hearings and this is legislation that responds to the damage done in the gulf area by hurricanes katrina and rita and mississippi and louisiana we have had as first let me ask pursuant to a conversation i had with the ranking member for unanimous consent that we have three opening statements of five minutes each on each side so there would be a total of six opening statements of five minutes each divided between the majority minority is there any objection if not that will be the procedure we believe that the response to the disaster that befell mississippi and louisiana in the late summer of two thousand and five that the response has been wholly inadequate what we have today is  responds to those crises first i want to be very clear there is very little new money in this bill people have said well we have already appropriated large amounts for the harriet but as our hearings make clear is we have heard from our colleagues who represent the areas many of those grants of money came with so many restrictions to kids that in our judgment do not serve illegitimate legislative purpose that the money has not been spent nearly as rapidly as it could be now there are also problems in the way in which the state and local authorities have dealt with  we obviously do not have primary jurisdiction over them we have listen to them in some cases we are going to be making some directions to them but primarily our responsibility is the federal government and we are here doing a couple of things is  will for the library we are removing some of the restrictions that were put on the money we have also addressing in a primary way the housing crisis i was struck when we got hit hard figures that in the city of new conversations with the members who represent those areas but in new orleans according to the hard figures eighty two thousand units of rental housing before the hurricane have become thirty some odd thousand units now in other ways more than half of the rental units were destroyed that is a great social problem it has caused problems in this is like houston where a city administration has been very generous and providing alternative living space for these people it has caused economic problems i remember reading in the new york times about a month ago that the oric vacuum cleaner company had reopened a plant in the gulf area of mississippi to be responsive to the economic nature and then had to close it this is after the hurricane because the lack of housing available for workers made it impossible to make it a work force so when you deny adequate rental housing for low income working people not only cause a social problem you cause an economic problem because the economy of new orleans depends to a very great extent on the service industries that employ people in this category and we have in here something that some may think controversial it is something that the general in california with what is and i have long felt and that is the question of what do you do when you are talking about housing for low income people that is now judged to be inadequate and we are very strongly in favor of the placement housing for people in this situation but we feel that one of the grave errors in the past has been that displacement has preceded replacement and the result is great distress for people i do not think you do people a great favor by tearing down the housing in which they now live or in which they could have if they have people outside won't want to come back on the grounds that it's really not nice enough until you have built them of better replacement i think if you kind of beat something with nothing no place to live is really better than a shoddy place to live and i think we can accept consumer satisfaction here we're not talking about places that are unfit for habitation we do believe that with regard to public housing in new orleans which is run by that inadequate use has been made of existing units we believe there are people outside the city who want to come back and we believe that every effort should be made to find them and get them back into existing housing habitable or can very easily be made habitable with fairly small work and at the same time talk about the placement housing and when new housing is built public housing mixed income housing whatever people there decide to do with available funds at that point prior existing inadequate housing can be torn down but we do not believe and this is a principle that we intend on california i and many others to push for that you do not further time i think there is a limit to the amount of times members should have to be asking which one is this so i hope we won't have that phrase repeated too often today we will have voted three and as we go later we may very well and we'll talk about this finish up with votes tomorrow morning even if we finish the markup later in the day we're here tomorrow my tentative notion would be we might have voted ten o'clock tomorrow morning to finish up i'm hoping we i think all of us when we witnessed the hurricane in the aftermath of the hurricane we were shocked by the suffering of the people in new orleans and along the louisiana mississippi and alabama coast you recall then and i know probably in your district in my district several churches gathered together and prayed for not only the victims but for the region that it would recover  the service of my church southern baptist church the pastor read the following friday's from the bible for brothers sisters without clothing and in need of daily food and one of you says to them go in peace be warmed and filled and yet you do not give them what is necessary for their body what use is that even so faith if it has no works is dead being bought sell today in the aftermath of massive good traina i honestly believe and sincerely believe that this congress has attempted to do what was necessary along the gulf coast i believe this hearing today is necessary chairman frank for bringing the gulf coast hurricane recovery act before this body as he said the majority of what we're addressing today does not require new funding however i think as we consider these amendments the amendments that will be offered by our side are an attempt just like the amendments and just like this bill on behalf of the majority and attempt to do it in the most effective way this hurricane was we keep we say it all the time it was of epic proportions it was a disaster run parallel with probably though i don't know that any american is really focused on the fact that this was five or six times larger than any natural disaster befall if you look at some of those other disasters you find that the federal government did was matching funds are they allowed c d b g money to be matched so a lot of what we are have proposed opposing to do today is consistent with what we've done in the past one thing that we ought to all be cognizant as we go forward is that problems existed in new orleans prior to this hurricane that is not an excuse nor is that a reason for us to sit back and not do what is necessary now but we have an opportunity not only to restore new orleans but we haven't we have the ability particularly with public housing to do some innovative thing the public housing as it existed in new orleans that there were fundamental problems and if we go back and we simply rebuild those units on the spot where they are without taking a new approach that the catholic charities and others have proposed we're we're passing on a wonderful opportunity obligation particularly to the city of new orleans i think i strengthened by a recent report by the u s army corps of engineers if if members on either side of the aisle have not read that report the bottom line is that the d were not sufficiently designed and constructed or conceived and the flooding most of the flooding in new orleans would have been avoided had the levee system that was supposed to been there and had been maintained had been built right and maintained right so a lot of what you saw in the aftermath of katrina was the result of  poor planning and poor execution in the building of the levee system which is a failure of a federal agency i am very encouraged that the corps of engineers unlike many federal agencies admitted their mistakes let me close by saying this the most frustrating thing to me and what ought to be frustrating to the people of new orleans and the louisiana coast is not a failure this congress to appropriate money because we have appropriated over one hundred billion dollars it's that that money has not been utilized it has not been spent one hundred ten billion dollars committed and fluting sixteen point seven and the c d b g program which this committee has oversight over with respect to the community development block grant money  sixteen point seven billion dollars only one point two billion dollars has been spent that is not a failure of the administration that is not a failure of the congress that is a failure local and state agencies not every agency responsible for distributing funds to victims of the disaster has fallen short in alabama the money that we have received is being spent and spent well leading the why is the mississippi homeowners assistance program where over ten thousand families have received checks to help compensate them for their lost and assist them as they rebuild  hopefully this bill will encourage local officials and give them some of the tools that they lacked or believe they lacked and  relieving suffering and rebuilding the gulf coast i committee has been very active in responding to katrina and rita since the early days they passed much needed legislation and they've done it quickly and  not only left physical devastation it was left behind a reservoir of anger strong emotions and painful experiences are challenges to channel those experiences and emotional and emotions into an appropriate response mistakes have been made in the past but that doesn't excuse us at the present from going forward and trying to remedy some of those mistakes thousands of american families are depending on  n us to get it right to get it right in a nonpartisan or bipartisan way and so to families who in the future may experience is devastation and destruction and a katrina like tragedy thank you thank the members of this committee many of whom support this bill and many members of congress who do not serve on this committee who have expressed major concerns about the rebuilding process in the gulf region post katrina  that we can transfer basically from payment and the another program which i will discuss there are ways by which we can remove obstacles so that we can get on with getting people back into housing and that's what this is all about and i have one goal with this bill and that is to see the gulf region rebuilt while addressing their pressing affordable housing needs in the region the hurricane to structurally three hundred thousand units of housing in the gulf region affordable rental units homes of low and moderate income families and public housing the hurricane did not discriminate when it came to destroying the affordable housing stock in the gulf region no income groups spared whether family lived in public housing or portable reading how to in the gulf region it was affected many of the residents of the major affected areas like new orleans and elsewhere have not recovered from the storms and thousands are still displaced or living in other parts of the country months after the storms rather than in their formal c former communities wallaby's persons may not choose to return they didn't wish to return we must provide for those who do with an opportunity who do want an opportunity to return a child to our twenty seven it's about rebuilding communities to allow people to return everyone agrees that without housing there will be no rebuilding of humanities in the region when people do not have a place to live they cannot work to earn a living where there are no communities there is no hope schools need students to teach hospital needs patients and businesses need employees and customers where do we start everyone with experience in rebuilding communities believe that the rebuilding process will never get started unless it starts with housing this bill would address a number of issues the bill resolved the hard thema dispute over one point two billion in funds for the pima has it made a greater grant program am the bill resolve the dispute by requiring that funds be made available to the state of louisiana  the road home program the bill requires monthly reports by the state of louisiana on the number of households assisted through programs funded with c d g funds by eliminating the prohibition against the match require it to be g supplemental  used in conjunction with other federal programs including those administered back payments in addition the bill also provides for reimbursement related to an entitlement communities use of c b d plans to provide rental assistance to displaced person but housing residents have suffered tremendously because of the hurricanes many public housing residents are displaced with no reasonable housing option this bill would provide a right to return but former new orleans public housing residents it also  is the one for one replacement principle by requiring a plan to be approved prior to any wholesale demolition are redevelopment efforts under the bill hart is required to complete a survey of displaced housing residents to determine whether they want to return to public housing in new orleans in addition the bill requires her to report on any proposed conversion of public housing units located in areas affected by the hurricanes as well as comply with the bills other requirements related to public and the bill addresses disaster bachelor's and project base rental assistance and extensive disaster boucher the three months until january two thousand and eight project based outages would be protected where project was destroyed is in need of substantial rehabilitation the bill clarifies the voucher allocation formula by requiring her to make appropriate adjustments consistent with funding your two thousand and seven continuing resolution and addition the bill requires a number proactive measures related to batches that will ensure that no one is left without access to housing as a result of the hurricane for the title for the bill would provide for the reimbursement of landlord who suffered damages related to commitments made by famous in conjunction with providing real units to displaced residents i'm excited that the members of this committee are in the position to speed up the recovery and rebuilding process in the gulf region by passing this bill i do not think that in of us believe that we would need another bill to address the gulf opposed to tearing down unit where people are living in a temporary state of existence who were evacuated expecting to return and we say just three have three thousand of those units as we have determined that about sixty percent of those people have already identified that they want to return they return to those units that have been rehabbed and then a planning process can take place that would include the residents and any of those non profits that heard wants to work with and the city about what kind of development and where they're going to go and read redevelop in the units so this is about taking people out of houston and other places we've been very generous  who have not only used their city b g money to help provide support for rentals but have extended themselves in extraordinary ways and they thought that we would have a rehab program for our public housing units i don't think that's asking too much and i thank the members who travel with me to new orleans who worked very hard to understand all of this we toured all of those housing developments we know that some of them only have men damage and it does not cost a lot of scheduling this markup on the gulf coast hurricane housing recovery act i associate myself with ranking member baucus is opening statement and i would like to again note that this committee was at the forefront of hurricane relief  hearings four briefings and approximately eighty witnesses participating in the months that followed this disaster the committee shepherd needed relief legislation to the house floor helping not only families in the immediate hurricane ravaged areas but those who suffered in the aftermath due to flooding i don't like to thank chairman waters for introducing the legislation will consider here today and for organizing the hearings that our subcommittee held last month in the gulf coast in two days we heard from about three do witnesses and toured a number of public and private housing sites that remained devastated eighteen months after the two thousand and five hurricane and when i say devastated i should add that these are public housing facilities that clearly were in poor shape even before the hurricane and many of them were already condemned before the hurricane many of the public housing facilities in new orleans were built in the  forty s units that we visited had water heaters in the kitchen right next to the stove all of the buttons and pipes and everything right out in plain view furnace is in the living room no showers and water diverters in the bathrooms public housing facilities were concentrated in specific neighborhoods comprised of very poor individuals and their families creating pockets of poverty in new orleans and they were hard hit and neighborhoods of low income housing did not fare much better some collapsed and mold infested houses sit in what appeared to be a house graveyard the remains of other houses are bu slab of concrete in front steps leading to nothing in all of these neighborhoods a hurricane destroyed not only houses but the entire community there's no infrastructure there's no sewer water electricity many schools were destroyed  at least seven hospitals were destroyed so there's no there is no available healthcare grocery stores gas stations services for seniors and the disabled and many other businesses and community services no longer exist recent visit by this housing subcommittee to the to the region i think we have a clearer picture of the task that we have at hand and how we at the federal level can best assist the gover gulf region over what come what seems like insurmountable and on ending challenges as its residents continue to recover and rebuild but rebuilding in the gulf coast has been very slow and very uneven there are still too many who are without permanent housing jobs and infrastructure however as we learned during our recent visit to the region barriers to progress on the housing front are not for the most part federal as as the gulf coast seeks to reestablish itself it has a new unique opportunity to become a twenty first century model for public and private housing community development and disaster preparedness and response but there there just is such a lack of leadership i have to say particularly in new orleans at the grassroots level and i think that's where we see a little difference in the mississippi area where there is the been this grassroots groups that have come together to do the rebuilding so  i i'm hopeful that today we can reach to the very difficult and very emotional components of the gulf coast recovery rebuilding process process by crafting legislation that will facilitate progress and i think that has a plan working with a community groups that i think can do just that in new orleans and to break that cycle of no housing so there's no jobs and then the workers come back and then there's no services if they were to come back  but i think that we really have to address the twenty first century and look at the the multiple diverse groups in a housing component and to me that that starts with something like the love feed area that has been addressed by hard to build not only the public housing in that community but also houses for for others so that they're not left in their own in this would be something like what's been happening so well in chicago where the those large house robert taylor homes were torn down and the multifamily multi type of community was was rebuilt so i would  say that this is something and i know was we met with the residents that live there and it was so difficult when they said i want to come back to the unit that i had to leave i want to live in it that exact one i want rebuilt to really repaired just like it was and this is an area that i think this is an opportunity this is not what we found as we have addressed public housing throughout the nation and we have the opportunity now to start with that and it's taken eighteen months and we still don't even though there have been some of the units that have been rebuilt even the residents have not come back to those so i and i understand that the intent of the legislation we considered today is to eliminate federal barriers to the to the housing rebuilding  government effort so i would urge my colleagues to carefully consider several amendments that members plan to offer today i think by eliminating a few more federal roadblocks to the recovery and rebuilding many of these amendments will improve enhance i thank the chairman for holding this markup and you know that i thank you for her comment and i thank her for her cooperation i realize we don't obviously if we all agreed on everything then this would not be a democracy but i think the constructive spirit on this bill i do appreciate they're going to be some amendments some on each side i think can be accepted by consensus show me a good debate over but i appreciate the general thrust of this and i now recognize that the general north carolina who in the last congress was particularly active in cooperation with  katrina is how massive the failure of response has been at every level and generally when that occurs we can kind of point the finger at somebody and say that this person or that group or that level of of bureaucracy is responsible the thing that's amazing in this situation is that the use have been at every single level if you look prior to the storm after what the corps of engineers was doing to engineer design levees there was a massive failure if you look after the hurricane that the response of thema there was a massive failure if you look after the storm at the response of hood there was a massive failure and all of a sudden an agency that we've been trying to of the media  the people who had been displaced there so there was a massive failure that hood there was a massive failure by the president when he stood in the square there and raised the hopes of the people  in the gulf area to think that something was going to happen immediately and that we were going to stay this course as long as it took there was a massive failure there congress failed ms bigger it is absolutely right we had a number of hearings that raised the expectation that we were going to do some things to impact the lives of these people in the gulf and yet all these months later we still have not produced on what we committed to do and in that respect i think i want to just really compliment the efforts of  the new chair of the housing subcommittee because not only has she immediately had hearings she is immediately back with a bill that tries to  address some of the shortcomings that we set up the failure to provide a match inclination all of a sudden for her to be thinking longer term in  community development terms rather than in shorter terms of responding to the immediate needs of the people who are in the gulf so we have to take our share of this blame and local government has to take issue of the blame because they have not responded quickly and and as promptly as they should have to get the money that has been in the pipeline out to the people who have been adversely impacted and finally so so we've already indicted the the folks who believe in the federal government structure we've indicted the folks who believe in the in the federalist government devolution to the states because they didn't perform and now we have to indict the people who are in the private sector that we always call talk about pushing things over into the private sector let me tell you that there was a massive failure in the private sector because the private insurers failed to timely pay the claims that were filed and that has impeded the progress in the gulf area for all these months as much as government bureaucracy at the federal state and local level as much as as our own agencies of the federal government so this bill is one effort that we are trying to undertake to on ravel some of  that massive failure that i've just described and we need to to do it on a very bipartisan thoughtful basis because some of the things that might be intuitive lee ways to proceed don't work in a distress immediate situation of the kind that we have here we can't we're not discouraging heard from thinking longer term but certainly they've got to react quick and meet the media needs of the people in this area before they can turn their attention long term this bill does that and i applaud the chairman of the committee for her tremendous work and encourage my colleagues to be supportive of the bill and less try to try to redress some of the failures that have taken his cab driver was displaced and he's been living in temporary quarters waiting for something to happen and asking what needed to happen he said we just need to get started and the zajac turned around it became very evident he was exactly right the problem there's a tremendous opportunity and a tremendous responsibility that we have here is the ranking member talked about our stewardship to help the people of the state ravaged area from katrina but one of the things we have to do is make sure that with this clean piece of paper in many area is that we do it right we owe it to the people of louisiana in new orleans and we owe it to the american people to do it right there were problems in the public housing sector in new orleans has been pointed out before there are wonderful plans to bring mixed use communities to that region but one of the things that i think our job here today with this bill is it time and time  again the leadership from louisiana and from new orleans of come up here and said well we need a little bit more here we need a little bit more here we've given more we given more but hopefully today with this bill we do it in a constructive way not to be too prescriptive and telling the people down there this is the way you do it and quite honestly if we tell them to put it back the way it was shame on us but what we do should do is say we hope that these are all of the inhibitions that have kept you from getting started and if there are no more excuses because it is time seventeen months later to get started in rebuilding the housing in louisiana it took three hundred years to build the great city of new orleans and it will not be rebuilt in three or four years  will never be quite the same if we're trying to make it the same we're trying to bite off an apple quite honestly we cannot choose but what we should do is get this process started the natural process of building communities building housing bringing back jobs bringing back opportunity will redevelop and reshape what the new orleans of the future looks like but for all the sake of the american people and for the sake of the people in new orleans we've got mr chairman to get started we don't need to enhance any new programs with this bill we really need to take away whatever few barriers are remaining that have kept those planes from being executed in that region and get started and i hope that our debate in deliberations in the minority that was one segment of it as originally drafted that was not unanimous so we have to move that that was the one if you've seen a write up of it from earlier dealing with the project based vouchers that would be opposite shephard amendment the amendments one two three four five six seven of these are technical changes that had asked us to make and  as momentous is changing every reference to the bell to august twenty fifth two thousand and five instead to august twenty eighth two thousand and five there was a deadline for a survey of residents of the public housing we said forty five days after the sixty days that is in here there are three others there was a request originally to transfer some money the c b d it was originally the request we thought was one point two billion we met with the state of louisiana the other day and they said it was one point one seven five we want to be precise so we we did that we do it in a second so that hurricane wilma would be covered victims of hurricane wilma and the volunteer groups not not don agree to the transfer project based assistance each of the groups that build the housing and they wanted the flexibility to make those decisions remember transfer project basis it is by definition means no diminution in the recipients they all believe all the groups that are working on this that janet recognized five minutes on his amendment i thank the chairman i have visited with the chairman staff and others in the louisiana delegation in relation to that this particular proposal first and foremost this will not increase any amount now made available to the state of louisiana for housing assistance it only is a modification to the current rule that provides for the distribution of existing funds in testimony before ms waters subcommittee intestine tony before this committee representatives of the luciana recovery authority have indicated concern about it ministre to leave limits on assistance that could be provided to individuals under the state's road home program for example in quoting from mr luzhin testimony who is the chairman of the l r a one of the most stringent delays of the program has come from federal requirements that homeowners insurance benefits and fema as assistance for structural damage must be deducted from the homeowner's grant assistance that induction of insurance and fema funds designed to prevent a duplicati benefits are examples of corresponding verifications that we have no choice but to include in the program design it's taking inordinate time and complexity to provide needed assistance in a timely manner to homeowners i could go on with other state comment but suffice it to say that state officials have repeatedly pointed out that verification of all of these other program at a awards are complicating the delivery of assistance that's needed to individuals the effect of this amendment is to not require but only to make permissive that the state does not have to count other federal benefits in determining eligibility under the road home as the original cost estimates were put together it contemplated a maximum award of one hundred fifty thousand dollars notwithstanding the adoption of this amendment no one will get more than the value of the home prior to the storm's landfall meaning there will be no enrichment no one can game the system and get four hundred thousand dollars in settlement funds for a three hundred thousand dollars loss so there still will be a cap of one hundred fifty thousand dollars made payable by the road home and also a cap on the value of the loss the person actually sustained so there's no enrichment so no additional money no enrichment it is not mandatory it is permissible it allows the state to manage its business the way it sees fit it will in fact result in a potential increase in financial assistance made available according to the ira by about thirty thousand dollars the average award today is slightly under seventy thousand by some calculations this would make the average award something around one hundred thousand dollars that is capped because there is no ability for someone to get more than what they actually sustained last mr chairman i would be happy to answer any questions on the a member but that is have to expedite implementation of the road home program that in our hearing we were all taken aback that in louisiana of one hundred and nine thousand applications only seven hundred and seventy five i think had been completed and we heard many stories about some of the obstacles that are in the way the program is that are a very tightly drawn and we know that people want to not have our program ripped off with fraud but this implementation is made very very difficult because some of these things were not well thought through and designing the program i was appraisals and they also i have been problems clearing title and that's something i think we need to continue take a look at because we think there are some ways by which that can be done that does not hold up the ability for people to get some assistance from the road home program and what mr baker is saying is absolutely correct the katherine mind one hundred fifty thousand dollars it is permissive but it would give them the flexibility to move forward without holding up people for information that really probably is going to be forthcoming and now you're back to the gentleman i was going to ask the gentleman he would you and i appreciate your comments and your courtesy not only in coming to the district and conducting hearings but your constructive assistance and direction on on the recovery i want to point out to the gentle lady that if someone had a small business loan not related to katrina matters prior to the storm and you get a benefit under the current program you have to pay off that existing s b a loan before you get access to any money so that small business people who are legitimately in business prior to the storm with an s b a loan balance of one hundred fifty thousand all of their eligibility goes to paying off the s b a loans this underlying bill today does not solve that problem but we are working with the gentle lady colleague mr last quiz in the small business committee to try to remedy that problem this is a hugely complex matter which is going to take a while to online but i really want to express deep appreciation to her for her help in the construct of this and her agreement in support of this man that is going to be extremely helpful to us in helping the community recover you before the recess to go to and it will include legislation as members know from the testimony we got that acquired from the ways and means committee to extend the tax credits and from the small business committee to do some some forgiveness in the lonely island again we want to stress this is an example of what we meant when we said this is not new money this is unlocking obstacles to spending the money that had already been appropriated i want to take any thank the gentleman we are all interested in preventing fought and waste and abuse but if that becomes the only metric you could run would situation i mean the best way to prevent fraud waste and abuse is not to give anybody anything and you can shut the thing down too tightly and i don't want to see wasted money but i want to see wasted live and i think the gentleman is in the spirit here of trying to get the right kind of balance so i very much appreciate his amendment to the further discussion on the members of gentleman from louisiana if not year in the proposal known as a loser and a recovery corp proposal which the committee did favorably pass out this would enable the use of fifteen million dollars only of currently authorized c t b g funds for the purpose of funding a new orleans recovery authority it's a previously existing entity within the city of all leans that is currently designated as the recipient of properties which the city finds itself in ownership of for example someone does not pay their taxes the city seizes property nor as it is called is the administrator of that those properties so we have an entity that has an existing track record with an existing staff with existing authority no rules the money will go to the north entity for the purpose of aggregating ownership of today disparate ownership of property into contiguous tracks clean those tracks up and then turn that property for sale to the private market enabling we hope to trigger a private market driven recovery activity the role of government in this overwhelming disaster is simply to aggregate and get controls of blocks of property and to indemnify future developers from environmental liabilities so that the free market forces can work in discussion of this proposal with ms waters and chairman frank  was clear that we have to demonstrate success for this type of methodology to be repeated but it is my opinion as a in my former life before losing my mind in coming to congress i was in the real estate business  this is about the only way you're going to see systemic recovery with community restoration of resources no one is going to move back into their own individual property if they do not have insurance the firemen the policemen the school and their neighbors are coming back or the small businesses that is going to invest if there's no customers for his products so this will enable us to have a demonstration project which i hope in a very short while will demonstrate an alternative to the road home that will kickstart hope   consulted here as we have tried to do throughout this bill with the two members most directly affected here the gentleman mr jepson the gentleman mr mansell and they both support the amendment but i want to make one point about this amendment the previous one i think might be relevant to the members  opposes both of them we are adopting both and i say that because there have been members who have said well you know let's not put all the blame on the federal government what about shortfalls in the performance of the state and i'm not here to judge or say one way or the other but i do want to here to the general thank you gentlemen for giving i just want to point out a fact that i omitted in my explanation no i will implement the use of these funds consistent with a plan that has already been adopted by the city of orleans which the mayor supports so although we are differing a bit with state government we are implementing a plan which the locals have constructed which up to this point has not been able to be implemented without this type of enabling legislation i appreciate that and the gentleman obviously understand we legislation and this is consistent back on that approach not only have the members agree that this makes good sense we've been listening to this conversation from mr baker for quite some time and haven't gone there i understand even more what he's been trying to tell us as a matter of fact i'm very concerned even with the road home program and the fact that we have many of the homeowners who would like to rebuild we have many who will never reveal we have many who are elderly who are not going to enter into any contracts with developers and contractors any of that but then i'm concerned about how the acquisition for these properties are going to take place and how they're going to be package an order to really develop those communities the only way it's going to be done is with the kind of planning and thought going into accessing these properties that will be available and then getting some real development done and giving people an opportunity to to return to some housing that is a protocol that has been built because the city had a plan are not so i like to mr baker for all the work that he has done in this area i just have one question and one of the things that i think that mrs waters mentioned in her opening statement and that is that the  the ability to acquire the property in so many instances there's been problems with the title property has been has passed down generation to generation without really changing the title or anything does that affect this and it would you know i think generally for yelling we do nothing in this to affect the curative capacity of love officials in a defective title however there are so many parcels that have been lost  commerce at this point the general view of the people at nora who by the way have a significant backlog of property that they've already cleared title to and if elected not to sell at this point this is sort of urging them to get on with it because in all fairness some within the agency see a higher end to the property down the road when recovery has started to take on a little speed and so i'm trying to get them out of the speculative real estate investment business and into the real business of aggregating properties where they can with fifteen million dollars we're not going to buy thousands of tracks we're literally going to be under one hundred and the hope is that by having a small pilot project proceed quickly we can demonstrate how through modular housing or other prefab type construction we can get people decent housing quickly and kick start this process but as to the underlying issue the lady has raised there will be defective title in some tracks it will take some time to remedy however we have so much property that is not going to be an impairment in the early going we will be able to move very expeditiously i thank the gentleman i thank you for your back any further discussion on  just strikes me as being very similar scaled down version of the broader vision the committee reported out i think one time before but you encountered some  i was directly confronted by the white house on the prior plan which this committee did adopt but this is a much more limited in scope type of approach if the gentleman would recall in the earlier version we gave any displaced person if we bought the property from let's say mr watt and mr watt wanted to have a shot at coming back after the redevelopment was completed we give mr watt an option to do that under this proposal so that people who might want to have their property cleaned up but can't do it on their own initiative are won't know that the whole neighborhoods are going to be cleaned up will now in fact see the whole neighborhood cleaned up under this proposal and yet if mr white does not want to come back to the community his property then can be sold by this developer into the marketplace for construction of housing so there won't be just cleaning up and idle property sitting there it will actually be a growing developmental concern reclaiming my time  does this scaled down version contemplate that or has the local nora kind of come up with with mechanisms to make sure that there's that i just that did not previously exist to not only receive the money but to be the managing entity of the development in this case we have a previously created local government entity the new orleans recovery farty which is been on the books for a number of years has been charged with this responsibility of acquiring and disposing of distressed properties and the executive directly director of that entity mr blakeley has been involved through the mayor's office with an extensive redevelopment proposal which has been thoroughly vetted by the public so forth we have handed off in essence to the new orleans recovery authority the area of concern the gentleman raises we've not imposed our prior formula for value determinations we're leaving that to nora to make those judgments and to best move redevelopment forward finally reclaiming my time limit directed someone's attention to page four of the proposed amendment  seven following the theory of folly else fails read the amendment i'm just trying to understand what it says without taking too much of the committee time let me get back to the gentleman perhaps and in a few moments i don't think that it has any unintended consequence which you would have objection to but i'm i want to make sure before give the gentleman the answer technically i'm certainly not accusing the gentleman of any any ulterior motives i'm just trying to  understand i was trying to read through it quickly and get a better understanding of exactly how this played out and that was the one part of it that didn't readily counted jumped out at me about  what it was designed to accomplish i think what if what able in able to do if someone is in the deal but you have a track to decide not to sell the developer is authorized to enter into a contract with that owner who has not sold to the developer but is in the midst of the development parcel to develop for that individual for a fee so that if if you're in the middle of a twenty lot development and you're a lot number eighteen you won't obstruct the development but by voluntary negotiation with the builder he can come in and clean your lot off and build your house back as a separate contract apart from the general governmental recovery that's ongoing so it is really technical in the sense that we will not let an out parcel be forced but we will let an out parcel negotiate so they become part of the larger redevelopment thank you thank you gentlemen for answering the questions and i support the amendment as i did before would just notify you of seven thirty seconds it does seem to me members should be reassured that as a general answer the question is clear this is consistent with what was the theme of this congress last year regarding property owners rights with regard to the domain question i think this is a new way to do development but it protects the rights of property owners it's very important setting that precedent that respecting the rights of property owners does not have to mean that you hinder development but you do in a way to reconcile them is a good it's a waters the lady from california for just the suppressor brilliant leadership that she has taken on this issue she has provided sterling leadership with great dedication commitment and passion the kind of commitment and passion that this emergency has long deserved and was long overdue and on the parts  of the administration and i want to just take my hats off to miss waters for her all our hard work and those that have been working on it to you mr chairman for the leadership this committee has provided and while i have the mike i also wan further for the discussion i think you let me let me just briefly miss jim and just go over this amendment is very very important i think there was a little side over overstated i wanted to set set the stage for it and now the federal housing administration provides credit insurance against the risk of foreclosure losses associated with loans originated according to f h a standards and as such f h a generally pays an insurance claim when it takes tile or conveyance to a property as  foreclosures and in order to convey a property and receive insurance benefits f h a requires the property be and conveyance condition as in a more a style your book condition now  i believe that the hood should accept conveyance of the damaged property and not just the claim for the cost of repair when there was no failure on the part of the service or to obtain hazard or flood insurance as pursuant by law so the pros m m n m r from today would help remedy this situation where lenders who are servicing f h a loans in the gulf region are particularly hard hit by this f h a so called convenience condition sable condition requirement in connection with hurricane katrina or rita as you know hudson rules on conveyance conditions which will not pay claims until a property is restored to its original condition currently punishes lenders that complied with federal laws and good banking practices by requiring flood insurance under the national flood insurance program and has an insurance for properties in the gulf coast unfortunately for these b out of date flood insurance maps and limits on private hazardous coverage have resulted in widespread uninsured losses for consumers and lenders and i understand that c d g grants have gone a long way in helping b rebuild their homes and have also help services by reducing the number of abandoned properties and filling the gap left from and sufficient hazards in flood insurance however the problem is that some homeowners have abandoned their homes and despite servicers efforts will not apply for the c d g funds or the owners simply cannot be found my amendment would ensure a lender who maintained property insurance receives the full we don't have a cost and exact cost but we can try to get an answer to that question for you it would seem i mean you know it could be substantial well let me just say that when you're looking at a situation on the go with the pressing needs on the go and you're looking the cost not to do this is more substantial than the cost not to do you assume that because it will take place anyway and the feeling that many of us have is that in most cases it wouldn't take place in the main because that would be the problem so that the fact you know that there was no real cost it might even this might even make some money for the federal have flood insurance their hazard interest policy did not pay and they walked away and they had a ninety thousand dollar f h a insured mortgage what were going to what were this this bill does is as to go ahead and make their mortgage insurance a commitment whole even though this litter will not be able to meet the criteria of delivering the property to f h a in the prescribed manner is that correct  yeah but basically services who failed to maintain the property insurance would be subject to existing claims policy right back claims would be reduced by the cost of the damage  all need to understand is these you know how much new money you know we're talking about where these lenders are going to be able to deliver these properties you know basically some places or any property left but i think it's appropriate so that we all in stan exactly how much money we're spending in the demo did we say again i we will be coming here for maybe a couple weeks we will make sure that we have a c b l estimate before we we get there and you know this bill will know i think you most important point about cost but when we talk about costs we also have to talk about the alternatives and and multiplying last is the cost as well so i support this amendment we can get the cost estimate from bill and he's absolutely correct that only our insurance companies not paying but some people were told that they were not in a flood plain and that they didn't need insurance and so we must do everything that we can to try and make sure that we we provide an opportunity for you know lenders who are responsible for the conveyance to to be treated fairly so i would disaster back for program to a permanent voucher program i think one of the things we started this meeting off with was the spirit that we have appropriated in the congress is authorized this is fission and a substantial amount of resources in this program we're talking about taking tipperary about yours through the divel disaster voucher program which i think i think we will probably extend today with this piece of legislation with anything into that making those permanent  and quite honestly i think that's a discussion for i know other time if we're talking about adding additional vouchers to the about section eight voucher program and fact i think you've actually scheduled a hearing on friday to talk about se vouchers so i don't really think that we need to at this particular point time one of the things we're going to do is make sure that we do that that fix that was in the c r that actually took away vouchers from some of the the hurricane related areas are going to restore their voters back to them we're talking about a substantial amount of housing being built back in the region and now to add additional cost of making these vouchers permanent actually adds cost to legislation the gentleman from california one of the concerns i have with ms waters is that if we let the word out that we're willing to make some of these vouchers permanent i'm afraid that some of the people will just opt to stay where they and if it unravels a central part of the bill which provides a stable housing solution for people displaced by katrina and by law allowing the vouchers is issued under the v program to become permanent under the local housing authority the bill ensures that that return easer did displace people are not put out on the street and that there's no break in the housing entitlement as i read your amendment vouchers go back to new orleans under the local public housing authority that's my understanding and i the one feature that i like the best about the gentle lady from california's bill is her effort to try to return people to their housing the to let them go back to where they live and she's only talking about three thousand and i tell you i feel very strongly about it and in new york at one point they started redlining neighborhoods and  they would burn down buildings and then once we stopped and said no we're going to rebuild these buildings and people can return to him that's when the redlining stop and i think that her idea of trying to  people back to stable housing many of these people really need a stable housing if you give them temporary housing then then where in the world are they going to move when the temporary voucher expires then they're back out on the street a n so i think that this is a very important underline feature of her bill and that your amendment basically got us what i think is one of the most important features of her bill to provide a stable housing solution for the many many people that have been displaced by katrina crime in my time i think paternal lady's absolutely correct and i appreciate the attention and time that i miss has given to this issue he was there in new orleans and mississippi and he has done and said everything that possibly could be done and to to get support and i thank you well intentioned but  section eight balancers i think is a very different question than the one that we're considering today but already administer somewhere in the neighborhood of eighty to ninety different housing programs  a number of which are obviously applicable to residents of new orleans orleans parish and those impacted by katrina and rita so it's not like the underlying programs have gone away there was a terrible terrible tragedy that has occurred and it is right and proper for the federal government to come in on a temporary bases over and above the housing programs that are already in place to try to give extra assistance but i think again the question is temporary i think most of us would agree that maybe three weeks is not enough time but maybe thirty years is too long a time it's some point when do we go back to the base housing programs that are already in place and we also have to remember too if this spending is indeed critical and let's face it there's already been one hundred ten billion dollars spent it's not always how much money we spend it counts it's how we spend the money but i don't think taking what was intended to be a temporary solution to an extraordinary tragedy should now be turned into something a more permanent nature that's a separate debate to debate that we can have a later time at a later time if these programs do need to be made permanent then given the fact that our nation still has roughly a trillion dollars in debt we're still running a deficit might be nice if somebody would offer some programs that would be of a lower priority that could be used to pay for this because otherwise all that's going to happen is that a greater amount i strongly opposed to be amended what we have is a question about what will happen over the world to second aids now the problem is that the hurricane and the disaster and i want to remind people the statistics i gave you more than half of the rental housing units in new orleans were destroyed and rental housing units were destroyed elsewhere and we janet and mississippi that in our view most of us on this side justifies an increase in the second eight these are the this is the demand for section eight people lived in rental housing that was destroyed not every low income individual was living in a second a unit when you destroy rental housing the price of the remaining housing goes up the cost goes up and there is more need for the second a program including elsewhere now at some point we may be able to get rebuilt the right to housing stock as to the demand for housing in a way that is guaranteed not to affect the supply if your top an annual voucher no one could build housing knowing that a bank loan based on an annual appropriation so the argument against him going back to all means is that you would be sending section eight back to a city which already has a shortfall of rental housing and we have people here that would be able to use them or would use them by driving up the range on that diminished stock of rental housing what we are saying is that this hurricane created an increased demand for section eight now in many cases these are people who are using the second eight in houston and atlanta and other communities we recognize this increase in demand and we are hoping to increase the number of second rate i would note that we believe this is subject to appropriation and as i understand it if this amendment is defeated as i hope it will be  or potential off an amendment reiterating that it is subject to appropriation which i will support i believe it already is but it's useful sometimes to make things explicit so we are urging the appropriations committee in this amendment first of all we are trying to take care of the people temporarily and striking this altogether would not do that but as for them staying there and again this is not an amendment to modify this i understand but strike it all together so the palm of what i  need the second eight isn't the immediate problem with this amendment the problem is what happens when they do need in this amendment would strike that but what we didn't do is say to the appropriations committee we believe that this argues for an increase in the number second eight and not necessarily you know only so i hope we passed that yes the bill with hundreds of millions of dollars to build new affordable housing in louisiana and mississippi much of it will be rental housing at that point we eight and it is important take care of these people as they are it will be subject to appropriation i will be arguing at the time for the appropriation that yeah we should take into account the additional need for second eight given that i there's been a loss of hurricanes i can tell you that floridians do have an expectation that when the ultimate disaster strikes and it's too big for the state and local resources to deal with that they get some help from the federal government but i also expect that help is going to be temporary  and the notion that because you're the victim of a disaster and your property is badly damaged or destroyed then we're going to give you lifetime entitlement to some sort of housing assistance is not what the floridians i represent expect they hope and the federal government will continue to be generous on a temporary basis with the temporary assistance that's necessary now there's a study being done that with respect to a survey in terms of the housing situation right now at a minimum before we make this program permit permanent we ought to wait until those survey results have been completely compiled and get a report and we ought to have some discussions and a hearing in the housing subcommittee if not which i do not serve on if not the full committee before we would make this permanent i would additionally suggest that you know the democratic majority made a big deal i think appropriately so that any new programs would be subject to  paygo we're going to put this apparently in a supplemental spending perforations bill which would be explicitly violating their promise by the way i've been fairly consistent on this when republicans were in a majority i tried to insist on  pay go requirements for any new spending and that included hurricane disaster relief for florida at one point so i actually applaud the new majority's promise to pay for programs as they are created and i don't think we have any notion of what this would cost we have a promise to pay for it whatsoever and i think that at best we ought to wait until we get results of the survey in the notion of what we're creating here before we create it and so i would reclaiming my time with the chairman assures that we will not waive the new peggle requirements just leave done for some of the bills already this session for the agents bill in general for the permanent for the permanent creation of this  program under section three zero six yes i will if you're the gentleman that as much as i would like to because i'm not a big fan of the pay go i do not have the power to get it wait for this when we will be pushing for an increased section eight appropriation of which this would be a piece require extraordinary remedies and i harken back to nine eleven which was extraordinary and i believe we did the right thing when we acquired it no use of dollars to families who were suffering it was the right thing to do in new orleans we have a hurricane that was unlike anything we've experienced before in this country there needs to be an extraordinary remedy for this extraordinary tragedy and we cannot continue to have people go from birdlime to deadline my belief is that what the  subcommittee chair offers committee chairwoman warders waters is a lifeline to those persons who continue to suffer the suffering continues for there we have an opportunity to have on friday we're going to start understand section eight hearings on the housing subcommittee and i think that this is the place where that belongs i don't think that we want to create a whole new voucher system with permanent d v d when we have the comprehensive section eight debate which will begin to take place on friday and i expect that it will take its time and i think the chairman mentioned that this is something that  be delayed we have already extended the time limit for the d v d s and i think that that will give us enough time to complete any section eight debates that we have not you know back here for the discussion  and it says that it's to allow congress and heard a chance to assess appropriate long term solutions now the section three zero six which mr newcome by our wants to strike and  approaches that could be considered a permanent extension may not be necessary and should be delayed to allow time for survey results to be completed pile title to r twelve twenty seven calls for her to conduct a survey in order to determine how many former new orleans public housing residents would like to return to their former development until the surveys completed its difficult to identify the need for a permit the extension is d v provides assistance to many of the former new orleans housing authority tenets but more important than all that designed to be kemper airy and remedial in nature it was never intended to be a long term solution to a complex problem dave the p was from the exception created as an interim fix certainly better suited to comprehensive section eight debate which we're going to have in the next few months in fact even considering this perm extension should be shouldn't be done without vetting it before the house subcommittee and their section eight hearing which is scheduled already scheduled for march ninth striking three o six is  neugebauer wants to do isn't going to affect section three zero one of this bill which is we said temporary temporarily extends his program but the key to all this is the american people want to do what's necessary to respond to this disaster they do not want us to set up a permanent huge disaster a disaster to to create a permanent funding mechanism for these residences to permanently have housing it's just it's not something that congress the american people want us to do because it's wrong with how you feel it is my understanding that these vouchers will be available upon eligibility only meeting persons who are eligible only those persons no new class of people will gain entitlement you have people who are suffering this will relieve suffering but want to bring on a new class of programs and you know to create our make what is has always been a temporary program a permanent program is creating an entitlement that number one if it's needed we have other programs to take care of that we ought to have hearings on it before when i can a fundamental policy decision that every time we have a hurricane or a natural disaster we're going to create a situation where people are given permanent housing vouchers beyond their economic eligibility secondly i will say as members of discuss this and i could be very clear i think we don't have enough section eight for the reasons i said before it's been i think any increase in the need because of the destruction of these values disappearing vouchers that splits the difference between us that is they would still be valid clues for the victims of the hurricane who had lost that housing for as long as those people needed the housing and were occupying that housing however when those people died decided to move to other housing were no longer economically eligible under the amendment were going to come back with those values would disappear so it's sort of splitting the difference if they would be indefinite as long as the individuals who now have them are economically eligible and need them but when the individuals left and no longer were either eligible in need of or alive for the second eight housing instead of becoming part of the permanent pool they would disappear that's why they call disappearing about us so i continue to hope that this is members defeated but i do want to know notify members that the german californian i welcome back and as i said they will be continuing and i defend continuing need for the victims of the hurricane people say was supposed to be temporary well when the housing that they lost is rebuilt i'll be prepared to consider getting rid of them but new orleans lost more than half of its vestal units and they are not on the horizon to be rebuilt and in the near time frame i wish they worked so yes these are very long term values that's because we're talking about a very long term destruction of housing and we should not simply focus on the benefits to some poor people who are second eligible we ought to focus also on the destruction of the housing in which they used to live so that i don't think it is reasonable to provide indefinitely housing we've  it it's taken us much longer than we thought to resolve this problem well that's why it takes us longer to keep helping these people let's not stop helping the people before we resolve the problem and i think it is inconsistent to say look we're sorry this is taking so long but by the way we're cutting you off under the terms of the amendment as we will come back and i try to move this along the people will be getting the housing help as long as they the individual victims eat it but when they are no longer using it then it will disappear and if that members think we are erring on the side of being too generous to people who are low income who housing was destroyed remember that's to go here well we've got people who have housing was destroyed and has not been replaced and it's not on schedule or be replaced and if the tried you understand why my colleagues and friends on the other side of the aisle are opposed to it the purpose of the housing is to help people recover and how in the world can they recover if they're in temporary housing if they move from the motel to the trailer park to another move they're not going to recover unless they have housing we had a terrible catastrophe and we're talking about trying to help these people recover and the gentleman said well if that time expires they can go to another program i think you're if you talk to these people there is no other program for them to go to go out on the street and sleep on the grail i mean it is very very hard to access any form of help we went through this in new york we had the red cross helping and all kinds of people helping but when people are displaced they need to have some type of stability in their lives or they can't recover you know i think the gentleman raised the point about the cost and i think the chairman frank explained that this is subject to the appropriations committee so this is not going to continue unless there's a need there but not to solve the problem and just say well we're going to have temporary housing and when it expires in january well that's coming up pretty soon then what are they supposed to do move someplace else there's no place for them to go there i have a thousands of people on the waiting list for section eight section eight is all used up there's no million dollars from the counter housing authority we took twelve million from the terrorists and parish housing authority we took one point two million from the slide county slide out housing authority we took from the st bernard parish one point three two million and twelve million from the mississippi regional six housing authority these are places in the distressed area and yet in the continuing resolution was passed on the floor of the house we took money from there and i've heard that some of those people ended up or were in houston is not going to be any money there and know we took on the continuing resolution seven point two five million dollars from that housing authority and so i'm really confused while we were voting on the floor of the house some weeks passed to take money out of programs and now are saying we need to put the money back but the question is using a disaster to increase section eight vouchers i think the american people are tired of congress using disasters to add new programs so that makes everybody feel better about that one of the things we're going to do is we're going to use the gentleman mentioned we're going to do a survey but what this does is the factors stay based on the way this bill is written these facts are staying in the property that the people are currently residing in what we need to do is bring a terminations to this disaster the american taxpayers want to step up and do this but they want to know what the bill is and they want to end it some point in time if in the after all the analysis if there is a need for additional section eight vouchers we're going to have that discussion but the problem with this poll proposal is that we don't know what the needs are and we've got people in limbo because we have kept extending these temporary boucher's we keep extending them and they're just sitting there waiting for something to happen at some point in time we have to say you know this program is ending they may in fact stay in those communities in those communities may have other housing offered opportunities for them but what we do is we keep the tab open is as one would say by making this permanent and this is just not good policy the time to have an ist discussion about whether we need additional permanent boucher's is in the hearings that we have coming up it's certainly not today orange the folks in this chamber today to vote to be fiscally responsible we're going to address those needs we're going to do studies but let's let's not make new value your entitlement a part of this legislation is just not good policy leaving them in housing limbo is where they might be if they didn't have it i mean i i disagree that we're doing them a disservice by continuing housing he says well they're one certain or what to do they are free to make other choices and what we're saying is that as long i don't feel that my time my family jim's president the gentleman set the president and i'm perfectly happy to abide by his rules section three zero two apparently someone didn't bring it to his attention of the bill specifically makes  that what he complained about is not to happen now in the formula that he talks about we told her not to penalize these communities because of housing value was just because of the hurricane to our disappointment had appeared not to get the point rates and increase housing costs arising from such hurricanes section three o two entirely solves the problem which we think had created but entirely solve the problem with no ambiguity for those areas show leave aside the fact all it is very important to understand that if you are not economically eligible for the section eight it won't continue and if in fact you no longer make use of that for whatever reason then it will come out of the system it will disappear with that i want to make sure that that is very much understood mr knockabout read that our steps talked about it and i certainly intended to even place that in the legislation and we legitimate policy question here and just have after listening to the debate i mean the real question is how long is temporary and i think within the legislation regarding katrina there's been an eighteen month stipend that people have had you know to help them during the course of reconstruction etc but there's no end in sight to them returning to new orleans for many of them so i had some point as a representative green said people need to set down their roots and you know you can't expect them to to wait forever and we're beyond the eighteen months and i think to allow this to become permanent so some who's been displaced to denver can finally say ok denver is now my home or to houston or wherever it might be i'd say you know at the beginning of this this congress said eighteen months is what we think it's going to take and we're past the eighteen months and i so that's why i'm going to oppose your motion is ordered the care would notice there are two further amendments to the bill one from the general florida and one that will be prepared by the gentleman californian i that will be offered if this is defeated but pending the resolution of this we can because if my man was adopted as the chairman suggested he would be inclined to do the night about remember would come afterward and wipe out all of the three or six i believe and so when i appreciate that but the way it works when the congress went to wing a vote we did i think promise that we would not allow anything to happen it might prejudice votes theoretically how someone might want to vote on your member it could be affected by by that amendment i think it's unlikely but i really do want to see if you gentlemen as a former speaker would understand i think you want to stick not set precedent i don't think it's fair whatever be in a position of deciding whether you could or couldn't do that whether people would or wouldn't be affected so where we have amendments to the same section  mr chairman and one final word on this subject and i will use my time for this of course mr chairman the people who are in houston some twenty thousand of them in my district many did not have jobs before they arrived many of them why they didn't have jobs in louisiana they had infrastructure and a support system so they find themselves stranded in a sense in houston without any support system any lifeline other than what we extend and i continue to believe that the waters language should prevail mr chairman i thank you so much for the judicious way that you have approached these hearings and  thank ranking member pardon me now subcommittee chairperson waters for her many digits to louisiana and to new orleans and to to to acquire the intelligence necessary to make many of the decisions that housing remains highly segregated according to the national fair housing alliance every year more than three point seven million their housing violations are committed solely against african americans and latinos millions more baalei sions are committed against people in all of the seven protected classes family status disability religion ira race sex and national origin site the estimated millions of fair housing violations that are committed annually in two thousand and five less than twenty six thousand complaints were processed by all parties combined the need for more funding for fair housing programs is clear the need for more funding for fair housing programs in the gulf coast in the aftermath of hurricane katrina is even clearer with months of katrina within months of katrina striking the gulf coast the national fair housing alliance conducted testing in five nearby states where many of the evacuees were trying to relocate this would be alabama georgia florida tennessee and texas n f h a measured the apartment seekers and the opportunity and availability of units for them they looked at security deposit rental rates and discounts for evacuees in sixty six percent of the tests white collars were favored over african american callers in tests in f h a conducted on site testing at five apartment complexes where the telephone test alone would not conclusive african american and white testers were flown to the cities and conducted in person tests in three of these five tests or sixty percent the african american experience discrimination there are tens of thousands of people in the gulf coast who have yet to return home all are in need of housing and a large number of them are african american latino and asian descent of these populations these populations seeking permanent housing the solution for them may be one that is impeded by discrimination this is why my amendment would authorize five million dollars the amount recommended by the national fair housing alliance at a hearing before this committee in february of two thousand and six the funding would be used for testing by private fair housing organizations capacity building to increase in meant capacity namely to provide training to fair housing agency personnel and to implement programs to improve and enhance agency performance they would also be used for outreach and education i'm urging my colleagues to please heed the words of james parry the director of the greater new orleans fair housing center who stated in his testimony before this committee just a few weeks ago th should fund a national inforce meant testing project to uncover the nature and extent of housing discrimination against people displaced by recent hurricanes that congress should approve funding for a fair housing education campaign specific to victims of katrina that local fair housing organizations in the gulf coast region should receive additional funding from hud and other in cities for their enforcement programs he is responsible for enforcing fair housing program is that correct you are sir in what you're saying is they they don't have sufficient money in their budget to do all of the enforcement that they need to be doing well if i may secretary jackson came to houston and held a press conference where he talked about the need for more assistance and this was not this year of course i think it was early last year for more in force met in this area and what this will do is provide the additional dollars that are clearly needed and in my opinion this is not nearly enough but it is better than what we will have if we don't do it it's my belief that testing is probably the only way and if not the only the best way for us to ascertain where this type of invidious discrimination occurs and testing for edification purposes allows us to send persons equally qualified but they have some differences about them perhaps their ethnic this differences or gender differences and we find out whether one person who is qualified is the not what another person who is qualified receives in every case where testing has been employed we have found that persons of african ancestry latinos and asian americans are being discriminated against because so much time you know i think the question of whether heard has current to what the gentleman is talking about and certainly if there is discriminatory housing practices going on anywhere in america we want to be sincere that we don't want them to exist i think that's a better subject though to be addressed you know it is the is the majority used drafting up their new budget proposal to present to this congress that if her in fact needs more money to do that that's a more appropriate place for us to be doing that than good trying to attach some of these additional spending items to a disaster bill i think we have to get back to what the focus of what this bill is in certainly years since to do to the gentleman's the issues there and i don't want there to be is a city any discriminatory practices going on but again i no question in my mind that you want to do the right thing my belief is that you are a person of goodwill i do want to indicate however that these many of these persons and what we're going to focus on is katrina and disaster relief this is a part of that disaster relief effort as it relates to the katrina evacuees who have been removed from their homes and their other places and they're trying to get back home even some of those trying to get back home are experiencing difficulties and we've had testimony here before i have as to some things that are happening under the color of law that keeps people from coming back home so my appeal is that we make this a question fair housing enforcement has historically been very much underfunded and heard it has not been a top priority and even i would have to say even less a priority in the period since the one nine hundred ninety five when the majority shifted in the house the second point i would want to make to the gentleman is that in the aftermath of katrina you actually  areas in judiciary we're about to embark on a set of hearings about whether ed for housing on the internet should be governed by the same rules as a heads in the newspaper because if you go to the internet and look at some of the ads that were on welcoming is a problem that in some ways is disconnected from katrina but in many ways some of the biases that exist came out in ways  that they never should have in a disaster all catastrophe situation in the aftermath of katrina and i think jim and i think what we're all agreeing on is we find that disgusting behavior so i don't the and so that i think by the time gentleman you're just for clarification this is one of those areas you know that is also subject to appropriation this is not going to be in any kind of a supplemental so it's all going to play itself out in the conversations that we had with individuals relative to post katrina were very very educational and informative are one of the things that mr watt alluded to that appeared to happen was all of the laws relative to discrimination that have been honored increasingly over the years and i think to have just been thrown out of the window  following this disaster we were absolutely on even before the hearing that i held hearings that we had with mr now a when he was here we were absolutely appalled to get examples of the ads that were running on the internet that made it very clear that they wanted to rent to white only and to exacerbate that we learned that for example in st bernard's parish  to keep from being able to have to extend rentals to others who may be people who were the victims of katrina so it may be a little bit unusual that while we are focused on the disaster that we will be raising the questions of discrimination but because this bill is designed to implement that policies and the dollars that we are appropriate it and to move this business  forward getting people several to permanent housing and to get them out of the trailers and out of these rental situations the temporary situation we have to focus on this because this is one of the impediments and i think that mr green is jim texas miscreate who has been a staunch supporter of dealing with america's moral responsibilities field day one i just want to remind members that one very sad fact that we will be dealing with later in the year and that's the report from the home mortgage disclosure act short break that shows that if you have black or hispanic the chances of getting a mortgage or paying a reasonable price for a mortgage are much about that if your wife now race is hardly the only reason for that there are economic factors we've made a great deal of progress in this society to meet with race but we are far from apology and altogether as the program for ration of racist ads on the internet you know and i congratulate the damage i think this is very important it is a fairly chairman if i could i would want i'd like to ask some questions of the gentleman from texas and you'll some time to him first i want to thank him for the spirit in which he has offered this is minute and although we occasionally differ did as i have never doubted the purity of his heart and what he brings to the floor and when he brings to this committee i'd like to your first to the gentleman to ask the question in your name that you refer to qualif private in forstmann fair housing organizations in can you tell me exactly what those are yes are these are n g what we call n g o s many of them are community to community based organizations that apply for grants and with the grants they perform the function of testing as i explained it earlier and reclaiming my time how would one qualified to be in geo that meets this particular definition he would heard have guidelines that are established for the n g o s we would not set the guidelines reclaiming my time and i'd like to yield to the gentlemen again how do we know that the money that would go to these n g o s would actually be used for this purpose since these n g o s have many other missions and facets to their existence the only utilized for other grant money will be utilized for these grant money the federal government is not known to willy nilly arbitrarily and capriciously handout dollars in spite of what appears to be the case and some circumstance clear in my time and then i'd like to yield to the gentleman again and we've touched upon this but i want to make sure i put a very fine point on it and that is if extra songs were appropriated to hud and i sing justice as well to do in your opinion a better job of enforcing our anti discrimination laws with that room of the the situation in your mind or is there something unique that cause or additional funding to private in force in actions yielding to my friend thank you and i greatly appreciate the question because in truth this would not be the absolute remedy but the truth also is that you have to take these remedies sometimes sometimes incrementally and we take what we can do today and we build on that so that we can have a better tomorrow reclaiming my time in this will be the last question i have to mean clearly i agree with the chairman it's tragic and they're saying but in twenty first century america unfortunately racial discrimination is still alive and well you brought out i believe in your comment some studies i believe that you had seen or been privy to and the chairman alluded to this sometimes different patterns of housing are explained by other factors besides racial factors the studies you alluded to did they hold constant economic factors education factors single headed households versus couples and ideal to my friend yes or the national fair housing alliance is a credible organization and when testing is performed the persons who are multiple parts of the actual test are similar and every way possible from reading the area that the test is to give the crucial information and consistently when we send persons out who are equally qualified with one exception perhaps being maybe the ethnicity of the persons we do see the discrimination still existing but now it is broader than this and i don't mean to broaden it to other areas but in terms of bank loans we find similar circumstances manifesting themselves so testing has proven to be a very valuable instrument and it also helps to thwart the i think the gentleman there that we have before us allows areas affected by hurricane katrina reader or will move to use monies received undersea the p g a tour their matching requirement for other federal programs this common sense relief to those areas affected by hurricane dennis as many of you know ivan was the strongest of the hurricanes during the two thousand and five season crossing urban thirteen billion just as floridians are picking up the pieces from that disaster hurricane dennis came along and added another two point two three billion in losses to the total governor blanco called the relief in the bill that we have before us the adrenaline shot that  needed to get back on its feet and i couldn't agree more i think it's only fair however that we provided driveline shots to all those who need it including those victims of hurricane dennis in the panhandle of florida the courage of members thoroughly examined this in a way that i think it hasn't been before and many of the proposals that are here about increased flexibility do have a good deal of applicability not just in this area and the general far has been very diligent in trying to defend  after a major disaster the grants they be used to fund projects that will reduce or eliminate losses from future disasters projects have to provide a long term solution to a problem for example elevating a home to reduce the risk of flood damage as opposed to just buying sandbags and pumps to fight the flood funds could be used to either protect either public or private property or to purchase property that's been subjected to or is in danger of repetitive damage unfortunately because of the provisions under louisiana's state run road home program and i put that in quotes stephen has not released these funds for fear of legal action section one o one under the bill moves those funds from fema to control to hood under community development block grant program to alleviate those concerns basically the road home program has become the road to nowhere because it hasn't really been implemented well i support this action i'm concerned that without the proper guidance from congress these funds will be misappropriated and the mission of the hazard it hazard mitigation grant program will be forgotten if there's one thing we learned in florida is that nature can be somewhat predictable as an area floods once in a flood again and again congress should not be giving money to businesses and homeowners to continue rebuilding an unsafe areas additionally committee needs to ensure that the one point two billion is going to those who need it not just to administrative costs or other programs within the hood consequently the program which i introduced with congressman hensarling and piers states that hud must spend this one point two billion grant programs that meet the requirements of the hazard mitigation grant program voting in favor of this and then that will ensure that these dollars will help the state of louisiana to implement a must much needed long term plan to prevent future does a disasters i encourage members on both sides of the aisle to support mind then and i yield back the balance of my t pledged to billion dollars going nowhere simply because they cannot make up their minds what to do with it or what not to do with it the fact of the matter is we have a disaster we have a crisis and we can make  money and yes we have the road home program and we are working out the problems that's what this legislation is all about moving the impediments to things successfully getting people out of these trailers bringing people back home who want to come back home and it doesn't make good sense for thema are to demonstrate one more time that it can't manage that it doesn't know how to spend the money that is holding on to m y because it doesn't know what to do as a matter of fact this bill would transfer a one point two billion over to the road home program so that not only will be able to expand the assistance that we give to homeowners who fully expect their government to help them get back into their home i said we will be able to remove other impediments that all allow us to move from trying to hold people down to fifty thousand or twenty thousand when in fact we say we have a program that will give up to one hundred fifty thousand even though if you calculate the numbers and we have to everybody the amount of money that we have in the program would not do that but this will have to get us to that point it is absolutely ridiculous to follow the leadership of people one more time that will simply embarrass will simply help people pointing fingers to monies that we have appropriated that they don't know what to do with this is the best way to mitigate and this will mitigate people being forced out of their places  will have to get them settled at the road whole program we'll do that we're keeping close check on it now we have reporting requirements in this bill by which to know and understand from month to month exactly what they're doing so i would just say that that we in the congress have an important responsibility to see that the firearms which are appropriated are used in the fashion in which they're intended and the purpose of this amendment is not to keep them in fema recognize that that the change is going to be made that we're going to move those dollars over to h or d but we do insist that they be used for the purposes for which the original intent was designed there's over one point two billion dollars in the fema hazard mitigation grant program has made a violent label to lewsey and recovery authority but it's inaccessible because of the rules of thema we don't disagree with that at all but we're saying that that  money moves over that we should be accountable on the agency should be accountable to use the dollars in which they're designed and nationally so we we have this amendment which will basically do that and just would  you for the debate on the question the care recognize myself for five minutes the gentleman rexdale said this should be following the intent well let me adopt the speaking mode of the president we are the intended i agree this should be the intent it is the intent of congress that's us and what we are saying in this bill is this is what we intend when the bill will begin to be passed i do not think any of us contemplated this situation what's happened is this is a prime example of how some of the money has been spent not all of it some of the fault is local and state but some of the money has been spent because of conflicting federal requirements in this case we believe we can it has been the victim of a kind of a quote fire between hyde and had said use the money in this way seem a shed but you can't do it the objection to it and people said they were afraid of legal action well one of things we can do we can't do everything we can pretty well immunize you from a federal lawsuit if it was discriminating in favor of older people that was the specific argument that always you had a so here where it created people differently and this program according to whether they plan to stay in louisiana or move but they made an exception to that restriction for older people i do not think that this committee believes that favoring older people want to take a program based on their age is discrimination of a wrongful sort i think it is reasonable to say that all the people might have  choice about where they're going to live maybe they move in with family or whatever but that's a congressional decision so the notion that this violates the intent in the first place no one foresaw this but we are careful any intent here and this is  out of fame and i think probably there is probably agreement here that that's not a bad thing and puts it into the road home in but what it does do is it says let's keep that money for hazard mitigation for open but i have great understand that  side of flexibility what the gentlewoman's amendment would do would be to restrict louisiana stresses and we are under strict always try to weasel out of it said they want to use it for their own home if they want to use it for hazard mitigation there's nothing i think that's kind of a good government program believe me when the hurricane originally hit the people of florida had a great deal of sympathy for those affected let's face it florida florida gets at least one hurricane  e when we've dealt with this before but making sure that that money actually goes for the people intended as opposed to it going for hud administrative costs is i think be some admitted of course it would be inconsistent for us to beat them up and not getting more of these grants out and then complain about it even if it of course it made a sort of cost of what you what you need to get the grants out but what the a member does is to restrict the use colleagues my my reason for my concern when the program was initially established and the hazard mitigation money made available the state chose to set up a program where if a person left louisiana they would be penalize forty percent of their eligibility award by that departure from the state trying to incent people to stay and lose and there was a judgment however made by the state that if a person was sixty five years of age or older that they would not be subject to that forty percent haircut for whatever reason the agency looks upon that age bracket exemption as discriminatory in practice and that if they permitted the money to be utilized in that fashion they would be subject to litigation over the question of age discrimination as i understand the chairman's view coming out of the hearing ok if you're not going to spend the money for fear of litigation let's move this money over to cd and allow it to be utilized in that fashion on the one hand i understand members frustrating that you've spent a lot of money or appropriated a lot of money and there's not concurrently seemed to be a whole lot of activity on the other end of the pot i'm not going to defend the state's inaction to this point but i will make clear that if you move this money out of hazard and over to c d g i believe it will facilitate a little more timely now what is it that we would preserve with the rules of hazard mit that we lose if it becomes c b g the principle operative piece is that the of the l r a are nor acquires this piece of property with hazard m it is for ever out of commerce the government can't use it you can't put a football stadium on it you can't have a boy scout camp and out on it now if you imagine this piece of property being picked piecemeal track by track across communities who responsibility is it now to maintain or dispose of that property you can't even give it away to a organization that provides shelter for the homeless it's out of commerce that has always been problematic to me just as an operative observation we shouldn't as a government be taking property away from people and taking it out of any economic value at all i can tell you just as a duck on england it would be worth something in my part of the world so giving away economic assets by using the money in this fashion therefore shifting it over to c t b g remedies that restrictive perspective and let me make clear c b g is subject to all of the regulatory accounting and supervisory oversight that the secretary currently has  to ensure that the money is utilized for its intended purpose consistent with good public policy so i regret that i didn't take time ms brown wait to come to you earlier on and express my concerns about this i  had several strips of bacon in the fire at the time and i didn't get to this till this morning and i regret that i find myself in this foster but i do believe the consequence of the amendment intended to ensure the money goes to the right purpose with lower administrative costs will be met by b g compliance rules and you will not of her accountability by louisianians may be viewed by some as not necessarily always exercising the highest and best judges but i can assure you in this case that will be done and this really does help the state move forward with its recovery so i respect the gentleman and gentle lady who have proposed this amendment but there is an operative concern of some significance the judges make an announcement unless there intervening votes on the four in which case we will vote mediately when they are concluded and we will then convene i believe at ten o'clock tomorrow morning probably solely for the purpose of finishing the vocal chords will make good progress on the on the remaining amendments and w and my amendment actually could the overall look upon as an anti justification amendment it adds a new subsection to title two of the bill that property or that sale is made available for affordable housing or for displaced residents and then the second component provides for a one for one replacement of public housing units or comparable units for residents in the affected area and these residents would also be provided with relocation benefits  and then finally the amendment prohibits the displacement of tenants from habitable units as we saw there are some units that are habitable now unless the public housing authority provide suitable units in the local community including during any period of rehabilitation and i think one of the worst outcomes of this could be that the poor people end up being displaced and then we have more affluent residents moving it buying into buying the property or the housing authority selling the property and then we find that the poorest people and in fact looted from returning to the community and i urge my colleagues to barriers to proceedings this is been one of the big problems that they haven't gotten started you know they have to rehab some of the the housing units and yet there's nobody there we saw other ones where there's you know the tenants want to get back again and they say that you know that these are habitable they even had somebody come in and testify that the mold would not come back i don't you know i i question that i know how desperate some of the people are to get into those but it seems like we're we're really tying the hands of both had the public housing you know public housing authority and anyone to really get this going without these restriction owners of new units and so in terms of what's going on on the ground and new orleans this does nothing this would require require heard to make sure that that we know exactly what's going on in the land has been transferred now if the question is whether or not heard would be held up in selling land to a potential buyer the answer is yes because that's exactly what we're trying to to to discourage we're trying to discourage the displacement of the poorest residents in new orleans if to be claiming one time do you think that then that they would be able to have misused housing asking for is to make certain that heard is on top of the sale of land particularly public housing land and if there is a proposal that would somehow allow for mixed housing i think that would probably be considered the point is we cannot we cannot just remove this land from the housing authority and sell to developers who would then come in and  construct expensive housing that the poor people couldn't move into the samit as you as you can see also says unless it is for affordable housing and affordable housing can be people be completed else who will be returning doesn't it seem to make a difference it seems like this with the jumping ahead if you want one on one me turn we don't know by that time how many people will be other specific sections in the bill that deal with the world and this amendment and in fact it back this amendment deals frankly with public housing that sort of intact because it talks about transferring units this is dealing with the men public housing units that are in  spoke to the mississippi member here mr taylor mr thompson that very good you are to good shape in mississippi would be sold out of the inventory never again to be occupied by public housing residents this says that if they are sold they should be some of this and you know just to see this now i think that this is jumping ahead of the findings and i don't think that it is time i recognize myself five minutes gentlemen is correct that was originally what we talked about doing and this was discussed and we then heard from others who felt that frankly in this case would not be the best judge because this is both a practical matter and ideological matter and it was strongly off i believe we have a shortfall in existing affordable housing in this country i think that's been well documented by the low income housing coalition studies and other studies what we fear is and this is what we talk about one for one replacement that if you sell off good units of public housing to individuals with no restriction on the use of that and no commitment to build a placement unit then you further diminish the stock of good housing and i'm afraid that what happens to public housing is the bad stuff is allowed further to erode for lack of good maintenance because of appropriations or me management approach and the good stuff is sold off and ten years from now you have fewer available units so this is a philosophical issue t change you couldn't sell off without some print i would just say it's up to hard to determine quote the longest feasible period for some it does not give a period he has the longest feasible period for keeping its public housing but that is the state of it in the general is correct we had earlier talk about just doing a study we after discussing this believe that a study would not be sufficient and that the principle ought to be stated all of which still does have a certain number of public housing industry built by a certain time we need to know how many people actually intend to return to new orleans public housing units but we need to make sure that surveys done in a way that ensures that we can rely on its results not just assume they're correct this what i see as an oversight in the draft drafting of the bill the bill is careful to ensure that the survey questions are written in a way that are clear and not misleading but the bill directs the independent organizations connected to consult with the resident council about how to design a survey despite all that all this care the bill misses one important safeguard were to ensure the survey results are valid and reliable is important to consider both the way the questions are written and how the survey is actually administered in other words who asked the question and to complete the survey if either of these are not done correctly the result of said would be skewed my minister simple records are to be done by using appropriate scientific research methods that this man does not adopted we run the risk of not truly having an accurate picture of the number of residents who want to return to new orleans in the ideal world we would have a response rate of a survey of one hundred percent that is we would have every public housing resident who has been displaced by hurricane katrina answer the survey however with the victims scattered all around the country with many other challenges to address the recognise that this might not be able to reach everyone as individuals we must  sure that we have a valid reliable service even if we don't hear from everyone social science research provides for such situations we must make sure that whatever is asked to connect the survey contemplate such that using designs a survey and mis tracing is a way that ensures results can be reli social science research it provides a way of providing accurate numbers of people who want to come back with it in knowing we can't reach everybody just gives us the time and time yes i don't know if i a everyone is who's made application for assistance they have that database these people are receiving a temporary assistance so they know where they are they can't reach him by certain the office home the telephone calling they have to go out to where they are most of the concentrations are in texas and houston and in dallas seven florida and a lanta the numbers are not so huge  that you have to resort to a scientific approach such as getting a percentage as you would do and some polling excedrin they need to they need to be in touch with everybody they are sending a check to that's all gentle lady from california if we adopt this amendment and you see going on looking into it and you really believe it will interfere with the opportunity of the right for people return we don't know about who want to move back that aren't recognised and the goal of this is not in any way to come with a lesser number is to make sure we come up with scientifically the most accurate number so we can actually provide housing for everybody who wants to come back but if  accept this and before we get to the floor you believe that this is inaccurate and will not result in your in the benefit of the people in the region i'd be happy to withdraw and i just want to make sure we service everybody who we need to serve out there and this is giving them a best information we c fine is there any way the gentleman yield mr chair bob is ok i just a quick question i don't really have any objection to this amendment but i was just trying to think we're missing a word on the page six line thirteen we're going to submit the full research design i think needs another word in there of i think chairman won't take me five minutes we're all familiar with how difficult it has been to get hurricane housing relief funds into the hands of those who need relief and and in fact that the coverage of this in the press  assure that this does not happen in the future it is specifically limited to two to hurricane relief but hopefully mr chairman we could as a result of the study develop some models that would and he hit a very point if you this could be very timely for us because i think and i've spoken to the people who have your stick you know the fema the homeland security committee and the transportation infrastructure committee we need to straighten this out we need to used as the matching portion from the local government or ten percent that the local government should have an option whether they want to go through the environmental process of c d g and the environmental process of thema in my opinion that slows down getting dollars to the region building units this would say that at the local government has the option to use or c p g funds for the ten percent match if they have an option to just do the environmental process the same and they can easily go in to use of the funds rather than the process used when the use of the ten percent met was a general idea that i had to create is physicality and that in other words it is only where we would be talking about two environmental impacts on the exact same project that the rabbit would apply affordable rental housing stock for the elderly disabled and homeless of the units destroyed by or damaged by katrina and rita seventy one percent were affordable to low income families thirty percent were affordable to very low income families an adequate supply of affordable rental housing is essential for the return of families displaced by the hurricanes as well as the recovery of the region that has been devastated project based section eight housing vouchers or one of the most effective ways to ensure that units built are affordable to low income families shows provide an operating subsidy that pays the difference between the rent for a modest apartment and approximately thirty percent of the household income that's providing subsidies that enable the poorest households to afford a unit financed through tax credits this to men met with authorized approximately thirty six million dollars for new project based section eight housing vouchers to support four thousand five hundred permanent supportive housing units that would be available for persons with disabilities the elderly and those who are who were homeless before katrina this amendment is important because it puts in place a piece of a broader reconstruction plan that will ensure sufficient housing in the gulf coast for our poorest and most vulnerable while some resources have been dedicated to the recovery of rental housing in the gulf coast fewer resources have yet to be provided for the reconstruction of housing that is of fordable to very low and extremely low income households  elderly or have disabilities i mr chairman i would add that this is a part of what we hope to introduce in a future bill and i would also withdraw the number seventeen which we have pending strike the last word and i appreciated the subjects in these amendments are very important and i want to assure the gentleman is as i have on behalf of the general in california this is a bill which we are as everybody understands now trying to restrict to the immediate window units over in texas where many of the people are from new orleans the fact that he was to some of the areas where the public housing units are and he also lives in the lower ninth where many homeowners lost definitely be taking up this issue as our next step and happening to deal with the housing crisis and i appreciate the work that he's done and i will yield back the balance of my time one of  we've appreciated the government work long amendment i know the general is going to offer he's not offering because it's already in the bill because he was sure pretty persuasive and that is the situation that came out of the hearings which seem acknowledge that they had signed some contracts with language in houston for section eight for bankers and then subsequently discovered that they didn't have the legal authority to do what they had done and cancel those leases leaving some landlords in trouble and what they still those issues be a member never been withdrawn the chair now recognizes gentleman from illinois for for members gentleman is recognized as usual and i'm pleased to join my friend and colleague from new mexico mr pearce in offering this amendment as a way to help over half of the approximately two thousand four hundred public housing authorities in this country including the gulf coast j s achieve funding stability for the remainder of two thousand and seven in the blink of an eye and with no heads up to over twelve hundred ph and throughout the country the fiscal year two thousand seven continuing resolution h j read twenty establish a new section eight funding formula so here with a ph it is also with their budget for the fiscal year two thousand and seven and with the parents support of  the the chairman congress goes ahead and changes the section eight funding formula for a number of reasons i am particularly disappointed in this action first the funding change was made in an appropriation bill the last time i checked authorizing on an appropriations bill as against the house rules before it went to the floor for consideration the formula change was not reviewed during this congress by our committee or our housing subcommittee my colleagues housing chairman waters and we are working on a section eight reform bill we have a hearing on section eight this friday it's appropriate that our committee the authorizing committee hold hearings and markup legislation to consider and make necessary changes to the section eight formula third any formula change that effects over half of the nation's p h a should not happen without warning not fair to small rural and suburban p h a as with often limited research resources and staff to change their section eight funding stream mid year i can't imagine that most of the members of this committee would support these mid year cuts in funding to their own public housing authorities mrs waters public housing authority as well as my will suffer this year if we don't  set the formula under the c r s funding formula each housing authority and all three counties of my district will receive the funding cut this year the housing authority in cook county will lose eight million dollars surely it will will lose one point one million dollars or and two page county well lou will lose over a million dollars states like california florida texas new york michigan ohio tennessee missouri virginia and alabama will suffer significant losses more specifically los angeles county  los angeles city p h a to lose forty seven point three million dollars this year new york alone will lose fifty five million dollars this year forty five p h s in florida will lose a net of twenty eight point six million dollars the collar counties of chicago will lose eight million my constituents are now not well served by this abrupt and arresting change in the formula and i would recommend that the call my colleagues in the committee take a close look at the new numbers for their districts these cuts are unfortunate for many of our pages across the country however the most unfortunate the gulf coast p h d s are among those slated for funding cuts at a time when they are working overtime to bring home residents that were literally scattered by the winds during the two thousand and five hurricanes that continuing resolution took i had to the budget fifty six gulf coast ph it is estimated that new new year new orleans housing authority alone will lose seventy million dollars in funding this year and i mention this turner here in new orleans last month louise  louisiana senator mary landrieu reported reportedly press concern as well i understand that section three o two of this bill aims to make whole for fiscal year two thousand and seven the ph a's in the hurricane devastated regions of the gulf coast this is evidence that the funding formula changes the c r was a bad idea for the gulf coast p h a however they mention before the the formula change was a bad idea for more than twelve hundred pages across the country my amendment simply strike section three o two and insert a new section at the end of the bill that resets the section eight funding formula for fiscal year two thousand and seven as a member would make whole section eight funding for a ph case in the gulf coast in the many of our communities across the country in the never sell five minutes in opposition first let me repeat the point that i made earlier with regard to the gulf the there was a specific provision in this bill that hold harmless the gulf communities here is the issue and by the way i would ask you know and she said to a certain record at this point whether it's in support of the appropriations writing we get the gentleman is seeking to strike from the national association of housing and we develop an official which is the largest representative of public housing authority in the country the council of large public housing authorities the public housing authorities directors association which again represents all public housing authorities the national  second eight actually being made available then we'll be after this amendment of the appropriations committee what we had was some unit some administrators of public housing being told that they were going over their limit and could not spend they could not have enough money to meet their need in other cases there were unused allocations what the appropriation did was to be allocate the funding so that unused money can go to places that you gentlemen is correct that some housing authorities don't approve of this but more housing authorities and not get approved that's a public housing authorities directors association the national association of housing and redevelopment officials it is clear that it will result under this will in more section eight it will result we believe in a more efficient use now there were complaints that well this will be unfair first of all it is true that there was a particular problem in the gulf and that is people said well we won't able to use our section eight because of hurricane and we should not be penalized going forward that is true we thought in the appropriations bill we had take care of that hud said well you didn't really do that so i said before there is a specific section in this bill section three zero two i believe it is which makes it clear that this amendment is to have no negative effect on those housing authorities that lost housing because of the hurricanes so that argument is this bill fixes that piece of it then there was a question about other housing authority housing authority that hadn't used up all their funds who's in money the housing authorities that we showed to find what we also didn't appropriation was to authorize those housing authorities that say they're going to be good money under this to tap into their reserves which could not otherwise be used many of them have reserves this appropriation authorized them to use the reserves and as a result of that no housing authority under the appropriation section will be unable to meet its second a demand they can use the reserves if they have to so what we did was to allocate under used to places that had gone up against their limit but with the protection for those that were going to have funds transfer to wait that they could access reserves that would otherwise not be accessible wasn't taking away reserves that they could use for other purposes and as i said the bill itself specifically fixes the problem for the gulf and says and this is true for dade county and others that going forward what it says in this regard is that as we calculate utilization rates for section eight to the extent today with the shortfall in your utilization rate because of the hurricane that is now separated out from the calculation going forward so there will and i believe it is going to result in a better utilization rate nationally of second eight gentleman from new mexico again of alabama thank mr chairman the chairman one thing that troubles me about this amendment  well the underlying bill not the end then is that it does change the formula and this battle looking at the numbers california and florida both lose california loses one almost twenty seven million dollars florida loses twenty eight thousand six hundred dollars so those two states pretty much pay for it although you know alabama indiana there are some other states that take a significant hit but far beyond that the winners and losers it appears as if those with those public housing authorities who don't spend all their money which we you know we ought to at least encourage some efficiencies they are penalize in that that money instead of being available is transferred to the housing authorities in fact massachusetts your home state gains thirty million dollars out of this so it is probably the biggest winner but just because all the public housing authorities in massachusetts are you know they they overspend about thirty million dollars a year taken california and florida and getting the housing authorities there to kick in their money which and we've done this sort of without a hearing or  consideration so i'm going i'm going to support the lady's amendment primarily because we're making a change in the katrina bill which applies to the entire united states on an issue that is not a trainer related and it changes the distribution in every state you have a dozen states or more they're going to lose money and they're housing authorities and ones that lose money are those that didn't spend all their money and i think if anything we ought encourage people to any way that your dentist to make money from massachusetts so i apologize i gotta say i certainly sounded like that i thanked him for what he said but let me say again i want to repeat first was the gentleman also made a mistake and when he said we couldn't be changing things in this bill we don't change it it's the gentleman from illinois who seeks to change it the government is confused the appropriations bill made this change the gentleman here was trying to use this bill to under what was in the appropriations bill that's right i didn't object to that but the gentleman it actually says this is an effort to make a major change in this bill it was only appropriations bill i want to reiterate and then the gentleman said well if some housing authorities were free she didn't spend the second eight  not spending second what do you think a cheaper rent it was looking some cases there aren't available units i mean section eight is not always the best way to go there are people who home homes who don't want to do second aid if there's a housing shortage in the area they might be able to get better rents elsewhere or they might because the fam argument already there you know this is not an entitlement to the cities and he says well they didn't spend all the second week they should be rewarded the purpose of section eight is not to board municipalities it is to find housing for people what every organization in america is committed to the section a program tells us the national association of housing and read about the people which are not in massachusetts members of the national reselling association who are the the people who own many houses get second national the public housing authorities directors association that's the nationwide group of public housing says this change that was made not here but in the appropriations bill let me do a better utilization of the section eight because it says that in communities where you weren't able to use all your money we will take that and allocated to communities where they were able to use the money with the proviso that we insisted on that reserves that would otherwise not be available now understand what you're saying i just think that in some cases what we did do is you say ok we were going to change new orleans and and the gulf area because they have the reserves and they can't build yet but so many of these other public housing authorities are capped first of all that they can only provide so many bouncers and there is the way that it's determined how much they get is biased snapshot  of the housing section eight and at that time if they have boucher's out people are looking for housing in a community like mine there isn't a lot of available housing so there they have these outsiders they're looking for and what we're saying is where they can't use them all but reallocate them to places which can use and that's why the public housing authorities directors association the national group says in a rather mr robey the association has long supported a more rational v formula based on actual briefing about your costs your bill establishes the inception of such a policy and the problem is that the way we have done with section eight when some places can spend up to one hundred percent and others spend less that is then used in the next year as an argument for reducing the overall amount because if it can't be used in every place the overall amount is reduced now we do this appropriate we do this every year in things some communities it turns out that the reasons they couldn't spend all the second eight  changed and they can spend more we can adjust to that but we have said that when we allocate the overall amount of places where it goes i suspect i'm in the notion of recapturing and moving money which can't be spent the place where it can be spent it's one that my friends on the other side there is this guarantee that the reserves will be available and we do not know of any housing authority that will somehow have an inability to lease to people and they say well they're getting us money people only get less money if they can't use  now that would just point out that the average wage in the mexico is twenty two thousand four hundred sixty nine there are a lot of people there that fall in the capacity in the realm of section eight vouchers and with all due respect to the national letter that says it's a more rational approach let me read to you up one one of the managers of a section eight housing and it says she says it's going to be the equivalent of cutting one month's worth of vouchers to the poor and needy families that she serves another one of the mexico housing authority representatives they are that one hundred families per month could lose access to vouchers and that region because of the cuts that we're seeing in the mexico almost every single jurisdiction in the second district of the mexico got a cut under this and i will tell you that pro people still live in the mexico and they're going to be under served now because of the changes in the formula with respect to the what the what previously was it was stated that some more rational approach would just these are the sorts of things that should have come out in the paper these are the things that should have been done we should've taken before we've made that change and that the  chairman adequately points out that the changes already been made and and we're requesting that it go back so that we can have these hearings so that we can really have a full discussion about the effects in every district with all due respect of the people who are writing these letters are not elected officials representing every single constituency and it is the voices of those people that have been silent and it's the rise of those people who have not been allowed to bring accountability end of the system and that's all the lady is suggesting that that she would like to send it back to the way it was so that we could consider the areas like new mexico that are being drastically affected the poor people low income people in the mexico being drastically affected without a public and full hearing and so it just seems adequate that we would housing side the owners and the managers that this improve the situation overall it was our understanding and this is why would be great to have a hearing it is our understanding that people would have access to the reserves so that if in fact they are then able to do a better job never able to do before i should say better job because it wasn't a matter of fault on their side if conditions would change and they were able to utilize more we are sure that there were the reserves and to do that i would commit to making changes if it was necessary to deal with that i have seen no cases where people were told that they wouldn't have the reserves except those areas hit by the hurricane because they had there the argument was unusual we were unable to lease up because of the hurricane and that's why we take care of this in the bill but in other cases people are sometimes unable to use the second a for a variety of reasons mainly the rent trying up the fair market rents aren't what they should be in every case but i will certainly agree one way or the other have a hearing on this issue the germans are correct that should have been done in hearing i wish we could at a hearing last year but we didn't do a lot of housing previously in this committee but i do believe that the at this point to make another take in it would be a grave error and i think that the decision that w see why the hurricane affected communities had a legitimate concern i met with the people dade county and that's one of the reasons why there was a specific fix in the building the general in california had anticipated that so i hope that the member is not adopted but one way or the other know i think the gentleman is right we should have a hearing and i will invite the authorities in to tell us how they're being heard i don't think you're going to see anybody i certainly know that no one is going to have tried to curtail any existing by definition and i don't believe you're going to see any failure of any inability to k actually the reason i had asked for additional times was simply to say what you think it now acknowledged and that's that we made this formula change  i guess the appropriate committee did it as opposed to the art arising committee and it wasn't as if i mean it wasn't done in the darkness of night it wasn't a clandestine thing i mean you actually wrote up a letter to the membership you know advocating this for philosophical raise and and i notice your letter says taxes agencies have one hundred ten million dollars money that  intended to house low income families but instead has been gathering dust so that money you know would be transferred to other housing authority but if you if you look at the breakdown  we did all this without any hearing or i don't even know there was a debate on the floor but you look at the amounts of money that moved around and you're right it was not this bill that changes it was a c r big losers but you get houston dallas el paso arlington and import arthur public housing authorities under the new form of that we passed in january and with really without any notice just to spend money the rest of this year instead of starting next year they all lost money the public housing authority of new york city looks looks according to this last fifty five million dollars new york city public housing authority by itself so i mean although there were people gaining here and there there was tremendous amounts of money going on between miami dade tampa st petersburg public housing authorities all lost money los angeles county and los angeles city lost forty seven million dollars under that new formula not not something we're doing in this bill but that is what the lady from illinois i think is trying to in the authorizing committee which i think is the appropriate place this discussion and this committee is the first time authorizing committee has discussed this and i do thank you for your commitment to in fact last year this particular provision that was in the appropriations bill was approved by this committee there was a second a belt your amendment there was a process that the former chairman of the housing sub says that they lost money no one lost money that was being used for the purposes of second eight people's allocation may have been reduced but it was an unused allocation not a penny was taken away that was being used if people were able then to use more than they were they had their reserves and everyone had adequate reserves but this suggestion that we somehow cut people of the middle is not what happened people who were in check in every community continue to be what they said was money that is being used will be allocated to places that can use it oh you'll lose the house change this formula new formula would actually the senate that changed and i think the house went along with it and would do it last year have a similar formula that this committee did pass five boys but it actually was early but it was overwhelmingly supported he said with all the groups and it had passed this committee so i was responding to the notion that this is never been voted on this committee apparently people don't give a full attention and i agree we should look at this i don't want to see it in this bill i think it is a mistake to do that and again to make these changes we can make changes and should be as of october first and we can have hearings and work on doing this but i know this as a fact and the only mention again dade county dade county in any place affected by the hurricane has been protected by this very bill that's not please keep saying that take yes for an answer we have fixed that i talk to the people of the county the provisions because we did say yes we don't want to keep giving you money if you can spend it but in younger i you know i agree with a lot of what you what you say but the problem is is that this was done in midstream this year so that there are public housing authorities who have budgeted for this year that now do not have the money i talked about the the it's usually the small rural or the suburban areas where they have given out to vouchers people have not found the housing yet and so there's hundreds of them that are not  opposed no no the nos have it the question now it's three o'clock and we will now take our vote on the two pending amendments yes and the second was the amendment from the gentleman from florida ms brown way to restrict the use of the funds that have been transferred from fema to c d b gate to restrict those to being taken to ten o'clock tomorrow morning so the members don't have to stay after the vote to finish for the day will give members notice but my expectation is that we will have only the votes to do it ten o'clock tomorrow morning so we'll start probably ten members like to be here anyway that seem to me after consultation with the ranking member the the best way to accommodate the members so members having come just to vote can wait a discreet amount of time to leave phenomenal think that that's going to be can they came and the rest of us the will designate the man men here previously offered this amendment mentioned that well offering this one he was not going to offer to others and was going to with two of them i was not paying full attention and thought that they were all being with gone with a gentleman that this amendment authorizes approximately thirty six million dollars for a new project based section eight housing vouchers to support approximately four thousand five hundred permanent supportive units these are housing units that would be hold that off because that's one of the issues that we do want to address this is a more limited amendment it would create forty five hundred projects a section eight through all the affected area the borough to remember it would be bought a housing policy and the problem we have a one i've alluded to before the second age don't do any good if there's no buildings to rent project based section eight as opposed to annual or valka it's rather project based can lead to property being built because you can literally as i said take it to the bank it does not require any fact we would hope it would be all second hidden out for a component in a mixed use operation it is subject to appropriation it should be pretty clear we have no guarantee if we want to fight that that we will get it but i am struck again by hard figures there are fewer than half of the rest of housing units in new orleans now than there were before the storm and if everything goes thanks if you are and if everything goes well there will continue according to current plan there will continue to be fewer so this is an effort to try to build some new units not simply write from existing units of which you're right enough the number twenty five hundred and the region wide it would have application  mississippi and louisiana if no one wants to take advantage of it and build this housing then it won't happen and of course if the appropriated don't appropriate the money won't happen but it is our view that it is not enough simply to give rental assistance but that we ought to do something towards increasing the number of units it's far smaller than the needs more than i would like it to be i think it recognizes budgetary responsibilities and concerns it is as i said thanks to the great pieces of the would be the appropriations for two thousand and eight two thousand and nine what would be that the year when when the appropriations be considered this would be for the next fiscal year that would not be in the supplemental this would not be in the supplemental so the answer is this would be for the next fifty there was a little confusion about what was offered with the moment suspend for second  you so this would apply for housing only for elderly persons with disabilities or homeless persons is that correct that is correct thank you question is on the amendment legislation and the reason why i believe the drafting errors that in section three zero four which is what we're this amendment would strike section through for is very different from the rest of the legislation the wrest and deals with families that have been a part of public housing and the money is traditionally followed families and individuals in public housing and in section three of four the wording is change where it's returns the money follows the public housing unit and i believe this is an error i don't think it's intentional i believe it's an error in drafting and i think it would be important that replacement vouchers for all public housing units and assisted housing units that are not back brought back on line a couple of things that this legislation does that i think is appropriate is trying to find out the number of individuals that will come back to louisiana and new orleans in particular after the katrina disaster a recent washington post kaiser and harvard survey of evacuees and and houston's emergency shelters underscores the fact a large portion of these displaced individuals will not return to their communities according to that survey forty four percent of evacuees and shelters in the houston area said they would not return to the louisiana roughly roughly half of those that  evacuated the city went to houston so this is a large number whilst not completely representative and and while i also agree with the chairman that finding the number that were returned to new orleans is very important i think we should make sure that the money follows the individual and that we don't simply send it to a public housing agency for instance if if this section were not omitted from the bill if my memory is not adopted if is closed down because the landlord was delinquents and the building was unlivable only a few tents let's say were occupying it before that that occurred hud would be required to provide vouchers for each of those units in the total totality of the building whether or not they're occupied or not even the units that that had never been occupied and so i think this is a positive thing in it and a corrective measure that i  absolutely had a policy to replace the damaged a lot unit and that policy somehow got changed in her but we are now in a situation where we have lost a lot of units eight eleven disabled two zero two elderly project based section eight and we place the language in this bill precisely as we believe it should be that we should be replacing the hewitt if we do not  replace the unit then both families will have no place to lead they just will have no place to use the section eight they will have no places and as we have taken a look at what was attempted  who will not be able to replace homes that perhaps they all and they will need to have some units available to them and this would ensure that the actual units in reference to the two thousand units that were vacant and subject to being torn down and what you're saying is those those valves should be taken off the table because those units weren't  subject for replacement at that particular point time and so you're just talking about shipping vouchers for what was the net housing at the time of the country in a disaster yes in part that's part of what we're considering for years you know about six seven years you had a waiting list and that was just been ignored period we believe that in addition to all of those people who are waiting  to come back who lived in public housing units that there are many people on temporary vouchers who are displaced who are on that waiting list at that would like to be returned to some kind of a unit so we cannot use th numbers that are available to us of simply those units that were in use that were occupied we have to take into consideration that there were waiting lists that were just ignored there was boarded up housing that have been boarded up for years that supposedly was going to be part of of of a redevelopment that did not get done and people are so desperate for places to come back so that they can have some of the jobs that will be available is this  committee for things that we think are going to happen in the future and in fact when i was down there they had units available and nobody was having to make ready those units over and over and over again because they weren't having anybody come into those units in so i think what's appropriate is to come up with it and i think that's where the gentleman said he did not get his comments your team is coming up a reasonable amount of replacement value until we see you know we're individual not the housing unit and as you pointed out housing units public housing units were available pre could train a and as a result so they were well thank thank you generally for interrupting but it's not my time to control if the public housing in new orleans were entirely full at one hundred percent capacity then that would be a different issue but i would certainly say that even in that situation if you had people on waiting lists the money should follow those individuals not simply public housing units and if there were one vacancy and new orleans and all you're doing is trying to supplement your budget with additional funds for five minutes to say first because appreciate being accused of offering too many browsers to the area because on a previous amendment we were being accused of taking away that about truth this is directly opposite to the tone of the early mama bear when i need her it's either too hot or too cold too short to talk apparently we can never be just right but i'll try not to be too sensitive the fact is that yes the general is exactly right you were trying to be stories about us but now we're being told that we're giving them too many vouchers let me point out one of things about the value which was what was at the base of the c r s bankers do not get spent the money is not spent if they are not needed if we have in fact exaggerated the need for value that money will go back and not be spent that's that's exactly right there is one thing about values is they do not come with subpoena power no one has ever been drafted into taking about you if the speculation is right that we are offering here more about you than are needed they will go on you people who don't want to have been that housing won't live in the housing we believe that frankly we've aired on the other side of not doing enough and that for the region one california say it's definition a well written policy but the question seems to be misplaced for this reason if you are an administrator trying to interpret the law if you're in court arguing the law then the question about whether or not it's a change of policy is relevant but we make the look for a question i guess is this a change in precedents as as an attorney you know much more about precedence and i do as a real i do and i was a gentleman the first thing i know about precedent is their absolute and complete irrelevan policy we decide what's right and what's wrong that's we are the ultimate decider sometimes frankly that's harder it's easier to say well what is president what is this i do say it's been said before we had a fairly unprecedented disaster and it was the dimensions of what gentleman i'd ask for there quicker than the chair is it not a wonderful tactic of the trial lawyer to deem a question irrelevant when he loses on said question with present and i have to say i'm particularly surprised that someone who was i understood had come here as a conservative determined to change some things that were wrong would be so scandalised at the thought of precedent where i thought you were a agent i thought you wanted to make things different and now i'm told that the gentleman is intimidated if it's unprecedented i would urge you gentlemen he said off the shackles of ages past i would argue gentlemen to be more radical in his approach do not feel in cumbered by those who have gone before you and i we only about those who are going to come after you is there any further discussion on the subject if not the question is just about i would urge the gentleman take any of that advice two or three and it is this amendment requires that only precut trina occupied public housing units in the in the gulf coast region must be replaced years that were v not be replaced in short this this will permit one for one replacement of the units that were occupied by public housing residents at the time of the two thousand and five storms and their replacement units include public housing units as well as based assistance as is proposed in the bill i think this amendment is estimated to reduce the cost of the bill by four hundred million dollars which is a cost to replace the public housing units that were vacant when the two thousand storm hit and i would urge my colleagues to support this amendment during california and oppose this amendment first of all i think there's been several times that i've alluded to the fact that there were boarded up units and but there were waiting list stories are rampant in louisiana about the way housing units and the question of new developments have taken place for example the story that we heard over and over a crack in just divert from the cement it is same thomas housing development that was torn down and people were promised that when they turned that down they would be able are to get units in the new development that they would do the new development i think units that would be a bailable despite the fact there's a great demand we should not look at this in terms of the units that were closed up that were  supposedly in waiting for the new development that we have discovered is that kind of mismanagement eyebrow many of these housing authorities a housing development because in addition to a lack of maintenance and then boarding them up while they're waiting for so called repairs that never get done then you also have the case of this promise redevelopment which means that you taken them off the market for poor people to use and they never ever get back so i would oppose this amendment because i am not supportive of reducing housing that the five thousand one hundred sixty five units that were occupied in the two thousand that were slated for demolition and redevelopment so it really is in total seven thousand units it's not all over the the gulf happening in louisiana before i mean i don't know if you say if there were people on the waiting list yes that's a valid argument my question to you and i'm just not maybe so much of this amendment but has or been a orleans was we know is that hud did have to step in and take over the management but we also know that there are those who are saying that it should be either to dish will management our review  and i don't you know if a lawsuit has been filed to that question but i do know that i have had no does is not in charge of them now that hurt supposedly is everything is at a state of flux wh we would like to do is stabilize this public housing in new orleans by first getting people back into rehab units and we're talking about a small number relatively three thousand units then we're talking about coming up with a plan this plan would have a hard look at the helm with the housing residents are included and the city of about new all it should be involved in that we're not saying and we don't attempt to direct in this bill in any way whether there should be redevelopment or not whether there should be shrinkage are not we do say that you should always have one to one replacement but we're not trying to dictate how all of this gets done we're saying let's not sit here in washington d c and decide that that given the catastrophe given the disaster given the crises let's stop that to people back in get your unit if there aren't people ready to come back but there are other people who can live there i mean i the people in need and i should be those who moved out and i think i really shocking this very simple set of facts there is a shortage of affordable housing in the as a whole i believe i think it's been well documented that means there are people paying far too much for right given what they should have available for other purposes that shortage was greatly exacerbated in new orleans by this unprecedented storm which destroyed so many rental units and while there were programs to restore homes that were destroyed etc that were owned i want to also do something about restoring rental units the road home will deal with homeownership i do not think we are in any danger of providing more rental units for low income people in new orleans then they will be able to use it is also habitable units for low income people before you have replaced them is one that seems to me center if we are serious about dealing with the housing crisis i believe this amendment would impinge negatively on that and therefore i am opposed to it as a furthe discussion on the question of no return to funding from the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman gentleman from alabama mr chairman one thing that we have not really we didn't have a hearing on these particular provisions but one thing that i think has troubled us is this idea of repairing these units as opposed to replacing because you know in this bill were apparently going to require that those be repaired and some of them are probably very old and and i'm just wondering if there is not more as we move from the floor and i this amendment may be defeated but if we move towards the floor i would hope that we revisit this if there were efficient way to construct the here which is opposed repairing very living in a state of temporary existence to write data six years and when the people of new orleans have already had this experience with her with i have no where they have waited ten years even a some have died before the units were rebuilt to ask them to do this it is not unreasonable to ask that a small number of units be rehabbed and people are allowed to come back to th that they need to rebuild new orleans he would even do that so when you think about that need that the mare's are down about the eighty thousand people who are on waiting lists the thousands who are out there and other cities who want to come back we're talking about an emergency situation where repairs make absolutely good sense again let me remind you we're not deciding that maybe there well be redevelopment in the future what we're saying is don't ask people to wait five to ten years in order to get a new unit they deserve the right to be able to return and return now  on or take back my time and say that i i do think it is unreasonable to ask people to wait five or six years obviously that's not a very practical thing to do as the chairman has said there is a lack of affordable housing for low income residents so it's not aren't with these amendments to take sashed right that situation and i as the levy says it has been well documented reported and we've heard testimony before this committee there have been promises made to the poor people of new orleans in the past that have not been kept and so there is a there is a high degree of mistrust and a skepticism as would be in and said that maybe there's confusion here i don't think that we were many meaning to set a floor and i would like to ask the council paul callan if he could clarify what what this says in  saying that the total number of public housing units that is sufficient to meet the needs for occupancy demonstrated by the report and the survey council will be recognised them and requires a number of housing units sufficient to meet people that him won't be able to be reached there you know there's all kinds of problems but i think and we won't know because there are people that you know by the time we get to you know we've been eighteen months now that have reestablish going by the survey and i mean i think we were thinking this thing through and it's emergency bill then there are people that are there too to construct their new residence or people not just wishing to return there are other people in need of of housing in new orleans and you know the lack of that housing is retarding the recovery so i and you know we're talking  to tell you i think what we're doing here i don't disagree that you have to have a certain amount of housing stock to begin degree grow that community but what we know is that there are three or four hundred units rotton now that are available in that community ready to rent key ready as they see it that are not occupied the second one to one basis because it will be throwing good taxpayer money after bad there were several people there that are vising the city and advising the state in one said it would be a criminal to rebuild our to refurbish some of these units and i was in those units and i've been in the housing business i was a home builder i remodeled i know what it takes to take a unit like those some of those units and bring them back in one of those  that's good public policy to go take american taxpayer dollars and put those in back in that kind of housing we ought to come up with a number that's reasonable have a set of housing available at any given time in the demand in the marketplace is going to determine the level of recovery in the level of housing that we need to whether we're going to use these vouchers as the chairman to satan and whether these these units are going to be occupied but if we in this bill force the housing authority to go  back and repair and spend a substantial amount of money let me tell you it feels like a substantial amount of money to bring those up to where they're habitable we will crews created the second worst disaster for new orleans  i think it's important for tender stand that it's all about management we have people who want to return and i ask the h representatives whether or not they had a relocation policy they backed away to people are that there is no real policy about helping people to get back we ask about people who were asked to leave their units they left everything if you walk into some of those units the beds the closing the chute everything was left there and really hard to has not come up with a way by which to a sense people to get back to units they want to come back to know how to head down the kind of management to determine whether or not those units should be rehabbed in relationship to the circumstances that people now find themselves in with some kids in road who will say i need thirty days or sixty days to get back so it's all a matter of management it is not the fault of the people who were evacuated who were asked to leave everything who want to return to simply be told that you may not you may not return now or you can return to a nother unit outside of public housing units that have already been rehabbed that we want you to return within ten days of five days or fifteen days without understanding how the people are to do this so they need to have a management plan which to have people come back to the unit that they would like to return to as far units that supposedly are there that are not in the public housing projects themselves but supposedly off site somewhere which i developed a way by which to connect the people with those units so i would ask first speaker that number one we don't reduce the number of units using the number of units that were  occupied pre katrina but rather we keep in mind that the emergency units must be rebalanced and we have an agreement from the head that that's about the right number based on what they know the three thousand and if the survey comes back with more then we should revisit that more units if it comes back for less then they can lease up to the city who wants to have a thousand units for workers fill up some of those units with people who are in the waiting list who have been waiting to get in is it further discussion again when we can i thank the chair and i want to express appreciation to the gentle lady from california for her good work and and intentions on this matter to ensure that people who need access to housing have it i can speak to this free could train a i don't think it's any secret that the new orleans housing authority was clearly by a wide margin the worst in the entire nation it failed to receive passing grades from management on a number of issues over a multiplicity of years and had actually been taken over by her i know from some members perspectives that created a problem with her it as an outsider trying to run a public housing operation i do believe that it is correct that members have surmised that not all public housing could be occupied and even if units were habit of vacant prior to katrina's landfall i've served that the bill in its basic form suggests the conduct of a survey to determine the willingness of people to return pretty good training it was always my hope that we would have a mixed use public housing project  meaning not only moderate income folks but people who were employed in the community working with any number of locations to provide training to provide education for those without skills in other words public housing that gave people real opportunity as opposed to what was presented in new orleans prior to katrina's landfall which was worse than deplorable i've been in the unit where everything in the building it was  stolen and i'm talking down to the steel beams that supported the structure and the only element that was left was the floor tile because it was as best a floor tile and apparently there was sufficient skill level to know that it was asbestos and so it was not taken and so i can't in good conscience say to my colleagues that's the kind of circumstance we should put grandmothers in i walked in a unit elated had no idea who i was and this is ten years ago she brought  facilities and asking what can be done to help you here she says you see that crack above the tub there i would like to have somebody fill that up because when the evenings when i take a bath bugs crawl through that opening into my  never forgotten that lady and i don't know how we fix this problem but i've got to tell you it is deplorable it is inexcusable and it will take the ration of this committee to come to a proper conclusion really was going to try to stay out of this i had no intention of getting caught up in this i wanted the committee to do its work but i would strongly recommend mr chairman that we allow suggestion of the study to go forward let's determine how many people are demonstrating a willingness to come back we have a limited pot of resources let's give them the best possible environment in which to raise their kids and if it means we have a few less units but we have really quality units that provide somebody a life opportunity that's what we want and i can't say whether the figure six thousand five thousand i don't know all i can tell you is as a sincere representative of this community i don't know that we have the capacity today to make a politically charged decision that will serve those residents well going forward i'm for what works and i just don't know what that is right now we're doing here i'd be happy i'm happy and i've been pretty much into it in the most profound sense of working with a gentleman since this terrible crisis  and we have been together more often than not but i do think there may be some difference here and i appreciate what he's saying i would say two things first of all the desirability of these units in the new orleans housing authority has probably increased as a result of if there was a strictly limited amount of money we would have to choose but that's what i disagree with this is to which your country spending too much money also i've lost an amendment last summer trying to not spend money to go to march we got a war that many of us disagree with that spends enormous amounts of money we have expended in a lot of ways i would say to the downman we ought not to put the people in the war means to that test where either you get the temporary use texas offered that we adopted that will make that possible but we are saying in the interim let's keep some of these units now we may be erring like we have been correctly says we have to err for once can this congress dispute that there will be error made and that it's difficult to know exactly what the right conclusion should be reached all i'm really suggesting is let's let's engage in this survey process it can be a short period let's try to get some analytical is that help guide us and then take the resources we in deployed and i do not oppose in the reconstruction of some of these units i do think we should be very careful in rebuilding on some of the site merely building in their location prejudices the people who live there as for example desire tracts of property under its control that are much more desirable than what we currently have we can move to those sites in fact that's why it was created was to manage those disparate properties there might be a way to get where we all want to go and i do wish to be argumentative i truly want to be helpful but i'm not sure that forging ahead as we intended a is is the right way to go and i'd be happy to yield to the lady from california yes that is why then both bill we talked about taking care of the crisis now with the limited number of units rehabbed and then had the residents the city you guys get involved in the planning process because all agree with you design is out in the middle of nowhere with no commerce no grocery stores no cleaners nothing just building springing up out of the ground slabs and it doesn't make good sense we hope that you will have a planning process that will think the gentleman from illinois thank you mr chairman i didn't realize it would cause so much discussion but i think it's been healthy i do think that there was a draft here in this amendment and i would withdraw the amendment but in hopes that that this will be kept in mind that we will look at the survey and make the determination very carefully and remember that we have dollars that need to be physically spent well release time and again cases arise of individuals companies from other states who flew open to dissatisfied zones with the expectation of hiring cheap labor they enter into contracts with federal disaster relief free cypriots that require a significant down payment and then leave without finishing the job because they can obtain the labor supplies or other necessary resources and they leave with the down payments in their pocket on a large scale the speculative contracting behavior and evi inflate the federal cost associated with recovery during a time of emergency our resources are stretched including state law enforcement and attorneys oftentimes these instance occurs without official to these incidents occurred without official due process because the affected emergency zone does not have the capacity or the ability to properly pursue the case injective injection of federal law enforcement resources in times of disaster would make the threat of detection and prosecution more credible even to small scale fly by night contractors my amendment requires a contractor to verify that he has present access to existing resources sufficient to complete the work contemplated for except in any monies from a resident of a federal disaster zone and connection there will prove that a contractor accepted payment from a resident of a disaster zone without processing adequate without possessing adequate access to existing resources would constitute legally sufficient evidence of intent to defraud unless disproved this provision would force contractors to take responsibility for ensuring their current ability to perform before they do business in a disaster zone rather than speculating about conditions hundreds or maybe even thousands of miles away contractor should not be able to take victims money skip town when it becomes a pair they can't do the job and subsequently escape prosecution for fraud by claiming good faith or even simple negligence my amendment helps consumers going through the vast and times have access to federal judicial resources and ensure a strong  and this committee has no jurisdiction over criminal penalties that fall under the house rules under that goodish carry so without any regard to the merits we cannot enact criminal penalties i would be willing to join in a letter from the bills go through more than one committee yes they do but not when we have something that is the thrust of this is the other committee the main purpose of this post because of what in contracting if gentleman's objection not all of it it does seem to me that and i feel that if texas and i think he agreed that it makes it better mr boehner although he still would have preferred his amendment and that does not make him a supportive of the provision is there any further discussion on the provision facing rightfully so with the many problems that continue to exist in the gulf coast area but i thought we should also take a moment and include in this legislation a recognition of the work that has gone before to address many of the problems that we have already discussed here today and to recognize the thousands of volunteers throughout this country who have basically selflessly lent their time to try and help to rebuild on their own without government systems or otherwise these devastated areas of the gulf coast these included community groups faith based groups organizations charities you know my local organizations where i come from have been down there in churches and what have you to date over half a million americans a volunteer their time in helping to rebuild the gulf coast region and the aftermath of katrina green have billion dollars in cash and in kind of nations have been donated to hurricane victims forty million pounds of food mistreated by catholic charities and elsewhere  seven million hot meals by itself they should army and the list goes on twenty thousand displaced families have been supported by travel aids all in tears and as i mentioned faith based organizations that such as jewish family services lutheran disaster response united methodist committee and recognized him to offer that one now gee i thought there was two other ones but are so we have time to one before we go well right ok number twenty three sed in the future and in essence what we're doing here is to for provide for quarterly g a o require quarterly g a o reports as those monies are distributed and i will yield i think you don't have my correct a gentleman had spoke to the gayo and the quarterly was something they thought they could deal with as opposed to a monthly right correct the gentleman is correct we had initially looked at him short timeframe from my point of view looking to get as much information as quickly as possible to quarterly as is there any further discussion you have not the question is on the amendment t five minutes it's my understanding majority intends to accept this amendment then this is a very important amendment what the theme and that would do is simply make the permanent disaster voucher program subject to appropriation the said we will come back after the vote we can finish this bill by six or six thirty i remind people again we have one roll call pending there may be another want to have final passage those votes will be ten a m but we will hope to finish the bill tonight