effectiveness of each type of organization’s training program 

and the quality of care that results from it. 

Another change to the bill that we would like for you to consider 

is ensuring that in each of the four target areas—urban, rural, Native American, and non-State populations—a statistically significant minimum number of residents in public housing are both 

trained and cared for through the pilot program in order to more 

realistically gauge and accept on a wider scale, even if greater appropriations are necessary. 

And it must also be said that despite our present economic difficulty, the authorized appropriation—which I have mentioned, the 

$2.5 million—we think it’s really—and I’m sure you will agree as 

well. Now, we would love to see that increase to have the great impact that this legislation merits. 

I believe that these changes will help to improve the pilot program that it implements, and it would not in any way detract from 

the fact that the proposed legislation marks an important step for 

achieving two important goals, increasing useful training and employment for public housing residents. 

Now, the second piece of the legislation, the Earnings and Living 

Opportunities Act, substantially amends Section 3 of the Housing 

and Urban Development of 1968, an important section that tends 

to generate employment and training opportunities to low- and 

very-low-income individuals. And we had hearings on that, as well. 

I hear this a lot from residents with regard to Section 3, Section 

3, and having that money come back to the community as a way 

of uplifting our community. 

17 

So, it’s an important issue. And it becomes more important now that we have $400 million coming from the Reinvestment Act into 

NYCHA for capital improvements, to see that money impact our 

communities directly. 

The bill addresses and tends to rectify a number of the major 

problems of Section 3 since its adoption in 1968, including the lack 

of oversight and noncompliance with these regulations. The proposed legislation establishes a series of substantive and procedural 

elements should provide a sharper focus with the program’s efforts. 

The first, mandating the creation of an office within HUD designed exclusively for the administration of Section 3, will better 

assure compliance with the program, establishing clear statutory 

priorities with respect to who is to be trained by recipients of HUD 

funds, and then employed by HUD, will better assure that residents of the development where the funds are expended, followed 

by residents of the neighborhood, are the biggest beneficiaries of 

the on-the-job-training programs. 

The proposed legislation goes further and sets explicit percentages for low- and very-low-income persons who are newly hired by 

recipients of HUD funding and mandates that they be given paying 

work. This is an important improvement that has real potential for 

benefiting those who Section 3 was designed to help and is further 

enhanced by requiring that at least 10 percent of the value of contracts for work performed using HUD funds be allocated to businesses controlled by persons of low and very low income. 

Additionally, the report to Congress that the HUD Secretary and 

the GAO must provide should serve as an added incentive to ensure compliance at the local level. The bill also creates an arsenal 

of sanctions, though it would perhaps be beneficial to create or enhance mechanisms to ensure that the sanctions are sufficiently utilized when appropriate. 

So, thank you very much. I thank you for the hearing. My testimony is in the record. You will have your recommendations. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Mark-Viverito can be found on 

page 60 of the appendix.] 

Chairwoman WATERS. Thank you all very, very much. I’m going 

to recognize myself for just one question and then I’m going to return it to Ms. Velazquez. I think she probably has lots of questions 

that she would like to ask, so I would rather direct my question 

to Mr. Trasvina. 

In your testimony, you note the abysmal level of compliance with 

Section 3, requiring reporting it at only 25 percent. Although this 

is an increase from 4 percent in 2007, perhaps more troubling is 

the fact that in more than 80 percent of reports submitted, the recipient failed to comply with Section 3 and didn’t provide a reason 

for the failure. 

Basically, these entities received Federal funds but failed to hire 

public housing residents as the law requires. Is the Department 

planning to take action against those entities that submitted Section 3 reports and clearly made no effort to comply with Section 3 

hiring requirements? What type of actions can the Department do? 

Mr. TRASVINA. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. 

In the immediate term, the three Secretaries who are most relevantly affected by this are Community Planning and DevelopVerDate Nov 24 2008 16:22 Dec 15, 2009 Jkt 053243 PO 00000 Frm 00023 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 K:\DOCS\53243.TXT TERRIE
18 

ment, Public and Indian Housing, and Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity. We will be advising all of the public housing entities of 

their requirements to comply with the law. And we will seek their 

compliance right away. 

I believe that the current abysmal rate that you quoted, and I 

think it’s correct, does not reflect the actual conduct of the public 

housing entities, but it reflects the reportings. And they have received what we believe is not accurate guidance in the past about 

the requirements to fill out the forms. 

We don’t know whether that rate is so small. It can actually 

mean that they are not hiring or they’re not reporting that they are 

hiring. 

In either way, because of the language of ‘‘to the greatest extent 

feasible,’’ we have found that the best way of obtaining greater results is not so much by requiring enforcement of any particular recipient’s requirements, but by increased training—and training so 

that they will better report what they are actually doing. But right 

away, within the next 60 days, I’m sure we’re taking other steps 

particularly on our money and to make sure that we get greater 

results. 

Chairwoman WATERS. Thank you very much. As you know, the 

Housing Authority convenes in Washington regular conferences. 

And Ms. Velazquez and I can remind them that they have a responsibility to report it so we’ll know what is going on. We look forward to working with you again. 

Mr. TRASVINA. Thank you very much. 

Chairwoman WATERS. I will now recognize Ms. Velazquez. 

Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Thank you, Chairwoman Waters. 

You know, in the last 8 years, we heard so much about transparency and accountability. But when it comes to Federal programs 

serving low-income communities, if we measure results, there was 

neither transparency nor accountability. 

I promise you that in the next 8 years, there’s going to be transparency and accountability. And for those who try to use the fact 

that by putting oversights and legal teeth into legislation, that we 

are punishing residents because when we say we are going to cut 

funding until you get it right, well, you have just one order of business and that is to get it right. So, we are giving you an opportunity for local authorities to make it right on behalf of public 

housing residents. 

And so, I have been working on Section 3 for almost 17 years. 

And if we look at the numbers—the numbers, if we have any numbers because there hasn’t been any data collection. So, how do we 

in Congress introduce legislation to address shortcomings of programs if we don’t have any data to base our reaction assessment 

or reforms to those programs? But this 8 years, we promise we are 

going to be on top of it. 

So, Chairman Rhea, you say that jobs targeting of the Earnings 

and Living Opportunity Act punish residents because housing authorities will find it hard to comply with. However, targets will 

make the recipients and their contractors accountable to the community. 

19 

So, how do you suggest we bring more accountability and transparency to this program? How can housing authorities work with 

unions and their contractors to achieve this? 

Mr. RHEA. Thank you, Representative Velazquez. 

First, I would like to comment that I share your passion and 

amendment to ensure that Section 3 had more teeth in it and had 

a more effective form moving forward in the years to come and the 

months to come. 

I also share your opinion, that I don’t have patience for excuses 

for not implementing Section 3 within New York City Housing Authority components that we control. 

The comment that I made and suggestions to have teeth around 

unions and contractors, because there are pieces of these economies 

that would change and NYCHA does control it as a direct manager. 

Where we have led by example, I would like to point out that over 

25 percent of current NYCHA employees are public housing residents. Where we have that ability, we aggressively employ our residents. Over 65 percent of our new hirees have been current 

NYCHA residents. 

In terms of putting more teeth in the legislation and in the process, we created, as a panelist mentioned, an apprenticeship program with the unions 3 years ago, in which we targeted 300 new 

jobs that would be created by bringing members of public houses 

into the union as apprentices. 

They have only been able to hire about 225 people over that 3- 

year period, so they have come up short on the 300 target. And of 

the 225, only roughly 150 or so are still actively employed as members of the union. Others are out of it or are sitting on the bench 

just given the nature of the economy. 

So, we are looking to have the apprenticeship program be a 

major component of Section 3 legislation going forward in the way 

we’re going to implement it. And we want to have those targets be 

publicly identified and to honestly report how we’re performing 

against them. 

Some of the challenges that the union has pointed out are that 

the apprenticeship programs with the unions are really for, you 

know, uncles, cousins, brothers, and sons, and not for public housing residents. 

So, ultimately, we have to work very hard with the union to 

change that perception. 

Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Well, we have to change that culture. 

Mr. RHEA. Exactly. And I believe that—I’ll partner with you and 

we need your help to change that culture, but we can’t act like that 

culture doesn’t exist and it doesn’t impede our ability to make 

progress. 

Having said that, as we look at the work we have done with the 

unions, we believe that putting very stiff penalties, so if they don’t 

get those targets, for example, to create a fund in which they would 

pay into. And that fund will be used for the training of public housing residents. So, that there’s actually even if they come up short, 

there’s real economic penalties. And the economic penalties actually go to help public housing residents. 

Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Rhea. 

20 

Mr. Musolino, you have a particularly interesting background. 

You were executive director of the Troy Housing Authority and now 

you are the New York State—you’re working for the New York 

State Department of Labor. So, in your experience, how can we 

make the Section 3 Program work best and how do we best connect 

residents of public housing and subsidized housing with the job opportunities in their communities? How can we get the unions to the 

table so that they too understand that we are all in this together? 

Mr. MUSOLINO. Thank you, Congresswoman. That’s a great set of 

questions. I’ll give you a couple of things. 

In my experience with the Troy Housing Authority, I will tell you 

honestly that the Section 3 program is something we talked about 

a lot; but I would be lying to you if I told you that we made it the 

top priority in our housing authority. 

At the time I was at the Housing Authority in Troy, we suffered 

very dramatic budget cuts during the previous Administration, as 

you well know, because you fought them and we appreciate your 

record on our behalf in that world. 

There were such dramatic budget cuts that we were concerned 

about, literally, about being able to maintain our facilities; and 

that’s what we focused on. We had very little in the realm of supportive services for our residents. So, we would try to partner with 

other agencies. 

In some places, that probably works well; in other places, that 

doesn’t work so well. There is not a tremendous connection at all 

between housing authorities, and I spoke with my colleagues in upstate New York all the time. 

Between housing authorities and the Workforce Investment Act 

System—Workforce Investment Boards—I think there’s a critical 

component that we shouldn’t underestimate the role that they can 

play here. And I think the fact that the Secretary of HUD and the 

Secretary of Labor sent joint letters out to folks saying, ‘‘We should 

get together, talking to each other would be a big help.’’ And we 

can work with the Department of Labor as well and try to build 

some of that into our grant program; and we will do that. 

The labor question is also a difficult one. If people see a win-win 

situation, I believe that they will of course move forward. And labor 

unions around the State are starting to see that they do need replacement workers, that the old network we all recognize consisted 

of the cousins, the brothers, the whatever, isn’t actually providing 

the replacement workers who were needed in this economy. 

One of the issues that I’ll pose, which is very important, is to 

enter into the apprenticeship programs, there are barriers—sometimes they are educational barriers. Most apprenticeship programs 

require at least the GED or a high school diploma. 

So, we should work very hard at pre-apprenticeship programs. 

Those are the kinds of things we should actually partner with 

housing authorities around the State to put right into the facilities 

to develop these pre-apprenticeship programs that will allow us 

this gateway—this entry point into labor unions. 

Ms. VELAZQUEZ. So, there will be a time for a coordinated effort 

between Federal, State, and City Governemnts, especially in this 

program. 

21 

Secretary Trasvina—I love to call you Secretary Trasvina—congratulations and thank you for all the work that you did on behalf 

of the workers’ rights in this country through the work you did 

with MALDEF. 

You mentioned in your testimony that HUD entered into a 

memorandum of understanding with the Department of Labor to 

better serve public housing residents. How will the Earnings and 

Living Opportunities Act help your efforts to connect residents with 

employment opportunities? 

But also, based on your experiences, do you think that this approach will further the goal of Section 3 or hinder it? 

Mr. TRASVINA. The proposed legislation certainly will advance 

the goals. One of the most important parts of the legislation is the 

idea of the registry of Section 3 businesses. That is critical, to take 

away the excuse of ‘‘We can’t find the workers,’’ or ‘‘We can’t find 

the—.’’ Providing that is very, very important. 

Second, in terms of the partnership between the Department of 

Labor and HUD, it’s critically important following up on that. And 

we know that in many of the occupations that we talked about in 

Section 3, many of those are male-dominated industries. We need 

trainings to bring women into those industries. I’ll speak with the 

women of the Department of Labor to see what we can do on training, what can we do to publicize the opportunities. 

So, I would say that in a number of areas, the legislation goes 

very far to advance and make Section 3 more than a promise, to 

make it a reality. I would hesitate, though, about creating an office 

within HUD, separate from where it is now. 

While Section 3 is not about fair housing, it strikes at the core 

of equal opportunity. And what has been lacking in the past is a 

coordination among departments as well as within HUD. And you 

now have a commitment from the Secretaries, certainly, the Assistant Secretaries, to take it on in a meaningful way. 

And I would like to have the opportunity to make some changes 

within our compliance, within our strategies to make it work and 

really put some accountability and have it as part of Fair Housing 

to make more opportunity. 

Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Thank you for that, Mr. Trasvina. 

I worked with the President and his Administration in the provisions that were included in this American Incorporated Pre-Investment Act related to small businesses. And every time that I work 

on a provision that was included, they ask me, ‘‘For this amount 

of money, how many jobs you will be creating?’’ So, we need to justify. So—and do all mathematical analysis. My question to you is, you say that about $7.8 billion are Section 

3 eligible. How many jobs do you expect will be created? And can 

you explain for the benefit of those residents who are here in the 

audience, how can they access these jobs? 

Mr. TRASVINA. It is very difficult to ascertain. Putting $7.8 billion 

into a number of jobs, because it talks of new hires, rather than 

people being brought on otherwise. 

Also, one of the other glaring obstacles, Section 3 compliance, is 

just in terms of stating the annual reporting. We have noted the 

lack of reporting. But even in terms of when an entity is supposed 

to report, some report on a calendar year, some report on a fiscal 

22 

year, some report on the anniversary of their receipt of HUD funding. 

So, we have myriad ways of calculating the jobs that are going 

to be presented for other funding. 

One of the other benefits of your legislation, the new legislation in effect, for Fiscal Year 2008, Section 3 should have covered $17.5 

billion of HUD funding. Under your legislation, it would cover almost double, $35 billion. 

So, we will see a dramatic increase in the results, the number of 

jobs that are going to individuals who are in public housing or live 

in those areas. 

Chairwoman WATERS. Let’s focus on the stimulus package. Are 

all of the public housing developments (inaudible). 

Mr. RHEA. No, they are not. 

Chairwoman WATERS. In the stimulus package, who made the 

special effort to put the writing in there for broadband? And I know 

a lot of people think of it as raw arrogance, but that’s for underserved areas, and that is job creation. I would hope that New York 

City will use that money because that’s job creation, to put 

broadband in. 

Mr. RHEA. The New York City Housing Authority is currently 

working with Mayor Bloomberg’s team to jointly submit applications with competitive money for broadband activity. It’s obviously 

both in the homes and as well as in our community centers. We 

can do it in a joint, easily addressable community location. So, 

we’re looking at both. 

Chairwoman WATERS. Thank you. 

Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Chairman Rhea, you say in your testimony that 36 contracts totaling $130 million will be awarded by December of 

this year. How many of those are Section 3 eligible and how many 

of the jobs created with this money will go to public housing residents. 

Mr. RHEA. To date, of the $423 million in stimulus funding, we have already awarded 39 contracts for $145 million. And we project 

somewhere between 150 and 200 jobs directly created by that. Remember that the headline numbers look at the total value of a contract. Obviously, a significant percentage of that is not for employment but for goods and services. 

And so the employment we are striving, we have targeted the term that we use, for all contract over $500,000, we mandate that 

15 percent of the labor cost be given to the new hires in Section 

3. 

Ms. VELAZQUEZ. When you put out a contract for contractors, did 

you request as part of the agreement a job contracting job goal in 

terms of Section 3. 

Mr. RHEA. Yes. That’s what I was referring to. In the 39 contracts we have put out for bid, we have stated the number of new 

jobs that will be created by that— 

Ms. VELAZQUEZ. With the public housing residents. 

Mr. RHEA. That’s true. And then the number that will be available to public housing residents. And that’s an important factor of 

our analysis and evaluation bids. 

Ms. VELAZQUEZ. So, we can come back and hold a hearing here 

to measure how many jobs were created? What type of oversight 

23 

NYCHA will have in place to make sure that they did, not the best 

effort, but really will show what kind of action NYCHA will be taking with those contractors who fail to achieve those goals? 

Mr. RHEA. I would welcome working with you on that on an ongoing basis, and I would welcome a hearing that looked very deeply 

at what NYCHA was or was not able to achieve and some very direct explanations for why we did what we did. 

Ms. VELAZQUEZ. We’re talking here nationwide, $4 billion. You 

didn’t see that type of investment in public housing in the last 8 

years, never. So, this is your one shot that we have to empower 

low-income people who live in public housing who are seeking jobs. 

And we have to help and make it right. And we will do everything 

that it will take. And I am sure that, under the leadership of Congresswoman Waters, we will have the oversight that was lacking 

in the last 8 years. 

And I have the last question to Assistant Secretary Henriquez. 

What do you consider to be the primary need of elderly public 

housing residents? Is it access to disability-friendly apartments? 

Help with everyday living assistance? Or is it something else? 

Ms. HENRIQUEZ. I think I should say yes to all of those. I think 

the greatest need for seniors right now across city housing and 

public housing is the access to services so that they can live independently longer in their own homes. 

We have seen that time and time again—and I don’t have empirical data, but when you have a senior who has to be relocated and 

displaced into a different facility, it does tend to shorten their lives. 

And so, if you can keep them longer where they’re familiar in 

their neighborhoods, etc., then it is better to build a basket of services around them so they can be with friends and family and wellknown communities that they’re familiar with. 

And that link helps their ability to want to continue on. I think 

that’s the most important part of the work you’re proposing in your 

bill. It really goes to do that, to help neighbors helping neighbors, 

if you will, to extend a whole variety of things but delivers the staff 

and the services for seniors and really connects intergenerationally. 

Ms. HENRIQUEZ. On the second panel, we’re going to have experts testify to the fact that many elderly are being moved out of 

their apartments. They have this network of friends, neighbors 

that they know. This is where they feel comfortable. And they are 

being moved out of those apartments because there’s no services in 

terms of health care. And it is a problem. 

We are getting phone calls into our offices from their children 

complaining that their mental health is also impacted by this type 

of action. 

Thank you very much— 

Ms. MARK-VIVERITO. Can I add something to that? One of the 

issues that we have also taken to heart here at the City Council 

is the NARCs, the National Retirement Communities, which is basically allowing elderly people to age in place by providing support 

networks. And we have committed some money to it and we find 

it be very useful. 

I think public housing is the next frontier for that. There are a 

lot of people who are aging in our public housing developments, 

and we’re not providing them adequate support services. 

24 

To whatever extent your legislation proposal could also speak to 

that, naturally occurring retirement communities—I know the Department for the Aging is very committed to that, as well. And 

that’s an aspect that we’re speaking to. 

Chairwoman WATERS. Thank you very much. 

I would like to thank this panel for your presentations and the 

time that you have spent with us. We’re going to look at those contractors who failed to comply, even after the regs they had agreed, 

to push from the Federal level to help you realize your goals. 

The Chair notes that some members may have additional questions for the panel which they may wish to submit in writing. 

Without objection, the hearing record will remain open for 30 days 

for members to submit written questions to these witnesses and to 

place their responses in the record. This panel is now dismissed. 

And I would like to welcome our second panel. 

Thank you very much. 

Before we get started, I would like to announce that Congressman Ed Towns regrets that he will not be able to attend today and 

he wanted me to share that with you. 

Also, we just got a message that Congressman Meeks is just getting off the airplane and he is on his way here. We expect him at 

any moment. 

Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Chairwoman Waters? 

Chairwoman WATERS. Yes. 

Ms. VELAZQUEZ. I would like to recognize New York City Housing 

Authority Board Members, particularly Ms. Lopez who has been 

fighting Section 3 for so many years. And she was a member of the 

City Council and is now a member of the New York City NYCHA’s 

board. 

Thank you. 

Chairwoman WATERS. Welcome. 

I’m pleased to welcome our distinguished second panel. Our first 

witness will be Mr. David Jones, president and CEO of the Community Service Society of New York City. 

Our second witness will be Mr. David Rammler, attorney and director of Government Relations, National Housing Law Project. 

Our third witness will be Ms. Lisa Burris, director of organizing, 

Good Old Lower East Side. 

Our fourth witness will be Mr. Douglas Rice, policy analyst, Center for Budget and Policy Priorities. 

Our fifth witness will be Ms. Carol Rodat, New York policy director, Paraprofessional Healthcare Institute. 

Our sixth witness will Ms. Suleika Drinane, president and CEO, 

Institute for Puerto Rican/Hispanic Elderly Incorporated. 

Our seventh witness will be Mr. Larry McReynolds, executive director, Lutheran Family Healthcare. 

And our eighth witness will be Mr. Keith Joseph, vice president, 

Home Care Division, Service Employees International Union 1199. 

Without objection, your written statements will be made a part 

of the record. You will now be recognized for a 5-minute summary 

of your testimony. When I first hit the gavel, it will indicate that 

you have a minute left. 

Okay. With that, let us start with Mr. Jones. 

25 

STATEMENT OF DAVID R. JONES, PRESIDENT AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, COMMUNITY SERVICE SOCIETY OF NEW 

YORK CITY 

Mr. JONES. Thank you, Chairwoman Waters. And I would also 

like to give special thanks to Congresswoman Velazquez. 

I have been head of the Community Service Society for 23 years. 

And literally, the entire time the Congresswoman has stood firm on 

this issue to improve public housing, and also on Section 3. So, I 

would like to thank you. I didn’t think we would get this far, frankly. We have been hitting at this for so long and it seemed like it 

was going nowhere. 

Again, thank you for letting me testify on Section 3. CSS has 

long been concerned with the scale and effectiveness of Section 3, 

particularly at the New York City Housing Authority (NYCHA). 

More than $1 billion in HUD dollars is spent each year on management, operation, and capital improvements. And this year, 

NYCHA, of course, as has been said, is going to get an additional 

$423 million in economic stimulus funds, which would open up, we 

hope, for some further opportunities. 

We have issued a report that is timely in this case that really 

gives lots of statistics on unemployment and labor participation 

rates of the residents of NYCHA that comes together fortuitously. 

And of course, we submitted it. But let me just summarize some 

of the things particularly worry us. 

We estimate that only 51 percent of NYCHA’s 23,000 working 

age residents participated in the labor force in 2005. At present, we 

estimated that between 20,000 and 30,000 residents are currently 

unemployed and now are actively seeking work in a recession time 

that’s considerably worse than any time since the Great Depression 

of 1930. 

Most are Black and Latino women, many under the age of 24, 

or men of color between 18 and 34. And the fact that over 36 percent don’t have a high school diploma undermines the importance 

of the GED issue, which also raises critical questions about what 

kinds of jobs they’re going to be able to get, if we don’t work at this 

in terms of Section 3. 

Last week, our New York City comptroller estimated that 

400,000 New Yorkers are currently going to be out of work before 

the end of the recession. And we see worse coming. 

In the Community Service Society report, we think that the efforts to strengthen Section 3 provisions to—the ways that are suggested are extraordinarily important. It accords the first hiring and 

training priorities to residents in developments where HUD funding is expended. 

It’s extraordinarily hard, and we see it as a real danger to New 

York, if residents facing perhaps more than 20 percent unemployment rates are going to be looking at enormous surges of capital 

construction with no jobs for them. This is not safe for the City of 

New York. And we have to do more than just the couple of hundred 

to date. 

The legal right of action is necessary to really go after this. Government has failed too often, and people have been left out. And, 

also, the requirements for hiring for agencies and contractors reVerDate Nov 24 2008 16:22 Dec 15, 2009 Jkt 053243 PO 00000 Frm 00031 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 K:\DOCS\53243.TXT TERRIE
26 

ceiving HUD funds. And finally, Section 3, all we think is critically 

important. 

Let me summarize and then stop. We think, however, what’s 

missing has to be strengthened. We need performance incentives to 

actually get NYCHA and other housing authorities to actually do 

this. They’ll run big deficits. This is a unique skill set, actually, to 

recruit, train, and place workers, even in facilities where work is 

going on. 

They’re basically managers of facilities. They’re not particularly 

good at this. So we think incentives that would actually make it 

possible for them to put money into the recruitment, training, and 

placement would be critically important. 

Finally, I am worried that we have two different problems. We 

have sort of touched upon the problem of the construction trades, 

which are going to get a lot of the money here. I think people are 

being very nice about it. New York has one of the worst records in 

discriminatory practices in construction trades anywhere in the 

country. 

And while that is falling away, we recognize now that to expect 

an immediate reaction of the construction trades is going to take 

most of my lifetime. We need a—that work has vital importance. 

This a wonderful opportunity to start that negotiation, coming halfway with the union. 

We need immediate work. If I have so many people out of work 

in 2010, I need job core kinds of operations. I need immediate work 

opportunities. And we have models all over the country that are 

available to do just that. 

So, I see this in two parts. Let’s engage the construction trades 

for those kinds of work. But then let’s come up with worker core 

ideas that are all over the country, where we can mobilize young 

and old in work force development projects that are useful, and 

people can see immediate gain, but also can give wage and some 

effort in the very short term until we get through this recession. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Jones can be found on page 58 

of the appendix.] 

Chairwoman WATERS. Thank you very much. 

We now recognize Mr. David Rammler. 

STATEMENT OF DAVID T. RAMMLER, ATTORNEY AND DIRECTOR OF GOVERNMENT RELATIONS, NATIONAL HOUSING 

LAW PROJECT 

Mr. RAMMLER. Chairwoman Waters, thank you very much for 

this opportunity to testify on behalf of the National Housing Law 

Project with respect to Section 3. 

We have produced ‘‘An Advocate’s Guide to the HUD Section 3 

Program’’ to assist legal services and other attorneys and advocates 

across the country to do this kind of work. And we have been involved in this kind of work for many years. This opportunity which 

we now face, approximately $12 billion of recovery funds, and approximately $14 billion of funds which could, in one way or another, be channeled through HUD to the communities that we 

speak of, is an opportunity which we cannot let pass. 

27 

And so we applaud this bill and many of the provisions of it. And 

we want to help you move forward in any way we can. 

The bill, we suggest, has several very good broad perspectives. It 

broadens the applicability of Section 3, it eliminates confusion 

about differences between public housing, community housing and 

other HUD recipients of funds. And it just speaks of recipients of 

funds administered by HUD. So, we think that’s important. 

It clarifies the expected performance standards, as has been 

mentioned earlier. This ‘‘greatest extent feasible’’ standard from 

the 1968 law has just not worked, because ‘‘greatest extent feasible’’ was whatever you want to put into it. And if you’re focused 

on something else, it just doesn’t happen. 

So, we think not only the continuation of the 30 percent of new 

hires, but particularly the 30 percent hours of work is critical. 

We have all been involved in projects where, at the end of day, 

you saw the contractors hire 30 percent of their hires 2 weeks before the project is over, or give them 3 hours of sweeping up work 

to do at the end of a construction day. 

We were not involved in jobs beyond construction, computer jobs 

and management jobs and all the other kinds of things which HUD 

spent money on. 

So, we think the broadening of the scope of the work, the broadening of the requirements to 30 percent of hours, and coupled with 

the 30 percent of new hires is a working structure which greatly 

improves this provision. 

We think that—as we have heard, there has been virtually no reporting. It’s very hard to figure out what happened and whether 

the law was complied with. 

So, increasing the reporting period from once a year to twice a 

year and, in some, cases requiring quarterly reports in situations 

where there are questions, is a dramatic improvement. 

Along with that, requirement that housing authorities report and 

provide their Section 3 plans, in their 5-year plans or annual plans, 

the MTW programs and other kinds of plans that they provide to 

HUD, that’s also critical. 

There is going to be public light shone on this process on the behaviors of people within the statute. Then on top of that, the reporting now allows people to know what’s actually happening. We 

believe that the sanctions and private rights of action are a critical 

pieces to make this a reality. If people know what their housing authorities are doing and what the other housing recipients are doing 

and have the ability to enforce it, that’s important. 

Secretary Trasvina indicated that he wished that the operation 

oversight would remain at his office. I’m not sure I have a particular opinion on that—and we usually see new blood in Washington and we take heart in that in almost every meeting I go to. 

Its history, however, is that it has not gotten the attention it 

needs. And so, I think they should be very careful with respect to 

the Secretary. But we do think that the sanctions and the private 

right of action are critical. It has to be in the bill, you well know, 

because in the past 10 years, there have been a number of court 

cases which have said, ‘‘If you don’t spell it out, we’re not going to 

give it to the residents, we’re not going to give it to the citizens, 

28 

we’re not going to give it to other people in this country.’’ So, it’s 

just critical. 

The old days of what we used to think of as 1983 actions, 20 

years ago, are gone. So, then, with these new improvements in the 

structure, we believe that the mechanisms which you put in the bill 

to implement this new vision are great support, and we support the 

following issues. 

There is a requirement that the Section 3 coordinator on a local 

level be engaged, whether to share with multiple recipients, that’s 

fine. And we may develop a little cottage industry, but it’s a critical 

piece. As has been said, it’s not what housing authorities do. 

We think that the bill emphasizes long-term training and real job 

development and career development and future development for 

people’s families. The 5-year provision for workers to remain eligible for jobs— 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Rammler can be found on page 

81 of the appendix.] 

Chairwoman WATERS. Mr. Rammler, we will have your testimony 

on the record. Thank you very much. 

If I just may take 30 seconds, you just reminded me that we have 

a separate—that is moving through the Congress. It’s the Moving 

to Work portion of it that is causing us the greatest difficulty. If 

you want to move to work, you have to make sure that you are 

doing the job; right? 

The light just came on. Thank you very much. 

Ms. Burris? 

STATEMENT OF LISA BURRIS, DIRECTOR OF ORGANIZING, 

GOOD OLD LOWER EAST SIDE 

Ms. BURRIS. That’s the solution. 

So, on behalf of Good Old Lower East Side, GOLES Incorporated, 

I want to thank Chairwoman Waters and the members of her staff 

who worked tirelessly, and also my Congresswoman, Nydia Velazquez, who, just like they say, has been the champion of public 

houses across the country. Also, the director of Good Old Lower 

East Side, lifelong residents of the Lower East Side, and constituents of District 12. 

GOLES is a neighborhood housing and preservation organization 

that has served the Lower East Side of Manhattan since 1977 and 

which is dedicated to tenants’ rights, homelessness prevention, economic development, and communication revitalization. 

GOLES is also an affiliate of the National People’s Action, a network of metropolitan, regional, and statewide organizations that 

works to build racial and economic justice. We work with public 

housing leaders across the country to protect the rights of tenants 

and ensure the future of public housing. 

GOLES wholeheartedly supports the Together We Care Act and 

the Earning and Living Opportunity Act. Both bills will increase 

both job opportunities and health care access to residents in public 

housing and subsidized housing. 

In New York City, public housing residents and Section 8 voucher holders comprise 7.7 percent of the population. The average income for a family who lives in public housing is $22,728, less than 

$700 above the national poverty rate. The poverty rate is 21 perVerDate Nov 24 2008 16:22 Dec 15, 2009 Jkt 053243 PO 00000 Frm 00034 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 K:\DOCS\53243.TXT TERRIE
29 

cent citywide, and in the Lower East Side, it is 27.3 percent. Furthermore, unemployment rate is rising and it’s currently at 9.5 percent. 

These are startling numbers, but which are in line with the kind 

of activities GOLES sees on the ground in our communities to address. 

More specifically, GOLES receives dozens of calls every week 

from residents looking for employment as well as help with keeping 

their apartments as they face eviction due to rental arrears stemming from unemployment. 

We recently received a request for assistance from a public housing resident who is currently under threat of eviction due to rent 

arrears, and she has to choose between caring for her disabled 

child and going to work. No one should have to be in this position 

of choosing between their livelihood and the wellbeing of their family. 

Given these stories and these facts, GOLES puts its full support 

behind these pieces of legislation proposed by Congresswoman 

Velazquez. These two bills are being put forward at a crucial time 

in this economic crisis. As mentioned earlier, the national unemployment rate is 9.5 percent, and this week the Federal Reserve 

projected that it would reach 10 percent by the end of the year. 

Lower-income Americans have been affected by un- and underemployment for longer than this current recession. 

The Earning and Living Opportunities Act and Together We 

Care Act take great steps to address the unemployment needs of 

low-income communities in the neighborhood counties. There’s a 

great need in these communities to improve employment opportunities. 

These bills provide not just short-term jobs, but training towards 

actual careers that have the potential to lift people out of poverty, 

while taking strides to protect and strengthen the communities in 

which they live. 

GOLES commends the Section 3 amendment, the Earnings And 

Living Opportunities Act, for many reasons. First, it provides 

meaningful training to provide actual careers to residents of public 

housing. Training and employment together form a complete system that go a long way in improving people’s lives. 

In the introduction to the Together We Care Act, the untenable 

position of choosing between work and caregiving responsibilities at 

home is highlighted. Families are not only suffering from the emotional aspects of caring for elderly and disabled families, they also 

struggle to adjust their work schedules and often lose or leave employment due to the lack of access to quality and/or affordable 

home care for seniors and disabled loved ones. 

Both nationwide and in NYCHA housing, seniors represent over 

35 percent of the residents in public housing, and the unemployment rate is at its highest in 26 years. The Together We Care Act 

tackles both of these issues simultaneously, providing a benefit 

that is greater than the sum of its parts. 

By training public housing residents for careers as aides and in 

home-based services, the Act addresses unemployment and lack of 

skills prevalent in low-income households, but it also goes beyond 

30 

that, making it possible for elderly and disabled residents of public 

housing to get needed care, and it will keep communities together. 

For an elderly woman to be able to receive care from a neighbor, 

for a woman to care for her disabled daughter and not fear losing 

her job, these are incredible benefits. 

Thank you for your time. I welcome any other questions as Good 

Old Lower East Side’s on the ground residents address various 

issues. 

[The prepared statement of Christy Yanis, member-leader of 

Good Old Lower East Side, Inc, can be found on page 122 of the 

appendix.] 

Chairwoman WATERS. Thank you. 

Mr. Rice? 

STATEMENT OF DOUGLAS RICE, SENIOR POLICY ANALYST, 

CENTER FOR BUDGET AND POLICY PRIORITIES 

Mr. RICE. Good morning. And thank you very much for the opportunity to appear here today. I’m going to speak briefly about 

why and how to reform Section 3 requirements. 

When implemented effectively, Section 3 can accomplish three 

important objectives. First, it can reduce poverty. As you know, 

public housing residents, for example, experience very high rates of 

unemployment. Section 3 can improve personal job skills and make 

more jobs available to them, thereby boosting their income. 

Second, Section 3 can overcome spatial barriers to employment. 

For many decades, jobs were moving away from the inner cities, 

where most low-income people live. And Section 3 addresses this 

mismatch by opening more job opportunities within low-income 

neighborhoods. 

And third, Section 3 can reduce Federal cost. When the incomes 

of people receiving Federal housing assistance grow up, the Federal 

housing subsidies go down. Each $1,000 in extra income earned by 

a resident reduces Federal cost by roughly $300. 

Unfortunately, while some communities are meeting Section 3 requirements successfully, the general agreement in Section 3 failed 

to fulfill its potential. Many jurisdictions, especially city governments, appear not to realize or understand their obligations under 

the statute of HUD and the capacity to monitor compliance effectively. Despite these problems, it’s well worth the time and effort 

to make Section 3 work. 

To do this, we focus on three core areas. First, improve Section 

3 compliance. Even without legislation, HUD can do more to educate grantees about this Section 3 obligation, train grantees to implement Section 3 successfully, provide better incentives for compliance, and require grantees to submit data to facilitate monitoring. 

HUD should also encourage the grantee to use existing local resources to monitor Section 3 compliance. Large public housing 

agencies in most cities already have that staff available to monitor 

compliance in government contracts in this core area. They need to 

do the job up to Section 3, as well. 

We need HUD to encourage local grantees in an area to identify 

a single grantee to monitor Section 3 compliance for all of them. 

The draft of the Earnings and Living Opportunities Act could also 

encourage and improve Section 3 compliance. 

31 

The Act would allow the HUD Secretary to award performance 

bonuses to grantees that exceed the numerical goal set by the law. 

And the Act could also put it into statute if we work by the standards for measuring Section 3 compliance; the hours worked for 

business, in particular. 

Second, revise the statute to maximize the opportunities for federally-assisted households. In HUD funding projects, other than 

public housing, Section 3 obligations apply only to constructional 

rehabilitation and not to activities like maintenance, organization, 

and regular operations. 

Congress should apply Section 3 obligations to all HUD funding 

streams used for management and administration. In addition, 

public housing residents now receive first preference for job opportunities under Section 3. 

To increase the potential savings for Federal housing programs, 

Congress should expand the first preference to include recipients of 

any kind of Federal rental assistance. And the Earning and Living 

Opportunities Act does this, of course. 

Third, help grantees build capacity to meet Section 3 obligations. 

And this is probably Section 3’s biggest challenge. Many communities have successfully implemented Section 3 requirements, designated a coordinator to link Section 3 residents and contractors for 

training and opportunities. And the Earnings and Living Opportunities Act would require each grantee to do this. 

In addition, when Congress reauthorizes the Workforce Investment Act, it should give local workforce boards the explicit responsibility for meeting Section 3 job training requirements. Workforce 

for the unemployed develops training opportunities, career counseling, and linkages to employers, but they haven’t yet played any 

formal role in Section 3. 

Taken together, these will enable more recipients of Federal 

housing assistance to get the jobs and skills they need to build a 

better life for themselves and their families. And because the Earnings and Living Opportunities Act includes many of these reforms, 

we consider it very important step forward. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Rice can be found on page 95 of 

the appendix.] 

Chairwoman WATERS. Thank you. 

The next witness will be Ms. Rodat. 

STATEMENT OF CAROL RODAT, NEW YORK POLICY DIRECTOR, 

PARAPROFESSIONAL HEALTHCARE INSTITUTE (PHI) 

Ms. RODAT. Thank you, Chairwoman Waters and Representative 

Velazquez, for this opportunity to testify today about the Together 

We Care Act of 2009. 

I’m here on behalf of PHI, which is national organization dedicated to improving the quality of jobs and long-term care. We believe that the quality of care is directly affected by the quality of 

the job. Now, I’ll say more about that in a moment. 

I think you have heard people testify this morning about the importance of our changing demographic in this country. The number 

of people who have reached age 55 and older, 60, 70, and now livVerDate Nov 24 2008 16:22 Dec 15, 2009 Jkt 053243 PO 00000 Frm 00037 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 K:\DOCS\53243.TXT TERRIE
32 

ing into late age need a number of supportive service in their community if they wish to stay there. 

The problem is that the demographic shift means that there are 

fewer people of working age to match the needs of those who are 

older. 

We have already heard that New York is the third in the Nation 

in terms of older adults. What you may not know is that if you live 

to be 65 in New York, you will have at least one chronic medical 

condition. And if you are 75 years old, you will have three chronic 

medical conditions and take at least four medications. 

Two-thirds of our older adults will need some form of long-term 

care and 11 percent will require that care for 2 years or more. 

There are two main groups who take care of elderly and those 

with disabilities in our society. The first is family. They provide at 

least 80 percent of hands-on care. The second is direct care workers, home care aides, and home attendants, and they provide 80 

percent of the paid hands-on care. We also use nurses and therapists, but they do not provide the majority of care. That is why we 

support the Together We Care Act. We recognize the needs of two 

sets of individuals, which involves also critical timing that you 

have brought today for us to consider. 

In New York, we are projected to need 93,000 more home care 

jobs between now and 2016, 65,000 of which are in New York City. 

Taken together, home health aides and personal care aides constitute the largest occupational group in the New York economy. 

They outnumber our needs for our RNs, for high school teachers, 

for cashiers, for firefighters. This is something unrecognized in our 

society. 

So, let me turn now to the opportunities and some cautionary 

notes. I have heard this morning about your goals of self-sufficiency, accountability, and transparency. One of the things we need 

to be cautioned about is that you not provide grants to employers 

who do not provide you that same accountability and transparency 

with respect to wages, benefits, and supports. PHI affiliated with 

a 25-year-old worker-owned corporation of the Bronx and employs 

1,500 home health aides and home attendants. 

Our turnover rate is one of the lowest in the City. We can tell 

you that there are many employers who do not provide the access 

to public benefits and supports that are needed. The majority of the 

turnover on home care, which is anywhere from 40 to 50 percent, 

occurs in the first 3 months. You must have supports for people reentering or entering for the first time as workers. 

This work is not easy. It requires a lot of training and support 

if you’re going to succeed. So, I would urge you today to use this 

important legislation to not only improve the quality of these jobs, 

but to also ask for advancement opportunities for these workers 

and ask for the kind of practices by employers that make them succeed. 

One other note I wanted to mention. Since Chairwoman Waters 

mentioned broadband, New York is the first State in the country 

to actually use Medicaid funds to pay for telephonic monitoring. So, 

this would be an important adjunct. We have programs right here 

in New York City where we train home care aides to use that technology and to apply it to patients with these chronic needs. 

33 

Again, thank you, and we welcome the opportunity to work with 

you to implement this important legislation. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Rodat can be found on page 108 

of the appendix.] 

Chairwoman WATERS. Thank you very much. 

Ms. Drinane? 

STATEMENT OF SULEIKA CABRERA DRINANE, PRESIDENT 

AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, INSTITUTE OF PUERTO 

RICAN/HISPANIC ELDERLY, INC. 

Ms. DRINANE. I want to thank you for holding this meeting 

today. I am the founding president of the Institute for the Puerto 

Rican/Hispanic Elderly, which is a nonprofit minority-based, multicultural and multilingual citywide human services network of programs and services that serve Latino, African-American, Asian, 

and other ethnic minority seniors and their families. 

I am proud to appear today before this subcommittee on behalf 

of the Institute, as well as its Hispanic Senior Action Council, in 

full support of Congresswoman Nydia Velazquez’s legislative proposals under consideration by this committee. 

The Together We Care Act, as well as the Earnings and Living 

Opportunities Act, are each an example of Congresswoman 

Velazquez’s longstanding support and tremendous concern for our 

poor and low-income families and seniors in the City, State, and 

Nation. 

I want to thank the subcommittee for this opportunity to declare 

our full support for these two worthy proposals, and to speak on 

several issues that are very much the core of the Institute’s mission 

and are my passion. 

First, elimination of health disparities for our Latino, AfricanAmerican, and minority communities. 

Second, securing fair share and access to real job training and 

employment opportunities. And that also includes the health benefits that home care workers need; because they give you the job but 

they don’t give you the benefits after 29 hours of just working. 

And third, protection of older adults to ensure that they get the 

full benefits and entitlements as well as the critical supports and 

services necessary to age in place within the community and with 

dignity, rather than suffer displacement, isolation or discontent. 

The institute has come a long way over the last 31 years. Today 

we serve over 100,000 seniors annually through our citywide network of programs—senior centers, the majority of which are located 

in public housing. 

Another housing development we have a fully-licensed home care 

agency with all the provisions, so we provide the home care but we 

also do the advocacy so that the clients could get access, too. 

And we also have licensed mental health, psycho-education social 

groups that are so important for our community. However, we also 

have a strong Hispanic senior action council, which is a very strong 

advocacy arm. And we’re proud of their accomplishments. We won 

the SSI today from the State; an inspiration. 

However, our gains for Latino, elderly, and other minorities over 

the years are today seriously compromised by the economic crisis. 

And the worse things we have, like poverty, health disparities, unVerDate Nov 24 2008 16:22 Dec 15, 2009 Jkt 053243 PO 00000 Frm 00039 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 K:\DOCS\53243.TXT TERRIE
34 

employment, and sickness and homelessness, which plague our 

communities and they have not been professionally and systematically addressed. 

The institute experience in New York City—a disproportioned 

grave burden for disease, disability, and death experience by racial 

and ethic minorities, With significant concentration of poor and 

low-income seniors and families within public housing and other 

subsidized developments that lack adequate service and support for 

job training and employment, let alone aging in place, which is so 

important. 

There is no doubt that the number of seniors which increased 

over the last decade will continue to do so exponentially in public 

housing. Already, there is a serious issue of isolation of presence, 

lack of adequate nutrition yielding unhealthy aging and development. 

By the same token, the rate of unemployment over the last batch 

of job training to matches to good jobs to residents of public housing, is a major crisis. 

There is no doubt that the legislation proposal on the table goes 

a long way to form the basis of a great model that can have a significant impact and lay the groundwork for replication in many 

more deserving public housing developments. 

If I may say, the only disappointment I encountered in my reading of each proposal is that I believe that the appropriation for 

each is too low, given the potential and promise of the intervention, 

in the face of the substantial problem it intends to tackle. 

Nonetheless, it could be said that, given the support and resources, besides the community health centers, the community organizations such as us and other organizations are best suited and 

instrumental in providing the training and services to public housing residents and to the elderly as addressed in the proposal. 

I just want to commend the committee and Congresswoman 

Velazquez for conceptualizing and proposing what we believe can 

be a significant model worthy of broader replication, tackling two 

fundamental but complementary dilemmas in public housing: elderly residents who need homecare; and fellow residents who need 

good jobs with benefits in a growing employment sector. 

The institute is ready to assist you. You can now get another recommendation. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Drinane can be found on page 

46 of the appendix.] 

Chairwoman WATERS. Thank you. 

Mr. McReynolds? 

STATEMENT OF LARRY McREYNOLDS, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, 

LUTHERAN FAMILY HEALTH CENTERS 

Mr. MCREYNOLDS. Distinguished Congressional Representatives, 

good morning. My name is Larry McReynolds, and I am executive 

director of the Lutheran Family Health Centers, the largest federally qualified community health center in the Nation. 

Like all federally qualified health centers, our mission is to increase access to quality health care and to decrease health disparity. Persons living in public and subsidized housing are among 

35 

our target population, and these residents are most definitely underserved, underinsured, and have little access to health care. 

In 1991, the Department of Health established the public housing primary care program, recognizing that community health centers were uniquely positioned with skills to meet the unique needs 

of those in housing. 

However, the next step is the further success of these programs 

by adding the funding and the training to allow residents to help 

themselves and their fellow residents. 

Community health centers can be instrumental in providing 

training and services to public housing and subsidized housing residents and to the elderly in the following ways: 

Directly providing a contract for training home health aides. 

Many health centers have a strong base of existing certified home 

health aides, vocational, residencies, and other training programs 

upon which to build. 

Health centers are primarily located in low-income neighborhoods and have staff who understand the unique need of this population, possess the cultural competence to implement realistic 

health care plans, and have existing infrastructure for program 

oversight. 

Health centers have a longstanding record of achieving great outcomes with minimal Federal dollars. Health centers are best positioned to serve as the medical home for this population. 

Community health centers can be instrumental in providing services because, frequently, centers have facilities proximate to the 

housing facility, have a thorough knowledge of Federal and State 

assistance programs, and have a billing structure that is sustainable. They can deliver on-site or off-site service systems, have electronic medical records, which facilitate the communication of care 

plans between the home and the provider. 

Statistics show that residents need care and will access care if 

given information in a culturally competent and accessible manner. 

By supporting home health aides who are peers, who will understand and know the residents, their lifestyles, and their barriers, 

residents will feel more comfortable in accessing care. 

Challenges and obstacles associated with facilitating home health 

services are: gaining acceptance by seniors who do not want strangers in their home; working with the residents to practice preventive 

care; follow up supporting documentation to assist with medical assistance application; overcoming environmental barriers, which 

slow medical progress such as absence of support of family, lack of 

phone, fresh air, lack of food; and maintaining eligibility for services. 

Challenges and obstacles that residents face in accessing home 

health care services are: limited access to transportation; language 

barriers; lack of societal engagement; fear of new places, people, 

and ideas; knowledge of qualification for services; and the denial 

that they need assistance because of their personal desire to maintain their independence. 

The legislation will lower the cost of elderly and disabled health 

care through increased compliance of care plans, while giving the 

residents the assistance to comply with the care plan, linking the 

residents to a medical home, enabling the patient to age in place 

36 

and maintain their health status and independence as long as possible, thus avoiding costly nursing home and hospital admissions. 

Reduces chronic illness. Residents have rates of chronic illness 

double the prevalence rate of the community. Therefore, diabetes, 

hypertension, and asthma have many more unnecessary emergency 

room visits and inpatient admissions because of its prevalence rate. 

Simply by aiding residents with these illnesses alone can save the 

system money, offering quality supportive services in the right 

place, at the right time, and at the right level of care. 

A review of emergency room departments says that more than 40 

percent of hospital ED visits are for unnecessary non-emergent conditions. Through training the home health aid to work with the 

care team, this number can be reduced. 

Through this program, people will be put to work who largely 

otherwise would not work. These are neighbors and friends who 

care about their neighbors and understand their needs. 

The pilot program of community health centers, which started in 

1966, has shown over and over again that residents are the best 

one to design programs to meet their health care needs. Now the 

community health center movement is the safety net of the Nation. 

We need to take the next step to provide peer supportive services 

for our most vulnerable. Together we care, now let’s act. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. McReynolds can be found on 

page 68 of the appendix.] 

STATEMENT OF KEITH JOSEPH, VICE PRESIDENT, HOMECARE 

DIVISION, 1199 SEIU UNITED HEALTHCARE WORKERS EAST 

Mr. JOSEPH. Good morning. My name is Keith Joseph. I’m the 

Vice President for (inaudible). 

We wish to thank Chairwoman Waters, Congresswoman Velazquez, and the committee for allowing us to testify today. 

1199 SEIU represents over 90,000 health care workers in New 

York, Massachusetts, Maryland, and Washington, D.C. 

To me, what is written here is a little—I don’t think it really gets 

to what I really represent and what this introduction is— 

Chairwoman WATERS. You have our permission to throw it away. 

Mr. JOSEPH. Sometimes you follow the script, and it doesn’t get 

to what you want. 

I represent health care workers. And the workers who take care 

of—for me, the most valuable people in—I don’t know exactly— 

which is the elderly, the disabled who needs assistance. And we 

ask these workers to do actually everything, and they go out and 

do it without quarrel. When you ask who takes care of these workers, nobody does—actually, no one does. 

But somehow there is money in the system that someone is making—for these workers. They’re making a lot. And when you ask 

who makes money off the system, no one gets up and says actually, 

because everyone hides. 

I think the reality is that if you introduce any legislation that 

will put workers in a field, there has to be oversight to take care 

of these workers. Most importantly, the oversight has to be there 

so that the employers who have the most fancy name for the agency that they represent so dear, actually does nothing. 

37 

All of them who handle it, Patient Care, People Care, Best 

Care—who go out there and actually do—supposed to be providing 

care for these workers. 

And when you ask if there’s—for these workers together with patients in their homes 24 hours a day, and you ask them what they 

actually make, how much they make, most of them make the minimum wage, which is low, as low as $7.15. They have no health 

care, no medical benefits. 

You sit and you battle with these employers day in and day out 

to try to actually give these workers what they actually deserve. 

And you fight literally for years, for pennies, to get these workers 

to get what they want. 

And so if you introduce any legislation, if you don’t have the 

oversight back to a system where the employers continually exploit 

these workers—they are immigrants, most of them come from the 

third world countries, who do not speak the language and they capitalize on the fact that these workers do not speak the language 

and can’t actually communicate, because they take care of these patients in homes and there is no communication. 

The hospitals, the nursing homes and—who actually give the 

business, who subcontract this business to these licensed agencies. 

And when you go to them and you say, ‘‘How could you do business with these agencies continually exploiting workers daily?’’ And 

they turn around and say to them that, ‘‘We can’t do anything 

about it.’’ Or, ‘‘They are the ones.’’ You have to have (inaudible) to 

regulate the system. To make sure that they have the (inaudible) 

which is—they certify the home care agencies. Do not allow licensed agencies to exploit these workers. 

Whatever legislation that you put in, the oversight is key to 

make sure that these workers will get decent wages, get the benefits that they—continue to provide the valuable service that they 

provide—questions about. And thank you for the opportunity. 

[The prepared statement of Aida Garcia, executive vice president, 

Homecare Division, 1199 SEIU United Healthcare Workers East, 

can be found on page 53 of the appendix.] 

Chairwoman WATERS. Thank you all so very much for your presence here today and for your testimony, as real advocates for the 

people who need to be spoken for, not only in the halls of Congress 

but every legislative body. I appreciate all of your comments. 

Mr. Jones, I think what you did was—well, you gave a warning 

that you cannot continue to have this kind of unemployment, and 

people without access to resources. That’s a concern to be worried 

about, what does that cause? And I certainly hope that you continue to sound that alarm in the hope that people are listening. 

Mr. Rammler, you triggered my thinking about Moving to Work, 

as a much more colorful concept as we try and pass several—and 

I’m worried, because some of our housing authorities seem to work 

as a way of making people act in their own best interest, punishing 

people who don’t get a job when they think they should get a job. 

Conceptually, it is not well-thought through. But you just forced 

me to think about how we can say to those who believe in these 

various things that they have about Moving to Work, and all the 

housing authorities have different rules and ways by which to do 

it. 

38 

The first thing they should be doing is living up to Section 3, and 

making sure that the jobs are made available for all of the services 

and the work that’s done for and about public housing. That if they 

are first to step up to the plate and offer and make jobs, maybe 

they have some legitimacy and jobs moving to work. 

So we have not passed that bill out of committee, and taken a 

look at that aspect of it. I think that we can move on that pretty 

quickly. 

But also I’m glad Ms. Velazquez is here, because what can be 

more timely than talking about, this is the economy, where people 

are suffering, so without any hopes for employment. 

Also, I recognize that the recommendations and the legislation 

that talks about a coordinator, someone with responsibility for Section 3, that’s happened to bring the resources in and to get training 

done and to help many of our residents, just mainstream; some of 

whom have never worked before. 

You can say what you want to say, but if you are 20, 24, or 25 

years old, and you have never had a job, it’s one thing to say, 

‘‘We’re going to put you out of public housing if you don’t get a job.’’ 

And it’s another thing to say, ‘‘Let us recognize that we need to put 

some resources in here to do some training to make sure that people have the opportunity to realize their full potential. So we here, 

with many of you today, helps to refocus me. I have worked for 

many years in public housing and I think that we really do need 

to bring all of these issues more to the attention to the Congress 

of the United States. 

I think we got lulled a little bit into complacency because the attack on the poor was so profound, so strenuous that they made us 

believe that we were jut there to rob the public coffers as tax and 

spend liberals. And I think we backed off. Now it’s time to back up 

again and get on this. 

I’m very pleased that Nydia brought me here today so I could 

hear from all of you. 

With that, Representative Velazquez. 

Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Thank you, Chairwoman Waters. 

I want to take this opportunity to thank each and every one of 

you here. Your testimony is so compelling and it’s just so difficult 

to be sitting here listening to you and I have to ask myself, Why 

is it that people don’t get it? Either they’re in Washington, bureaucrats, a Federal agency, or here at the State and city level, everyone is just—this morning when I went to pick up—I said to her, 

‘‘I was reading the news and it’s so depressing. It’s so depressing. 

Here we are, we are spending $750 billion, and how much money 

have we given to those big institutions too big to fail?’’ 

And yet unemployment rate continues to go up. And what is it 

going to take for everyone to come together in a comprehensive way 

to see how can we maximize the resources that we’re putting there, 

in poverty, to those who are most vulnerable. 

Mr. Jones, your report is an incredible one. I just would like to 

ask you, what else would it take in terms of the unemployment 

rate among minorities? Describe how education is so critical for unemployment. How can the Earnings and Living Opportunities Act 

proposal address this issue, if it does? 

39 

Mr. JONES. I think we have to recognize that—and I was talking 

about construction firms. Obviously, that’s going to eat up the lion’s 

share of resources, certainly for $423 million. 

The difficulty that I raised, really, was historical. My father was 

one of the first Black lawyers to sue the New York Sheet Metal 

Workers because of discriminatory practices. 

But the more critical abuses of the construction trades have 

begun to fall. It’s not a unified solid wall anymore. The carpenter’s 

union, the laborer’s union, actually made big strides. 

The difficulty now is that the skilled trades require a fairly high 

level of educational attainment, even to get into their apprenticeships. So, if you look at the apprenticeship test for carpenters and 

electricians and plumbers, frankly, I don’t think many college students could meet it. 

And now we have to recognize that pre-apprenticeship programs 

are going to have to be worked out very carefully and not necessarily totally under the union control. That is, start a pipeline 

that will prepare. So it’s one of the things we have to talk about. 

The GED, which is one of the criteria for many of the tests, we 

have one of the lowest categories of the GED anywhere in the Nation. We don’t even get to Alabama State. This is sort of the dregs 

of the educational system. It has become the problem of many 

young Black kids. That’s all they get or contain, because they have 

been pushed out and dropped out of high school. We have a lousy 

graduation rate in the City of New York. 

One of the ways you can start to address—to start to look at the 

sort of cohort of young people in public housing, which reflects 

their surrounding community, and start to organize those young 

people into teams of workers to do basically the work, and at the 

same time, start them on the road on getting back on the educational bandwagon so they can have a future. People will pay and 

they line up. 

If you look at summer youth employment and the rest, which is 

not bright right now, people line up by the dozens, by the hundreds, by the thousands to get those jobs. We have to make those 

year-round jobs in public housing that combines this issue of a 

wage—it doesn’t have to be a pretty wage—and educational work 

that brings them back into line so they can have a future. 

So just to leave them out there with no hope, it’s not only a danger to them, it endangers everyone in public housing. What a depressing landscape; no one employed and the young people have no 

future. We have to use this opportunity to break through in that 

discussion. 

Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Mr. Rice, Mr. Rammler, I don’t know which one 

of you mentioned that this is a win-win, if we get Section 3 for a 

housing authority to comply with. 

What else will it take for managers of local housing authorities 

to understand the positive economic impact that this Section 3 application will have, in terms of revenues and the rentals that increase in the rent that they are paying, and the subsidies the Federal Government has to come up with? 

Mr. RICE. That’s a good question and I would answer that part 

of the concern—part of public housing authorities is that when I 

40 

talk about savings improved, those savings accrued to the Federal 

Government and not on the public housing authority in particular. 

And as I understand it, your legislation tends to address it in 

part by providing extra incentives for housing authorities and other 

local agencies who exceed the existing targets. But perhaps, more 

needs to be done. 

I would assume that—I don’t know that for sure, but I would assume, based on Mr. Rhea’s comments, for example, the recurrent 

public housing operating formula does not take into account the 

cost of Section 3. So that might be something worth looking at. 

Mr. RAMMLER. A second, ma’am. 

In fact, Mr. Rice and I were discussing this before the session 

started, in anticipation of Mr. Jones’ testimony. 

But it strikes me that perhaps the housing authorities see a resident who has increased income, but then in their operating cost, 

they get penalized for that. So, perhaps, the way to do it is to remove that part of the operating funds formula, so that when a resident can lower their share—the housing authority share for rent— 

the housing authority doesn’t just lose the money. 

And perhaps, it was suggested by another speaker this morning, 

in terms of creating a fund, you know, perhaps the housing authorities could be encouraged and directed to use public money in 

ways to further the goal. But it’s money they can use within their 

operating program. 

Ms. VELAZQUEZ. To the rest of the panel, I would like to talk to 

you about your proposal in terms of health care. 

In your work with seniors or the aging population, do the needs 

of elderly residents seem to be uniform across-the-board? Or do 

some require special services as the result of their ethnicity, for example— 

Ms. DRINANE. Another recommendation, perhaps, in terms of 

centering the Act was to include the cultural competency in linguistic—cultural linguistic competency must be included with evaluation criteria for a competitive grant. That to make a difference, 

you have to understand the person that you are working with in 

order to understand what kind of service and how to deal with a 

person that comes from a war or just running away from their 

country. 

Look at the diversity of the Hispanic. We don’t see everybody the 

same, even though there’s a lot of language (inaudible). And then 

there is a diversity—but I think the elderly seniors, what you also 

have to do—in particular, the Hispanic elderly—is really be able to 

talk to them in an informal way. 

And they—if you find it familiar and talk to you—you talk first, 

I will give you a quick review. You talk first about—when you’re 

talking to them, let’s say about the family, you have to deal with 

the family, you have to deal with the language, you have to deal 

with the culture and you also have to deal with dignity and respect. 

And if you deal with that, you can get the answers that you need 

in order to assist them. You have to go—and then it’s not a one 

shot deal. If the person comes with multiple problems—income, 

health, housing, they want to have a car, they want all of that— 

41 

and then you have to figure out what to give them and work with 

all of that in order to help them. 

Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Is there a difference in the quality of life for a 

senior who received home health care as opposed to services in a 

nursing home? 

Ms. RODAT. Oh, yes. There are numerous differences. Most seniors, I would bet that 99 percent of the people you would ask, if 

you ask them if the wanted to stay and to live the remainder of 

their life either in a nursing home or in the community, the answer 

is the community. 

And while you can create a nursing home that has a good quality 

of life—and in fact, New York City has several that, with other 

States in this Nation right now, are changing the culture in nursing homes. And they’re doing that to make nursing homes more 

homelike, and yet it is still not the same as living in a community 

with your family, your neighbors, and close to your friends. It is 

simply not the same. 

One of the things I just would like to add to the previous question, you can do the minimum amount of training for home care 

aides, and you can teach them tasks and you can teach them skills. 

But at its heart, this work—whether you’re in a nursing home or 

you’re in the community, this is about relationships. It’s about good 

relationships. 

And that requires you to develop the skills of listening actively, 

learning how to communicate, learning how to respect diversity, 

and learning how to problem solve. 

Ms. VELAZQUEZ. In your work with tenants, public and subsidized housing, does there seem to be an appreciation for the special needs of elderly residents? And can you also tell us a little bit 

about how did older residents—as they age, for example, do they 

move to buildings with a higher population of seniors? Do they rely 

on younger family members for care and assistance? 

Ms. DRINANE. We see with the senior population, including anything from language barriers to also not having access to loved 

ones who are employed. A lot of times, seniors in public housing 

are asked to verify, because they are (inaudible) apartments, which 

has to be the resident, the whole family, and now they have to 

move to a smaller private apartment on a lease. 

A lot of residents are put in a more vulnerable position. The family members (inaudible) of options, which are putting them in hospital for permanent assistance or moving them to one-bedroom 

apartments and hoping they can be able to provide— 

Ms. VELAZQUEZ. In your experience in dealing with public housing residents, do you think that NYCHA, the New York City Housing Authority, has been responsive to the needs of the aging population? Do they actually have a specific program targeting the specific unique needs of the aging population who lives in public housing? 

Ms. DRINANE. Currently, no. With the housing authority (inaudible) community service centers, which provide resources to seniors. 

But what we (inaudible) a lot of times, residents, seniors face eviction, in instances (inaudible) told to move small type apartments 

and refuse APS, Adult Protective Services. 

42 

Oftentimes, our office is bogged down trying to connect social 

services (inaudible) apartments with these seniors, ensuring that 

they get types of support (inaudible). Oftentimes, APS and other— 

they work with the social services department (inaudible). 

We have occurring right now a resident facing eviction who has 

cancer. It has been hard for (inaudible) what is going to happen in 

connecting services for them. 

Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Mr. McReynolds, you have mentioned that you 

are providing a lot of services to public housing residents. My concern is that with the health care reform legislation that we are 

dealing with, there is not specific language regarding 12 million 

undocumented people. 

Where do you think they are going to go? 

Mr. MCREYNOLDS. I share the same concern. There is no solution 

about things coming out of Washington. I think it is a very, very 

large problem. It will leave 12 million people without an answer 

and that means they go without care or go without access— 

Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Or they will come to you, community health centers. 

Mr. MCREYNOLDS. Right. Or they will go to the emergency departments. A lot of them don’t understand how to work the system, 

so they go to an emergency department, the most expensive level 

of care. 

And then I try to work with emergency departments to find people who don’t have a primary care doctor, don’t have the coverage, 

and then try to educate them about community health care. 

Ms. VELAZQUEZ. So in our Nation, people started to realize that 

there is no distinction between, violence, attacking illegal, undocumented or an American citizen, right? So it’s a public health issue 

and we’ll see. 

Thank you, Chairwoman Waters. 

Chairwoman WATERS. Thank you very much. 

I would like to thank the panelists for being here today, for giving your time. I certainly thank you for your knowledge and for 

your advocacy. And I think that, in addition to the support that 

you are offering for this legislation, you have inspired me to take 

a look at a number of things—I mentioned Moving to Work. 

But I’m sitting here thinking about our health care reform activity, the debate that we are embarked upon, and nowhere have I 

heard anything about home health care workers, people who do 

very difficult work, taking care of people who absolutely need that 

assistance. 

They’re reducing the cost to the system that—people staying in 

their homes instead of staying in institutions. So, imagine, working 

all day and you don’t have health care yourself, and you’re trying 

to help someone who needs your assistance or needs somebody’s assistance with their health care needs. 

So, thank you for not only speaking on behalf of people in public 

housing and poor people and immigrants, but thank you for reminding these legislators that, no matter how good think you are, 

you can do better. Thank you very much. 

Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Mr. Joseph, we hear you loud and clear. We understand your passion and your commitment. We are committed to 

43 

making sure that people who work in the home health care industry get a decent wage. 

Chairwoman WATERS. The Chair notes there may be additional 

questions for this panel that members may wish to submit in writing. Without objection, the hearing record will remain open for 30 

days for members to submit written questions to the witnesses and 

to place their responses in the record. 

Thank you. This panel is now dismissed. 

We are adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 11:40 a.m., the hearing was adjourned.] 

(45) 

A P P E N D I X 

July 20, 2009 

46 


53243.001
47 


53243.002
48 


53243.003
49 


53243.004
50 


53243.005
51 


53243.006
52 


53243.007
53 


53243.008
54 


53243.009
55 


53243.010
56 


53243.011
57 


53243.012
58 


53243.013
59 


53243.014
60 


53243.015
61 


53243.016
62 


53243.017
63 


53243.018
64 


53243.019
65 


53243.020
66 


53243.021
67 


53243.022
68 


53243.023
69 


53243.024
70 


53243.025
71 


53243.026
72 


53243.027
73 


53243.028
74 


53243.029
75 


53243.030
76 


53243.031
77 


53243.032
78 


53243.033
79 


53243.034
80 


53243.035
81 


53243.036
82 


53243.037
83 


53243.038
84 


53243.039
85 


53243.040
86 


53243.041
87 


53243.042
88 


53243.043
89 


53243.044
90 


53243.045
91 


53243.046
92 


53243.047
93 


53243.048
94 


53243.049
95 


53243.050
96 


53243.051
97 


53243.052
98 


53243.053
99 


53243.054
100 


53243.055
101 


53243.056
102 


53243.057
103 


53243.058
104 


53243.059
105 


53243.060
106 


53243.061
107 


53243.062
108 


53243.063
109 


53243.064
110 


53243.065
111 


53243.066
112 


53243.067
113 


53243.068
114 


53243.069
115 


53243.070
116 


53243.071
117 


53243.072
118 


53243.073
119 


53243.074
120 


53243.075
121 


53243.076
122 


53243.077
123 


53243.078
124 


53243.079
125 


53243.080
126 


53243.081
127 


53243.082
128 


53243.083
129 


53243.084
130 


53243.085
131 


53243.086
132 


53243.087
133 


53243.088
134 


53243.089
135 


53243.090
136 


53243.091
137 


53243.092
138 


53243.093