Hearing of the Economic Development, Public Buildings and Emergency Management Subcommittee of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee - Still Post-Katrina: How FEMA Decides When Housing Responsibilities End

Statement

Witnesses: David Garratt, Deputy Administrator, FEMA; Fred Tombar, Adviser to the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development for Disaster and Recovery Programs; Paul Rainwater, Executive Director, Louisiana Recovery Authority; Reverend Charles Jenkins, 10th Bishop of the Episcopal Diocese of Louisiana

Chaired By: Delegate Eleanor Holmes Norton (D-DC)

Copyright ©2009 by Federal News Service, Inc., Ste. 500, 1000 Vermont Ave, Washington, DC 20005 USA. Federal News Service is a private firm not affiliated with the federal government. No portion of this transcript may be copied, sold or retransmitted without the written authority of Federal News Service, Inc. Copyright is not claimed as to any part of the original work prepared by a United States government officer or employee as a part of that person's official duties. For information on subscribing to the FNS Internet Service at www.fednews.com, please email Carina Nyberg at cnyberg@fednews.com or call 1-202-216-2706.

DEL. NORTON: I want to welcome today's witnesses. Congress had scheduled to be in session but recessed early because it finished its business yesterday. But we thought this hearing was of great importance and that we should not postpone it. We recognize that it poses some inconvenience to the ranking member, who will have to leave early as a federal official that has to do with a subject not unrelated to the subject before us, FEMA and hurricanes and what to do about them, before and after. But we're going to proceed because of disturbing reports that need to be cleared up by this committee and need to be cleared up in short order.

So we will address today the Federal Emergency Management Agency and Department of Housing and Urban Development, how these two agencies will resolve still outstanding issues that the federal government faces in providing housing to families whose homes were destroyed or damaged by Hurricane Katrina.

The hurricane made landfall August 29th, 2005 and proved to be the costliest natural disaster in American history. The storm had massive physical impact on the land, affecting 90,000 square miles, an area the size of Great Britain. Under the authority granted to the president in the Stafford Act, the president declared a major disaster in the states of Louisiana and Mississippi on the date the storm made landfall.

Approximately 143,000 families were housed in FEMA-provided travel trailers and mobile homes as a result of Hurricane Katrina. Since this peak, most families were transitioned to more permanent housing. As of May 14th, 2009, approximately 4,052 temporary housing units continued to be in use in Louisiana. FEMA has also provided $7.8 billion in financial assistance to about 2.4 million households through FEMA's individual and households program.

FEMA's housing program formally ended on May 1st, 2009. The housing program for Hurricane Katrina was unusually long and involved, as far more individuals needed housing assistance because of the unusually catastrophic nature of the disaster.

To address ongoing housing needs of individuals who could not return to their homes on the Gulf Coast, FEMA used its authority under Section 4089 of the Stafford Act and the Disaster Relief Fund, and delegated authority to HUD to implement the Disaster Housing Assistance Program, or DHAP.

DHAP is a pilot program to provide temporary long-term housing and related services for families that continue to need housing as a result of Hurricane Katrina. Unlike FEMA's regular assistance program, which provides payments directly to residents who pay landlords, DHAP works through public housing agencies, providing rental payments directly to landlords.

The DHAP program began on December 1st, 2007 and served 36,816 families. The program was scheduled to end on March 1, 2009. However, Congress appropriated $85 million to transition program families in DHAP, extending the last eligible payments to August 2009. Initially, 24,343 families were assisted through this transitional program. HUD estimates that approximately 18,000 families remain in the program as of May 2009.

The situation we now face was both predicted and predictable. It has been clear from the recent FEMA hearings that those left in disaster (hearings ?) would be the most vulnerable members of society, who may have had prior difficulties that have been exacerbated by the disaster.

While these programs have formally ended, we still have families without a long-term housing solution. In order to facilitate an orderly transition, I wrote to the then-administrator of FEMA last July requesting that the March 1st, 2009 deadline be extended and announced immediately. While FEMA did extend the program three times, in each instance the extensions were announced at the last minute, causing unnecessary stress and hardship.

My fear last summer was that this would be repeated as the March 1st, 2009 deadline created by the Bush administration approached and that this date would essentially push this program to the new administration to scramble to address this issue. That is exactly what has happened.

The Obama administration was compelled to announce the March 2009 extension. Even with this deadline, it appears that many of the most vulnerable citizens still in disaster housing have not had enough time to find permanent solutions to their housing needs, or if they have, and have not found those needs, then we need to know why. Is it them and their refusal to accept the available housing? We can't always have the housing we want. Or is it the failure of the government? And this committee is open, because we want to resolve this issue, not point fingers one way or the other.

The testimony we will receive today paints a conflicting picture. The testimony of our federal witnesses and our state witnesses describe a much improved situation on the ground in the Gulf from what we have seen in the past. However, other testimony and recent disturbing media reports, including some front-page articles, indicate that there are families without a long-term housing solution facing eviction from disaster housing.

In today's hearing, we hope to ascertain whether these are isolated cases that are symptomatic of broader issues still outstanding after the issue or what the cause is. The subcommittee does not want to be understood, however, to say that FEMA should provide housing assistance indefinitely. The statute does not allow HUD to do that.

It is also unacceptable, however, to turn people out of their disaster housing with nowhere to go. Ultimately it is also required -- and this is important -- that residents accept available housing even if it is not in the location they desire. Many Americans are, as I speak, living in hotels without jobs, where they do not desire. Only rich people can live where they desire.

So it is important that residents accept the available housing even if they prefer the temporary housing or other housing. We have to resolve this issue. We cannot allow people to be put out in the street, but we will not allow people to stay where they are simply because they prefer it that way.

FEMA and HUD have developed new and innovative housing programs to address the unprecedented disaster housing needs. However, these programs did provide housing solutions for the vast majority of families left without housing by Hurricane Katrina.

The subcommittee looks forward to hearing the testimony of today's witnesses, addressing once and for all -- let's hope this is the last time -- how we can resolve the ongoing housing needs of those families who are still experiencing the consequences of this devastating disaster.

I'm pleased now to ask our ranking member, Mr. Diaz-Balart, if he has any opening remarks.

REP. MARIO DIAZ-BALART (R-FL): Thank you, Madame Chairwoman.

Once again, I commend you and thank you for this hearing. And we agree. We agree on not only the basics, but I think even on most of the details. I may be a little repetitive, but I think it bears repeating. Basically what you've just said -- again, as you just said, Madame Chairwoman, this program for families displaced by Katrina and Rita ended the 1st of May. And those who remain in temporary housing are expected to either vacate their trailers or hotel rooms by the end of this month.

Now, as you mentioned, it was 143,000 individuals after Katrina and Rita who were provided temporary housing. And again, now we're almost four years later and there's still over 5,000 remaining. And obviously the Stafford Act, as you also stated, authorizes FEMA temporary housing programs, up to 18 months of housing, which can be extended, as has been done by the president, obviously under special circumstances.

Now, in this case the housing program was extended for more than two years beyond the 18-month limit. So obviously it's an important issue. And how FEMA decided and decides when housing responsibilities end is an appropriate issue to address. And that's why, again, Madame Chairwoman, I want to thank you for this hearing.

You know, we're currently facing an ugly decision -- either extending the temporary program indefinitely, I guess, or discontinuing the program for 5,000 people. And obviously neither one of those options is attractive. For 44 months now, families and individuals have lived in travel trailers or hotel rooms, and obviously never intended for long-term use.

But even after all this time, there seems to be no other solution that has been developed. And, you know, there has not been a real viable solution developed and implemented by the state and local governments to address the long-term affordable housing needs for low- income residents. And, in fact, as discovered during a staff trip to New Orleans last fall, some low-income housing units with minimal damage were slated to be torn down.

Rental rates were three to four times what they were pre-Katrina. And people who were employed obviously were priced out of available housing markets. And then here we are, months later, on the verge of ending the temporary housing program with, again, no viable -- no attractive, no real viable option for these low-income individuals and families.

So on top of that, you know, we have still no national recovery strategy, as mandated by the Post-Katrina Emergency Management Reform Act of 2006. It seems that instead of improving, we may have actually been going backwards. Again, that's at least a perception that I think some of us have.

Now, when FEMA was moved into the Department of Homeland Security, its focus obviously shifted, unfortunately, and its capabilities were diminished. And we understand why that shift happened, because terrorism is something that has to be dealt with.

But again, we also see -- I think see the consequences. And as witnesses testified at the full committee hearing just last week, some recovery issues seem to have been neglected in that shift. So, as a result, long-term recovery and housing strategies were put, frankly, on the back burner. And today we're still picking up the pieces and trying to figure out what to do.

The Post-Katrina Act required development of a number of strategies, including -- including the National Housing Disaster Strategy (sic: National Disaster Housing Strategy) and a national recovery strategy. The National Housing Disaster Strategy (sic) was only finalized in January of this year, and a national recovery strategy has yet to be done.

In addition, FEMA's recovery role requires that it be able to plan and coordinate effectively with other federal agencies as well as with state and local officials. Obviously, without that, it cannot function adequately. Working with agencies like HUD proactively in the planning process as opposed to reactively after a major disaster strikes is crucial, obviously, to an effective recovery effort.

Now, in the case of Katrina, at a February hearing before the subcommittee I noted that no real strategy was developed to address the long-term housing issues in Louisiana. That hearing took place just as FEMA's direct housing assistance program and the HUD's Disaster Housing Assistance Program had been -- had just been extended. And as I said, here we are now in May with the same dilemma that we were facing in February. So, again, there lies a problem.

Earlier this month, the chairwoman held a field hearing in southern Florida to examine preparedness for the 2009 hurricane season. In my remarks at that hearing, I described the scenario of Hurricane Ono, a hurricane model used for catastrophic planning in Florida. And Hurricane Ono is not a weird theoretical thing; it's actually modeled and based on the 1926 Great Miami Hurricane. If such a disaster occurred, the consequences would be devastating. It would require the evacuation of 3 million people. Again, this is according to the simulations. And most of south Florida would be under one to four feet of water for weeks. Homes of 70 percent of the population would be destroyed and millions would be without electricity. And that's just, obviously, among the nightmares that would happen. And there's nothing that says that such a hurricane could not happen this season, next season or the next season. Again, it has already happened.

We cannot think that Hurricane Katrina is a once-in-a-generation or once-in-a-lifetime disaster, unfortunately. And so we obviously must ensure adequate time and resources are focused on recovery following a disaster.

And housing -- housing is a huge part of that. Without long-term housing strategies, families that are displaced will find it very difficult to return to their communities. And the communities will not be able to rebuild and begin anew.

So we -- while we look at the continued housing issues in Louisiana and Mississippi today, we should also look forward as to how we can prepare for the next big disaster that we all know -- we hope it won't come, but we know that one day it probably will. Again, if Hurricane Ono hits south Florida today, how long will that recovery take? And we know how long past recoveries have taken. Will the same long-term housing issues resurface or are there other improvements that have been made? Obviously, it's essential that we prepare for the future but don't forget the lessons learned from past storms like Katrina and others.

Again, I look forward to your testimony. I thank you all for your service and I thank you all for being here today.

Madame Chairwoman, could I just -- even though it's -- it's related, but it's kind of a little bit off subject, but I just want to throw a question out there real quick. And --

DEL. NORTON: By all means. The ranking member has to catch a plane; has nevertheless come to the hearing. And you're free to ask questions.

REP. DIAZ-BALART: Thank you, Madame Chairwoman. I don't expect the answer right now. But I was actually on the phone with a constituent this week, and she reminded me of the issue with pets, you know, the evacuation of pets. And obviously, you know, Congress passed that Pets Evacuation and Transportation Standards Act, which authorized assistance for the provisions of rescue, care and shelter for individuals and their pets or service animals. The law required FEMA to ensure that state emergency preparedness operation plans take into account the needs of individuals with household pets and service animals prior to, during and following a major disaster emergency.

If you could, when you get a chance, get back to my office as to where that is; you know, what are the plans; just where are we; what's the status of that, because actually she reminded me of it and I thought it was a really good issue. And as she said herself, you know, there may have been instances -- probably were -- of people who just refused to evacuate because they had a pet. And that's what the law was meant to deal with.

So anyways, if you could just get -- when you get a chance -- not now; I know you're not going to be prepared to answer that right now -- but if you can get me that information I'd greatly appreciate that.

Thank you for indulgence, Madame Chairwoman. Thank you. And I look forward to the hearing.

DEL. NORTON: Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Diaz-Balart.

Now, we've called all of you on the same panel. Normally, we have federal official and the state officials. But what we're trying to do with this hearing is to resolve this issue once and for all. And therefore, nobody's going to be able to say something after somebody is gone. We're all going to be able to hear what each has said so that we can finally say we believe the hearing has brought us to the point where everybody has an understanding of his responsibilities.

So let us begin with Mr. David Garratt, who is the acting deputy administrator of FEMA.

MR. GARRATT: Thank you.

Good morning, Chairman Norton and Ranking Member Diaz-Balart. Pleasure to see you again; privilege to appear before you today on behalf of the Department of Homeland Security and the Federal Emergency Management Agency. As always, we appreciate your interest in and continued support of emergency management, specifically disaster housing and in the efforts of the men and women who support that undertaking at every level of government and within the private and volunteer sectors.

The engagement of Congress on this challenging issue highlights the complexities that face states, local governments, voluntary agencies and the federal family as we collectively look at providing disaster housing in a way that meets the temporary and immediate emergency disaster housing needs of individuals affected by disasters, as well as encourages and supports their transition to self- sufficiency. Despite many challenges, FEMA and our partners -- notably the Department of Housing and Urban Development -- have supported and facilitated the successful transition of more than 97 percent of those effected by Hurricanes Katrina and Rita to long-term and permanent housing.

While FEMA-supported temporary disaster housing programs have ended in the Gulf Coast states, FEMA's continuing to work with its federal, state and local partners to ensure a smooth transition and more permanent housing solutions.

In response to Hurricanes Katrina and Rita, FEMA conducted the largest temporary housing operation in the history of the country, providing temporary housing units to more than 143,000 families across the Gulf Coast. Additionally, FEMA has more than -- provided more than 7.8 billion (dollars) in housing and other needs assistance, such as transportation, clothing and furniture to roughly 2.4 million individuals and households affected by the hurricanes.

By law, eligible disaster survivors may receive temporary housing assistance for a period of 18 months from the date of a disaster declaration, unless that's extended. Because of the extraordinarily catastrophic impacts of Hurricanes Katrina and Rita, the period of assistance was extended more than two additional years. In September 2007, housing assistance for Hurricanes Katrina and Rita disaster operations in the states of Louisiana, Mississippi and Alabama was extended, establishing a final end date of March 1, 2009.

In February 2009, Secretary Napolitano announced that families would be given an additional two months to finalize their long-term housing plans. This extension also served to give the states additional time to establish or refine transition support capacity.

Since the temporary housing unit program began nearly four years ago, FEMA's never stopped working with occupants to transition them out of the program and into more permanent and suitable homes. As of the program's end date of May 1, FEMA has been providing temporary housing for more than 44 months, 26 months beyond the statutory limit. Despite the end of this unprecedented period of assistance, FEMA will continue to make every effort to encourage and assist individuals and families to find long-term housing to fulfill their needs.

Over the course of our assistance program, FEMA's regularly and routinely made direct in-person contact with occupants to follow up on their recovery plans, locate and offer them rental resources that address their individual housing needs, and make social service referrals to local, state and voluntary organizations. Additionally, FEMA's coordinated with their housing contractors on time lines for repairs; referred occupants to local, state and voluntary organizations that are able to provide assistance with building materials, volunteers to help them rebuild, et cetera; located and offered affordable rental resources when it was determined that the rebuilding would take longer than expected and offered every household a minimum of three affordable rental resources that met the household's individual housing needs.

In addition, many occupants have expressed an interest in purchasing their FEMA-provided temporary housing units. To date, 1,162 individuals and households have completed or pending final completion of the sale of their unit.

In 2007, FEMA partnered with the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development to create and pilot the Disaster Housing Assistance Program, a grant program that provides rent subsidies for non-HUD- assisted families displaced by -- (audio break). HUD utilizes its existing network of local public housing agencies to administer this program.

In the nearly four years since Hurricane Katrina, FEMA has worked to address the continuing housing challenges arising out of the 2005 hurricane season while also responding to the needs of many disaster survivors and communities affected by more recent disasters. FEMA continues to institutionalize best practices and expand our disaster housing capabilities. Nevertheless, a disaster housing environment will always be physically and socially demanding, and never more so than under catastrophic circumstances.

So FEMA will continue to work with Katrina- and Rita-affected states to support case management efforts and, as we look to the future, continue to collaborate with Congress and our federal, state and local partners to aggressively explore new and innovative forms of housing, refine and improve delivery systems, expand and unify planning activities and cooperatively engage with states to improve their own disaster housing capabilities.

Thank you. I look forward to your questions.

DEL. NORTON: Thank you very much, Mr. Garratt.

Mr. Fred Tombar, the senior adviser to the secretary of disaster and recovery programs at HUD.

MR. TOMBAR: Good morning, Chairwoman Norton, Ranking Member -- and Ranking Member Diaz-Balart.

I'm Frederick Tombar, senior adviser to Secretary Shaun Donovan at the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. Thank you for inviting me to testify today.

On behalf of Secretary Donovan, I want to first express HUD's commitment to seeing the Gulf Coast fully recover. That commitment began with our plan to ensure that participants of the Disaster Housing Assistance Program or DHAP were able to make to a smooth transition off of the program into more permanent housing. We worked with Congress and FEMA to provide additional assistance to families through August 31st of this year. Also, on March 5th, the secretary joined Secretary Napolitano on a trip to the Gulf Coast to see the recovery first-hand.

President Obama and Secretary Donovan are absolutely committed to helping the Gulf Coast fully recover. HUD continues to work closely with FEMA, state and local governments and public housing agencies to assist impacted families who were impacted by Hurricanes Katrina and Rita. This includes families that reside -- resided or currently reside in FEMA's temporary housing unit program, or THUs.

Madame Chairwoman, as you mentioned, FEMA offered each family at least three rental housing resources that met their individual housing needs and were within the fair-market rent rate established by HUD for the area. FEMA also offered each THU family a referral to DHAP, which provided rental assistance and case management services to over 30,000 displaced families. Every family that resided in a FEMA THU was offered this assistance, but some chose not to participate and currently remain in FEMA THUs.

The THU program officially ended on May 1st, 2009, but as of May 14th, approximately 4,000 families still reside in THU units in Louisiana and Mississippi. FEMA THU families who agree to participate in DHAP are eligible for transitional rental payments under the DHAP- Katrina Transitional Closeout Plan. As part of this program, nearly $7 million was allocated to support the Louisiana Recovery Authority with DHAP close-out case management for Louisiana participants. HUD and FEMA are providing an -- this additional assistance to families to give them more time to transition out of DHAP.

Although current THU families that turn down DHAP are no longer eligible for assistance, HUD has worked with states to identify alternative resources to aid families. The two primary sources of funding that can be used to support these families that are currently in THUs are HUD's HOME Investment Partnership Program, or HOME, and the Community Development Block Grant Program, CDBG.

Mississippi and Louisiana both received annual home allocations to increase the affordable housing stock in their states, and each state has significant amounts of unexpended HOME funds. Nearly half or 43 percent of these funds have not been committed by the states to a HOME activity or a unit of local government and may be available for HOME-funded Tenant-Based Rental Assistance programs. Assuming that a state allocated $10 million of home funds to TBRA and provided an average annual per-family subsidy of $4,500, it could fund HOME TBRA for over 2,200 families. Using these same assumptions, assisting 5,000 families per year would cost $22.5 million.

The Gulf Coast states also received CDBG disaster funding for long-term rebuilding and recovery. Mississippi and Louisiana both currently have a significant amount of CDBG disaster funding remaining that has been awarded but not dispersed.

Beyond CDBG and HOME, HUD has also awarded or is in the process of awarding additional voucher funding to the Gulf Coast states. In the Consolidated Security, Disaster Assistance and Continuing Appropriations Act of 2009, HUD received an additional $50 million for project-based vouchers. These funds will increase the affordable housing stock within the region by more than 6,500 units.

Under separate funding, HUD has awarded 23 million (dollars) in project-based vouchers to the Louisiana Recovery Authority. This funding is anticipated to provide approximately 2,500 vouchers in Louisiana.

Thank you for the opportunity to discuss resources that can be used to provide housing to FEMA THU families in Louisiana and Mississippi. I'm now happy to take any questions you have and again want to thank Chairwoman Norton and the members of this committee for the opportunity to speak to you today.

DEL. NORTON: Thank you very much, Mr. Tombar.

Mr. Paul Rainwater, executive director of Louisiana Recovery Authority.

MR. RAINWATER: Thank you, Madame Chairwoman, and thank you, Ranking Member Diaz-Balart, for all your support on the Gulf Coast. And thank you for allowing me to come here to talk to you about the critical matter of transitioning those currently in temporary disaster housing in Louisiana.

Although we're making great progress in Louisiana, we have to remember that some of that progress was slowed by Hurricanes Gustav and Ike, and the credit crunch has caused some challenges in our rebuilding of housing. At the height of the post-Katrina and Rita FEMA trailer program in Louisiana we had more than 76,000 active trailer leases. Through homeowners rebuilding their houses using Road Home money, we've dispersed $8 billion to 124,000 Road Home applicants. And other funds, the Disaster Housing Assistance Program and rental units being restored and other recovery efforts, this number has been whittled down to fewer than 3,000 residents.

Working together with FEMA and HUD and many nonprofits across the state, we are reaching out to those in -- remaining-in-trailer residents to ensure that they are not made homeless at the end of the month. Already, we've housed 25 residents who had to vacate their FEMA-subsidized hotel rooms at the beginning of May through our existing Rapid Re-housing funded -- program funded through Community Development Block Grants.

Additionally, our staff each day speaks to trailer residents to determine their needs and also meets with FEMA to review files and cases on an individual basis to find solutions that will prevent these citizens from becoming homeless. Our staff has been assured many times by FEMA staff in Louisiana that FEMA will work with trailer residents on a case-by-case basis to ensure that families are not adversely affected by these trailer deadlines. We are sharing information with those -- we have about 426 folks that are in trailers that are Road Home applicants and also applying for hazard mitigation money to help complete their homes. FEMA and our staff share this information on a daily basis.

We have seen great commitment from the new acting head of the Transitional Recovery Office in Louisiana, Tony Russell, and we thank FEMA and the Department of Homeland Security for sending him to us. He understands why this housing issue is so critical, and has tried to approach this transition with a compassion for disaster victims. And his hard work has not gone unnoticed in Louisiana.

Some of these residents can be assisted through other programs. Some may be able to keep their trailers temporarily while they finish home repairs. And others may benefit from FEMA's donations and sales programs that will allow them to keep their temporary housing units. Beginning this month, the Louisiana Recovery Authority and the Louisiana Department of Social Services has secured up to $2 million in Social Services Block Grant money to provide case management for this population.

We do not know -- we do know that many of those who remain in trailers are homeowners who have difficulty completing their home repairs. Data from early March showed that the majority of those in trailers who were Road Home applicants -- about 1,800 -- had received some level of funding from the program. However, many cases for many reasons there are gaps in their financing, and it's preventing them from moving forward quickly. To address this, we have two pilot housing rebuilding programs that we soon will send to HUD for approval. Additionally, there are a variety of Community Development Block Grant and HOME-funded rebuilding programs that have been pushed down to nonprofits and to municipalities under way in Louisiana, particularly in New Orleans, and the state's $73 million Permanent Supportive Housing voucher program will start next month.

We also must transition 14,831 individuals who are receiving aid from the Disaster Housing Assistance Program administered through HUD. Earlier this year, HUD Secretary Shaun Donovan granted a six-month extension of DHAP. We cannot thank him enough for this action, which has been critical to assuring that we prevent mass homelessness in Louisiana. Additionally, HUD is allowing the state up to $8 million for case management for this population. In only three weeks, more than 9,000 clients have been signed up for case management.

So far, about 3,450 residents had a request to be converted from Disaster Housing Assistance Program vouchers to more permanent housing vouchers process. The state has also completed much repair work, which I've outlined in my submitted testimony. We also aim to have more than 5,000 new rental units online by the end of this year, which will help greatly with creating affordable housing, particularly in New Orleans.

And I want to thank the subcommittee for allowing me to come here today. We have much work to do, but we are making much progress. Thank you.

REP. DIAZ-BALART: Thank you so much, sir. Thank you for testimony.

The next witness is Reverend Charles Jenkins III. And thank you for being here, sir. Appreciate your time and we look forward to your testimony.

REV. JENKINS: Thank you. My name is Charles Jenkins. I'm bishop of the Episcopal Diocese of Louisiana. I reside in the 2nd Congressional District in New Orleans.

And I want you to know that my sanctuary slippers are on the ground, in the mud and covered with mold, and I am here to provide the contrast, I think, to the three previous speakers.

I have been FEMA registered; I received help from FEMA; I have been food stamp eligible; I am road home qualified; I have been homeless; I have been called a refugee in my own country.

However, it was the former resident of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue who helped me understand my identity. He was frustrated, and in a televised speech said, "Those people down there need to understand." The next day an African-American minister said, "Bishop, have you ever been called one of those people before." I shook my head no. He said, "Welcome to the club." So I'm proud to be one of those people down there.

Two days ago I went to the home of Ernest Hammond on Annette Street in the 7th Ward of New Orleans. One of our volunteer teams there composed of volunteers Presbyterians, Methodists, Catholics and Episcopalians from Pennsylvania, New Jersey and New Hampshire. We're cleaning out his home.

We had been told of Mr. Hammond and his dilemma prior to the New York Times article on May 8th. Our case managers are visiting with him. The smell of the rot, the dirt and the mold pushed at me as I went into his house. I thought I would never smell that again. Surely, I thought, we are beyond that.

Now this man is not one of that slice of society that will always be dependent on others. He is 71 years old; he drove a truck for 31 years until the company went out of business. He was a renter in this place for 11 years, saved his dollars and then bought it. He did not receive any FEMA or road home money because it is a triplex. His yard is planted in vegetables; he has sweet sugar cane -- or soft sugar cane as we call it there -- and citrus. He will gladly show you the hole in the roof he cut to get out of his attic and the axe he used to cut it. He will show you the cans that he collects daily to sell.

And by the way, this is a smart man. He's playing the future market on crushed cans, which is now down to 30 cents a pound. He sells only what he needs to supplement his $250 a month Social Security check. He hopes that the price of cans will go back up to 85 cents. We wonder how the recession hurts the poor.

He bought his house from his landlord using all of his savings. A few weeks ago a FEMA representative stopped by to say that at the end of the month his trailer would be taken away. This proud, hard- working man today leans against the wall and weeps huge tears. He said he's had no help until the Episcopal Church came to him. He has nowhere to go when his trailer is taken. What's the value of that trailer? Who needs it except him? There are two trailers on that lot -- and I hesitate to say this in front of FEMA -- but as soon as the last family moved out another moved in. Don't leave them vacant down there.

A day for the ending of trailers and dehep (ph) is set to satisfy whom? Not us. You know, it really doesn't matter what date you set because we cannot meet it.

Chairwoman Norton, it is not a matter of a refusal to meet it, but a deadline of next week or next year is for us a humanitarian crisis, not because we refuse but because we are unable. I ask that you take away the yardstick, the charts, the requirements -- I hadn't quoted any figures this morning -- of these agencies and that you build a human-needs based program that when the needs are met, then end the program.

We have people in Calcasieu and Camp (ph) Parish from Rita that are still living in tent cities; they hadn't even gotten the trailers yet. I plead with you to move beyond the Catch-22 design that always catches the poor in a frightening vice of what one lady, Mrs. B, whose husband is a Vietnam veteran, has cancer, and she has to unplug his breathing machine in order to run the appliances to cook dinner. They would love to get out of that trailer. The bed's too small. He has bedsores.

So let me move ahead. The problem is one of effective case management. I am still running a very effective case management program in New Orleans with three people. We've helped 672 families since the CAT Program folded. And what they tell us is, "You're doing a good job, Bishop, but you are treating us as human beings." The much-anticipated disaster case management pilot never happened in Louisiana.

So in conclusion, it seems to us arbitrary, it seems to us threatening. It frightens us with these seemingly arbitrary decisions to please someone else to end these programs, and they're not going to motivate us.

Ma'am, we're doing the best we can. I will have taken on Mr. and Mrs. B, and I've taken on Mr. Hammond. They will in time be all right. Certainly some of us are of that demographic slice that will never be able to live without public support, but most of us are not of the chronically unable to cope. That is a total mischaracterization.

Men like Ernest Hammond are heroes. He's coping. There was a lady with a sign standing outside the Morial Convention Center when we were evacuated there. Her sign said, "I'm an American too." The National Guard trucks rolled by her and kept going. We are Americans too. Don't roll by us again. Thank you.

DEL. NORTON: Yes, you're Americans and there is no such thing as abandoning people to the -- (audio gap) -- but we've got three agencies here, all of whom claim to be working hard to locate these residents and we don't seem to have a problem solving approach for the last remaining -- for the last remaining residents. When you've been able to accommodate thousands upon thousands, it is unfathomable that we would be having this trouble.

And so let me -- first let me ask the ranking member if before he leaves he has any questions beyond that which he's already asked.

REP. DIAZ-BALART: Well, thank you, Madame Chairwoman. I have a list of questions, but unfortunately as you well stated, I have actually the Secretary of DHS, Napolitano, is going to be in South Florida and I'm actually going to go meet her there. So thank you for your indulgence but unfortunately as we stated before I'm going to have to part. So I think my questions will have to wait until next time. But thank you for this hearing and thank everybody for their testimony.

DEL. NORTON: Thank you, Mr. Diaz-Balart.

Mr. Tombar, on page one of your testimony, you say that FEMA has offered each family residing in -- what is the THU -- temporary housing unit, at least three rental resources that met their individual needs. Then you named the kinds of needs and they seem -- they certainly seem reasonable to me. Number of bedrooms, accessibility considerations, units within a reasonable commuting distance, all of these resources were within the fair market rate established by HUD. Yet you say that residents have refused to locate in any of these three units at their disposal?

MR. TOMBAR: Yes, Ma'am.

DEL. NORTON: Now, you will then have to explain to this subcommittee how that is possible? Because we cannot believe that people believe they are entitled to whatever housing is available in the United States, people who have been living as long as these people have been living in the worst of circumstances would not easily say, "No. Eeny meeny miny mo, you go back and find some more. I'm not leaving."

You have got to explain why that is happening, who is working with these residents, how many such residents there are in Louisiana and in Mississippi who are given housing that meets these -- the requirements you just named, but despite having three sources, have turned them down. I wonder how many such people there are and what you have done to ascertain how that could possibly happen.

MR. TOMBAR: Madame Chairwoman, my colleague, Mr. Garratt, has the details and wants to answer. But if I could before he does, just to let you know that I am a native of New Orleans, and the folks that we're talking about, many of them are my family members, my friends, my former neighbors. And so I know anecdotally and from my own experience about people who have been offered and refused these resources.

DEL. NORTON: Now so from your own experience, then, Mr. Tombar, why from your own experience have people turned down three offers --

MR. TOMBAR: Because --

DEL. NORTON: We'll go to Mr. Garratt in a minute --

MR. TOMBAR: There is -- there is --

DEL. NORTON: Since you are now testifying as an expert witness, tell me why your own friends and relatives would have turned down housing.

MR. TOMBAR: There is something very attractive about being near home, and these trailers that people have been living in are own their -- (audio gap) -- at their home.

DEL. NORTON: On their own lots?

MR. TOMBAR: Yes, ma'am. That they are working on, the homes that they are working to repair.

And these families that I'm speaking of, that I know of personally who have refused, have refused because they want to stay near their -

DEL. NORTON: Now, are these homes that are likely, in fact, in time to be repaired as they are now in the process of being repaired?

Mr. Rainwater?

MR. RAINWATER: Madame Chairwoman, of the 3,000 trailer residents we have in Louisiana, about 1,800 of those were road home applications. Fourteen hundred of those have closed on a road home grant.

And so what we're finding is that in some cases, people are going to be able to complete their repairs -- and FEMA's working closely with us on that and trying to, you know, timeline that out.

But in some cases, we're having folks that having gap financing issues. And so we're starting to take some of the community development block grant money we have and putting it aside for a pilot reconstruction program so that, you know, because of the way the road home was written and approved by HUD, we have to be careful that we don't cause a duplication of benefit.

And so this -- you know, we've got about 400 --

DEL. NORTON: So all right, so there is a group -- remember, this hearing we were going in as a problem solving hearing.

MR. RAINWATER: Yes, ma'am.

DEL. NORTON: There is a group that -- leave aside the gap group -- that's a big group in the United States today, by the way.

MR. RAINWATER: Yes, ma'am.

DEL. NORTON: There is a group that could finish the rebuilding of their home.

Now, just let me ask all of you here: Let's deal with that group first. Is there any reason why those people who are going to have their own home now, who are rebuilding their own home, should not be left in the -- with their trailers until such time as that occurred?

Yes, Mr. Rainwater?

MR. RAINWATER: Madame Chairwoman, so we are sharing that information. FEMA's sharing the trailer with us and we're sharing road home information with them. So that we have, you know, two spreadsheets. One, you know, for road home grant applicants and when they got their grant. And then FEMA is telling us --

DEL. NORTON: Because these people didn't exactly receive their grants at any kind of timely fashion.

MR. RAINWATER: Yes, ma'am.

DEL. NORTON: Let's put that on the record right here!

MR. RAINWATER: Yes, ma'am.

And I will tell you that we closed 31,000 grants last year, which were the toughest grants because of title issues, succession issues -- those sorts of challenges. Challenges the contractor in 2007 had done some of the easiest grants in the beginning and so we did about 30 outreach sessions last year -- not outreach. They were working sessions. I just took the whole staff out. We went out in, you know, low-income, poor communities and just worked with those to get them -- you know, to get their grants closed.

So we've got about 1,200 folks left to close, but we've identified those that are in a FEMA trailer and those that are going to get road home grants.

DEL. NORTON: All right.

So there we have, Mr. Tombar, a group of people who wouldn't even have the problem. I can understand your problem.

And by the way, the notion of being close -- millions of Americans who have to travel to get to Washington, D.C. every day, because the only housing they can afford is two hours away from here. So we're not saying that this is for everybody's convenience. But we can't believe that people who live in these homes are simply looking for the best and most convenient.

And here we have a group of people -- now, let's see if we can agreement to the following proposition: With respect to extensions, let us at least for those people who are going to aid in the national recovery by rebuilding their own homes, would it not make sense for an extension to be granted with respect to those people -- just as a common sense way, rather than put them out of their homes, stop them from -- because they have to then use what income they have simply to find a place to live.

Wouldn't it be in the national interest and in the interest of the state to at least partition off those people for an extension pending some reasonable time for completion of their rebuilding of their own homes? Is there agreement on that?

MR. GARRATT: Madame Chair, it's an attractive proposition. But in fact, what we're looking at here -- as we calculate it in Louisiana -- 367 families who could complete repairs on their home in five months or less.

DEL. NORTON: Three-hundred-and-sixty families.

MR. GARRATT: Three-hundred-and-sixty-seven. Another 258 could complete repairs on their homes in 11 months or less; and then 509 families' repairs would take at least a year to complete and then another 711 who are not rebuilding at all.

DEL. NORTON: All right.

MR. GARRATT: Now, these figures do not indicate that there is active repairs going on. What they reflect is that were active repairs to commence or to continue on these homes in an active way -- in other words, daily work on these homes -- that the home could be repaired in five months.

Now, some number of --

DEL. NORTON: Now, this is go. Go ahead.

MR. GARRATT: Just one point I want to make is that it doesn't necessarily reflect that active rebuilding is necessarily going on in every case. In some cases, they've been five months away from rebuilding their home for a year and a half.

So it's not quite as simple as just --

DEL. NORTON: Well, no -- this is an important point.

Can we also say, for the record, that the most serious recession since the Great Depression is going on? If anybody is able to pick up a hammer and do anything today -- when we just finished a stimulus package just short of $1 trillion -- because even the biggest developers didn't have anything into the ground -- I just want that -- us to note that for the record.

But what you said, Mr. Garratt, is very important. And I'm not here indicating that there is a solution and this is a solution. I'm simply trying to disaggregate the problem so I can see how much of a problem we have.

Now with respect to the rebuilders, it does seem to me that they are operating in the national interest and the in the interests of the state. These are homeowners.

Mr. Garratt's figures are, I believe, important figures, because they show an analysis of what's on the table with respect to the rebuilders. At the moment I'm not distressed that the work isn't ongoing, since the only work I know going is the stuff we've given people through the federal government, since we're the only people who can write checks in the world and not having it counting against our checking account.

My question really goes to whether or not Mr. Rainwater, in particular -- or for that matter, HUD -- Mr. Rainwater, there has been considerable criticism -- we hear Mr. Garratt talk about the different stages of rebuilding here.

We have to note that our program that we were so proud of Katrina cottages where we were generous in funding has not, so far as I know, has the state produced a single unit. And I don't know why I should hold these people to the standard of renovating their unit when a whole big state with nothing but billions of dollars flowing in hasn't been able to produce one Katrina cottage.

Are we holding these people to a standard we're not ourselves meeting? And would you explain here for the record why there's not even one cottage -- I realize these people would not be in Katrina cottages, but I'm trying to look at some objective measures by which to look at -- they're getting put out of their trailer. And the state, having produced not one housing unit from the very promising Katrina cottage program.

MR. RAINWATER: Yes, Madame Chairwoman. A couple of things: One is we have asked for extensions to FEMA and to HUD. And we ask that --

DEL. NORTON: Well, and just like these people asking for extension in order to do their work!

MR. RAINWATER: Yes, ma'am.

DEL. NORTON: So now so far, you all are on the same page -- except they have a whole lot less resources when they come to Katrina (sic/FEMA) and say, give us some more time.

MR. RAINWATER: Yes, ma'am.

And point of that is not to point fingers. My point is to say that, you know, one of the things that happened to us last year was Gustav and Ike. And I've been involved in the four -- Katrina, Rita, Ike, Gustav -- evacuations --

DEL. NORTON: That happened to everybody, Mr. Rainwater.

MR. RAINWATER: Yes, ma'am.

DEL. NORTON: It set back those people Mr. Garratt told us might have finished in five months. It set back people who, when faced with a recession, have been set back perhaps some considerable time.

MR. RAINWATER: Yes, ma'am.

DEL. NORTON: The question for those people, it seems to me, Mr. Garratt -- I'm coming back to this -- might well be if those people have the resources to ultimately build -- have you looked to see whether when we look at they could possibly rebuild with the government help that's due them and the rest? One question would be if these people have the resources with the associated help to build at all.

And if they do within five months, 11 months, one year, That's something that FEMA, and, for that matter, this subcommittee might well have to take into consideration. You're talking about people who are homeowners, perhaps have a job -- because they are there, or probably would be someplace else; people who, with assistance, some assistance, whatever they do, would, in fact, be able to rebuild?

MR. GARRATT: It runs the gamut, Madame Chair.

There are, in fact, some among that group who are actively engaged in this and do have the resources to do that. As I indicated in my testimony, we've also been working with them to help them identify contractors, and to work with voluntary agencies and others who can provide building materials, and that, to those who cannot do it as well.

But, the bottom line on this is that, again, it runs the gamut. We've got a wide range of engagement on the part of the homeowners in how fast, how aggressively they're pursuing rebuilding.

DEL. NORTON: Are these people receiving some assistance?

MR. RAINWATER: Yes, Madame Chairwoman. I mean, on the tactical level, on the ground -- I mean, I don't sit in Baton Rouge. I go out and talk to non-profits, talk to Road Home applicants, talk to -- my staff and FEMA's staff walk trailers together and talk to applicants. And then they bring the information back to us, and we talk about where they're at.

And that's where some of these Pilot Reconstruction Programs have come from, are from meetings with Road Home applicants and non-profits about how do we -- how do we help them with their, you know, that gap issue.

But, the other piece of this is that the FEMA folks on the ground, the Transition Recovery Office have told us that they'll work with -- (audio break) -- you know, if someone's five months out, or six or seven months out from getting their construction complete, they'll work with us.

The other piece that we're trying to do is look at the --

DEL. NORTON: -- (inaudible) -- mean they'll work with you. Of course, working with you may mean -- (laughs) -- that they (can't ?) be put out of their trailer?

MR. RAINWATER: Yes, ma'am, that's right -- that's right, and so that they can complete their reconstruction.

So, there's a pretty massive going on at the --

DEL. NORTON: So, does that mean, Mr. Garratt, that FEMA would regard it as reasonable, with respect to those people that Mr. Rainwater has identified -- to allow them to remain in their trailers until they can proceed and have their construction done?

MR. GARRATT: If that was the only consideration at play here, Madame Chair, perhaps. But, it's not the only consideration at play here. You know, the title of this hearing is, "Still Post-Katrina: How Does FEMA Decide When Housing Responsibilities End?" And what I'd like to do is just address that as part of a comprehensive answer to this question.

We provide temporary housing units as a last resort. We provide temporary housing units -- these forms of manufactured housing, because there are no organic rental resources available to support the population that needs this assistance. So, we roll these in, we set them up, and we provide these to fulfill that gap.

We continue to provide those until the rental capacity reaches the point that it can now support a population and we can move them out of what are largely -- in the case of travel trailers, an inadequate, long-term living environment. We've been up here to testify before about the inadequacies of living in a travel trailer -- that it's no place for families to live long-term. In fact, we have policies in place now that only allow us to use those for six months in new disasters.

We have families that have been living in these things for approaching four years at this point --

DEL. NORTON: And let me just stop you there for one second. If these families were to move out of these trailers -- I'm talking now about, I'm trying to, I'm trying to deal with this group of families here, between you and Mr. Rainwater -- what would happen to those trailers?

MR. GARRATT: They would be scrapped, ma'am.

DEL. NORTON: That's right. Now, let's get that on the record -- that these trailers would be scrapped, so that there would be no return to the government.

Are the trailers costing you anything?

MR. GARRATT: Yes, ma'am. We pay operations and maintenance for these trailers.

DEL. NORTON: So, you tell me what you pay?

MR. GARRATT: I can tell you what we pay, yes ma'am. We can get those figures --

DEL. NORTON: I'm talking about what -- I don't mean the total amount. If there is an individual trailer unit, what is it for the maintenance of the trailer unit that you pay? Do you pay the heat, or the lights, or the utilities, or what?

MR. GARRATT: No, ma'am. In most cases, for trailers that are on private property, they pay the utilities for --

DEL. NORTON: So, what is that you pay, Mr. -- I'm trying to find out the outlay to the government, as opposed to the outlay of the government, for example, if these people are thrust onto the rental market. Let's do a cost-benefit analysis here.

MR. GARRATT: We pay a maintenance contractor. We have maintenance in the deactivation contracts. Those contractors have --

DEL. NORTON: Do you pay the -- essentially, the lease of the, the lease of what is going to be destroyed?

MR. GARRATT: Well, we purchase those units. And, again, we --

DEL. NORTON: And they're purchased now -- you own them?

MR. GARRATT: We do.

DEL. NORTON: So, I'm trying to find out what you pay. You've already bought them. You're going to destroy them. They're serving a good purpose at this point.

I'm not even talking about all the people in the trailers, I'm talking about the people who fit these various months from reconstruction of their home. What is the value to the government in putting them -- would they, in fact, if they were put onto the rental market, would there be homes, rental housing for these families if they vacated the -- (audio interrupts) -- (trailers ?)?

Mr. Tombar, do you want to answer that one?

MR. TOMBAR: Yes, ma'am.

Yes, and, in fact, the governor of Mississippi was recently here meeting with the secretary of HUD and put the vacancy rate in the Southern part of Mississippi at upwards of 25 percent --

DEL. NORTON: The market rate for people of the income level we are describing here?

MR. TOMBAR: Yes, ma'am --

DEL. NORTON: That's what the governor of Mississippi said?

MR. TOMBAR: He said that there are -- that he has a vacancy rate of nearly 25 percent.

DEL. NORTON: Yeah, for people, for example, who need Section 8 housing, sir? Does he have that kind of vacancy rate for them?

MR. TOMBAR: We have, as I testified --

DEL. NORTON: I got a vacancy rate here too for people who can pay $6,000 a month. What kind of talk is that -- "vacancy rate?"

MR. TOMBAR: You asked --

DEL. NORTON: That has no -- (inaudible) --

MR. TOMBAR: -- you asked a question --

DEL. NORTON: -- we're talking about vulnerable families.

MR. TOMBAR: -- about the -- I'm sorry, ma'am.

DEL. NORTON: We're talking about the most vulnerable families, the people who will need housing assistance from you, sir.

MR. TOMBAR: Yes.

DEL. NORTON: From you, sir -- almost all of them, if they are to be moved.

MR. TOMBAR: I was speaking about what units are available. And then there are resources that are available to go with those units. As I testified --

DEL. NORTON: Mr. Tombar.

MR. TOMBAR: Yes, ma'am.

DEL. NORTON: Would you submit, within two weeks, 14 days, based on your own testimony to this committee, the rental units in the State of Mississippi and in the State of Louisiana, by income, that the -- by the contemplated income, whatever is the technical term?

Never come before this committee with some notion of a rental rate that includes everybody from the richest people to the poorest. And you didn't even say it was the fair market rate of what -- (audio interrupts) --

MR. TOMBAR: No --

DEL. NORTON: That's to give us no information.

So, that's all right, sir. You don't have the -- you don't have the information, you know, at your fingertip. I want to know what is the vacancy rate in the State of Mississippi, by county, within 14 days, and by income level. That information alone is useful to the committee.

We're not going to require the government to do what is impossible, but we're not going to accept massive nonsense figures like that.

MR. TOMBAR: Ma'am, if I could --

DEL. NORTON: And it's very interesting that there is nobody from Mississippi here. And I say to the staff, there should have been. But, your answer -- this whole hearing is about Louisiana, and you quoted me a --

MR. TOMBAR: No -- ma'am, I --

DEL. NORTON: -- rate for Louisiana.

Now, for Mississippi, now quote me the rate for New Orleans? Quote me the rate --

MR. TOMBAR: I will.

DEL. NORTON: -- for Louisiana.

MR. TOMBAR: I will.

And, if I could, that was the first part my answer. The second part of my answer is that there are resources available to subsidize rent for families that cannot afford it, as I testified to in my testimony. And, in the --

DEL. NORTON: Okay, now, this is important --

MR. TOMBAR: -- (inaudible) --

(Cross talk.)

DEL. NORTON: Now, wait a minute. Section 8 housing, we had phone calls to my office -- (audio interrupts) -- (telling me ?) that -- this is an example, of a family who came from someone in the District of Columbia that has been, that found housing for her own disabled -- for some disabled relatives. When she found the housing, FEMA agreed that -- it must have been within the rate that FEMA would allow people.

Now she is being told that they will -- that neither FEMA -- FEMA will no longer pay, because she's been in -- she's going to be past the deadline. And, by the way, she's been told to get out of the housing on a date soon to come -- not August, but get out of the date now. So, these people are receiving these notices now. So, she's been told to get out of the housing or pay.

Then she went to HUD and they said -- I think this was in the Baton Rouge area, "We don't have any Section 8 housing available." This is a disabled person. What would be available to that person, whose relative has been rendering self help -- in the first place, in finding, and pay the rent until the relative qualified?

Since she's been told there's no Section 8 housing, and she is disabled, what should my office tell this relative that your testimony is here today?

MR. TOMBAR: Yes, ma'am. I assume that she's near East Baton Rouge Parish, and I have numbers here for -- for East Baton Rouge Parish, we have made available 459 vouchers for families, and prioritize -- that housing authority has prioritized elderly and disabled families.

To date, only -- of those 459, there are approximately 300 families that have availed themselves of those vouchers. So, that --

DEL. NORTON: Now, explain that to me. All right, so you say most of them have come forward -- 300 out of --

MR. TOMBAR: Out of 459.

Three hundred have been -- families have been invited in to make themselves available of those vouchers.

DEL. NORTON: Oh, excuse me. I thought you say 300 had in fact accepted the vouchers.

MR. TOMBAR: That number actually is 206.

DEL. NORTON: So it's about half of them?

So your testimony to me is there is Section 8 housing or voucher housing available in the Baton Rouge area.

MR. TOMBAR: In the Baton Rouge area, in the New Orleans area, in places throughout southern Louisiana there are resources available for families.

Each of these housing authorities -- we have been working with them since immediately after the storm, ma'am, to get them to prioritize providing resources to families that were displaced by Hurricanes Katrina and Rita.

We have provided -- this Congress has provided $85 million to convert families that were previously on DEHAP program to the permanent housing choice housing program. With that, we have prioritized families who are elderly and disabled -- like the woman that you mentioned. So there are resources available in those states for -- in those communities for those families.

In fact, you asked specifically about New Orleans. In New Orleans there is a list of landlords who have come into our local housing authority there saying they are willing to make their units available to eligible families. That runs now over 1,000 landlords, along with 1,000 units that has been sitting there without movement --

DEL. NORTON: Mr. Rainwater -- Mr. Rainwater, now you hear this testimony from HUD. They've got a glut of housing here -- if we can only get somebody to take it, is essentially what he is saying!

Can you make this subcommittee understand what the issue here -- see I'm dealing with the trailers differently. I gave Mr. Tombar a question regarding somebody who is renting.

I have to assume -- and I must say I find this puzzling -- if this person is in housing that was approved by -- (audio break) -- Mr. Garratt, I would assume that that is the kind of the housing that would qualify for Section 8, because otherwise, I don't think FEMA would have put this person such a high-rent place that it couldn't be converted to Section 8 if that time came.

MR. GARRATT: Actually, Madame Chair, that's not necessarily accurate.

DEL. NORTON: They could have been in a high-rent place where you were subsidizing?

MR. GARRATT: Well, we didn't pick the apartments for individuals under our program. We provide funding to applicants and applicants choose where they live.

Now, we can identify available forms of housing, and we do that for these applicants, but they choose where they live. As opposed to under HUD's program, HUD will help place them in a HUD-approved property.

DEL. NORTON: Now, I want to speak with Mr. Rainwater and then with Reverend Jenkins.

Now, Mr. Rainwater, is it your experience as a state official that there is Section 8 housing just waiting for people to come forward and accept it?

MR. RAINWATER: Madame Chairwoman -- one of the challenges, I think that -- I mean, there's no doubt -- as I've said earlier -- we've made great progress. And whether it's small rental or, you know, we closed on six large apartment complex -- or actually did grand openings in March of this year. Many of those are mixed income communities. So capacity is coming back on line.

In many cases -- or in some cases, what you have -- and I have gone out and spoken with folks who, you mentioned it earlier, people don't want to commute or they don't want to be away from their neighborhood.

DEL. NORTON: Now -- (audio break) -- Mr. Jenkins, I come to -- there's some truth in that. There's no question about it.

You find that, in fact, the more settled people are -- by the way, it's interesting that there were statistics that came out of Louisiana that said that people were -- of all the populations in the country over the great migrations, the great migration, for example of black people to the north -- people in Louisiana were the least likely to leave. They liked where they were. So I can understand it. I've visited New Orleans. And of course, people in New Orleans have seen huge catastrophes, just not quite one this big.

So what Mr. Rainwater said that there are people who just can't imagine being away from their home community would in fact be the case.

Now you -- I have to ask you whether you find that. And I also have to ask you about case management, whether or not there is an adequate -- people are working adequately with residents to understand the limits of the federal government, the limits of the state government and the limited choices we all have to make in this life.

REV. JENKINS: Thank you. I find that New Orleans is one of the places in this country that still gives people a sense of identity. Whereas a great American exodus happened, many people stayed in New Orleans.

Many of the houses we've discovered --

DEL. NORTON: And indeed, you've had a very rapid return of population.

REV. JENKINS: We have.

DEL. NORTON: More than anyone thought.

What is the population now, of New Orleans, please -- I'll let you go on in a minute.

MR. RAINWATER: It's right about -- a little over 300,000.

DEL. NORTON: A little over 300,000?

MR. RAINWATER: What's interesting, though, ma'am is the region is back up over a million. And that's the -- I think that's the --

DEL. NORTON: Well, what was the region before?

MR. RAINWATER: It was about 1.3 million. It's up a little bit over a million. New Orleans before the storm was about 430,000 and it's up around 310 (,000) -- thereabouts, ma'am.

REV. JENKINS: The demographic we find that is most -- the population that's returning to New Orleans now, last month, was 1,800- and-some-odd African-American people -- many of whom are coming back from Texas. And just, I think, a couple of hundred Anglo and other people returning.

People are coming home. You get a sense of identity in who you are in New Orleans. I work with Jerome Smith of Tambourine and Fan. Fifty-one percent of the youth in New Orleans are still gone and we are tracking them and trying to work with them where they are.

I personally -- and I know that all my testimony -- (audio break) -- and I apologize for that, but I disagree with the effectiveness of FEMA's understanding of case management.

What I hear on the streets and what I see on the streets is that when contact is made, we are given a list of telephone numbers. I believe that that list at --

DEL. NORTON: Telephone numbers of whom, sir?

REV. JENKINS: People like these 1,000 empty apartments; people who are going to have resources for us; people who are going to help.

You can call those numbers and no one answers.

DEL. NORTON: Well, just a moment. Mr. Garratt, would you like to respond to that -- the notion that people are given telephone numbers rather than case management?

MR. GARRATT: Well, Madame Chair, actually, much of case management involves as a matter of practice, referral.

Case managers identify needs and then they refer the individual -- their case management -- to services and people who specialize in dealing with those needs.

DEL. NORTON: Mr. Garratt, I do agree with that. And I think that for the average American, that would truly be the case.

This hearing concerns disabled people, elderly people, people who are least likely -- they want to stay where they are, because they have no idea what happened to them or what will happen to them.

So if case management for a disabled person or an elderly person amounts to "Here's what Mr. Tombar has to offer", my question to you would be, do you provide some transportation for that person so that they can go look at these resources?

MR. GARRATT: Providing transportation is not something that's normally part of the case management.

DEL. NORTON: Well, my Lord! Let me assume some of these people are blind; some of these people have no transportation and live in that trailer or that unit because they have no way to get out.

How would they -- most of these people are assistance -- government assistance of some kind. How would you suggest that those people go about dealing with the referral to three units that Mr. Tombar has to offer?

MR. GARRATT: In most communities across the United States there are social services organizations and voluntary agencies who will provide that kind of support.

DEL. NORTON: All right. Let's now go to Mr. Rainwater.

The state interest in getting these residents into one of these three available units -- this is the first time I ever heard of Section 8 housing being available in cities. So I'm really quite excited about it. We don't have any available here.

Your interests as a state would be very high as well. What does the state or the city offer -- I'll ask you first: Is it your responsibility or whose responsibility? Mr. Tombar says "I've got the units." Mr. Garratt says "I've got the referrals."

What do you say, Mr. Rainwater?

MR. RAINWATER: Madame Chairwoman, last year when I took this job in 2008, we started working on a strategy to create some sort of safety net.

We also started working on extensions, as you know. And you know how the extensions work is they come up every six months.

DEL. NORTON: The extensions of what?

MR. RAINWATER: The extensions of the FEMA trailer program and the Disaster Housing Assistance Program.

When Secretary Donovan --

DEL. NORTON: Mr. Rainwater, let me stop you there.

MR. RAINWATER: Well --

DEL. NORTON: Because the extension notion could become like cocaine.

MR. RAINWATER: Yes, ma'am.

DEL. NORTON: And you're talking to somebody here who's very sympathetic to the residents, because they are human beings who've been subjected to the worst of disasters.

But it sounds to me as though you all need to be put into withdrawal.

MR. RAINWATER: Yes, ma'am. And I was going to get to that point. And what I wanted to do is walk you through sort of the steps of what we were looking at to move folks out of disaster housing. And that is it's really time and money.

It's a matter of getting our small rental program --

DEL. NORTON: Well, wait a minute, Mr. Rainwater. I want to insist on an answer to my question.

You see, we are laying -- we're trying to solve something here. I got the units, I got the referrals --

MR. RAINWATER: Yes, ma'am. But if --

DEL. NORTON: And I don't have anyway for some 80-year-old woman or some blind man to get to a referral. My question to you is what does the state or what does the city have to do in this triumvirate? Are you part of it?

MR. RAINWATER: Yes, ma'am.

DEL. NORTON: And I'm going to first insist upon an answer to my question: Are you providing a service, once these two agencies have done their part?

MR. RAINWATER: Yes, ma'am. There are a number of nonprofits that we work with throughout the city, throughout the region. It is not the best case management program. There's no doubt it has gaps. There's no doubt about that, but we do have -- we have case managers working directly with FEMA.

We have contracted with the Housing Authority of New Orleans to help us work through those issues. And we also work with groups like Unity -- (audio break) -- who went out and picked up folks who are disabled or the group that you're talking about. And I've seen those cases. And we've actually been on the ground with the nonprofits as they go and talk to people.

But it's not -- what we're trying to do, and it's not as comprehensive as it could be, because we never go there --

DEL. NORTON: Mr. Rainwater, I was very impressed by your testimony last time you appeared here, because you were the sole problem solver in the bunch. And I must say, you're not rising to that level of problem solving here.

Mr. Jenkins, for example, in his testimony complains about his inability to share information. And he is a nonprofit.

MR. RAINWATER: Madame Chair, what of the things that we did --

DEL. NORTON: Client information he's talking about.

MR. RAINWATER: Yes, ma'am.

DEL. NORTON: Client information with state and local governments so that additional service can be provided. You know, with the kind of approach you took, which was to get the actors -- the relevant actors together -- it seemed to me that that kind of situation could be solved, as long as these two gentlemen are meeting their obligations.

MR. RAINWATER: And that's what we're doing, Madame Chairwoman.

That's exactly what I've been trying to say is that what we have been doing for the last year and a half are working with nonprofits, working with FEMA on the ground. The guys on the ground --

DEL. NORTON: Now, Reverend Jenkins is on the ground and he's here to complain.

What is it about working on the ground -- be specific -- that you have found inadequate, Reverend Jenkins?

REV. JENKINS: Thank you.

I have found the example of supposed case management that is being used by the state and by FEMA to be inadequate for people who cannot help themselves. Obviously, I was able to help myself. I think the main thing is a failure in case management.

I would also point out --

DEL. NORTON: Now, if there were case management, what would it consist of, Reverend Jenkins?

REV. JENKINS: In our situation, where we run a privately-funded case management operation, because people of faith and goodwill are continuing to write checks as well -- even through the recession -- it means, first all, that we take seriously and respect the dignity of every human being. We see them not as a means to an end -- that is profit -- nor do we --

DEL. NORTON: No, sir. I want to know what it would consist of. I have what your own values are above reproach.

REV. JENKINS: Thank you.

DEL. NORTON: I want to know what would your case management relationship to the state or the city consist of?

REV. JENKINS: To the state or city we have very little relationship to the state or city.

DEL. NORTON: Oh, now, this is important. Why? Since you're willing to help people and you're doing it on your own time --

REV. JENKINS: Yes, ma'am.

DEL. NORTON: What is the difficulty, then, of dealing with the state or the city?

REV. JENKINS: In some ways, Madame Chairwoman, I felt that ethically, I could not participate in the case management system that was being design in that it did not provide the kind of opportunity and freedom for New Orleanians to maintain their homes in our city nor did it provide for the dignity of all.

I was in Renaissance Village north of Baton Rouge in the town of Baker when a representative told this hugely primarily African- American group "You could live anywhere in the United States you want, except you can't go home."

DEL. NORTON: Well, going home might have meant parts of the Ninth Ward.

REV. JENKINS: Right! I'm building in the Ninth Ward.

DEL. NORTON: Well, you can go there today.

But we're trying to get people to -- that can go home pending the rebuilding of New Orleans. And I can understand the view you've taken.

I think I've got to go back to Mr. Rainwater, because even if you are doing -- you, Reverend Jenkins, are doing work -- and I must say, it is extraordinary work to do that on private resources -- the state of Louisiana and the city of New Orleans and the Parishes have a responsibility for casework -- so does, for that matter, FEMA -- quite apart from any private resources.

So the first place I'd turn to from the casework would be to the state and to the city and the parish. Are there caseworkers assigned to these last remaining vulnerable residents?

MR. RAINWATER: Yes, ma'am, there are.

And I understand Reverend Jenkins perspective. Many nonprofits chose not work with us on case management, because we were not able to provide -- because of the way the dollar's come down and just the -- in some cases it's a little rigid. Nonprofits chose not to work with us and I can understand that.

And I've tried as hard as we possibly can to make these dollars as flexible as possible, to provide case management the way they would like. But in some cases we just couldn't do it.

DEL. NORTON: Couldn't do what, sir?

MR. RAINWATER: Well, for example, in some cases nonprofits felt like they didn't want to just have a referral service. And we've been able to mesh up transportation and other things working through the network of different providers, whether it's at the city or whether it's at a nonprofit.

But what many nonprofits wanted to do was to have the case management piece, but also have the dollars to provide to the resident, you know, to help them to buy furniture or to do other things. We didn't have those dollars to do that, because of the way some of the congressional appropriations language was written. So that's been part of the challenge.

Now, we have freed up --

DEL. NORTON: Hopefully we would go back then to the case managers from the state of Louisiana and the parishes involved --

MR. RAINWATER: Yes, ma'am.

DEL. NORTON: -- who would understand the rules.

Are you testimony here today that each resident who needs a case manager has one?

MR. RAINWATER: I can't say that every resident has a particular -- I mean, there are, you know, depending on -- I mean, each resident gets -- (audio break). Each trailer that has a resident in it is getting a visit from a state employee and a FEMA employee. Their needs are talked about their. They come back and what we try to do is marry up --

DEL. NORTON: Do you provide transportation to one of these three units that Mr. Tombar has made available?

MR. RAINWATER: Using the city's transportation system and the nonprofits out there --

DEL. NORTON: No. The nonprofits might not be working with you. It's the city's responsibility if there wasn't a single nonprofit in the whole state of Louisiana.

MR. RAINWATER: The city of New Orleans is working with us, ma'am, and we have meetings.

And in this economy, as we talked about at the last meeting, we are having meetings where we talk about what the needs are and then we try to marry up those needs with the residents.

DEL. NORTON: Mr. Rainwater, let me ask you this: It sounds to me as though quite apart from the valuable work that Mr. Jenkins is doing, that we need a crisis group for these last most vulnerable residents. That we need closer interaction between FEMA, HUD, the state. And I would daresay the parishes that are also involved.

Would -- let me ask the three of you if you would be willing to develop a task force devoted exclusively to finding a way and an appropriate way -- I'm not here saying what it is. You notice that I am not saying that they should be in housing, that they should not be (there ?) -- but an appropriate way to find solutions for the last remaining victims of Katrina.

I'm only asking for a grouping who would be devoted solely to this task so that Mr. Rainwater would not testify, as he has here, that we would of course call the local housing authority. I'm not talking about that.

I'm talking about somebody from the Housing Authority that the state would say you must give us for this task force, someone on the ground from HUD, on the ground from FEMA, who would work on the best way to find solutions without any notion of what those solutions should be.

MR. TOMBAR: Yes, ma'am.

MR. RAINWATER: Yes, ma'am.

MR. GARRATT: Not only yes, ma'am, but I believe we have already established in Louisiana in conjunction with the state -- and HUD's participating -- a Joint Housing Solutions Task Force down there. It's been up and running for a couple of months now, focused on exactly that.

DEL. NORTON: Who are the members of this group who are going to focus solely on this? What are their --

MR. RAINWATER: Yes, ma'am. It's a number of -- (my ?) organizations and Recovery Authority, Department of Social Services, FEMA, HUD representatives --

DEL. NORTON: Are there people assigned from those agencies whose job is to work on these -- all those agencies is telling me nothing. They have a statutory responsibility. I'm asking for a kind of task force.

MR. RAINWATER: Yes, ma'am. That -- and that's with -- when we got into a data-sharing agreement with FEMA and HUD at the beginning of this year that allowed to look at each other's information -- not just look at information, but decide how we're going to try to solve problems, and that is, you know, moving dollars to -- you know, to a project management, to nonprofits like the Lower Ninth Ward, where they can help folks finish rebuilding their homes. I mean, those are the kinds of things that, you know, we're trying to come to solutions with.

Again, it's complicated. But yes, ma'am. I mean, we're -- and we'll go back and --

DEL. NORTON: Would you, within 14 days, submit to this subcommittee the name of the person on the task force -- I'm calling it that; you can call it anything you want to -- assigned to working together with the agencies involved and the units involved and any others that you think necessary to accomplish the task who's -- who are -- names that we want, names -- who are working specifically on finding solutions? I understand that you may have a group for whom you have to tell us there are no solutions we can find. We just need to know that. We just -- but we don't need to know by agency; we need to know by person who is assigned to this task.

MR. RAINWATER: Absolutely.

DEL. NORTON: And I need -- I need you to know there's a presumption against -- the government exercises a presumption against extensions. We don't like the fact that extensions come at the last moment. We think that causes, as I said in my opening remarks, terrible stress. But that doesn't mean that we think the answer here is an extension. The same time, we are not going to see people put out on the street. And we, at the same time, are not going to allow people to say, "I demand to be in Orleans Parish and I'm not going." If they're not going, then they can't ask the government of the United States to continue to pay for them where they are.

But at the moment, we can't figure out one from the other, because the information is too vague and we're too close to the August deadline and people are already being put out. And the press all over the country is running stories about how people are being put out of trailers and other housing, not being subsidized, without adequate housing being provided. And the reason this hearing is being held is we don't have any answer back on who is right, and think we would have much better answers if we knew very specifically not that one agency is calling the other agency to try to get somebody to help out and getting some hard-working civil servant to do the best that they can, but there is a concentrated group that understands we are at the end. We are at the end. We are dealing with the people who would be least likely to go out and take a telephone number and find Section 8 housing or the like.

I never did get an answer because I went from trying to solve a problem rather than simply put answers on the record. But I must get an answer, better than the answer that, well, we've had more than one. Mr. Rainwater, we've had, after all, more than one hurricane. I can understand how you would be set back on the Katrina cottages by the additional hurricane. What I can't understand is the failure to produce one single cottage. That's what you got to make me understand.

MR. RAINWATER: Yes, ma'am. So I went to work for the governor in January of 2008. To that point, nothing had been done from an administrative perspective as it relates to Katrina cottages.

DEL. NORTON: And what was -- what was the reason for that?

MR. RAINWATER: I don't know, ma'am. I just know that Governor Jindal asked me to take it over and get it moving. We -- so the first --

DEL. NORTON: How much money is out there waiting to be --

MR. RAINWATER: Well, it's $74 million, although it's -- that number's a lot less now because we've actually spent money, and we actually have construction going up in four different sites, in Louisiana, Lake Charles, Baton Rouge and New Orleans --

DEL. NORTON: For Katrina cottages?

MR. RAINWATER: For Katrina -- yes, ma'am.

DEL. NORTON: When is the earliest we can expect Katrina cottages to be up?

MR. RAINWATER: We expect to end construction in New Orleans in August and in September. We've got sites that we plan to -- about a hundred will be up in New Orleans about August, September time frame, working with the New Orleans Redevelopment Authority. And December the 15th at HANO we expect another hundred to be up. And in Baton Rouge, Louisiana, about 42 should be up -- or be complete by July 31st. And in Lake Charles, Louisiana, we expect another 70 or so in August of this year.

So we worked through a lot of the challenges. And we -- you can see construction happening. We also got permission from FEMA to build 200 system-built Katrina cottages. And so what we did is we're taking --

DEL. NORTON: So that will take care of -- this is very good information to put on the record. Will that take care of all the Katrina homes that you have there?

MR. RAINWATER: Yes, ma'am. By the end of September, November time frame, barring weather, we plan to have 500 cottages up. And so we're working with the nonprofits, four different nonprofit agencies that, you know, developed the eligibility criteria that would take care of Katrina and Rita evacuees. And so those are -- yes, ma'am. So we're making progress on that. We've, you know, worked through a lot of issues there.

And FEMA has worked very closely with us, as has the city of New Orleans and the city of Baton Rouge and Lake Charles.

DEL. NORTON: Now, the progress you made -- and I do know, Mr. Rainwater, that you were called to this task that was not moving at all and that we knew from your prior testimony that you have made things happen. The reason that we're concerned here is because we need you to make something happen just as quickly with respect to these residents.

For example, there's a program -- $869 million state program that was also federally funded. It targeted more than 18,000 damaged rental units. It had resulted in fewer than 1,200 repairs by late March, so far as we've been able to understand. Now, these would be the units most, I suppose, in demand, although Mr. Tombar -- (audio break) -- he's got units to burn out there. But in any case -- (laughs) -- what is the reason for the slow progress in the one kind of unit that you would think would be most in demand, these rental units with all that federal money out there -- 18,000 targeted, 1,200 repaired by late March?

MR. RAINWATER: Yes, ma'am. There are two programs that we're running. One is a small rental program that targets what we call mom- and-pop renters. You know, those were folks that, you know, retired schoolteachers, you know, folks -- I've met with a lot of these folks that -- a refinery employee who had a lot of overtime one year, bought a duplex to be part of the American dream and own property. And so after the storm, obviously, you know, they lost their home; they lost their rental unit.

The state stood up a rental program in 2007, before I was there, that basically gave someone a letter of commitment that they took to the bank. When I got there in January of 2008, we said I'd give it six months to work. It didn't show much progress. And so we started doing some tweaks to the program. We've actually gotten about 1,400 units produced to date.

DEL. NORTON: 1,400, not 1,200?

MR. RAINWATER: Yes, ma'am, actually 1,439. We expect to close or produce another 3,000 by the end of this year.

We are -- we've slowly changed the production and the make-up of the program. What we're going to start doing is advancing cash to folks. And that's basically -- and I have to tell you, Madame Chairwoman, I take some responsibility for that, because I should have just thrown the program out when I got there in February. It was too slow-moving. And so we're going to start advances starting this June.

And we're doing a massive outreach program to these mom-and-pop renters to work with them, because in some cases, they're not necessarily professional, you know, managers of rental units.

DEL. NORTON: Where are they now?

MR. RAINWATER: Mostly in -- New Orleans had a large majority.

DEL. NORTON: I mean, where are they living?

MR. RAINWATER: Many are back in their homes. And that was part of the challenges, is that they used the Road Home money, obviously, and their insurance money to rebuild their home, not necessarily their rental unit.

So -- and in some cases, we have folks living on one side of a duplex --

DEL. NORTON: But wait a minute. Make me understand this --

MR. RAINWATER: Yes, ma'am?

DEL. NORTON: These people are -- you call them "mom and pop" --

MR. RAINWATER: Yes, ma'am.

DEL. NORTON: Meaning what, please?

MR. RAINWATER: Just folks that lived in the community that bought duplex --

DEL. NORTON: They had homes.

MR. RAINWATER: Yes, ma'am. They had homes. Right. They had duplexes and triplexes and fourplexes in New Orleans.

DEL. NORTON: They wouldn't be going into the rental units, then, would they?

MR. RAINWATER: Excuse me, ma'am?

DEL. NORTON: They wouldn't be going into the rental.

MR. RAINWATER: No, ma'am. They -- these are -- most of them are homeowners. Some folks lived on one side and rented out other sides. And so, you know, where they fixed up one side of the unit and then want to rent out the other side of the unit. And so we're working with those --

DEL. NORTON: I see.

MR. RAINWATER: -- folks very closely.

The other program is the Low-Income Housing Tax Credit Program, and what we -- and we'd use -- we call it the piggyback program, where we take Low-Income Housing Tax Credits in GO Zone and take Community Development Block Grant money and lay it on top of that. We had about 57 projects awarded originally, but right now we have 19 under construction, and that will create about 3,181 units.

One of our challenges, obviously, is the credit crunch that we're having. And so what we're trying to do is move -- working very closely with HUD and the Louisiana Housing Finance Agency, we continue to move dollars around and tax credits around to make projects work.

So we are making progress. We believe that, you know, by the end of this year, there will be around -- if you take the small rental and you take the Low-Income Housing Tax Credit Program, we think there will be about 7,000 units that will be available. Many of those, you know, will be affordable units.

DEL. NORTON: Now, we have figures that show about 4,000 homeowners -- little more than that -- have received rebuilding money only in the last six months. And they are -- these people, I think, are in trailers. Many of them have inadequate grants, and, of course, are caught in the credit crunch and the rest. What should -- what is the humane and reasonable government response for these people who only got it in the last six months, in the middle of the worst recession? What should we do with those people?

MR. RAINWATER: Madame Chairwoman, what we've asked to work with FEMA on is to -- and with HUD is to, you know, give us time to continue to work with those applicants to help them get the dollars they need to complete their repairs.

DEL. NORTON: Yeah. This is where the task force is going to be very important, because we've got to break down these into the units that Mr. Garratt suggested. There's some closer than others; perhaps there's some that won't be.

One thing I have to ask you to take into account as we consider what to be done -- because if takes statutory change, you're going to get it -- but one of the things you got to take into account is that there is no building being -- going on to speak of in the United States of America, except building that's subsidized by the government of the United States. It's as if the recession put a stop when there were shovels in the ground. So we had to step up and move matters forward. There's no way in which we can fail to take that into account with respect to private parties. So I would put that on the table as an ingredient for the task force, whose names you're going to provide us within 14 days.

Now, let me ask about evictions. Are people being evicted from trailers as I speak? And if so, can you assure this subcommittee that all of them have adequate housing or have been given three sources and have nonetheless refused, and if they refused, regardless of their circumstances and regardless of their disability, they are simply evicted?

MR. GARRATT: Yes, ma'am. No one has been evicted. Evictions have not, in fact, commenced. In fact, no one should expect evictions to commence for some period of time.

DEL. NORTON: But what about the August deadline? People have received notice they ought to get out within a couple of weeks or within a time frame, have they not?

MR GARRATT: That's correct, ma'am. What we've done is we provided proper and adequate notification to them. We've notified the --

DEL. NORTON: Well, suppose someone is notified that you must be out by July 1st and -- what would you do if that person were not out by July 1st of the trailer?

MR. GARRATT: I'll walk you through the process, here. Again, we notified them early on that the program was ending on May 1st. On June 1st is when we will officially begin making referrals of individuals and households -- or can begin making referrals to households who have not yet vacated those properties. But that's a lengthy process, ma'am. We don't refer them and then evictions begin the next day. In fact, there are a number of steps that have to be gone through, and I would anticipate that evictions would not begin for some period of time while that process --

DEL. NORTON: Even after the August deadline for remaining in that housing?

MR. GARRATT: It's entirely possible, ma'am.

You also asked --

DEL. NORTON: A lot of this has to do with whether or not this task force gets its act together with respect to case management. A member of the subcommittee has taken the position that if you are given three resources that meet the tasks Mr. Tombar has indicated, you must take them, even if they're not where you want to be, even if they're not in the parish you want to be, you have to, in fact, do it.

Now, we understand what we're saying. It may be that you now have to -- have to -- you may have to drive. That's a terrible thing to say to somebody. But you've got to drive and spend money on gas that you would not have had to do, but I cite to you all the people that are doing that in the ordinary course.

Now, this would assume this person had a job. In other words, we're all having to cut what we spend on everything.

MR. GARRATT: Yes, ma'am, you --

DEL. NORTON: We're not able to provide ever optimum resources. Even those of us who've been fortunate in life do not have optimum resources. And we're not going to put on the government a burden that it cannot bear. But we're certainly not going to say to somebody that here are three resources and you got to find your own way to them and get your cane together or your crutch or get you somebody -- you who have no children in the area -- get you somebody to get out there to find it. We're not that -- that's just as inhuman as an eviction. That's why I'd be satisfied with the -- with a task force doing what it can.

And if you're assuring me there will be no evictions, then I'm satisfied with that answer.

MR. GARRATT: Ma'am, I'm assuring you that there will be no evictions on June 1 and assuring you that, in fact, the process for beginning the actual evictions is a lengthy one. So --

DEL. NORTON: Well, are you assuring me that there will be no evictions on August -- whatever is the final date that that these --

MR. GARRATT: No, ma'am, I'm not. However, I can assure you, to follow up on a previous request that you had, every single one of these occupants has received a minimum of three properties at the fair-market rent made available to them and, in some cases, as high as 90 offers. So every one of the occupants has, we can assure you, been offered a minimum of three housing resources within a reasonable commuting distance.

DEL. NORTON: We understand also the difference in the dates among you. There's the May 1st date; there's the August -- what's the referral date? -- the August 30th date for referrals by HUD.

MR. TOMBAR: That's the termination of the transitional closeout plan, the program that follow the DHAB program, which ended on --

DEL. NORTON: Excuse me. Would you explain -- termination of the what? Whatever it means.

MR. TOMBAR: Sure. The Disaster Housing Assistance program that you mentioned in your opening remarks terminated for Katrina and Rita victims at the end of February. Secretary Napolitano and Secretary Donovan worked together to make sure that some 31,000 families would not be displaced and so put in, for six months, through the end of August of this year, a transitional closeout plan to allow those families time to either, one, convert to the Housing Choice Voucher Program -- for which I've testified that there are ample resources available for families that are eligible for that program and units available in many of the communities in Louisiana -- or to transition --

DEL. NORTON: Market-rate units with subsidies provided by the government where necessary?

MR. TOMBAR: Yes, ma'am. Or to transition to self-sufficiency if, in fact, those families are not eligible for that program. So that program --

DEL. NORTON: In other words -- transition to self-sufficiency if ineligible, I understand that. In other words, there might be some people who are working --

MR. TOMBAR: Yes, ma'am.

DEL. NORTON: -- but -- and therefore would not be eligible. But what would be the transition assistance in that case?

MR. TOMBAR: In that case, those families -- the rent that they were paying in February of this year was -- their contribution to that rent was increased by $100 each month thereafter.

So the government, if -- for example, a family was -- had a rent of $600 in March, we would have paid -- the government would have paid $500 on that family's behalf and their contribution would have been 100 (dollars). And each month, the family's contribution went up $100, and the government's went down by $100, all the time -- allowing time for those families that were eligible to move into the Housing Choice Voucher Program, which would cover a substantial amount more of their rent by the government. The government will cover that with resources through that HCV Program.

DEL. NORTON: We understand there's a hardship there, but the hardship is they have to pick up more of the cost of housing through their own income. But I understand that will mean, therefore, that -- the decision has been made that that could happen, that we're not dealing with a family for whom that would be an intolerable hardship.

MR. TOMBAR: Yeah. And quite frankly, ma'am, part of the challenge is, is that -- you talked about the problem with extensions -- having seen extensions before, families just were not availing themselves of the resources --

DEL. NORTON: Yeah. So I -- that's why I'm sending two messages from this hearing, one for you, but one for the families. I want them to compare themselves with other families in the United States, and they will see what I mean. I hate to say it, but there are families who would love to live in a trailer rather than in a Holiday Inn, one room with three or four children today because they've been -- because they couldn't pay their mortgage --

MR. TOMBAR: Right.

DEL. NORTON: -- through no fault of their own. So I don't -- you know, I -- this is two messages sent. That's why I'm trying to make sure the government does its part by -- by having the appropriate case management and the agencies working even closer together than they have.

Now, Reverend Jenkins, you had something --

REV. JENKINS: Yes. Madame Chair, I respectfully disagree with some of the testimony that has gone forward. And again, I have to say, based on anecdotal evidence, I believe that -- I would -- do not believe there are a thousand Section 8 units available in New Orleans, or if so, I can't find them or they are not affordable or our friends, my fellow --

DEL. NORTON: But they're Section 8, Mr. -- you make them affordable if they come within a certain limit, don't you?

REV. JENKINS: Yes.

MR. TOMBAR: Yes, ma'am. What I -- what I was testifying to is the fact that, as you said, unlike Washington, D.C., and most communities around the country, there is, in the Housing Authority of New Orleans, an ample supply of vouchers. There is an oversupply of vouchers for eligible families, as well as -- and this is a recent development over the past number of months -- as well as landlords who have repaired their homes and repaired their rental units and have made them available to eligible families.

DEL. NORTON: Now, wait a minute, Mr. Tombar -- maybe people are not -- may not be aware of this. What made this happen only in the last few months?

MR. TOMBAR: It is the fact that, as Mr. Rainwater testified to, that their program has started in earnest and has made units available. And quite frankly it's been almost four years since the storm, and that -- landlords have taken advantage of the fact that they've settled with rental -- with insurance companies; they have gotten their own resources in financing; taken the government subsidies that have been provided and have used that to bring these units back into commerce.

DEL. NORTON: Now, Mr. Jenkins, what do you have to say to that?

REV. JENKINS: Yes, thank you.

DEL. NORTON: He says this only recently happened, so he's --

REV. JENKINS: Only recently happened. And I would say that the quality of case management has to do with direct services. We work with people no matter how long it takes. We do provide transportation. And we walk with them through the process and not simply refer them to it.

DEL. NORTON: This is the testimony --

REV. JENKINS: Now --

DEL. NORTON: -- that is most important in this hearing --

REV. JENKINS: And --

DEL. NORTON: -- that -- the notion of what Reverend Jenkins is saying. When you're dealing with the most vulnerable -- you know, if I'm sitting there on an (ordinance ?), said I was damned -- they going to have to move me -- you know, when I'm able to get out here and work, that's one thing. But we are focusing -- you've done a good job with respect to people who, in fact, should move themselves. What Reverend Jenkins is saying -- and I recognize he deals outside of your matrix -- but what he is saying out of his experience is that these people are not likely to move unless there is expert case management.

REV. JENKINS: Yes, ma'am.

DEL. NORTON: I mean, that is the bottom line. And we're going to be looking at that, given Mr. Tombar's testimony, more than anything else. What do we do to persuade people and then to make people understand -- carry my words from the subcommittee so they know that extensions ad infinitum are no longer possible. We won't let people be put out. But we believe the state has over-depended on extensions, I mean, after Mr. Rainwater only recently gone there and on our notions of outrage at how slow the state and FEMA were in the first place. But now we see most of the people have been dealt with. It's only the people who can't take care of themselves.

And, you know, Mr. Tombar is going to have to submit to me, Mr. Jenkins --

REV. JENKINS: Yes, ma'am.

DEL. NORTON: -- within 14 days by parish where these houses are. So he's testified here. And although we have not made people stand to take oath, they are under oath. So he's going to have to provide the backup here.

REV. JENKINS: Yes, ma'am.

DEL. NORTON: And the only discrepancy I see here is apparently through the state's work, Mr. Rain's work -- Rainwater's work and the work of others, in the parishes there have been people who come forward, we get to whether or not there has been adequate communication here. Mr. Tombar says that all these people have already been given -- is that it? -- everybody on the list has already been given three sources. We're not even going down the list. Everybody already has their three sources.

MR. TOMBAR: Yes, ma'am.

DEL. NORTON: So that does point to case management as a notion -- now if three -- if the three are rejected, you go back with three more? Or how does that work?

MR. GARRATT: That's really ours to take, ma'am. We have often gone back, many times, with additional ones. As I indicated previously, in some extreme cases, we've made as many as 90 different referrals to --

DEL. NORTON: What would make somebody reject 90 different referrals?

MR. GARRATT: I would suggest it would be an interest in not moving.

DEL. NORTON: I think that would be the case often for people who are working. We're dealing with people here who are often not working. They will be away from family. That's a hardship. But I don't think -- I think we're to the point where we can't look at anything except the available housing, close as possible, but there may be limits on that. And I'm impressed that Mr. Tombar says that -- you say in New Orleans itself?

MR. TOMBAR: Yes, ma'am.

DEL. NORTON: That's close enough to me, right there, as a city no larger than the District of Columbia. Mr. Jenkins -- Reverend Jenkins?

REV. JENKINS: Yes, ma'am, thank you. There -- many of the people whom we're talking about do not have cars. The state of public transportation in New Orleans has not been addressed. If you live in the east -- in New Orleans East, pardon me, the possibility of having job in the central business district, where the tourists, the hotels, et cetera area, is denied because of the state of public transportation.

DEL. NORTON: Well, then -- well, we ought to separate those who work --

REV. JENKINS: Right. The second thing is --

DEL. NORTON: -- and they have -- Reverend Jenkins, they may -- look, we're not guaranteeing that you have the same income used for the same purposes.

REV. JENKINS: Right.

DEL. NORTON: All over the United States, people are having to pay more for transportation. They may have to pay more to get to their job because New Orleans does not have a public transportation system. What are we supposed to say to those people, for example, who will have to move from a trailer further from -- they're still in New Orleans --

REV. JENKINS: Right.

DEL. NORTON: -- but will have to find some other way to get to work? What does the government supposed to say to those people who've been given a place -- three places --

REV. JENKINS: Yes.

DEL. NORTON: -- but they're not as close to their work as most people increasingly who have -- who don't have the highest income? What is the government's response supposed to be in that case?

REV. JENKINS: I think that -- I would hope the government's response to case management would be -- would be to teach people how and walk with them and help them find how to get to their jobs.

DEL. NORTON: Well, that is a reasonable answer. And it does seem to me that that is the case. You take somebody from one end of the parish and who seldom has gone to the other end -- and you go there and the transportation isn't as good or may even be hardly available -- it does seem to me that of the three sources that are offered, one has to work with that person as if that were a person, a human being, not just a place that you can go.

So I would ask that the task force look into the reasons for the resistance. They often have to do with more than convenience. They may have to do with transportation.

Now, let me ask you this, Mr. Rainwater. In the District of Columbia, because it's people who would trouble me most are the people who are disabled, don't have jobs, and I would suspect -- indeed, let me ask Mr. Garratt, wouldn't a disproportionate number of these be people without jobs, who are not going to ultimately be going to work, fairly isolated because of their age or their disability?

MR. GARRATT: Ma'am, I would be speculating. We typically don't engage in income verification sorts of things as a matter of practice with this population. We simply don't have the authority to do that. So it would be pure speculation --

DEL. NORTON: Well, Mr. Tombar, of those who've been offered, you would have more of that information. Aren't these disproportionately people who don't work every day? When I say disproportionately, without knowing any percentage.

MR. TOMBAR: Actually, I don't have that information. But I do have the information to a previous question you asked. Based upon the case management contractors that FEMA funds, some of the reasons that we've heard repeatedly from families about why they refuse to move into the DHAP program was, one, the households were concerned about paying rent after the DHAP program ended; that households did not want to relocate --

DEL. NORTON: Wait a minute. So these would be people who were able to pay rent, then, because you provide a subsidy, right?

MR. TOMBAR: Well, we provide -- through the DHAP program, we did, in fact, provide --

DEL. NORTON: No, but I'm talking, for example, for -- you know, I'm assuming these would be some of the Section 8 people that you told --

MR. TOMBAR: Certainly. The Congress, as I said, provided $85 million to convert those families who would be eligible for subsidies to a permanent program.

DEL. NORTON: So why would they be concerned about the rent since, if they are eligible, you will help them?

MR. TOMBAR: Exactly. I don't know the answer to that question, but I do know the answer --

DEL. NORTON: So that's an important thing to get on the record. And for the task force that I am now looking at, I'm assuming that the case management may help people understand. You know, it's really interesting, people respond once they -- I stupidly, in my exercises, lifted some weights, and they gave me some things to do. And he gave me something to do that -- the thing I least like to do.

And I see what the problem is. If he had only told me why to do this thing -- it's the way I sit and walk -- I think I would be doing -- I have to figure out for myself, why would he give me this thing that is so -- that I like to do least? I understand only because I have thought about it myself, having left the three-week period they give you to go, and somebody tells you what to do. I have figured out why he wanted me to do this thing I hated to do, and now I've begun to do it.

Now, most people are reasonable. And if a case worker who's patient, who's lived there -- and most of them have, with the people that have been the most unfortunate people in the society since Katrina, if they have the kind of -- if they approach these people who are sitting in these homes, recalcitrant and resistant, take the time to indicate what's available, particularly if they compare them to what's happening to families all over this country today, if they tell them that the subcommittee is not willing to recommend extensions ad infinitum, that we're in the last pace here, that we're not going to leave them stranded so they can't get from one end of Orleans Parish to the other, that there are ways to move to jobs -- because your task force is going to make sure that that communication is given -- indeed, before I go further, Mr. Rainwater, the city of -- the District of Columbia will provide, if there's a disabled person, using -- I'm sure there must be federal funds in this -- you can call and get transportation to go even to recreational events. Is that provided in New Orleans?

MR. RAINWATER: Yes, ma'am. There are. We work in different non-profits; the city; continuums of care. We've funded about $21 million for rapid rehousing and also to provide transportation for folks. There are --

DEL. NORTON: See, if all of that is put on the table at the same time that one is talking to a person, the resistance begins to melt, particularly when they understand that once all of this is made available to you, and you're not going to get another chance, but you have to have all of that in the package to make people, who have every reason to be resistant, to understand that we have got -- we've surrounded you with the services that will be necessary.

In the District of Columbia, if your children live in Northwest and you live in Southeast and you say, "I want to visit my family once a week," they will provide you with -- a van will come and get you to take you once a week. They know that in the long run that means you're not going to be going into the emergency room or to some home where it costs us 80,000 bucks a year to maintain you. They know that there is much to be said in the public interest.

So if Mr. Rainwater suggests that those kinds of services are available, that person doesn't get their son or daughter, grown son and daughter, to come see them more often than that anyway. So they can be assured that at least what they are accustomed to is not going to fall away altogether. I think this can be done. It will take sensitivity. It will take the agencies working together.

I'm sorry; I may have interrupted. I think you, Mr. Tombar, were in the midst of --

MR. TOMBAR: Yes, ma'am. Some of the other reasons that families have indicated that they did not want to move was because they prefer to stay in rent-free disaster-based assistance rather than HUD or state programs that would have required a contribution towards their monthly rent.

DEL. NORTON: Yeah. See, now, you can easily take care of that one.

MR. TOMBAR: Right.

DEL. NORTON: You know, there's no free lunch. And to quote your committee chair, there's no free lunch even for those who've been hardest hit.

Go ahead.

MR. TOMBAR: Certainly. Others have indicated that they were concerned about getting into government-subsidized housing, even though it was explained to them that this was not, quote-unquote, "HUD housing" but rather private housing that would be subsidized with --

DEL. NORTON: You do have to make people who don't ever want to ever be said to have been wards of the state in any sense of the word understand this is not the same thing at all. This is for people who have done all they can, working and living in just the way we asked people to do, abided by all the rules, but find that the cost of housing where they happen to live is beyond any reasonable means. Yes, it does have to be explained to people who don't want to be said they're on welfare.

MR. TOMBAR: Yeah. And finally, as I initially indicated, families did not want to relocate from the (THU ?) that was on a private site where they were rebuilding their home.

DEL. NORTON: Yeah. And those are the people that you need to work with hardest, because here is where the Congress may -- if you don't do it; if we do it, it's going to be much to your not liking.

It seems to me that Mr. Garratt made a reasonable start by talking about people within certain time frames of rehabilitating their homes. And let me say this for the record. It is in the national interest. It is consistent with the Stafford Act. The people who are willing to rebuild their own homes with some government assistance to do so, that's rebuilding New Orleans. That is showing that the Stafford Act, that the other federal statutes, work.

We do not believe it is in the national interest to snatch away a trailer and that is subsidized without nearly what the subsidy would be if that -- here I don't know, but might well not be what the subsidy required if that person were to have to go off his land, where he's living probably under conditions that he wouldn't tolerate and that we wouldn't tolerate if we had to put that person in some other housing.

We think it's in the national interest and the public interest for that person to reserve their resources to rebuild their own house so that, in fact, they require less and less subsidy from the federal government or the state government. Are we agreed on that?

Then we also have established that the trailers are not going to be put to good use by another family. They're going to be scrapped. That's already a loss to the government. We don't like to do things like that. We're having to do that in these cases. These are not people in the formaldehyde trailers or the people who want to get out of the trailers. These are people who want to stay in them in order to get into their own homes. And we know how, given ordinary conditions, they would be -- how close they would be to rehabbing their own homes.

We know that the state has been slow in getting them the assistance. We know that, for example, to quote from one example, (Tammy ?), a very small house, blown down by the hurricane, disabled -- this is an example of the kind of person you're dealing with -- 67- year-old person. The state gave her $28,000. It wasn't enough to rebuild. I can't imagine that it would be in the public interest for her to abandon land she owns. Would she have to use the $28,000 for rental, Mr. Rainwater? She got $28,000, but it's only for apparently rebuilding.

MR. RAINWATER: Madame Chairwoman, there were --

DEL. NORTON: What would she do with that money?

MR. RAINWATER: In some instances, there were people that did use money for living expenses. And what we're trying to do right now, as I stated earlier, was create some --

DEL. NORTON: Was that within the rules?

MR. RAINWATER: Not necessarily. I mean, I don't know how many times it happened, to be very honest with you. FEMA did provide assistance, and HUD did provide assistance to folks as well, to help them live while they were working through issues in --

DEL. NORTON: Well, this $28,000 which she got --

MR. RAINWATER: No, that's subtracted from whatever insurance she had, and then, you know, the $28,000 -- there's a formula that you use, and so it's typically -- you know, you --

DEL. NORTON: But she was supposed to use that to rebuild.

MR. RAINWATER: Yes, ma'am.

DEL. NORTON: So I'm assuming she wants to still rebuild.

MR. RAINWATER: Yes, ma'am.

DEL. NORTON: Now, we will have complaints over and over again. I want to ask you about the $3.4 billion in a minute. We will have complaints, you know, whether you do eminent domain -- everybody says, "They haven't given me enough money." Now, she's saying it isn't enough to rebuild, except I believe her these days because of what's happened and what's happened to the economy.

What happens when -- why are people being given too little money to rebuild?

MR. RAINWATER: The way -- the program that was set up in 2006- 2007, the Road Home Assistance Program, was developed based on a formula.

DEL. NORTON: She's 67. She's not -- she's rebuilding out of a pension or out of her own resources.

MR. RAINWATER: The cap that the state created and was approved by HUD was $150,000. It's basically an issue of how much flood insurance -- how much insurance she got, you know. And there's no doubt that, you know, we -- what we have tried to do was we created an additional compensation grant for people who were either elderly or low-income, to help them try to complete that.

DEL. NORTON: She may be getting some of this.

MR. RAINWATER: Yes, ma'am.

DEL. NORTON: What happens to someone who hopes that the insurance is being put aside, her 28 grand is being put aside -- she still can't rebuild? What should she do?

MR. RAINWATER: We're in the process of creating this pilot construction program to help people. There's no doubt that what we've seen in Louisiana in some instances of an elderly person who, you know, a contractor, you know, took money or bids were too high. But we're working with a number of non-profits who can go in and assist folks, who can buy materials at a wholesale rate, go in and help them finish the repair to their house. So we're trying to push those dollars down as far down as we possibly can.

DEL. NORTON: Which brings me to -- so during the boom times, some of these people did try to rebuild in the boom time, the time that just brought down the country.

Mr. --

REV. JENKINS: Madame Chair, may I say something?

DEL. NORTON: Please, sir.

REV. JENKINS: Thank you, ma'am. I want to say that the churches and the non-profits often step in and fill the gap, that we continue to host huge numbers of volunteers who come to New Orleans, who pay for their lodging with us in New Orleans now, and whom we charge to buy the material used to fix up the 951 houses that we have gutted and that we are rebuilding.

So the people who come to work are charged by us, and we are building and rebuilding houses for people who --

DEL. NORTON: All right, this -- here's a disabled 67-year-old. She got $28,000 from the state.

REV. JENKINS: Yes.

DEL. NORTON: She probably has some insurance money. Would she be eligible -- is she the kind of person that could have the rest of it done with volunteer help and the like?

REV. JENKINS: Yes. We are doing that with volunteer help and we're doing it on a handshake for people who have no money. For people who have money, they are paying for their supplies to rebuild. But we've yet to lose a penny on any poor person who comes into money. They pay us back as soon as they can.

DEL. NORTON: Well, Mr. Rainwater --

REV. JENKINS: (Inaudible.)

DEL. NORTON: Mr. Rainwater, what relationship do you hear -- we do still hear -- and we have some of them from the District of Columbia, people coming in doing marvelous, marvelous things. What relationship do you have to these volunteer groups who -- for example, the 67-year-old lady I just talked about -- if the state got together with the volunteers, this lady might get this home built even in this climate?

MR. RAINWATER: Yes, ma'am. So we started developing a program the last quarter of last year. That's this pilot project that we just sent to HUD for approval, which would begin to move some dollars down to non-profits like the reverend or like, you know --

DEL. NORTON: All right, now, wait a minute. So you need -- okay. First of all, a lot of this is being done with volunteer work at the moment.

MR. RAINWATER: Yes, ma'am.

DEL. NORTON: But you're -- I like what you're saying, but I'm not understanding what it is that the non-profits would do.

MR. RAINWATER: Well, basically what we try to do is, you know, help them to purchase building materials and other pieces, pay for some of their administrative costs.

DEL. NORTON: This is so common sense, I'm almost dying here.

MR. TOMBAR: Madame Chairman, one of the --

DEL. NORTON: Mr. Tombar --

MR. TOMBAR: Yes, ma'am.

DEL. NORTON: -- do you know about this -- you hear that these are the most motivated people in Louisiana. They worked all their lives, got a piece of land and got a house. You're hearing that, limited though they are, the non-profits are seeing the potential here, purchasing materials themselves, because these are the people with some insurance money they haven't spent. These people want their houses back. They've got a piece of land.

You hear that Mr. Rainwater says that they are -- they're asking for a pilot -- some pilot funds from HUD -- excuse me -- yes, from HUD -- in order to speed up this volunteer effort, most of which does not even come out of government funds, so that these people could, in fact, get the materials to begin doing what is necessary. What is the status of that approval? When was it submitted, Mr. Rainwater?

MR. RAINWATER: It was submitted towards the end of last month, so it's within a reasonable time frame.

DEL. NORTON: Are you aware of that, Mr. Tombar?

MR. TOMBAR: I was not, but I am aware of the fact that the CDBG program provides great flexibility. And this is the type of --

DEL. NORTON: Now, just a minute. You're saying Mr. Rainwater already can do this, then?

MR. TOMBAR: No, ma'am. He is going through the administrative process, it sounds like.

DEL. NORTON: Well, are you asking for CDBG funds that exist, or are you asking for new pilot funds?

MR. RAINWATER: They're two different requests, ma'am. One was we had Community Development Block Grant money that we took out of one of our programs, infrastructure program, and sent an action plan amendment to HUD, which they're very positive about. We're also working with FEMA and some of the congressional delegation on taking about $9 million that was for case management, to take it and put it into this creative non-profit pot.

DEL. NORTON: Mr. Tombar, we're already at work on the task force here, as you can see. Could I ask that those approvals be speeded and, as a request from the subcommittee, that those approvals be done within 30 days from today? I know that that may be less time than is normally the case, but we're up against the deadline --

MR. TOMBAR: Yes, ma'am.

DEL. NORTON: -- and we can't push the deadline without pushing ourselves as the government as well. And since you are a pilot program -- we've got a new administration that's been open to innovation; you see what the state is willing to do -- would you be willing to press for approvals as early as 30 days, that the approval period would be over and done within 30 days? We're up against your August deadline --

MR. RAINWATER: I will guarantee you that we will review, provide technical assistance should we find any issues with the plan as submitted by the state, and work with them in the next 30 days to resolve those and get full approval.

DEL. NORTON: I thank you very much. That's very important. Please get that information to us within 30 days of where we are and whether the approvals have been done.

Now, I think we've begun to deal with the rental or the people who Mr. Tombar says -- remember, we have established that there is a place for everybody to go without being put on the street, one. Two, we've established that they have been given three sources. Three, we have found that the difficulty may be in case management so that people understand they are at the end of the road and what services will surround them when they leave the present situation in which they find themselves.

That leaves us with, so far as I can now see, the hurricane (authority ?), the trailer people, where Mr. Garratt has offered some important information, at least to begin to work on, and that is the people, 367 within five months, 292 -- 298, excuse me -- 298 within 11 months, 50 percent, at least, a year of -- I guess this is starting rebuilding -- 509 -- I'm sorry -- 509, at least, a year -- would be at least a year -- and 711 not rebuilding at all.

MR. : Right.

DEL. NORTON: Now, these people need to be separated and broken down. Now, the people who are not rebuilding -- we don't have enough information. All we have is this helpful information. Let us establish this. If there is a reasonable chance that a person will contribute to the economy of the state of Louisiana by becoming a homeowner able to pay property taxes, and able to contribute thereby to the parish in which that person lives, it is within the interest of the government of the state and the parish to, in fact, assist that family or individual toward that end.

"Reasonable" is an important point here. I don't know about the 711, whether the people who are not building at all, whether it is reasonable. The reason these figures are of any moment at all is because these people that I'm talking about, that Mr. Garratt has figures on, are all in trailers. We've also established that it's not as if the trailer is going to go to some other beneficial use.

The task force that is looking at those in rental units, those going to Section -- I want you to stay right in here, Mr. Tombar, because some of these may, in fact, turn out to be people who need HUD assistance. But we have got to disaggregate these numbers to find out what we can do. We cannot fail to take account of the fact -- and let me say this for the record. Were it not for the New Deal vehicles left to us -- unemployment insurance -- (laughs) -- FEMA was not one of them, but Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid, which are the next New Deal, the Great Society -- were it not for them, where we would be is where my parents were -- on bread lines.

This is as -- all 50 states are down. We are only beginning to see the (rat wings ?) of the bottom. You know, you fall to the bottom; you say, "My butt is here, so I think I'm at the bottom." That's the most that the analysts are willing to tell us. That's great news. That really has the public going out and actually buying something, because the least optimistic of the analysts have said, "I don't think we are -- we can't say we're at the bottom. We're not falling as fast."

We know this: The greatest lagging indicator is employment. And yet these people are within some reasonable distance, at least some of them. I don't know about the 509. None of us know yet who are at least a year out, because that could be a year and some distance. But we know that whatever else is keeping them from rebuilding, not only is it Katrina; it's an economy that they had nothing to do with making fall on its face, because these are all homeowners. These people were taking care of themselves. Now, able-bodied people who were taking care of themselves are at the top of the list, as far as I'm concerned, because they are people who are used to providing for themselves.

I am going to ask the task force -- because I can't tell you -- I know kind of what to do with these other folks that sensitive case management, that the pilot program, that HUD, Mr. Tombar has kindly said he will do all he can to see is speeded up, that the Section 8 housing is available -- this is a whole lot more hopeful than I thought this hearing might turn out to be, which is why oversight in hearings are important in the first place.

It may be that FEMA or this committee, this Congress, will have to act with respect to these trailers, because we will look like complete idiots, putting people out of trailers who, but for what the state could have done, what the economy could have done, would be building their housing, and then thrusting them on the housing market.

I don't even know, Mr. Tombar, whether or not they would displace or eat up some of the Section 8 housing which really shouldn't go to them, all things being considered, if, in fact, Mr. Garratt says they're within "x" or "y" years -- or months, excuse me -- of building. It may well be these are the people who have jobs. We don't want -- (laughs) -- we don't want to crowd people from one sector onto another sector, but we don't know enough about them.

Now, I'm going to ask the task force -- and this one will be 60 days, because these people are not the people who are -- well, I should make that 45 days, because these people may also find themselves just -- Mr. Garratt has testified there will be no evictions.

STAFF (?): (Off mike.)

DEL. NORTON: That was not his testimony.

STAFF (?): (Off mike.)

DEL. NORTON: No. Well, let me see what kind of time frames we're under here.

Mr. Garratt, I'm simply trying to give the task force time to see what these figures mean. That's the only fair thing to do. And I appreciate the figures you provided. You testified that there would be no evictions. Is that right?

MR. GARRATT: No, ma'am. What I testified to was that evictions would not begin for some period of time. We haven't even completed the termination and notification process, nor have we referred at this point anyone for eviction. That won't occur until, at the very earliest, the beginning of -- the end of this month. And even then, referrals will be taking place over some period of time. And even then there is a process, a rather lengthy process, that must be followed before that can even begin. So what I testified to was they won't begin on June 1, and I think it's likely to be several months, some period of time, before they would actually begin.

DEL. NORTON: All right, that's good enough for me -- 45 days. We'd like more information. The -- and let me tell you who we'd like this from. Mr. Garratt, these people are in your trailers. When you gave figures about how much time it would take, all things being considered, did that information come from your own evaluation, or did it come from Mr. Rainwater or HUD?

MR. GARRATT: I would say that probably is information that came from both of our efforts. We are, in fact, operating in a joint environment in the field, so these are collaborative efforts.

DEL. NORTON: Given your testimony that you're not trying to precipitously evict people, I'm not going to do anything here but speak to the need for an analysis based on the figures Mr. Rainwater, Mr. Tombar, Mr. Garratt gave about the number of months quite a few people were within -- taking into account -- were then building.

Given the fact that these people have resources -- we're talking about people who have some insurance money. I sure hope this means people understand you shouldn't be spending any insurance money. Do people understand that?

Are they going to be able to -- I mean, do people understand that -- Or does the insurance company only give the money when they see that you are -- if you say you're going to rebuild, rebuilding?

MR. BARRATT: I don't know, ma'am. One of the challenges I think we've had in Louisiana is that there are a number of lawsuits related to the insurance companies. And so, what we've been doing, you know, last year and this year, is working with, you know, residents to make sure they get their Road Home grant.

We've taken ourselves mostly out of the debate between the citizen and the insurance company, and so that they would -- we get in the --

DEL. NORTON: But, I'm just asking, if somebody gets -- you know, she's got $28,000 worth of insurance. Is she just given that money and said, "Here. Go rebuild or go do something else?"

MR. BARRATT: There are -- no, ma'am, there are two choices. One, you can, you know, rebuild where you're at; you can rebuild in Louisiana, but in a different -- (audio break) -- or you move out. You can rebuild out of state.

Each time someone gets a grant, though, they sign a three-year covenant that requires that they meet the new -- you know, the new elevations; that they build to the new building code, or the repair of their house. So, there are requirements that --

DEL. NORTON: So, it is true that we -- we're talking about people who have some resources --

MR. BARRATT: Yes, ma'am.

DEL. NORTON: -- and who -- you know, when the economy recovers, it may be that it's going to be -- god help us, easier to rebuild, because we -- (laughs) -- we were working in a very elevated, escalated, false, really false, made out of derivatives and non-money, really false kind of economy -- (audio break) -- people need work. And contractors need "bidness" -- (laughs) -- as they say in the city, "I need some business."

So, it may turn out to be easier to build than it would have been even when recovery began, and was going on -- because people would be up and running now, the contractors would be up and running, and need work.

In 45 days we're going to ask that the task force simply to give us information. -- (audio break) -- We don't have any basis to know where these people are. The only strictures we have are ones imposed on all of us alike, and that is the economy.

And I have indicated what the subcommittee continues to be the overriding public interest, in keeping these people, who are -- people who own homes are the most productive people in this society, so we would have an interest in helping them help themselves. They have a habit of saving. Most of them have owned homes, and bought homes that require them to save. And we believe that they would be building, rebuilding the parish and rebuilding the state, and becoming taxpayers.

Now, you may find differently. This is a rebuttable presumption. It's certainly rebuttable with respect to the 711 that Mr. Garratt says are not rebuilding at all. See, we can't tell what in the world to do there.

But, at some point the government has to fish or cut bait. That may mean, with the trailers as well, as harsh as that seems. The Stafford Act does not allow the government to perpetually provide trailers. That would be, even for these self-sufficient people, an enabling kind of activity, and -- (audio break) -- encourage dependency.

The reason we have great sympathy with these people is these have been independent people. Mother Nature took over from them and took away their independence. So, we don't want to make them any further dependent than they are.

But, if they can't rebuild at all, ultimately they're going to need some casework, or some other reality that they're going to have to come to grips with, or else they are not operating in the public interest -- the area is not being rebuilt; their land is not going to contribute to the tax base of the parish or of the state. And they're going to have to help us help them.

I don't know what to do about them yet, and I don't expect you to know. So, all I'm asking, in 45 days -- and we're going to send you this in writing, is to know what it means -- Mr. Garratt's helpful figures. And he only meant them as an outline of what we know now.

You may know more, or your own offices may know more, but what it means for people, within five months, 11 months, at least a year, what that means -- 50 percent, would take at least a year. I want that broken down. Send to the committee as much information as you can.

This information will be necessary because we will have to decide whether or not any extensions are called for, and, if so, for whom. We believe that the state has been enabled by the extensions, even though we have felt we -- (laughs) -- needed them.

We think the state has understood that we don't strand people. And just because there's been a change in administration, do not think that the standard has changed. We do not -- (audio break) -- the decision gets made at the last minute.

We do believe that it is permissible, so long as there is adequate casework going on, to continue to tell people they have to leave now. In other words, if people are given notice -- and I don't know what the usual notice is, let's, say it's a month's notice, but they have all of the surrounding -- We don't think it's improper to give people notice, let us say, in the middle of June, that by the middle of July one of the three sources that they've been given is one they have to take, and this how -- this is a service.

So, we're not saying -- (laughs) -- so, this is what -- so, we're not trying to stop you in doing what's reasonable. But, we are saying that it is not permissible to do that without very sensitive casework that let's these people understand that they are being given that date for a reason; and at that point, they subject themselves to eviction.

Because the state, then, would have done all it can -- it's provided you with transportation; it's provided you with a caseworker you can always be in touch with; it's provided you with a way to get to your medical services; it's provided you with information if you work every day, about how to get to your job, even though it's at a part of the parish that normally is harder to get with.

The government can't do the impossible. So, we're not trying to stop you from giving people notice, we're trying to let you keep doing that so that we are not left at the last minute with the need for another extension; and we're not left at the last minute with people thinking that the government has done it before, so they're going to do it again. But, the shorter time limits are based on being assured that we are doing what we're supposed to do, within the time limits that have been previously set.

And this committee will feel free to have further hearings next month if we find that the only remedy you are leaving for us is to extend the deadline. That is the least -- that's the least acceptable remedy to the government, because

(END OF AVAILABLE AUDIO.)

END.

Source