U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

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

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

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

49–956 PDF 2009

STILL POST-KATRINA: HOW FEMA 

DECIDES WHEN HOUSING 

RESPONSIBILITIES END 

(111–37) 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON 

ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, PUBLIC BUILDINGS, AND 

EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON 

TRANSPORTATION AND 

INFRASTRUCTURE 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

May 22, 2009 

Printed for the use of the 

Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure 

( 

COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE 

JAMES L. OBERSTAR, Minnesota, Chairman 

NICK J. RAHALL, II, West Virginia, Vice 

Chair 

PETER A. DEFAZIO, Oregon 

JERRY F. COSTELLO, Illinois 

ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of 

Columbia 

JERROLD NADLER, New York 

CORRINE BROWN, Florida 

BOB FILNER, California 

EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas 

GENE TAYLOR, Mississippi 

ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland 

ELLEN O. TAUSCHER, California 

LEONARD L. BOSWELL, Iowa 

TIM HOLDEN, Pennsylvania 

BRIAN BAIRD, Washington 

RICK LARSEN, Washington 

MICHAEL E. CAPUANO, Massachusetts 

TIMOTHY H. BISHOP, New York 

MICHAEL H. MICHAUD, Maine 

RUSS CARNAHAN, Missouri 

GRACE F. NAPOLITANO, California 

DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois 

MAZIE K. HIRONO, Hawaii 

JASON ALTMIRE, Pennsylvania 

TIMOTHY J. WALZ, Minnesota 

HEATH SHULER, North Carolina 

MICHAEL A. ARCURI, New York 

HARRY E. MITCHELL, Arizona 

CHRISTOPHER P. CARNEY, Pennsylvania 

JOHN J. HALL, New York 

STEVE KAGEN, Wisconsin 

STEVE COHEN, Tennessee 

LAURA A. RICHARDSON, California 

ALBIO SIRES, New Jersey 

DONNA F. EDWARDS, Maryland 

SOLOMON P. ORTIZ, Texas 

PHIL HARE, Illinois 

JOHN A. BOCCIERI, Ohio 

MARK H. SCHAUER, Michigan 

BETSY MARKEY, Colorado 

PARKER GRIFFITH, Alabama 

MICHAEL E. MCMAHON, New York 

THOMAS S. P. PERRIELLO, Virginia 

DINA TITUS, Nevada 

HARRY TEAGUE, New Mexico 

JOHN L. MICA, Florida 

DON YOUNG, Alaska 

THOMAS E. PETRI, Wisconsin 

HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina 

JOHN J. DUNCAN, JR., Tennessee 

VERNON J. EHLERS, Michigan 

FRANK A. LOBIONDO, New Jersey 

JERRY MORAN, Kansas 

GARY G. MILLER, California 

HENRY E. BROWN, JR., South Carolina 

TIMOTHY V. JOHNSON, Illinois 

TODD RUSSELL PLATTS, Pennsylvania 

SAM GRAVES, Missouri 

BILL SHUSTER, Pennsylvania 

JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas 

SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West Virginia 

JIM GERLACH, Pennsylvania 

MARIO DIAZ-BALART, Florida 

CHARLES W. DENT, Pennsylvania 

CONNIE MACK, Florida 

LYNN A WESTMORELAND, Georgia 

JEAN SCHMIDT, Ohio 

CANDICE S. MILLER, Michigan 

MARY FALLIN, Oklahoma 

VERN BUCHANAN, Florida 

ROBERT E. LATTA, Ohio 

BRETT GUTHRIE, Kentucky 

ANH ‘‘JOSEPH’’ CAO, Louisiana 

AARON SCHOCK, Illinois 

PETE OLSON, Texas 

(II) 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, PUBLIC BUILDINGS, AND EMERGENCY

MANAGEMENT

ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of Columbia, Chair 

BETSY MARKEY, Colorado 

MICHAEL H. MICHAUD, Maine 

HEATH SHULER, North Carolina 

PARKER GRIFFITH, Alabama 

RUSS CARNAHAN, Missouri 

TIMOTHY J. WALZ, Minnesota 

MICHAEL A. ARCURI, New York 

CHRISTOPHER P. CARNEY, Pennsylvania, 

Vice Chair 

DONNA F. EDWARDS, Maryland 

THOMAS S. P. PERRIELLO, Virginia 

JAMES L. OBERSTAR, Minnesota 

(Ex Officio) 

MARIO DIAZ-BALART, Florida 

TIMOTHY V. JOHNSON, Illinois 

SAM GRAVES, Missouri 

SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West Virginia 

MARY FALLIN, Oklahoma 

BRETT GUTHRIE, Kentucky 

ANH ‘‘JOSEPH’’ CAO, Louisiana 

PETE OLSON, Texas 

(III) 

(V) 

CONTENTS Page 

Summary of Subject Matter .................................................................................... vi 

TESTIMONY 

Garratt, David, Acting Deputy Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency ......................................................................................................... 6 

Jenkins, III, Rt. Rev. Charles E., Tenth Bishop of the Episcopal Diocese 

of Louisiana .......................................................................................................... 6 

Rainwater, Paul, Executive Director, Louisiana Recover Authority ................... 6 

Tombar, III, Fred, Senior Advisor to the Secretary for Disaster and Recover 

Programs, Department of Housing and Urban Development ........................... 6 

PREPARED STATEMENTS SUBMITTED BY MEMBERS OF CONGRESS 

Carnahan, Hon. Russ, of Pennsylvania ................................................................. 50 

Norton, Hon. Eleanor Holmes, of the District of Columbia ................................. 51 

PREPARED STATEMENTS SUBMITTED BY WITNESSES 

Garratt, David .......................................................................................................... 54 

Jenkins, III, Rt. Rev. Charles E. ............................................................................ 114 

Rainwater, Paul ....................................................................................................... 126 

Tombar, III, Fred ..................................................................................................... 131 

SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RECORD 

Garratt, David, Acting Deputy Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency: ........................................................................................................

Responses to questions from the Subcommittee ......................................... 67 

Responses to questions from Rep. Norton, a Representative in Congress 

from the District of Columbia .................................................................. 105 

Tombar, III, Fred, Senior Advisor to the Secretary for Disaster and Recover 

Programs, Department of Housing and Urban Development: ..........................

Response to question from Rep. Norton, a Representative in Congress 

from the District of Columbia .................................................................. 134 

Responses to questions from the Subcommittee ......................................... 135 

vi 


Insert offset folio 1 here 49956.001
vii 


Insert offset folio 2 here 49956.002
viii 


Insert offset folio 3 here 49956.003
ix 


Insert offset folio 4 here 49956.004
x 


Insert offset folio 5 here 49956.005
xi 


Insert offset folio 6 here 49956.006
(1) 

STILL POST-KATRINA: HOW FEMA DECIDES 

WHEN HOUSING RESPONSIBILITIES END 

Friday, May 22, 2009 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, SUBCOMMITTEE ON ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, PUBLIC

BUILDINGS AND EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT, COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE, Washington, DC. 

The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:05 a.m., in Room 

2167, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Eleanor Holmes Norton 

[Chair of the Subcommittee] presiding. 

Ms. NORTON. We want to welcome today’s witnesses. 

Congress had scheduled to be in session but recessed early because it finished its business yesterday. But we thought this hearing was of great importance and that we should not postpone it. 

We recognize that it poses some inconvenience to the Ranking 

Member, who will have to leave early. As a Federal official, it has 

to do with a subject not unrelated to the subject before us, FEMA 

and hurricanes and what to do about them before and after, but 

we are going to proceed because of disturbing reports that need to 

be cleared up by this Committee and need to be cleared up in short 

order. 

So we will address today the Federal Emergency Management 

Agency and Department of Housing and Urban Development, how 

these two agencies will resolve still-outstanding issues that the 

Federal Government faces in providing housing to families whose 

homes were destroyed or damaged by Hurricane Katrina. 

The hurricane made landfall August 29th, 2005, and proved to 

be the costliest natural disaster in American history. The storm 

had massive physical impact on the land, affecting 90,000 square 

miles, an area the size of Great Britain. Under the authority granted to the President in the Stafford Act, the President declared a 

major disaster in the States of Louisiana and Mississippion the 

date the storm made landfall. 

Approximately 143,000 families were housed in FEMA-provided 

travel trailers and mobile homes as a result of Hurricane Katrina. 

Since this peak, most families were transitioned to more permanent housing. As of May 14th, 2009, approximately 4,052 temporary housing units continue to be in use in Louisiana. FEMA has 

also provided $7.8 billion in financial assistance to about 2.4 million households through FEMA’s Individuals and Households Program. FEMA’s housing program formally ended on May 1st, 2009. 

The housing program for Hurricane Katrina was unusually long 

and involved, as far more individuals needed housing assistance beVerDate Aug 31 2005 11:14 Mar 15, 2010 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00013 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\49956 JASON
2 

cause of the unusually catastrophic nature of the disaster. To address ongoing housing needs of individuals who could not return to 

their homes in the Gulf Coast, FEMA used its authority under Section 408 of the Stafford Act and the Disaster Relief Fund and delegated authority to HUD to implement the Disaster Housing Assistance Program, or DHAP. 

DHAP is a pilot program to provide temporary long-term housing 

and related services for families that continue to need housing as 

a result of Hurricane Katrina. Unlike FEMA’s rental assistance 

program, which provides payments directly to residents who pay 

landlords, DHAP worked through public housing agencies, providing rental payments directly to landlords. 

The DHAP program began on December 1st, 2007, and served 

36,816 families. The program was scheduled to end on March 1st, 

2009. However, Congress appropriated $85 million to transition 

program families in DHAP, extending the last eligible payments to 

August 2009. Initially, 24,343 families were assisted through this 

transitional program. HUD estimates that approximately 18,000 

families remain in the program as of May 2009. 

The situation we now face was both predicted and predictable. It 

has been clear from the recent FEMA hearings that those left in 

disaster housing will be the most vulnerable members of society, 

who may have had prior difficulties that have been exacerbated by 

the disaster. While these programs have formally ended, we still 

have families without a long-term housing solution. 

In order to facilitate an orderly transition, I wrote to the thenAdministrator of FEMA last July, requesting that the March 1st, 

2009, deadline be extended and announced immediately. While 

FEMA did extend the program three times, in each instance the extensions were announced at the last minute, causing unnecessary 

stress and hardship. 

My fear last summer was that this would be repeated as the 

March 1st, 2009, deadline created by the Bush administration approached and that this date would essentially push this program 

to the new administration to scramble to address this issue. That 

is exactly what has happened. The Obama administration was compelled to announce the March 2009 extension. 

Even with this deadline, it appears that many of the most vulnerable citizens still in disaster housing have not had enough time 

to find permanent solutions to their housing needs, or if they 

have—and have not found those needs, then we need to know why. 

Is it them and their refusal to accept the available housing? We 

can’t always have the housing we want. Or is it the failure of the 

government? And this Committee is open, because we want to resolve this issue, not point fingers one way or the other. 

The testimony we will receive today paints a conflicting picture. 

The testimony of our Federal witnesses and our State witnesses describe a much improved situation on the ground in the Gulf from 

what we have seen in the past. However, other testimony and recent disturbing media reports, including some front-page articles, 

indicate that there are families without a long-term housing solution facing eviction from disaster housing. In today’s hearing we 

hope to ascertain whether these are isolated cases that are symptoVerDate Aug 31 2005 11:14 Mar 15, 2010 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00014 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\49956 JASON
3 

matic of broader issues still outstanding after the issue or what the 

cause is. 

The Subcommittee does not want to be understood, however, to 

say that FEMA should provide housing assistance indefinitely. The 

statute does not allow HUD to do that. It is also unacceptable, 

however, to turn people out of their disaster housing with nowhere 

to go. 

Ultimately, it is also required—and this is important—that residents accept available housing, even if it is not in the location they 

desire. Many Americans are, as I speak, living in hotels, without 

jobs, where they do not desire. Only rich people can live where they 

desire. So it is important that residents accept the available housing, even if they prefer the temporary housing or other housing. 

We have to resolve this issue. We cannot allow people to be put 

out in the street, but we will not allow people to stay where they 

are simply because they prefer it that way. 

FEMA and HUD have developed new and innovative housing 

programs to address the unprecedented disaster housing needs. 

However, these programs did provide housing solutions for the vast 

majority of families left without housing by Hurricane Katrina. The 

Subcommittee looks forward to hearing the testimony of today’s 

witnesses, addressing once and for all—let’s hope this is the last 

time—how we can resolve the ongoing housing needs of those families who are still experiencing the consequences of this devastating 

disaster. 

I am pleased now to ask our Ranking Member, Mr. Diaz-Balart, 

if he has any opening remarks. 

Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

Once again, I commend you and thank you for this hearing. And 

we agree. We agree on not only the basics but I think even on most 

of the details. 

I may be a little repetitive, but I think it bears repeating basically what you have just said. Again, as you just said, Madam 

Chair, this program for families displaced by Katrina and Rita 

ended the 1st of May. And those who remain in temporary housing 

are expected to either vacate their trailers or hotel rooms by the 

end of this month. Now, as you mentioned, it was 143,000 individuals after Katrina and Rita who were provided temporary housing. 

And, again, now we are almost 4 years later and there are still 

over 5,000 remaining. 

And, obviously, the Stafford Act, as you also stated, authorizes 

FEMA temporary housing programs up to 18 months of housing, 

which can be extended, as has been done by the President, obviously, under special circumstances. Now, in this case, the housing 

program was extended for more than 2 years beyond the 18-month 

limit. 

So, obviously, it is an important issue, and how FEMA decided 

and decides when housing responsibilities end is an appropriate 

issue to address. And that is why again, Madam Chair, I want to 

thank you for this hearing. 

We are currently facing an ugly decision: either extending the 

temporary program indefinitely, I guess, or discontinuing the program for 5,000 people. And, obviously, neither one of those options 

is attractive. 

4 

Forty-four months now, families and individuals have lived in 

travel trailers or hotel rooms, obviously never intended for longterm use. But even after all this time, there seems to be no other 

solution that has been developed. And, you know, there has not 

been a real, viable solution developed and implemented by the 

State and local governments to address the long-term affordable 

housing needs for low-income residents. 

And, in fact, it was discovered during a staff trip to New Orleans 

last fall, some low-income housing units with minimal damage 

were slated to be torn down. Rental rates were three to four times 

what they were pre-Katrina. And people who were unemployed, obviously, were priced out of available housing markets. 

And then here we are, months later, on the verge of ending the 

temporary housing program with, again, no viable, no attractive, no 

real, viable option for these low-income individuals and families. 

On top of that, we have still no national recovery strategy, as 

mandated by the Post-Katrina Emergency Management Reform Act 

of 2006. It seems that, instead of improving, we may have actually 

been going backwards. Again, that is at least a perception that I 

think some of us have. 

Now, when FEMA was moved into the Department of Homeland 

Security, its focus obviously shifted, unfortunately, and its capabilities were diminished. And we understand why that shift happened, 

because terrorism is something that has to be dealt with, but, 

again, we also, I think, see the consequences. And, as witnesses 

testified at the Full Committee hearing just last week, some recovery issues seem to have been neglected in that shift. So, as a result, long-term recovering housing strategies were put, frankly, on 

the back burner. And today we are still picking up the pieces and 

trying to figure out what to do. 

The Post-Katrina Act required the development of a number of 

strategies, including a national housing disaster strategy and a national recovery strategy. The national housing disaster strategy 

was only finalized in January of this year, and the national recovery strategy has yet to be done. 

In addition, FEMA’s recovery role requires that it be able to plan 

and coordinate effectively with other Federal agencies, as well as 

with State and local officials. Obviously, without that, it cannot 

function adequately. Working with agencies like HUD proactively 

in the planning process, as opposed to reactively after a major disaster strikes, is crucial, obviously, to an effective recovery effort. 

Now, in the case of Katrina, at a February hearing before this 

Subcommittee, I noted that no real strategy was developed to address the long-term housing issues in Louisiana. That hearing took 

place just as FEMA’s direct housing assistance program and the 

HUD’s disaster housing assistance program had just had been extended. And, as I said, here we are now in May with the same dilemma that we were facing in February. So, again, there lies the 

problem. 

Earlier this month, the Chair held a field hearing in southern 

Florida to examine preparedness for the 2009 hurricane season. In 

my remarks at that hearing, I described the scenario of Hurricane 

Ono, a hurricane model used for catastrophic planning in Florida. 

5 

And Hurricane Ono is not a weird theoretical thing; it is actually 

modeled and based on the 1926 Great Miami Hurricane. 

If such a disaster occurred, the consequences would be devastating. It would require the evacuation of 3 million people. Again, 

this is according to the simulations. Most of south Florida would 

be under one to four feet of water for weeks. Homes of 70 percent 

of the population would be destroyed, and millions would be without electricity. And these are only a few of the nightmares that 

would happen. 

And there is nothing that says that such a hurricane could not 

happen this season, next season, or the next season. Again, it has 

already happened. We cannot think that Hurricane Katrina is a 

once-in-a-generation or once-in-a-lifetime disaster, unfortunately. 

So we obviously must ensure adequate time and resources are focused on recovery following a disaster. 

And housing is a huge part of that. Without long-term housing 

strategies, families that are displaced will find it very difficult to 

return to their communities. And the communities will not be able 

to rebuild and begin anew. 

So, while we look at the continued housing issues in Louisiana 

and Mississippi today, we should also look forward as to how we 

can prepare for the next big disaster that we all know—we hope 

it won’t come, but we know that one day it probably will. 

Again, if Hurricane Ono hits south Florida today, how long will 

that recovery take? And we know how long past recoveries have 

taken. Will the same long-term housing issues resurface, or are 

there other improvements that have been made? Obviously, it is essential that we prepare for the future but don’t forget the lessons 

learned from past storms like Katrina and others. 

Again, I look forward to your testimony. I thank you all for your 

service, and I thank you all for being here today. 

Madam Chair, could I just—it is related, but it is kind of a little 

bit off-subject, but I just want to throw a question out there real 

quick. 

Ms. NORTON. By all means. 

The Ranking Member has to catch a plane, has nevertheless 

come to the hearing. 

And you are free to ask questions. 

Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

And I don’t expect the answer right now. But I was actually on 

the phone with a constituent this week, and she reminded me of 

the issue with pets, the evacuation of pets. And, obviously Congress 

passed that Pets Evacuation and Transportation Standards Act, 

which authorized assistance for the provisions of rescue, care, and 

shelter for individuals and their pets or service animals. The law 

required FEMA to insure that State emergency preparedness operation plans take into account the needs of individuals with household pets and service animals prior to, during, and following a 

major disaster emergency. 

If you could, when you get a chance, get back to my office as to 

where that is, you know, what are the plans, just where are we, 

what is the status of that. Because, actually, she reminded me of 

it, and I thought it was a really good issue. And, as she said herself, there may have been instances, probably were, of people who 

6 

just refused to evacuate because they had a pet. And that is what 

the law was meant to deal with. 

Anyway, if you could just, when you get a chance—not now, I 

know you are not going to be prepared to answer that right now, 

but if you can get me that information, I would greatly appreciate 

that. 

Thank you for your indulgence, Madam Chair. 

And thank you, and I look forward to the hearing. 

Ms. NORTON. We have called all of you on the same panel. Normally we have Federal officials and then State officials, but what 

we are trying to do in this hearing is to resolve this issue once and 

for all. And therefore nobody is going to be able to say something 

after somebody is gone. We are all going to be able to hear what 

each has said so that we can finally say we believe the hearing has 

brought us to the point where everybody has an understanding of 

his responsibilities. 

TESTIMONY OF DAVID GARRATT, ACTING DEPUTY ADMINISTRATOR, FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY; 

FRED TOMBAR, III, SENIOR ADVISOR TO THE SECRETARY 

FOR DISASTER AND RECOVER PROGRAMS, DEPARTMENT OF 

HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT; PAUL RAINWATER, 

EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, LOUISIANA RECOVER AUTHORITY; 

AND THE RT. REV. CHARLES E. JENKINS, III, TENTH BISHOP 

OF THE EPISCOPAL DIOCESE OF LOUISIANA 

Ms. NORTON. So let us begin with Mr. David Garratt, who is the 

acting deputy administrator of FEMA. 

Mr. GARRATT. Thank you. Good morning, Chair Norton and 

Ranking Member Diaz-Balart. 

It is pleasure to see you again, I am privileged to appear before 

you today on behalf of the Department of Homeland Security and 

the Federal Emergency Management Agency. 

As always, we appreciate your interest in and continued support 

of emergency management, specifically disaster housing, and in the 

efforts of the men and women who support that undertaking at 

every level of government and within the private and volunteer sectors. 

The engagement of congress in this challenging issue highlights 

the complexities that face States, local governments, voluntary 

agencies and the Federal family as we collectively look at providing 

disaster housing in a way that meets the temporary and immediate 

emergency disaster housing needs of individuals affected by disasters as well as encourages and supports their transition to self-sufficiency. 

Despite many challenges, FEMA and our partners, notably the 

Department of Housing and Urban Development have supported 

and facilitated the successful transition of more than 97 percent of 

those affected by hurricanes Katrina and Rita to long-term and 

permanent housing. 

While FEMA-supported temporary disaster housing programs 

have ended in the Gulf Coast States, FEMA is continuing to work 

with its Federal, State and local partners to ensure a smooth transition into more permanent housing solutions. 

7 

In response to hurricanes Katrina and Rita, FEMA conducted the 

largest temporary housing operation in the history of the country, 

providing temporary housing units to more than 143,000 families 

across the Gulf Coast. Additionally, FEMA has provided more than 

$7.8 billion in housing and other needs assistance, such as transportation, clothing and furniture, to roughly 2.4 million individuals 

and households affected by the hurricanes. 

By law, eligible disaster survivors may receive temporary housing assistance for a period of 18 months from the date of the disaster declaration, unless that is extended. Because of the extraordinarily catastrophic impacts of hurricanes Katrina and Rita, the 

period of assistance was extended more than 2 additional years. In 

September 2007, housing assistance for hurricanes Katrina and 

Rita disaster operations in the States of Louisiana, Mississippi and 

Alabama was extended, establishing a final end date of March 1, 

2009. 

In February 2009, Secretary Napolitano announced that families 

would be given an additional 2 months to finalize their long-term 

housing plans. This extension also served to give the States additional time to establish a refined transition support capacity. 

Since the temporary housing unit program began nearly 4 years 

ago, FEMA has never stopped working with occupants to transition 

them out of the program and into more permanent and suitable 

homes. As of the programs end-date of May 1, FEMA has been providing temporary housing for more than 44 months, 26 months beyond the statutory limit. 

Despite the end of this unprecedented period of assistance, 

FEMA will continue to make every effort to encourage and assist 

individuals and families to find long-term housing to fulfill their 

needs. Over the course of our assistance program, FEMA has regularly and routinely made direct in-person contact with occupants to 

follow up on their recovery plans, locate and offer them rental resources that address their individual housing needs, and make social service referrals to local, State and voluntary organizations. 

Additionally FEMA has coordinated with their housing contractors on timelines for repairs, referred occupants to local, State and 

voluntary organizations that are able to provide assistance with 

building materials, volunteers to help them rebuild, et cetera; located and offered affordable rental resources when it was determined that the rebuilding would take longer than expected; and offered every household the minimum of three affordable rental resources that met the household’s individual housing needs. 

In addition, many occupants have expressed an interest in purchasing their FEMA-provided temporary housing units. Today 

1,162 individuals and households have completed or are pending 

final completion of the sale of their unit. In 2007, FEMA partnered 

with the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development to 

create and pilot the Disaster Housing Assistance Program, a grant 

program that provides grant subsidies for non HUD-assisted families displaced by hurricanes Katrina and Rita. HUD utilizes its existing network of local public housing agencies to administer this 

program. 

In the nearly 4 years since Hurricane Katrina, FEMA has 

worked to address the continuing housing challenges arising out of 

8 

the 2005 hurricane season while also responding to the needs of 

many disaster survivors in communities affected by more recent 

disasters. FEMA continues to institutionalize best practices and expand our disaster housing capabilities. Nevertheless the disaster 

housing environment will always be physically and socially demanding and never more so than under catastrophic circumstances. 

So FEMA will continue to work with Katrina and Rita-affected 

States to support case management efforts; and, as we look to the 

future, continue to collaborate with Congress and our Federal, 

State and local partners to aggressively explore new and innovative 

forms of housing; refine and improve delivery systems; expand and 

unify planning activities; and cooperatively engage with States to 

improve their own disaster housing capabilities. 

Thank you. I look forward to your questions. 

Ms. NORTON. Thank you very much, Mr. Garratt. 

Mr. Fred Tombar the senior advisor to the Secretary for Disaster 

Recovery Program at HUD. 

Mr. TOMBAR. Good morning Chair Norton, Ranking Member 

Diaz-Balart, I am Frederick Tombar, senior advisor to Secretary 

Shaun Donovan at the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. Thank you for inviting me to testify today. 

On behalf of the Secretary Donovan, I want to first express 

HUD’s commitment to seeing the Gulf Coast fully recover. That 

commitment began with our plan to ensure that participants of the 

Disaster Housing Assistance Program, or DHAP, were able to make 

a smooth transition off of the program into more permanent housing. 

We worked with Congress and FEMA to provide additional assistance to families through August 31st of this year. Also, on 

March 5th, the Secretary joined Secretary Napolitano on a trip to 

the Gulf Coast to see the recovery firsthand. President Obama and 

Secretary Donovan are absolutely committed to helping the Gulf 

Coast fully recover. 

HUD continues to work closely with FEMA, State and local governments and public housing agencies to assist impacted families 

who were impacted by hurricanes Katrina and Rita. This includes 

family that resided or currently reside in FEMA’s temporary housing unit program, or THUs. 

Madam Chair, as you mentioned, FEMA offered each family at 

least three rental housing resources that met their individual housing needs and were within the fair market rent rate established by 

HUD for the area. FEMA also offered each THU family a referral 

to DHAP, which provided rental assistance and case management 

services to over 30,000 displaced families. Every family that resided in a FEMA THU was offered this assistance, but some chose 

not to participate and currently reman in FEMA THUs. The program ended officially May 1st, 2009, but as of May 14th, approximately 4,000 families still reside in THU units in Louisiana and 

Mississippi. 

FEMA THU families who agreed to participate in DHAP are eligible for transitional rental payments under the DHAP Katrina 

Transitional Closeout Plan. As part of this program, nearly $7 million was allocated to support the Louisiana Recovery Authority 

with DHAP closeout case management for Louisiana participants. 

9 

HUD and FEMA are providing this additional assistance to families to give them more time to transition out of the DHAP. 

Although current THU families that turned down DHAP are no 

longer eligible for assistance, HUD has worked with States who 

identified alternative resources to aid families. The two primary 

sources of funding that can be used to support these families that 

are currently in THUs, are HUD’s Home Investment Partnership 

program, or HOME, and the Community Development Block Grant 

Program, CDBG. 

Mississippi and Louisiana both received annual HOME allocations to increase the affordable housing stock in their States, and 

each State has significant amounts of unexpended home funds. 

Nearly half or 43 percent of these funds have not been committed 

by the States to a HOME activity or a unit of local government and 

may be available for HOME-funded tenant-based rental assistance 

programs. Assuming that a State allocated $10 million of HOME funds to 

TBRA and provided an average annual per-family subsidy of 

$4,500, it could fund HOME TBRA for over 2,200 families. Using 

these same assumptions, assisting 5,000 families per year would 

cost $22.5 million. 

The Gulf Coast States also receive CDBG disaster funding for 

long-term rebuilding and recovery. Mississippi and Louisiana both 

currently have a significant amount of CDBG disaster funding remaining that has been awarded but not disbursed. 

Beyond CDBG and HOME, HUD has also awarded or is in the 

process of awarding additional voucher funding to the Gulf Coast 

States. In the Consolidated Security Disaster Assistance and Continuing Appropriations Act of 2009, HUD received an additional 

$50 million for project-based vouchers. These funds will increase 

the affordable housing stock within the region by more than 6,500 

units. 

Under separate funding, HUD awarded $23 million in projectbased vouchers to the Louisiana Recovery Authority. This funding 

is anticipated to provide approximately 2,500 vouchers in Louisiana. 

Thank you for the opportunity to discuss resources that can be 

used to provide housing to FEMA THU families in Louisiana and 

Mississippi. 

I am now happy to take any questions you have and again want 

to thank Chair Norton and the Members of this Committee for the 

opportunity to speak to you today. 

Ms. NORTON. Thank you very much Mr. Tombar. 

Mr. Paul Rainwater, executive director of Louisiana Recovery 

Authority. 

Mr. RAINWATER. Thank you, Madam Chair and Ranking Member 

Diaz-Balart, for all your support in the Gulf Coast. And thank you 

for allowing me to come here to talk to you about the critical matter of transitioning those currently in temporary disaster housing 

in Louisiana. 

Although we are making great progression in Louisiana, we have 

to remember that some of that progress was slowed by Hurricanes 

Gustav and Ike, and the credit crunch has caused some challenges 

in our rebuilding of housing. 

10 

At the height of post-Katrina and Rita FEMA trailer program in 

Louisiana, we had more than 76,000 active trailer leases. Through 

homeowners rebuilding their houses using Road Home money, we 

have disbursed $8 billion to 124,000 Road Home applicants, and 

other funds, the Disaster Housing Assistance Program and rental 

units being restored and other recovery efforts, this number has 

been whittled down to fewer than 3,000 residents. 

Working together with FEMA and HUD and many nonprofits 

across the state, we are reaching out to those remaining in trailer 

residences to ensure that they are not made homeless at the end 

of the month. Already we have housed 25 residents who had to vacate their FEMA-subsidized hotel rooms at the beginning of May 

through our existing rapid rehousing program funded through 

Community Block Grants. 

Additionally our staff each day speaks to trailer residents to determine their needs and also meets with FEMA to review files and 

cases on an individual basis to find solutions that will prevent 

these citizens from becoming homeless. 

Our staff has been assured many times by FEMA staff in Louisiana that FEMA will work with trailer residents on a case-bycase basis to ensure that families are not adversely affected by 

these trailer deadlines. We are sharing information with those—we 

have about 426 folks that are in trailers that are Road Home applicants and also applying for hazard mitigation money to help them 

complete their homes. FEMA and our staff share this information 

on a daily basis. 

We have seen great commitment from the new acting head of the 

Transition Recovery Office in Louisiana, Tony Russell, and we 

thank FEMA and the Department of Homeland Security for sending him to us. He understands why this housing issue is so critical 

and has tried to approach this transition with a compassion for disaster victims, and his hard work has not gone unnoticed in Louisiana. 

Some of these residents can be assisted through other programs. 

Some may be able to keep their trailers temporarily while they finish home repairs, and others may benefit from FEMA’s donations 

and sales programs that will allow them to keep their temporary 

housing units. 

Beginning this month, the Louisiana Recovery Authority and the 

Louisiana Department of Social Services has secured up to $2 million in Social Services Block Grant Money to provide case management for this population. 

We do know that may of those who remain in trailers are homeowners who have difficulty completing their home repairs. Data 

from early March showed that the majority of those in trailers who 

were Road Home applicants, about 1,800, had received some level 

of funding from the program. However, many cases for many reasons there are gaps in their financing, and it is preventing them 

from moving forward quickly. To address this, we have two pilot 

housing rebuilding programs that we will soon send to HUD for approval. 

In addition, there are a variety of Community Block Grant and 

HOME-funded rebuilding programs that have been pushed down to 

nonprofits and to municipalities underway in Louisiana, particuVerDate Aug 31 2005 11:14 Mar 15, 2010 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00022 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\49956 JASON
11 

larly in New Orleans, and the State’s $73 million Permanent Supportive Voucher Program will start next month. 

We also must transition 14,831 individuals receiving aid from a 

the Disaster Housing Assistance Program administered through 

HUD. Earlier this year, HUD Secretary Shaun Donovan granted a 

6-month extension of DHAP. We cannot thank him enough for this 

action, which has been critical to assuring that we prevent mass 

homelessness in Louisiana. Additionally HUD is allowing the State 

up to $8 million for case management of this population. In only 

3 weeks, more than 9,000 clients have been signed up. So far about 

3,450 residents had their request to be converted from Disaster 

Housing Assistance Program vouchers to more Permanent Housing 

Voucher Process. 

The State has also completed much repair work, which I have 

outlined in my submitted testimony. We also aim to have more 

than 5,000 new rental units online by the end of this year, which 

will help greatly with creating affordable housing, particularly in 

New Orleans. 

I want to thank the Subcommittee for allowing me to come here 

today. We have much work to do, but we are making much 

progress. Thank you. 

Mr. DIAZ-BALART. [presiding.] Thank you so much for your testimony. 

Our last witness is Rev. Charles Jenkins, III. Thank you for 

being here, sir, we appreciate your time and look forward to your 

testimony. 

Rev. JENKINS. Thank you. My name is Charles Jenkins. I am 

Bishop of the Episcopal Diocese of Louisiana. I reside in the Second 

Congressional District in New Orleans. And I want you to know 

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

the three previous speakers. 

I have been FEMA registered. I received help from FEMA. I have 

been food step eligible. I am Road Home qualified. I have been 

homeless. I have been called a refugee in my own country. 

However, it was the former resident of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue who helped me understand my identity. He was frustrated, 

and in a televised speech said, ′′those people down there need to 

understand.′′ 

The next day, an African American minister said, ′′Bishop, have 

you ever been called ’one of those people’ before?′′ 

I shook my head no. 

He said, welcome to the club. 

So I am glad to be one of those people down there. 

Two days ago, I went to the home of Ernest Hammond on Annette Street in the Seventh Ward of New Orleans. One of our volunteer team there, composed of volunteers, Presbyterians, Methodists, Catholics and Episcopalians from Pennsylvania, New Jersey 

and New Hampshire, were cleaning out his home. We had been 

told of Mr. Hammond and his dilemma prior to the New York 

Times article May 8th. Our case managers are visiting with him. 

The smell of the rot and dirt and the mold pushed at me as I 

went into his house. I thought I would never smell that again. 

Surely, I thought, we are beyond that. 

12 

Now this man is not one of that slice of society that will always 

be dependent on others. He is 71-years-old. He drove a truck for 

31 years until the company went out of business. He was a renter 

in this place for 11 years, saved his dollars, and then bought it. He 

did not receive any FEMA or Road Home money because it is a triplex. 

His yard is planted in vegetables. He has sweet sugar cane or 

soft sugar cane, as we call it there, and citrus. He will gladly show 

you the hole in the roof he cut to get out of his attic and the axe 

he used to cut it. He will show you the cans that he collects daily 

to sell. And by the way, this is a smart man, he is playing the future market on crushed cans, which is now down to about 30 cents 

a pound. He sells only what he needs to supplement his $250-amonth Social Security check. He hopes that the price of cans will 

go back up to 85 cents. We wonder how the recession hurts the 

poor. 

He bought his house from his landlord using all of his savings. 

A few weeks ago, a FEMA representative stopped by to say that, 

at the end of the month, his trailer would be taken away. This 

proud, hardworking man today leaned against the wall and weeps 

huge tears. He said he has had no help until the Episcopal Church 

came to him. He has nowhere to go when his trailer is taken. What 

is the value of that trailer? Who needs it, except him? There are 

two trailers on that lot, and I hesitate to say this in front of FEMA, 

but as soon as the last family moved out, another one moved in. 

Don’t leave them vacant down there. 

A date for the ending of trailers in DHAP is set to satisfy whom? 

Not us. It really doesn’t matter what date you set because we cannot meet it. 

Chair Norton, it is not a matter of a refusal to meet it, but a 

deadline of next week or next year is for us a humanitarian crisis, 

not because we refuse but because we are unable. I ask that you 

take away the yardstick, the charts, the requirements. I haven’t 

quoted any figures this morning of these agencies and that you 

build a human needs-based program. When the needs are met, 

then end the program. We have people in Calcasieu Parish from 

Rita that are still living in tent cities. They haven’t even gotten the 

trailers yet. 

I plead with you to move beyond the Catch-22 design that always 

catches the poor in a frightening vise of what one lady, Mrs. B, 

whose husband is a Vietnam Veteran, has cancer, and she has to 

unplug his breathing machine to run the appliances to cook dinner. 

They would love to get out of that trailer. The bed is too small; he 

has bedsores. Let me move ahead. 

The problem is one of effective case management. I am still running a very effective case management program in New Orleans 

with three people. We have helped 672 families since the KAT program folded. They tell us, ′′you are not only doing a good job, 

Bishop, but treating us as human beings.′′ The much anticipated 

disaster case management pilot never happened in Louisiana. 

In conclusion, it seems to us arbitrary. It seems to us threatening. It frightens us with these seemingly arbitrary decisions to 

please someone else, to end these programs. And they are not going 

to motivate us, ma’am. We are doing the best we can. 

13 

I will have taken on Mr. and Mrs. B, and I have taken on Mr. 

Hammond. They will in time be all right. Certainly some of us are 

that demographic slice who will never be able to live without public 

support. But most of us are not of the chronically unable to cope. 

That is a total mischaracterization. Men like Earnest Hammond 

are heroes. He is coping. 

There was a lady with a sign standing outside the Moriel Convention Center when we were evacuated there. Her sign said, ′′I am 

an American, too.′′ The National Guard trucks rolled by her and 

kept going. We are Americans, too, don’t roll by us again, thank 

you. 

Ms. NORTON. [Presiding.] Yes, you are Americans, and there is 

no such thing as abandoning people to the streets, but we have got 

three agencies here, all of whom claim to be working hard to locate 

these residents, and we don’t seem to have a problem-solving approach for the last remaining residents. 

When you have been able to accommodate thousands upon thousands, it is unfathomable that we would be having this trouble. 

And so let me first ask the Ranking Member if, before he leaves, 

he has any questions beyond that which he has already asked. 

Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Thank you, Madam Chair. I have a list of 

questions, but unfortunately, as you have stated, I have to leave 

because the Secretary of DHS Napolitano is going to be in south 

Florida. I am actually going to go meet her there. 

Thank you for your indulgence, but unfortunately, as you said 

before, I will have to part. I think my questions will have to wait 

until next time, but thank you for this hearing and thank everybody for their testimony. 

Ms. NORTON. Thank you Mr. Diaz-Balart. 

Mr. Tombar on page 1 of your testimony, you say that FEMA has 

offered each family residing in—what is a THU? Temporary Housing Unit. And these three rental resources that met their individual needs, then you name the kinds of needs and they seem— 

they certainly seem reasonable to me—number of bedrooms, accessibility, considerations, units within a reasonable commuting distance. All of these resources were within the fair-market rate established by HUD. Yet you say that residents have refused to locate in any of these three units at their disposal? 

Mr. TOMBAR. Yes, ma’am. 

Ms. NORTON. Now, you will then have to explain to this Subcommittee how that is possible, because we cannot believe that people believe they are entitled to whatever housing is available in the 

United States. People who have been living as long as these people 

have been living in the worst of circumstances would not easily 

say, ′′no, eenie meenie minie mo, you go back and find some more; 

I am not leaving.′′ 

You have got to explain why that is happening. Who is working 

with these residents? How many such residents are there in Louisiana and in Mississippi who are given housing that meets the requirements you just named, but despite having three sources, have 

turned them down? I want to know how many such people there 

are and what you have do to ascertain how that could possibly happen. 

14 

Mr. TOMBAR. Madam Chair, my colleague Mr. Garratt has the 

details and wants to answer. If I could, before he does, just to let 

you know that I am a native of New Orleans, and the folks that 

we are talking about, many of them are my family members, my 

friends, my former neighbors. And so I know anecdotally and from 

my own experience about people who have been offered and have 

refused these resources. 

Ms. NORTON. Now, so from your own experience Mr. Tombar, 

why, from your own experience, have people turned down three offers? We will go to Mr. Garratt in a minute. Since you are now testifying as an expert witness, tell me why your own friends and relatives would have turned down houses. 

Mr. TOMBAR. There is something very attractive about being near 

home, and these trailers that people have been living in are on 

their lots, at their home. 

Ms. NORTON. On their own lots? 

Mr. TOMBAR. Yes, ma’am. That they are working on, the homes 

that they are working to repair. And these families that I am 

speaking of, that I know of personally who have refused, have refused because they want to stay—— 

Ms. NORTON. Now, are these homes that are likely in fact in time 

to be repaired as they are now in the process of being repaired? Mr. 

Rainwater. 

Mr. RAINWATER. Madam Chair, of the 3,000 trailer residents we 

have in Louisiana, about 1,800 of those were Road Home applicants; 1,400 of those have closed on a Road Home grant. And what 

we are finding is that, in some cases, people will be able to complete their repairs. And FEMA is working closely with us on that 

to time line that out. 

In some cases, we are having folks who are having gap financing 

issues, and so we are starting to take some of the Community 

Block Grant Program money we have and put it aside for a pilot 

reconstruction program so that, because the way the Road Home 

was approved by HUD, we have to be careful that we don’t cause 

the duplication of benefit. And so we get about—— 

Ms. NORTON. So there is a group—now remember, this hearing 

we are regarding is a problem-solver. 

Mr. RAINWATER. Yes, ma’am. 

Ms. NORTON. There is a group that, leave aside the gap group, 

that is a big group in the United States today, by the way. 

Mr. RAINWATER. Yes, ma’am. 

Ms. NORTON. There is a group that could finish the rebuilding of 

their home. Now, just let me ask all of you here, let’s deal with 

that group first, is there any reason why those people who are 

going to have their own home now, who are rebuilding their own 

home should not be left in their trailers until such time as that occurrence? 

Mr. RAINWATER. Madam Chair, we are sharing that information. 

FEMA is sharing the trailer information with us, and we are sharing Road Home information with them. We have two spreadsheets, 

for Road Home applicants and when they got their grant, and then 

FEMA is telling us—— 

Ms. NORTON. Because the people didn’t exactly receive their 

grants in a timely fashion, let’s put that on the record. 

15 

Mr. RAINWATER. Yes, ma’am. 

And I will tell you that we closed 31,000 grants last year, which 

were the toughest grants because of title issues, succession issues 

and those sorts of challenges; the challenges of the contractor in 

2007 had done some of the easiest grants in the beginning. And so 

we did about 30 outreach sessions last year, not outreach, working 

sessions, took the whole staff out, went out in low-income and poor 

communities and just worked with folks to get their grants closed. 

So we have about 1,200 folks left to close. We identified those in 

a FEMA trailer and those who are going to get HOME grants. 

Ms. NORTON. So there we have, Mr. Tombar, a group of people 

who wouldn’t even have the problem, I can understand your problem. 

And by the way the notion of being close, millions of Americans 

who have to travel to get to Washington, D.C., every day because 

the only housing they can afford is 2 hours away from here. So we 

understand. We are not saying that this is for everybody’s convenience. But we can’t believe that people who live in these homes are 

simply looking for the best and the most convenient. 

Now here we have a group of people, let’s see if we can get agreement to the following proposition: With respect to extensions, let 

us, at least for those people who are going to aid in the national 

recovery by rebuilding their own homes, would it not make sense 

for an extension to be granted with respect to those people, just as 

a commonsense way, rather than put them out of their homes, stop 

them from—because they have to then use what income they have 

simply to find a place to live. Wouldn’t it be in the national interest 

and in the interest of the State to at least partition off those people 

for an extension pending some reasonable time for completion of 

their rebuilding of their own homes? Is there agreement on that? 

Rev. JENKINS. Yes, yes. 

Mr. GARRATT. Madam Chair, it is an attractive proposition, but 

in fact, what we are looking at here are, as we calculate it, in Louisiana, 367 families who could complete repairs on their home in 

5 months or less. 

Ms. NORTON. 360 families. 

Mr. GARRATT. 367; another 258 could complete repairs on their 

homes in 11 months or less; and 509 families whose repairs would 

take at least a year to complete, and then another 711 who are not 

rebuilding at all. 

Ms. NORTON. All right. 

Mr. GARRATT. Now, these figures do not indicate that there is active repairs going on. What they reflect is that, were active repairs 

to commence or to continue on these homes in an active way, in 

other words, daily work on these homes, that the home could be repaired in 5 months. 

Ms. NORTON. Now this is good, this is good, this is going—go 

ahead. 

Mr. GARRATT. One point I want to make, it doesn’t 6reflect that 

active rebuilding is necessarily going on in every case. In some 

cases, they have been 5 months away from rebuilding their home 

for a year and a half. It is not quite as simple as just—— 

Ms. NORTON. This is an important point. Can we also say for the 

record that the most serious recession since the Great Depression 

16 

is going on? If anybody is able to pick up a hammer and do anything today when we just finished a stimulus package just short of 

a trillion dollars because even the biggest developers didn’t have 

anything into the ground, I just want us to note that for the record. 

But what you have said, Mr. Garratt, is very important. And I 

am not here indicating that there is a solution, and this is a solution. I am simply trying to disaggregate the problem to see how 

much of a problem we have. 

Now with respect to the rebuilders, it does seem to me that they 

are operating in the national interest and in the interest of the 

State. These are homeowners. 

Mr. Garrett’s figures, I believe, are important figures because 

they show an analysis of what is on the table with respect to the 

rebuilders. At the moment, I have to stress that the work isn’t ongoing, since the only work I know is going into stuff we have given 

people through the Federal Government since we are the only people who can write checks in the world and not have it count 

against our checking account. 

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

stages of rebuilding here. We have to note that our program that 

we were so proud of, Katrina cottages, where we were generous in 

funding, has not so far as I know, and here is a State, produced 

a single unit. I don’t know why I should hold these people to the 

standard of renovating their unit when a whole, big State with 

nothing but billions of dollars flowing in hasn’t been able to 

produce one Katrina cottage. 

Are we holding these people to a standard we are not ourselves 

meeting? And would you explain here for the record why there is 

not even one cottage? I realize these people would not be in 

Katrina cottages, but I am trying to look at some objective measure 

by which to look at, they are getting put out of their trailer, and 

the State having not produced not one housing units from the very 

promising Katrina cottage program. 

Mr. RAINWATER. Yes, Madam Chair. A couple of things. One is, 

we have asked for extensions to FEMA and to HUD—— 

Ms. NORTON. And just like these people are asking for extensions 

in order to do their work. 

Mr. RAINWATER. Yes, ma’am. 

Ms. NORTON. So far, you all are on the same page, but they have 

a whole lot less resources when they come to Katrina and say give 

us some more time. 

Mr. RAINWATER. Yes, ma’am. My point of that is not to point fingers. My point is to say that one of the things that happened to 

us last year was Gustav and Ike. I have been involved in the four, 

Katrina, Rita, Ike and Gustav—— 

Ms. NORTON. That happened to everybody, Mr. Rainwater. It set 

back those people Mr. Garratt told us may have finished in 5 

months. It set back people who, being faced with a recession, have 

been set back perhaps some considerable time. 

Mr. RAINWATER. Yes, ma’am. 

Ms. NORTON. The question for those people, it seems to me, Mr. 

Garratt, and I am coming back to this, might well be, if those peoVerDate Aug 31 2005 11:14 Mar 15, 2010 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00028 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\49956 JASON
17 

ple have the resources to ultimately build, have you looked to see 

whether they could possibly rebuild with the government help that 

is due them and the rest; one question would be if these people 

have the resources with the associated help to build at all. And if 

they do within 5 months, 11 months, 1 year, that is something that 

FEMA and for that matter this Subcommittee might well have to 

take into consideration. We are talking about people who are homeowners, perhaps have a job because they are there or probably 

would be someplace else; people who, with assistance, some assistance, whatever they are due, would in fact be able to rebuild? 

Mr. GARRATT. Once again, it runs the gamut, Madam Chair, 

there are some among that group actively engaged in this and have 

the resources to do that. As I indicated in my testimony, we have 

also been working with them to help them identify contractors and 

to work with voluntary agencies and others who can provide building materials and help for those who cannot do it themselves, but 

the bottom line is it runs the gamut. 

We have got a wide range of engagement on the part of the 

homeowners and how fast, how aggressively they are pursuing rebuilding. 

Ms. NORTON. Are these people receiving some assistance? 

Mr. RAINWATER. Yes, Madam Chair. On the tactical level, on the 

ground, I don’t sit in Baton Rouge, I go out and talk to nonprofits, 

talked to Road Home applicants. My staff and FEMA’s staff walk 

trailers together and talk to applicants, and then they bring the information back to us, and we talk about where they are at. And 

that is where some of these pilot reconstruction programs have 

come from, are from meetings with Road Home applicants and nonprofits about, how do we help them with the gap issue? 

The other piece of this is that the FEMA folks on the ground, the 

Transition Recovery Office, have told us that they will work with 

applicants, if someone is 5 months out or 6 or 7 months out from 

getting their construction complete; they will work with us. 

The other piece that we are trying to do is—— 

Ms. NORTON. They will work with you, of course, working with 

you may mean they can’t be put out of their trailer. 

Mr. RAINWATER. Yes, ma’am, that is right, so they can complete 

their reconstruction. There is a pretty massive effort. 

Ms. NORTON. Does that mean, Mr. Garratt, that FEMA would regard it as reasonable with respect to those people that Mr. Rainwater has identified to allow them to remain in their trailers until 

they can proceed and have their construction done? 

Mr. GARRATT. If that was the only consideration at play here, 

Madam Chair, perhaps, but it is not the only consideration at play 

here. 

The title of this hearing is, ′′Still Post-Katrina: How FEMA Decides When Housing Responsibilities End.′′ What i would like to do 

is just address that as part of a comprehensive answer to this question. 

We provide temporary housing units as a last resort. We provide 

temporary housing units, these forms of manufactured housing, because there are no organic rental resources available to support the 

population that needs this assistance. So we roll these in; we set 

them up, and we provide those to fulfill that gap. We continue to 

18 

provide those until the rental capacity reaches the point it could 

now support a population, and we can move them out of what are 

largely, in the case of travel trailers, an inadequate long-term living environment. We have been up here to testify before about the 

inadequacies of living in a travel trailer; that it is no place for families to live long term. In fact, we have policies in place now that 

only allow us to use those for 6 months in new disasters. We have 

families who have been living in these things for approaching 4 

years at this point. 

Ms. NORTON. I have to stop you there for one second. If these 

families were to move out of these trailers, I am trying to get with 

this group of families here between you and Mr. Rainwater; what 

would happen to those trailers? 

Mr. GARRATT. They would be scrapped, ma’am. 

Ms. NORTON. That is right. So let’s get that on the record. These 

trailers would be scrapped, so that there would be no return to the 

government. Are the trailers costing you anything? 

Mr. GARRATT. Yes, ma’am. We pay operations and maintenance 

for these trailers. 

Ms. NORTON. So tell me what you pay. 

Mr. Garratt. I can tell you what we pay, yes, ma’am. We can get 

these figures—— 

Ms. NORTON. I am talking about—I don’t need the total amount. 

If there is an individual trailer unit, what is it for the maintenance 

of the trailer unit that you pay? Do you pay the heat or the light 

or the utilities or what? 

Mr. GARRATT. No, ma’am. In most cases for trailers that are on 

private property, they pay the utilities for that. 

Ms. NORTON. So what is that it you pay? I am trying to find out 

the outlay of the government as opposed to the outlay of the government, for example, if these people are thrust onto the rental 

market. Let’s do a cost/benefit analysis here. 

Mr. GARRATT. We pay a maintenance contractor. We have maintenance and deactivation contracts. Those contractors—— 

Ms. NORTON. Do you pay essentially the lease of what is going 

to be destroyed? 

Mr. GARRATT. Well, we purchase those units and again we—— 

Ms. NORTON. They are purchased now. You own them. 

Mr. GARRATT. We do. 

Ms. NORTON. So I am trying to find out what you pay. You have 

already bought them. You are going to destroy them. They are 

serving a good purpose at this point. I am not even talking about 

all the people in the trailers. I am talking about the people who 

fit these various months from reconstruction from their home. 

What is the value to the government in putting them—would they, 

in fact—if they were put onto the rental market, would there be 

homes, rental housing for these families if they vacated the trailers? Mr. Tombar, do you want to answer that one? 

Mr. TOMBAR. Yes, ma’am. Yes, in fact, the Governor of Mississippi was recently here meeting with the Secretary of HUD and 

put the vacancy rate in the southern part of Mississippi at upwards 

of 25 percent. 

Ms. NORTON. For market rate for people of the income level, we 

are describing here. 

19 

Mr. TOMBAR. Yes. 

Ms. NORTON. That is what the Governor of Mississippi said. 

Mr. TOMBAR. He said that he has a vacancy rate of nearly 25—— 

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

Mr. TOMBAR. We have, as I testified—— 

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

We are talking about the most vulnerable families—— 

Mr. TOMBAR. You asked the question—I am sorry, ma’am. 

Ms. NORTON. We are talking about the most vulnerable families 

or people who will need housing assistance from you, sir, from you, 

sir, almost all of them, if they are to be moved. 

Mr. TOMBAR. I was speaking about what units are available and 

then there are resources that are available to go with these 

units—— 

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Tombar, would you submit within 2 weeks, 14 

days, based on your own testimony, to this Committee the rental 

units in the State of Mississippi and in the State of Louisiana by 

income that—by contemplating income, whatever is the technical 

term? Never come before this Committee with some notion of a 

rental rate that includes everybody from the richest people to the 

poorest. You didn’t even say it was the fair market rate of what 

level. That is to give us no information. So that is all right, sir. You 

don’t have the information at your fingertips. 

I want to know what is the vacancy rate in the State of Mississippi by county, within 14 days, and by income level. That information alone is useful to the Committee. We are not going to require the government to do what is impossible, but we are not 

going to accept massive nonsense figures like that. 

Mr. TOMBAR. Ma’am, if I could—— 

Ms. NORTON. It is very interesting that there is nobody from Mississippi here, and I said to the staff there should have been. But 

your answer—this whole hearing is about Louisiana and you 

quoted me a rate for Mississippi. Now quote me the rate for New 

Orleans. Quote me the rate for Louisiana. 

Mr. TOMBAR. I will. And if I could, that was the first part of my 

answer. The second part of my answer is that there are resources 

available to subsidize rent for families that cannot afford it, as I 

testified to in my testimony. 

Ms. NORTON. Okay. Now, this is important. Wait a minute. Section 8 housing, we had phone calls to my office telling me that— 

this is an example of a family who—it came from someone in the 

District of Columbia that found housing for her own disabled—for 

some disabled relatives. When she found the housing, FEMA 

agreed that it must have been within the rate that FEMA would 

allow people. Now she is being told that FEMA will no longer pay 

because she is going to be past the deadline. And, by the way, she 

has been told to get out of the housing on a date soon to come, not 

August, but get out of the date now. So these people are receiving 

these notices now. So she has been told to get out of the housing 

or pay. Then she went to HUD and they said—I think this was in 

the Baton Rouge area, and they said we don’t have any Section 8 

housing available. 

20 

This is a disabled person. What would be available to that person 

whose relative has been rendering self help in the first place and 

paid the rent until the relative qualified, since she has been told 

there is no Section 8 housing and she is disabled, what should my 

office tell this relative that your testimony is here today. 

Mr. TOMBAR. Yes, ma’am. For—I assume that she is near East 

Baton Rouge Parish. And I have numbers here. For East Baton 

Rouge Parish we have made available 459 vouchers for families 

and prioritize—that housing authority has prioritized elderly and 

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

so—— 

Ms. NORTON. Explain that to me. So you say most of them have 

come forward, 300 out of—— 

Mr. TOMBAR. Out of 459, 300 have been—families have been invited in to make themselves available of those vouchers. 

Ms. NORTON. Oh, excuse me. I thought you meant 300 had, in 

fact, accepted the vouchers. 

Mr. TOMBAR. That number actually is 206. 

Ms. NORTON. So is this about half of them? So your testimony 

to me is that there is Section 8 housing, voucher housing, available 

in the Baton Rouge area. 

Mr. TOMBAR. In the Baton Rouge area, in the New Orleans area, 

in places throughout southern Louisiana, there are resources available for families. Each of these housing authorities, we have been 

working them since immediately after the storm, ma’am, to get 

them to prioritize, providing resources to families that were displaced by Hurricanes Katrina and Rita. We have provided—this 

Congress has provided $85 million to convert families that were 

previously on DHAP program to the Permanent Housing Choice 

Voucher program. With that, we have prioritized families who are 

elderly and disabled, like the woman that you mentioned. So there 

are resources available in those States—in those communities for 

those families. In fact, you asked specifically about New Orleans. 

In New Orleans, there is a list of landlords who have come into our 

local housing authority there saying that they are willing to make 

their units available to eligible families, that runs now over a thousand landlords along a thousand units long that has been sitting 

there without new—— 

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Rainwater, I hear this testimony from HUD. 

They have got a glut of housing here, if we can only get somebody 

to take it is essentially what he is saying. Can you make this Subcommittee understand what the issue here is? See, I am dealing 

with the trailers differently. I gave Mr. Tombar a question regarding somebody who is renting. I have to assume, and I must say I 

find this puzzling, if this person is in housing that was approved 

by HUD with Mr. Garratt, I would assume that that is the kind 

of housing that would qualify for Section 8, because otherwise I 

don’t think HUD—if FEMA would have put this person in such a 

high-rent place that he couldn’t be converted to Section 8 if that 

time came. 

Mr. GARRATT. Actually, Madam Chair, that is not necessarily accurate. 

21 

Ms. NORTON. They could have been in a high-rent place where 

you were subsidizing? 

Mr. GARRATT. Well, we didn’t pick the apartments for individuals 

through our program. We provide funding to applicants and applicants choose where they live. Now, we can identify available forms 

of housing and we do that for these applicants, but they choose 

where they live as opposed to under HUD’s program, HUD will 

help place them in a HUD approved property. 

Ms. NORTON. Now I want to speak with Mr. Rainwater and then 

with Reverend Jenkins. 

Now, Mr. Rainwater, is it your experience, as a State official, 

that there is Section 8 housing just waiting for people to come forward and accept it? 

Mr. RAINWATER. Madam Chair, one of the challenges I think 

that—there is no doubt, as I have said earlier, we have made great 

progress whether it is small rental or—we closed on six large 

apartment complexes or actually did grand openings in March of 

this year. Many of those are mixed-income communities. So capacity is coming back online and in many cases or in some cases what 

you have, and I have gone out and spoken with folks, and you mentioned it earlier people don’t want to commute or they don’t want 

to be away from their neighborhood. And that is—— 

Ms. NORTON. Just a moment. Mr. Jenkins, I come to the—there 

is some truth in that. There is no question about it. You find that, 

in fact, more settled people are—by the way, it is interesting that 

there were statistics that came out of Louisiana that said that people were all the populations in the country over the migrations, the 

great migration, for example, of black people to the north, people 

in Louisiana were the least likely to leave. They liked where they 

were. So I can understand it having visited New Orleans. And of 

course people in New Orleans have seen huge catastrophes, just 

not quite one this big. So what Mr. Rainwater has said, that there 

are people that just can’t imagine being away from their home community, would, in fact, be the case. 

Now, I have to ask you whether you find that and I also have 

to ask you about case management, whether or not there is an - 

people are working adequately with residents to understand the 

limits of the Federal Government, the limits of the State Government, and the limited choices we all have to make in this life. 

Rev. JENKINS. Thank you. I find that New Orleans is one of the 

places in this country that still gives people a sense of identity. 

Where there is a great American exodus happened, many people 

stay in New Orleans. Many of the houses we discovered—— 

Ms. NORTON. And indeed you have had a very rapid return of 

population. 

Rev. JENKINS. We have. 

Ms. NORTON. More than anyone thought. What is the population 

of New Orleans now, please? And I will let you go in a minute. 

Mr. RAINWATER. It is right at about a little over 300,000. What 

is interesting though, ma’am, is the region is back up over a million. 

Ms. NORTON. What was the region before? 

22 

Mr. RAINWATER. It was about 1.3 million. It is up a little over 

a million. In New Orleans before the storm was around 340,000, 

and it is up around 310, thereabouts, ma’am. 

Rev. JENKINS. The demographic we find that is most—the population that is returning to New Orleans now last month was 1,800 

and some odd African American people, many of whom are coming 

back from Texas, and just, I think, a couple hundred Anglo and 

other returning. People are returning home. You get a sense of 

identity of who you are in New Orleans. 

I worked with Jerome Smith of Tamborine & Fan. Fifty-one percent of youth of New Orleans are still gone, and we are tracking 

them and trying to work with them where they are. I personally— 

and I know that all my testimony is anecdotal and I apologize for 

that. But I disagree with the effectiveness of FEMA’s understanding of case management. What I hear on the streets and what 

I see on the streets is that when contact is made, we are given a 

list of telephone numbers. I believe that that list at—— 

Ms. NORTON. Telephone numbers of whom, sir? 

Rev. JENKINS. People like these thousand empty apartments, 

people who are going to have resources for us, people who are going 

to help. You can call those numbers and no one answers. 

Ms. NORTON. Just a moment. 

Mr. Garratt, would you like to respond to that, the notion that 

people are given telephone numbers rather than case management? 

Mr. GARRATT. Madam Chair, actually much of case management 

involves, as a matter of practice, referral. Case managers identify 

needs and then they refer the individual to services and people who 

specialize in dealing with those needs. 

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Garratt, I do agree with that and I think that 

for the average American, that would surely be the case. This hearing concerns disabled people, elderly people, people who are least 

likely—they want to stay where they are because they have no idea 

what happened to them or what will happen to them. So if case 

management for a disabled person or an elderly person amounts to 

here is what Mr. Tombar has to offer, my question to you would 

be do you provide some transportation for that person so that they 

can go look at these resources? 

Mr. GARRATT. Providing transportation is not something that is 

normally a part of the case management. 

Ms. NORTON. Well, my Lord, let me assume some of these people 

are blind, some of these people have no transportation and live in 

that trailer or that unit because they have no way to get out. How 

would they—most of these people are on assistance, government assistance of some kind. How would you suggest that those people go 

about dealing with the referral to three units that Mr. Tombar has 

to offer? 

Mr. GARRATT. In most communities across the United States, 

there are social service organizations and voluntary agencies who 

will provide that kind of support. 

Ms. NORTON. All right. Let us now go to Mr. Rainwater. The 

State interest in getting these residents to one of these available 

units—this is the first time I ever heard of Section 8 housing being 

available in the city. So I am quite excited about it. We don’t have 

any available here. Your interest as a State would be very high as 

23 

well. What does the State or the city offer? Let me ask you first, 

is it your responsibility or whose responsibility—Mr. Tombar said 

I have got the units, Mr. Garratt says I have got the referrals. 

What do you say, Mr. Rainwater? 

Mr. RAINWATER. Madam Chair, last year when I took this job in 

2008, we started working on a strategy to create some sort of safety 

net. We also started working on extensions, as you know, and you 

know how the extensions work is they come up every 6 months. 

Ms. NORTON. The extensions of what? 

Mr. RAINWATER. Extensions of the FEMA trailer program and 

the Disaster Housing Assistance program. When Secretary Donovan—— 

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Rainwater, let me stop you there because the 

extension notion could become like cocaine. 

Mr. RAINWATER. Yes, ma’am. 

Ms. NORTON. And here you are talking to someone here who is 

very sympathetic to the residents because they are human beings 

who have been subjected to the worst of disasters. But it sounds 

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

Mr. RAINWATER. Yes, ma’am. And I was going to get to that 

point. I mean what I wanted to do was walk you through sort of 

the steps of what we were looking at to move folks out of disaster 

housing, and that is it is really time and money. It was a matter 

of getting our small rental program—— 

Ms. NORTON. With a minute, Mr. Rainwater. I want to insist on 

an answer to my question. You see, we are trying to solve something here. I have got the units, I have got the referrals, and I 

don’t have any way for some 80-year-old woman or some blind man 

to get to a referral. My question to you is what does the State or 

what does the city have to do in this—are you part of it and—— 

Mr. RAINWATER. Yes. 

Ms. NORTON. I am going to first insist upon an answer to my 

question. Are you providing a service once these two agencies have 

done their part? 

Mr. RAINWATER. Yes, ma’am, there are a number of nonprofits 

that we work with throughout the city, throughout the region. It 

is not the best case management program, and there is no doubt 

it has gaps. There is no doubt about that. But we do have—we 

have case managers working directly with FEMA. We have contracted with the Housing Authority of New Orleans to help us work 

through those issues. And we also work with groups like Unity of 

New Orleans, who went out and pick up folks who are disabled or 

the group that you are talking about and I have seen those cases 

and we have actually been on the ground with the nonprofits as 

they go and talk to people. But it is not—it is—what we are trying 

to do, it is not as comprehensive as it could be because we never 

got there—— 

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Rainwater, I was very impressed by your testimony last time you appeared here because you were the sole problem solver in the bunch, and I must say you are not rising to that 

level of problem solving here. Mr. Jenkins, for example, in his testimony complains about FEMA’s inability to share information, and 

here is a nonprofit. 

24 

Mr. RAINWATER. Madam Chair, we are—one of the things that 

we did—— 

Ms. NORTON. Client information he is talking about. Client information with State and local governments so that additional service 

can be provided. You know, with the kind of approach you took, 

which was to get the actors, the relevant actors, together, it seems 

to me that that kind of situation could be solved as long as these 

two gentlemen are meeting their obligations. 

Mr. RAINWATER. And that is what we are doing, Madam Chair. 

I mean that is exactly what I have been trying to say is what we 

have been doing for the last year and a half are working with nonprofits, working with FEMA on the ground, the guys on the ground 

working with—— 

Ms. NORTON. Reverend Jenkins is on the ground and he is here 

to complain. What is it about working on the ground, be specific, 

that you have found inadequate, Reverend Jenkins? 

Rev. JENKINS. Thank you, yes. I have found the example of supposed case management that is being used by the State and by 

FEMA to be inadequate for people who cannot help themselves. 

Obviously, I was able to help them myself. I think the main thing 

is a failure in case management. I would also point out—— 

Ms. NORTON. Now, if there were case management, what would 

it consist of Reverend Jenkins? 

Rev. JENKINS. In our situation where we run a privately funded 

case management operation, because people of faith and goodwill 

are continuing to write checks as well even through the recession, 

it means for us, first of all, that we take seriously and respect the 

dignity of every human being. We see them not as a means to an 

end that is profit nor—— 

Ms. NORTON. No, sir. I want to know what it consists of. Your 

own values are above reproach. I want to know what your case 

management relationship to the State or the city consist of. 

Rev. JENKINS. To the State or city, we have little relationship to 

the State or city. 

Ms. NORTON. This is important. Why? Since you are willing to 

help people and you are doing it on your own dime? 

Rev. JENKINS. Yes, ma’am. 

Ms. NORTON. What is the difficulty then of dealing with the State 

or the city? 

Rev. JENKINS. In some ways, Madam Chair, I felt that ethically 

I could not participate in the case management system that was 

being designed in that it did not provide the kind of opportunity 

and freedom for New Orleanians to maintain their homes in our 

city nor did it provide for the dignity of all. I was in Renaissance 

Village north of Baton Rouge in the town of Baker when a representative told this hugely primarily African American group you 

can live anywhere in the United States you want, except you can’t 

go home. 

Ms. NORTON. Well, going home might have meant the Ninth 

Ward so—— 

Mr. JENKINS. Right. I am building the Ninth Ward. 

Ms. NORTON. Well, maybe you can’t go home there today. We are 

trying to get people to something that can be home pending the rebuilding of New Orleans. And I can understand the position you 

25 

have taken. I think I have got to go back to Mr. Rainwater because 

even if you are doing—you, Reverend Jenkins, are doing work, and 

I must say it is extraordinary work to do that on private resources, 

the State of Louisiana and the city of New Orleans and the parishes have a responsibility for casework, so does for that matter 

FEMA, quite apart from any private resources so the first place I 

would turn to for the casework would be to the State and to the 

city and the parish. Are there caseworkers assigned to these last 

remaining most vulnerable residents? 

Mr. RAINWATER. Yes, ma’am, there are. And I will just—I understand Reverend Jenkins’ perspective. Many nonprofits chose not to 

work with us on case management because we were not able to 

provide—because of the way that dollars come down, because of, 

you, just the—in some cases it is a little rigid. Nonprofits chose not 

to work with us, and I can understand that. And I have tried as 

hard as we possibly can to make these dollars as flexible as possible to provide case management the way they would like but in 

some cases we just couldn’t do it. 

Ms. NORTON. Couldn’t do what, sir? 

Mr. RAINWATER. Well, for example, in some cases nonprofits felt 

like, you know, they didn’t want to just have a referral service, and 

we have been able to manage some transportation and other things 

working through the network of different providers whether it is at 

the city or whether it is at a nonprofit. But what many of the nonprofits wanted to do was not only have the case management but 

also have the dollars to provide to the resident to help them to, you 

know, buy furniture, to do other things. We didn’t have those dollars to do that because of the way some of the congressional appropriations language was written. So that has been part of the challenge. 

Ms. NORTON. So we would go back, then, to the case managers 

from the State of Louisiana and the parishes involved—— 

Mr. RAINWATER. Yes, ma’am. 

Ms. NORTON. —who would understand the rules. Are you testifying here today that each resident who needs a case manager has 

one? 

Mr. RAINWATER. I can’t say that every resident has a particular—there are—depending on—each resident gets a phone call 

and each trailer who has a resident in it is getting a visit from a 

State employee and a FEMA employee. Their needs are talked 

about there, and then they come back, and what we try to do is 

marry up—— 

Ms. NORTON. Do you provide transportation to one of these three 

units that Mr. Tombar has made available? 

Mr. RAINWATER. Using the city’s transportation system and the 

nonprofits out there—— 

Ms. NORTON. The nonprofits may not be working with you. It is 

the city’s responsibility if there wasn’t a single nonprofit in the 

whole state—— 

Mr. RAINWATER. The city of New Orleans is working with us, 

ma’am. And we have meetings. It is the kind of meetings we talked 

about at the last hearing. We are having meetings where we talk 

about what the needs are and then we try to marry up those needs 

with—— 

26 

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Rainwater, let me ask you this: It sounds to 

me as though, quite apart from the valuable work that Mr. Jenkins 

is doing, that we need a crisis group for these last most vulnerable 

residents, that we need closer interaction between FEMA, HUD, 

the State, and I would dare say the parishes that are also involved. 

Would—let me ask the three of you if you would be willing to develop a task force devoted exclusively to finding a way, an appropriate way—I am not here saying what it is. You notice that I am 

not saying that they should be in housing, that they should not be 

there or—but an appropriate way to find solutions for the last remaining victims of Katrina. I am only asking for a grouping who 

would be devoted solely to this task so that Mr. Rainwater would 

not testify, as he has here, that we of course called the local housing authority. I am not talking about that. I am talking about 

somebody from the housing authority that the State would say you 

must give us for this task force, someone on the ground from HUD, 

on the ground from FEMA who would work on the best way to find 

solutions without any notion of what those solutions should be. 

Mr. RAINWATER. Yes, ma’am. 

Mr. TOMBAR. Yes, ma’am. 

Mr. GARRATT. Not only yes, ma’am, but I believe we have already 

established in Louisiana a Joint Housing Task Force, with the 

State and HUD’s participation, that has been up and running for 

a couple of months now focused on exactly that. 

Ms. NORTON. Who are the members of this group that are focused solely on this? What are their—— 

Mr. RAINWATER. Yes, ma’am. It is a number of—my organizations are the Recovery Authority, Department of Social Services, 

FEMA, HUD representatives—— 

Ms. NORTON. Are there people assigned from those agencies 

whose job is to work on these—all those agencies is telling me 

nothing. They have a statutory responsibility. I am asking for a 

kind of task force. 

Mr. RAINWATER. Yes, ma’am. And that is what—we got into a 

data-sharing agreement with FEMA and HUD at the beginning of 

this year that allowed us to look at each other’s information—not 

just look at information but decide how we were going to try to 

solve problems. And that is, you know, moving dollars to a project 

management, to nonprofits like the lower Ninth Ward, where they 

can help folks finish rebuilding their homes. I mean, those are the 

kinds of things that we are trying to come to solutions with. Again, 

it is complicated. But, yes, ma’am, and we will go back—— 

Ms. NORTON. Would you within 14 days submit to this Subcommittee the name of the person on the task force—I am calling 

it that. You can call it anything you want to—assigned to working 

together with the agencies involved and the units involved or any 

others that you think necessary to accomplish the task, names that 

we want, names, who are working specifically on finding solutions. 

I understand that you may have a group of whom you have to tell 

us there are no solutions we can find. We just need to know that. 

But we don’t need to know by agency. We need to know by person 

who is assigned to this task. 

Mr. RAINWATER. Yes, ma’am. 

Mr. GARRATT. Absolutely. 

27 

Ms. NORTON. And I need to you to know there is a presumption, 

the government exercises a presumption against extensions. We 

don’t like the fact that extensions come at the last moment. We 

think that causes, as I said in my opening remarks, terrible stress. 

But that doesn’t mean that we think the answer here is an extension. At the same time, we are not going to see people put out on 

the street, and at the same time, we are not going to allow people 

to say I demand to be in Orleans parish and I am not going. If they 

are not going, then they can’t ask the government of the United 

States to pay for them where they are. But at the moment, we can’t 

figure out one from the other because the information is too vague 

and we are too close to the August deadline and people are already 

being put out and the press all over the country is running stories 

about how people are being put out of trailers and other housing, 

not being subsidized, without adequate housing being provided. 

And the reason this hearing is being held is we don’t have the 

answer back on who is right. You would think we would have much 

better answers if we knew very specifically not that one agency is 

calling the other agency to try to get somebody to help out and getting some hardworking civil servant to do the best that they can, 

but there is a concentrated group that understands we are acting 

in, we are acting in, we are dealing with the people who would be 

least likely to go out and take a telephone number and find Section 

8 housing or the like. 

I never did get an answer because I am trying to solve a problem 

rather than simply put answers on the record. But I must get an 

answer better than the answer that, well, we have had more than 

one, Mr. Rainwater, after all, more than one hurricane. I can understand how you would be set back on the Katrina cottages by the 

additional hurricane. What I can’t understand is the failure to 

produce one single cottage. That is what you have got to make me 

understand. 

Mr. RAINWATER. Yes, ma’am. I went to work for the Governor of 

January of 2008. To that point nothing had been done from an administrative perspective as it relates to Katrina cottages. 

Ms. NORTON. What was the reason for that? 

Mr. RAINWATER. I don’t know, ma’am. I just know that Governor 

Jindal asked me to take it over and get it moving. 

Ms. NORTON. How much money is out there waiting—— 

Mr. RAINWATER. It is $74 million, although that number is a lot 

less now because we have actually spent money and we actually 

have construction going up in four different sites in Louisiana: 

Lake Charles, Baton Rouge and New Orleans. 

Ms. NORTON. For Katrina cottages? 

Mr. RAINWATER. Yes. 

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

Mr. RAINWATER. We expect construction in New Orleans in August and in September. We have got sites that we plan to—about 

a hundred will be up in New Orleans about August/September time 

frame, working with the New Orleans Redevelopment Authority. In 

December the 15th at HANO, we expect another hundred to be up. 

And in Baton Rouge, Louisiana, about 42 should be up or be complete by July 31. And in Lake Charles, Louisiana, we expect anVerDate Aug 31 2005 11:14 Mar 15, 2010 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00039 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\49956 JASON
28 

other 70 or so in August of this year. So we worked through a lot 

of the challenges and we—you can see construction happening. We 

also got permission from FEMA to build 200 system-built Katrina 

cottages so what we did—— 

Ms. NORTON. That was a—this is very good information to put 

on the record. Would that take care of all the Katrina homes 

that—— 

Mr. RAINWATER. Yes, ma’am. By the end of September-November 

timeframe, barring weather, we plan to have 500 cottages up. So 

we are working with the nonprofits, four different nonprofit agencies that, you know, have developed the eligibility criteria that 

would take care of Katrina and Rita evacuees. So yes, ma’am, we 

are making progress on that. We have worked through a lot of 

issues there and FEMA has worked very closely with us as has the 

city of New Orleans and the city of Baton Rouge and Lake Charles. 

Ms. NORTON. Now, the progress you made, and I do know, Mr. 

Rainwater, that you were called to this task that was not moving 

at all and we knew from your prior testimony that you have made 

things happen. The reason that we are concerned here is because 

we need you to make something happen just as quickly with respect to these residents. For example, there is a program, $869 million State program, that was also federally funded. It targeted 

more than 18,000 damaged rental unites. It had resulted in fewer 

than 1,200 repairs by late March, so far as we have been able to 

understand. Now, these would be the units most, I suppose, in demand although Mr. Tombar says he has got units to burn out 

there. 

But in any case what is the reason for the slow progress in the 

one kind of unit that you would think would be most in demand, 

these rental units, with all that Federal money out there, 18,000 

targeted, 1,200 repaired by late March? 

Mr. RAINWATER. Yes, ma’am, there are two programs we are running. One is a small rental program that targets what we call mom 

and pop renters. Those are folks that—retired school teachers. I 

have met with a lot of these folks that—a refinery employee who 

had a lot of overtime one year and bought a duplex to be part of 

the American Dream and own property. So after the storm, obviously they lost their home. They lost their rental unit. The State 

set up a rental program in 2007 before I was there that basically 

gave someone a letter of commitment that they took to the bank. 

When I got there in January of 2008, we said I would give it 6 

months to work. It didn’t show much progress and so we started 

doing some tweaks to the program. We have actually gotten about 

1,400 units produced today. 

Ms. NORTON. 1,400—— 

Mr. RAINWATER. Yes, ma’am. Actually 1,439. We expect to close 

or produce another 3,000 by the end of this year. We have slowly 

changed the production and the makeup of the program. What we 

are going to start doing is advancing cash to folks, and that is basically—I have to tell you, Madam Chair, I have to take some responsibility for that because I should have just thrown the program 

out when I got there in February because it was too slow moving. 

So we are going to start advances starting this June, and we are 

doing a massive outreach program to these mom and pop renters 

29 

to work with them because in some cases they are not necessarily 

professional, you know, managers—— 

Ms. NORTON. Where are they now? 

Mr. RAINWATER. Mostly—New Orleans had a large majority. 

Ms. NORTON. Where are they living? 

Mr. RAINWATER. Many are back in their homes. And that was 

part of the challenge, that they used their own home money obviously and their insurance money to rebuild their home, not necessarily their rental unit. And in some cases we have folks living 

on one side of a duplex—— 

Ms. NORTON. Let me understand this. These people, you call 

them arm and pop? 

Mr. RAINWATER. Yes, ma’am. 

Ms. NORTON. Meaning what, please? 

Mr. RAINWATER. Just folks that live in the community that 

bought—— 

Ms. NORTON. That had homes. 

Mr. RAINWATER. Yes, ma’am, they had homes. Right. They had 

duplexes and triplexes and fourplexes in New Orleans. 

Ms. NORTON. They wouldn’t be going into the rental units, then, 

would they? 

Mr. RAINWATER. Excuse me, ma’am. 

Ms. NORTON. They wouldn’t be going into the rental units? 

Mr. RAINWATER. No, ma’am. Most of them are homeowners. 

Some folks lived on one side and rented out other sides. And so— 

where they fixed up one side of the unit and then wanted to rent 

out the other side of the unit. So we are working with the folks 

very closely. 

Ms. NORTON. I see. 

Mr. RAINWATER. The other program is the Low Income Housing 

Tax Program. And we call it the piggyback program where we take 

low-income housing tax credits and go-zone and take Community 

Development Block Grant money and lay it on top of that. We had 

about 57 projects awarded originally, but right now we have 19 

under construction and that will create about 3,181 units. One of 

our challenges obviously is the credit crunch that we are having. 

So what we are trying to do is move—working very closely with 

HUD and the Louisiana Housing Finance Agency, we continue to 

move dollars around and tax credits around to make projects work. 

So we are making progress. We believe that by the end of this year, 

there will be around—if you take the small rental and you take the 

low-income housing tax credit program, we think there will be 

about 7,000 units that will be available. Many of those will be affordable units. 

Ms. NORTON. Now, we have figures that show about 4,000 homeowners, a little more than that, have received rebuilding money 

only in the last 6 months and these people I think are in trailers. 

Many of them have inadequate grants and, of course, the court and 

credit crunch and the rest. What is the humane and reasonable 

government response? For these people only got it in the last 6 

months in the middle of the worst recession, what should we do 

with those people. 

Mr. RAINWATER. Madam Chair, what we have asked to work 

with FEMA on is to—and with HUD is to give us time to continue 

30 

to work with those applicants to help them get the dollars they 

need to complete their repairs. 

Ms. NORTON. This is where the task force is going to be very important because we have got to break down these into the units 

that Mr. Garratt suggested. There are some closer than others. 

Perhaps there are some that won’t be. 

The one thing I have to ask you to take into account as we consider what to be done because if it takes a statutory change, you 

are going to get it. But one of the things you have got to take into 

account is that there is no building being going on to speak of in 

the United States of America except building that is subsidized by 

the Government of the United States. It is as if the recession put 

a stop when there were shovels in the ground. So we had to step 

up and move matters forward. There is no way in which we can 

fail to take that into account with respect to private parties. So I 

would put that on the table as an ingredient for the task force 

whose names you are going to provide us within 14 days. 

Now let me ask about evictions. Are people being evicted from 

trailers as I speak? And if so, can you assure this Subcommittee 

that all of them have adequate housing or have been given three 

sources and have nonetheless refused and if they refused, regardless of their circumstances and regardless of their disability, they 

are simply evicted? 

Mr. GARRATT. Yes, ma’am. No one has been evicted. Evictions 

have not, in fact, commenced. In fact, no one should expect the 

evictions to commence for some period of time. 

Ms. NORTON. What about the August deadline? People have received notice that they ought to get out within a couple of weeks 

or within a timeframe, have they not? 

Mr. GARRATT. That is correct, ma’am. What we have done is provided proper notification to them. 

Ms. NORTON. Suppose someone is notified that you must be out 

by July 1st? What would you do if that person were not out by July 

1st of a trailer? 

Mr. GARRATT. I will walk you through the process here again. We 

notified them early on that the program was ending on May 1st. 

On June 1st is when we will officially begin making referrals of individuals or households or can begin making referrals of households who have not yet vacated those properties. But that is a 

lengthy process, ma’am. We don’t refer them and then evictions 

begin the next day. In fact, there are a number of steps that have 

to be gone through and I would anticipate that evictions would not 

begin for some period of time while that process—— 

Ms. NORTON. Even after the August deadline for remaining in 

that housing? 

Mr. GARRATT. It is entirely possible, ma’am. You also asked—— 

Ms. NORTON. A lot of this has to do with whether or not this task 

force gets its act together with respect to case management. Remember the Subcommittee has taken the position that if you are 

given three resources that meet the tests Mr. Tombar has indicated, you must take them. Even if they are not where you want 

to be, even if they are not in the parish you want to be you have 

to in fact do it. Now, we understand what we are saying. It may 

be that you now have to—you now have to drive. That is a terrible 

31 

thing to say to somebody, but you have got to drive and spend 

money on gas that you would not have had to do, but I cite to you 

all the people that are doing that in the ordinary course. Now, this 

would assume this person had a job. In other words, we are all 

having to cut what we spend on everything. We are not able to provide ever optimum resources. Even those of us who have been fortunate in life do not have optimum resources. So we are not going 

to put on the government a burden that it cannot bear. 

But we are certainly not going to say to somebody that here are 

three resources and you have got to find your own way to them or 

get you cane together or your crutch or get you somebody, you who 

have no children in the area, get you somebody to get out there and 

find it. That is just as inhuman as an eviction. That is why I would 

be satisfied with a task force doing what it can. And if you are assuring me there will be no evictions, then I am satisfied with that 

answer. 

Mr. GARRATT. Ma’am, I am assuring you that there will be no 

evictions on June 1, and assuring you that in fact the process for 

beginning the actual evictions is a lengthy one. 

Ms. NORTON. Are you assuring me that there will be no evictions 

on August, whatever is the final date—— 

Mr. GARRATT. No, ma’am, I am not. However, I can assure you, 

to follow-up previous request that you had, every single one of 

these occupants has received a minimum of three properties at the 

fair market rent made available to them and in some cases as high 

as 90 offers. So every one of the occupants has, we can assure you, 

been offered a minimum of three housing resources within a reasonable commuting distance. 

Ms. NORTON. We understand also the difference of the dates 

among you. There is the May 1st date, there is the August—the 

August 30th date for referrals by HUD. 

Mr. TOMBAR. That is the termination of the transition of closeout 

plan, the program that follows the DHAP program which ended 

on—— 

Ms. NORTON. Excuse me. Would you explain termination of the 

what? What it means. 

Mr. TOMBAR. The Disaster Housing Assistance Program that you 

mentioned in your opening remarks terminated for Katrina and 

Rita victims at the end of February. Secretary Napolitano and Secretary Donovan worked together to make sure that some 31,000 

families would not be displaced and so put in for 6 months through 

the end of August of this year a transitional closeout plan to allow 

those families time to either, one, convert to the Housing Choice 

Voucher program for which I have testified that there are ample 

resources available for families that are eligible for that program 

and units available in many of the communities in Louisiana or to 

transition—— 

Ms. NORTON. Market rate units with subsidies provided by the 

government where necessary. 

Mr. TOMBAR. Yes, ma’am. Or to transition to self sufficiency if, 

in fact, those families are not eligible for that program. So that program—— 

32 

Ms. NORTON. In other words, transition to self sufficiency if ineligible. I understand that. In other words, there might be some people who are working but—— 

Mr. TOMBAR. Yes, ma’am. 

Ms. NORTON. And therefore would not be eligible. But what 

would be the transition assistance in that case? 

Mr. TOMBAR. In that case those families, the rent that they were 

paying in February of this year was—their contribution to that 

rent was increased by $100 each month thereafter. So the government—for example, if a family had a rent of $600 in March, we 

would have paid—the government would have paid $500 on that 

family’s behalf and their contribution would have been $100 and 

each month the family’s contribution went up $100 in the—and the 

government’s went down by $100. 

Allowing time for those families that were eligible to move into 

the Housing Choice Voucher program which would cover a substantial amount more of their rent by the government. The government 

will cover that with resources through that HCV program. 

Ms. NORTON. We understand there is a hardship there, but the 

hardship is they have to pick up more of the cost of housing 

through their own income. But I understand that will mean, therefore, that the decision has been made that could happen, that we 

are not dealing with a family for whom that would be an intolerable hardship. 

Mr. TOMBAR. Quite frankly, ma’am, part of the challenge is that 

you talked about the problem with extensions. Having seen extensions before, families just were not availing themselves of the resources—— 

Ms. NORTON. That is why I am sending two messages in this 

hearing. One for you, but one for the families. I want to compare 

themselves with other families in the United States and they will 

see what I mean. I hate to say it, but there are families who would 

love to live in a trailer rather than a Holiday Inn in one room with 

three or four children today because they couldn’t pay their mortgage through no fault of their own. So two messages are sent. That 

is why I am trying to make sure the government does its part by 

having the appropriate case management and the agencies working 

even closer together than they have. 

Now, Reverend Jenkins, you had—— 

Rev. JENKINS. Madam Chair, I respectfully disagree with some of 

the testimony that has gone forward and again I have to say based 

on anecdotal evidence. I believe that—I do not believe there are a 

thousand Section 8 units available in New Orleans, or if so, I can’t 

find them, or they are not affordable, or our friends—— 

Ms. NORTON. By Section 8, you make them affordable if they 

come within a certain limit, don’t you. 

Mr. TOMBAR. Yes, ma’am. What I was testifying to is the fact 

that, as you said, unlike Washington, D.C., and most communities 

around the country, there is in the Housing Authority in New Orleans an ample supply of vouchers. There is an oversupply of vouchers for eligible families as well as—and this is a recent development over the past number of months—as well as landlords who 

have repaired their homes and repaired their rental units and have 

made them available to eligible families. 

33 

Ms. NORTON. Now wait a minute, Mr. Tombar. And maybe people may not be aware of this; what made this happen only in the 

last few months? 

Mr. TOMBAR. It is the fact that, as Mr. Rainwater testified to, 

that their program has started in earnest and has made units 

available. And, quite frankly, it has been almost 4 years since the 

storm, and that landlords have taken advantage of the fact that 

they have settled with insurance companies; they have gotten their 

own resources and financing, taken the government subsidies that 

have been provided, and have used that to bring these units back 

into commerce. 

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Jenkins, what did you have to say to that? Of 

course, this has only recently happened. 

Rev. JENKINS. Only recently happened. And I would say that the 

quality of case management has to do with direct services. We 

work with people no matter how long it takes. We do provide transportation. And we walk with them through the process and not 

simply refer them to it. 

Ms. NORTON. This is the testimony that is most important in this 

hearing, the notion of what Rev. Jenkins is saying. We are dealing 

with the most vulnerable—you know, if I am sitting there on an 

ordinance, and I was, damn, they are going to have to move me; 

when I am able to get out of here and work, that is one thing, but 

we are focusing—you have done a good job with respect to people 

who in fact should move themselves. What Rev. Jenkins is saying, 

and I recognize he deals outside of your matrix, but what he is saying out of his experience is that these people are not likely to move 

unless there is expert case management. 

Rev. JENKINS. Yes, ma’am. 

Ms. NORTON. I mean, that is the bottom line. And we are going 

to be looking at that, given Mr. Tombar’s testimony, more than 

anything else; what do we do to persuade people, and then to make 

people understand? Carry my words from the Subcommittee, so 

they know that extensions ad infinitum are no longer possible. We 

won’t let people be put out, but we believe the State has over-depended on extensions—that is because Mr. Rainwater only recently 

got there—and on our notions of outrage at how slow the State and 

FEMA were in the first place. But now we see most of the people 

have been dealt with. It is only the people who can’t take care of 

themselves. 

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

within 14 days, by parish, where these houses are. So he has testified here. And although we have not made people stand and take 

oath, they are all under oath. So he is going to have to provide the 

backup here. 

And the only discrepancy I see here is, apparently through the 

State’s work, Mr. Rainwater’s work and the work of others in the 

parishes, there have been people to come forward; we get to whether or not there has been adequate communication here. 

Mr. Tombar said that all these people have already been given— 

is that it? Everybody on the list has already been given three 

sources. Without even going down the list, everybody already has 

their three sources. 

Mr. TOMBAR. Yes, ma’am. 

34 

Ms. NORTON. So that does point to case management as a notion. 

Now, if the three are rejected, do you go back with three more, 

or how does that work? 

Mr. GARRATT. That is really ours to take, ma’am. 

We have often gone back many times with additional ones. As I 

indicated previously, in some extreme cases, we have made as 

many as 90 different referrals to—— 

Ms. NORTON. What would make somebody reject 90 different referrals? 

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

Ms. NORTON. I think that would be the case often for people who 

are working. We are dealing with people here who are often not 

working. They will be away from family. That is a hardship. But 

I don’t think—I think we are to the point where we can’t look at 

anything except the available housing as close as possible, but 

there may be limits on that. And I am impressed, as Mr. Tombar 

says—you say in New Orleans itself? 

Mr. TOMBAR. Yes, ma’am. 

Ms. NORTON. That is close enough to me right there; it is a city 

no larger than the District of Columbia. 

Rev. Jenkins. 

Rev. JENKINS. Yes, ma’am. Thank you. 

Many of the people whom we are talking about do not have cars. 

The state of public transportation in New Orleans has not been addressed. If you live in the east, in New Orleans East, the possibility 

of having a job in the central business district where the tourists, 

the hotels, et cetera, are is nigh because of the state of public 

transportation. 

Ms. NORTON. But we ought to separate those who work. 

And Rev. Jenkins, look, we are not guaranteeing that you have 

the same income used for the same purposes. 

Rev. JENKINS. Right. 

Ms. NORTON. All over the United States, people are having to 

pay more for transportation. They may have to pay more to get to 

their job because New Orleans does not have a public transportation system. What are we supposed to say to those people, for example, who will have to move from a trailer further from—they are 

still in New Orleans, but will have to find some other way to get 

to work? What is the government supposed to say to those people 

who have been given a place, three places, but they are not as close 

to their work as most people increasingly who don’t have the highest income, what is the government’s response supposed to be in 

that case? 

Rev. JENKINS. I would hope the government’s response to case 

management would be to teach people how and walk with them 

and help them find how to get to their jobs. 

Ms. NORTON. Well, that is a reasonable answer, and it does seem 

to me that that is the case. You take somebody from one end of the 

parish who seldom has gone to the other end, and you go there and 

the transportation isn’t as good or may even be hardly available, 

it does seem to me that, of the three sources that are offered, one 

has to work with that person as if that were a person, a human 

being, not just a place that you can go. 

35 

So I would ask that the task force look into the reasons for the 

resistance. They often have to do more than convenience; they may 

have to do with transportation. 

Now, let me ask you this, Mr. Rainwater. In the District of Columbia, because the people who would trouble me most are the people who are disabled and don’t have jobs. Indeed, let me ask Mr. 

Garrett, wouldn’t a disproportionate number of these be people 

without jobs who are not going to ultimately be going to work, but 

they are fairly isolated because of their age or their disability? 

Mr. GARRATT. Ma’am, I would be speculating. We typically don’t 

engage in income verification sorts of things as a matter of practice 

with this population; we simply don’t have the authority to do that. 

So it would be pure speculation. 

Ms. NORTON. Well, Mr. Tombar, of those who have been offered, 

you would have more of that information on these disproportionate 

people who don’t work every day—when I say ′′disproportionately,′′ 

without knowing any percentage. 

Mr. TOMBAR. Actually, I don’t have that information. But I do 

have the information to the previous question you asked. 

Based upon the case management contractors that FEMA funds, 

some of the reasons that we have heard repeatedly from families 

about why they refuse to move into the DHAP program was the 

households who were concerned about paying rent after the DHAP 

program ended, the households did not want to relocate—— 

Ms. NORTON. Wait a minute. So these would be people who were 

able to pay rent then because you provide a subsidy, right? 

Mr. TOMBAR. Well, through the DHAP program, we did in fact 

provide—— 

Ms. NORTON. No, no. I am talking, for example, I am assuming 

these would be some of the Section 8 people that you told—— 

Mr. TOMBAR. Certainly. The Congress, as I said, provided $85 

million to convert those families who would be eligible for subsidies 

to a permanent program. 

Ms. NORTON. So why would they be concerned about the rent 

since, if they are eligible, you will help them? 

Mr. TOMBAR. Exactly. I don’t know the answer to that question, 

but I do know the answer—— 

Ms. NORTON. But that is an important thing to get on the record. 

And for the task force that I am now looking at, I amassuming 

that the case management may help people understand—you know, 

it is really interesting, people respond once they understood—I, 

stupidly, in my exercises, lifted some weights, and they gave me 

some things to do. He gave me something to do that is the thing 

that I least like to do. And I see what the problem is. If he had 

only told me why to do this thing, as the way I sit and walk, I 

think I would be doing—I had to figure out for myself, why would 

he give me this thing that I like to do least? I understand only because I have thought about it myself, having left the 3-week period 

they give you to go and somebody tells you what to do, I figured 

out why he wanted me to do this thing I hated to do, and now I 

have begun to do it. 

Now, most people are reasonable. And if a caseworker who is patient, who has lived there—and most of them have—with the people who have been the most unfortunate people in society since 

36 

Katrina, if they have the kind of approach to these people, who are 

sitting in these homes, recalcitrant and resistant, take the time to 

indicate what is available, particularly if they compare them to 

what is happening to families all over this country today, if they 

tell them that the Subcommittee is not willing to recommend extensions ad infinitum, that we are in the last pace here, that we 

are not going to leave them stranded so they can’t get from one end 

of Orleans Parish to the other, that there are ways to move to jobs 

because your task force is going to make sure that that communication is given. 

Indeed, before I go further, Mr. Rainwater, the District of Columbia will provide, if there is a disabled person—using, I am sure, 

there must be Federal funds in this—you can call and get transportation to go even to recreational events. Is that provided in New 

Orleans? 

Mr. RAINWATER. Yes, ma’am. We work through different nonprofits, the city, continuums of care that we have funded about $21 

million for rapid rehousing, also to provide transportation for folks. 

Ms. NORTON. See, if all of that is put on the table at the same 

time that one is talking to a person, the resistance begins to melt, 

particularly when they understand that once all of this is made 

available to you, you are not going to get another chance. But you 

have to have all of that in the package to make people, who have 

every reason to be resistant, understand that we are surrounding 

you with the services that will be necessary. 

In the District of Columbia, if your children live in Northwest 

and you live in Southeast and you say, I want to visit my family 

once a week, a van will come and get you once a week. They know 

that, in the long run, that means you are not going to be going into 

the emergency room or into some home where it costs us $80,000 

a year to maintain. They know there is much to be said in the public interest. 

Mr. Rainwater suggests that those kinds of services are available. That person doesn’t get their grown son or daughter to come 

see them more often than that anyway. So they can be assured 

that at least what they are accustomed to is not going to fall away 

altogether. I think this can be done. It would take sensitivity. It 

would take the agencies working together. 

I am sorry. I may have interrupted, I think, you, Mr. Tombar. 

Mr. TOMBAR. Yes, ma’am. Some of the other reasons that families 

have indicated that they did not want to move was because they 

prefer to stay in the rent-free, disaster-based assistance rather 

than HUD or State programs that would require a contribution towards their monthly rent. 

Ms. NORTON. See, we can easily take care of that one. There is 

no free lunch. And you can quote the Committee Chair, there is no 

free lunch, even for those who have been hardest hit. 

Mr. TOMBAR. Certainly. Others have indicated that they were 

concerned about getting into government-subsidized housing, even 

though it was explained to them that this was not ′′HUD housing,′′ 

but rather private housing that would be subsidized with rent—— 

Ms. NORTON. You do have to make people who don’t want to ever 

be said to have been wards of the State in any sense of the word 

understand that this is not the same thing at all. This is for people 

37 

who have done all they can, working and living in just the way we 

ask people to do, abiding by all the rules, but find that the cost of 

housing where they happen to live is beyond any reasonable 

means. Yes, it does have to be explained to people who don’t want 

to be said they are on welfare. 

Mr. TOMBAR. And finally, as I initially indicated, that families 

did not want to relocate from the THU that was on a private site 

where they were rebuilding their home. 

Ms. NORTON. Yeah, now, those are the people that you need to 

work with hardest because here is where the Congress may need, 

if you don’t do it; if we do it, it is going to be much to your not 

liking. 

It seems to me that Mr. Garratt made a reasonable start by talking about people within certain time frames rehabilitating their 

homes. And let me say this for the record, it is in the national interest, as consistent with the Stafford Act, that people who are 

willing to rebuild their own homes with some government assistance; that is rebuilding New Orleans; that is showing that the Stafford Act and the other Federal statutes work. 

We do not believe it is in the national interest to snatch away 

a trailer that is subsidized but not nearly what the subsidy would 

be if that—I don’t know, but might well not be what the subsidy 

requires if that person would have to go off his own land, where 

he is living probably under conditions that he wouldn’t tolerate and 

that we wouldn’t tolerate, if we had to put that person in some 

other housing. 

We think it is in the national interest and the public interest for 

that person to reserve their resources to rebuild their own house 

so that in fact they require less and less subsidy from the Federal 

Government or the State government. Are we agreed on that? 

Then we also have established that the trailers are not going to 

be put to good use by another family, but they are going to be 

scrapped. That is already a loss to the government. We don’t like 

to do things like that. We are having to do that in these cases. 

These are not people in the formaldehyde trailers where the people 

want to get out of the trailers. These are people who want to stay 

in them in order to get into their own homes, and we know, given 

ordinary conditions, how close they would be to rehabbing their 

own homes. 

We know that the State has been slow in getting them the assistance. We know that, for example, to quote from one example, a 

very small house blown down by the hurricane, disabled—this is an 

example of the kind of person you are dealing with. A 67-year-old 

person, the State gave her $28,000. It wasn’t enough to rebuild. I 

can’t imagine that it would be in the public interest for her to 

abandon land she owns. 

Would she have to use the $28,000 for a rental, Mr. Rainwater? 

I mean, she got $28,000, but it is only for, apparently, rebuilding. 

What will she do with that money? 

Mr. RAINWATER. Madam Chair, in some instances, there were 

people that did use money for living expenses. And what we are 

trying to do right now, as I stated earlier, is create some—— 

Ms. NORTON. Is that within the rules? 

38 

Mr. RAINWATER. Not necessarily. I mean, I don’t know how many 

times it happened, to be very honest with you. FEMA did provide 

assistance and HUD did provide assistance to folks as well to help 

them live while they were working through issues. 

Ms. NORTON. But this $28,000 that she got—— 

Mr. RAINWATER. That is subtracted from whatever insurance she 

had, and then the $28,000—there is a formula that you use, and 

so typically it is—— 

Ms. NORTON. But she was supposed to use that to rebuild? 

Mr. RAINWATER. Yes, ma’am. 

Ms. NORTON. So I am assuming she wants to still rebuild? 

Mr. RAINWATER. Yes, ma’am. 

Ms. NORTON. I am going to ask you about the $2.4 billion in a 

minute, but we will have complaints, whenever you do imminent 

domain, everybody says they haven’t given me enough money. Now, 

she is saying it isn’t enough to rebuild, except I believe her these 

days because of what has happened and what has happened to the 

economy. 

Why are people being given too little money to rebuild? 

Mr. RAINWATER. The way the program that was set up in 2006, 

2007, the Road Home Assistance Program, was developed based on 

a formula. 

Ms. NORTON. She is 67. She is rebuilding out of a pension or out 

of her own resources. 

Mr. RAINWATER. The cap that the State created and was ap- proved by HUD was $150,000. It is basically a ratio of how much 

insurance you have got. What we have tried to do is we have created an additional compensation grant for people who were either 

elderly or low income to help them try to complete that. 

Ms. NORTON. She may be getting some of that as well. 

What happens to someone who hopes that the insurance is being 

put aside, the $28,000 is being put aside, she still can’t rebuild? 

What should she do? 

Mr. RAINWATER. We are in the process of creating this pilot construction program to help people. There is no doubt that what we 

have seen in Louisiana in some instances of an elderly person, a 

contractor took money or bids were too high; we work with a number of nonprofits who can go in and assist folks, who can buy materials at a wholesale rate, go in and help them finish the repair to 

their house. So we are trying to push those dollars as far down as 

we possibly can. 

Ms. NORTON. So during the boom time, some of these people did 

try to rebuild in boom time, which just brought down the country. 

Rev. JENKINS. Madam Chair, may I say something? 

Ms. NORTON. Please, sir. 

Rev. JENKINS. Thank you, ma’am. 

I want to say that the churches and the nonprofits often step in 

and fill the gap. We continue to host huge numbers of volunteers 

who come to New Orleans, who pay for their lodging with us in 

New Orleans now, and whom we charge to buy the material used 

to fix up the 951 houses that we have gutted and that we are rebuilding. So the people who come to work are charged by us, and 

we are building and rebuilding houses for people who have been 

robbed—— 

39 

Ms. NORTON. So here is a disabled 67-year-old. She got $28,000 

from the State. She probably has some insurance money. Is she the 

kind of person that could have the rest of it done with volunteer 

help and the like? 

Rev. JENKINS. Yes. We are doing that with volunteer help. And 

we are doing it on a handshake for people who have no money. For 

people who have money, they are paying for their supplies to rebuild. But we have yet to lose a penny on any poor person who 

comes into money. They pay us back as soon as they can. 

Ms. NORTON. Well, Mr. Rainwater, we do still hear—and we have 

some of them from the District of Columbia—of people coming in 

doing marvelous things. What relationship do you have to these 

volunteer groups who, for example, the 67-year-old lady I just 

talked about, if the State got together with the volunteers, this 

lady might get this home built even in this climate? 

Mr. RAINWATER. Yes, ma’am. So we started developing a program 

in the last quarter of last year— it is this pilot project that we just 

sent to HUD for approval—which would begin to move some dollars 

down to nonprofits, like the Reverend—— 

Ms. NORTON. Now, wait a minute. First of all, a lot of this is 

being done by volunteer work? 

Rev. JENKINS. Yes, ma’am. 

Ms. NORTON. I like what you are saying, but I am not understanding what it is that the nonprofits would do. 

Mr. RAINWATER. Well, basically what we try to do is help them 

to purchase building materials, pay for some of their administrative costs—— 

Ms. NORTON. This is so common sense, I am almost dying here. 

Mr. Tombar, these are the most motivated people in Louisiana. 

They have worked all their lives, got a piece of land and got a 

house. You are hearing that, limited though they are, the nonprofits are seeing the potential here of purchasing materials themselves because these are people with some insurance money they 

haven’t spent. These people want their house back; they have got 

a piece of land. 

You heard Mr. Rainwater say that they are asking for pilot funds 

from HUD in order to speed up this volunteer effort, most of which 

doesn’t even come out of government funds, so that these people 

could in fact get the materials to begin doing what is necessary. 

What is the status of that approval? 

When was it submitted, Mr. Rainwater? 

Mr. RAINWATER. It was submitted towards the end of last month. 

So it is within a reasonable time frame, ma’am. 

Ms. NORTON. Are you aware of that, Mr. Tombar? 

Mr. TOMBAR. I was not, but I am aware of the fact that the 

CDBG program provides great flexibility, and this is the type 

of—— 

Ms. NORTON. Just a moment. You are saying Mr. Rainwater already can do this then? 

Mr. TOMBAR. No, ma’am. He is going through the administrative 

process it sounds like. 

Ms. NORTON. Are you asking for CDBG funds that exist, or are 

you asking for new pilot funds? 

40 

Mr. RAINWATER. There are two different requests. One was we 

had Community Development Block Grant money that we took out 

of one of our programs, an infrastructure program, and sent an action plan amendment to HUD, which they are very positive about. 

We are also working with FEMA and some of the congressional 

delegation, on taking about $9 million that was for case management to take it and put it into this creative nonprofit pot. 

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Tombar, we are already at work on the task 

force here as you can see. Could I ask that those approvals be 

speeded up, as a request from the Subcommittee, that those approvals be done within 30 days from today? I know that that may 

be less time than is normally the case, but we are up against a 

deadline, and we can’t push the deadline without pushing ourselves 

and the government as well. And since you are a pilot program, we 

have a new administration that is open to innovation. You see 

what the State is willing to do. Would you be willing to press for 

an approval—that the approval period would be over and done with 

in 30 days? We are up against an August deadline. 

Mr. TOMBAR. I will guarantee you that we will review, provide 

technical assistance, should we find any issues with the plan as 

submitted by the State, and work with them in the next 30 days 

to resolve those and give full approval. 

Ms. NORTON. I thank you very much. That is very important. 

Please get that information to us within 30 days of where we are 

and whether the approvals have been done. 

I think we have begun to deal with the people who Mr. Tombar 

says—remember, we have established that there is a place for everybody to go without being put on the street, one. Two, we have 

established that they have been given three sources. Three, we 

have found that the difficulty may be in case management so that 

people understand they are at the end of the road, and what services will surround them when they leave the present situation in 

which they find themselves. 

That leaves us with, so far as I can now see, the trailer people, 

where Mr. Garratt has offered some important information, at least 

to begin to work on, and that is the people—367 within 5 months, 

298 within 11 months, 50 percent at least a year of—I guess this 

is started rebuilding—509 would be at least a year, and 711 not rebuilding at all. 

Now, these people need to be separated and broken down. Now, 

the people who are not rebuilding, we don’t have enough information. All we have is this helpful information. Let us establish this, 

if there is a reasonable chance that a person will contribute to the 

economy of the State of Louisiana by becoming a homeowner able 

to pay property taxes and able to contribute thereby to the parish 

in which that person lives, it is within the interest of the government of the State and the parish to in fact assist that family or 

individual toward that end. ′′Reasonable′′ is an important point 

here. 

I don’t know about the 711, whether the people are not building 

at all, whether it is reasonable. The reason these figures are of any 

moment at all is because these people that I am talking about that 

Mr. Garratt has figures on are all in trailers. We have also estabVerDate Aug 31 2005 11:14 Mar 15, 2010 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00052 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\49956 JASON
41 

lished that it is not as if the trailer is going to go to some other 

beneficial use. 

The task force that is looking at those in rental units, those in 

section—I want you to stay right in here, Mr. Tombar, because 

some of these may in fact turn out to be people who need HUD assistance. But we have got to disaggregate these numbers to find 

out what we can do. We cannot fail to take account of the fact— 

and let me say this for the record; were it not for the New Deal 

vehicles left to us, unemployment insurance—FEMA was not one 

of them—but Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid, which are 

the next New Deal, the Great Society, were it not for them, where 

we would be is where my parents were, on bread lines. All 50 

States are down. We are only beginning to see the rattlings of the 

bottom. You know when you have thought about it and you say, my 

butt is here, so I think I am at the bottom? That is the most that 

the analysts are willing to tell us. That is great news. That really 

has the public going out and actually buying something. Because 

the least optimistic of the analysts have said, we can’t say we are 

at the bottom. 

We are not falling as fast, we know this. The greatest lagging indicator is employment. And yet these people are within some reasonable distance—at least some of them, I don’t know about the 

509, and none of us know yet who are at least a year out because 

it could be a year and some distance. But we know that whatever 

else is keeping them from rebuilding, not only is it Katrina; it as 

an economy that they had nothing to do with making fall on its 

face. Because these are all homeowners, these people were taking 

care of themselves, the able-bodied people who were taking care of 

themselves are the top of the list as far as I am concerned because 

they are people who are used to providing for themselves. 

I am going to ask the task force—because I can’t tell you—I 

know kind of what to do with these other folks, sensitive case management, the pilot program that Mr. Tombar kindly said he will do 

all he can to see it speeded up. The Section 8 housing is available. 

This is a whole lot more hopeful than I thought this hearing might 

turn out to be, which is why oversight hearings are important in 

the first place. 

It may be that FEMA, or this Committee, this Congress, will 

have to act with respect to these trailers because we will look like 

complete idiots putting people out of trailers who, but for what the 

State could have done, what the economy could have done, would 

be building their housing and then thrusting them on the housing 

market. I don’t even know, Mr. Tombar, whether or not they would 

displace or eat up some of the Section 8 housing—which really 

shouldn’t go to them, all things being considered. 

If, in fact, as Mr. Garratt says, they’re within X or Y months of 

building—it may well be these are the people who have jobs—we 

don’t want to crowd people from one sector onto another sector. But 

we don’t know enough about them. 

Now, I am going to ask the task force—and this one will be 60 

days because these people are not the people who are—well, I 

should make that 45 days because these people may also find 

themselves just—Mr. Garratt has testified there will be no evictions. Let me see what kind of time frames we are under here. 

42 

Mr. Garratt, I amsimply trying to give the task force time to see 

what these figures mean. That is the only fair thing to do. And I 

appreciate the figures you provided. You testified that there would 

be no evictions; is that right? 

Mr. GARRATT. No, ma’am. What I testified to was that evictions 

would not begin for some period of time. We haven’t even completed the termination and notification process, nor have we referred at this point anyone for eviction. That won’t occur until, at 

the very earliest, the end of this month. And even then, referrals 

will be taking place over some period of time. And even then, there 

is a process, a rather lengthy process that must be followed before 

that can even begin. 

So what I testified to was, they won’t begin on June 1, and I 

think it is likely to be several months, some period of time, before 

they would actually begin. 

Ms. NORTON. All right. That is good enough for me, 45 days. We 

would like more information, and let me tell you who we would like 

this from. 

Mr. Garratt, these people are in your trailers. When you gave figures about how much time it would take, all things being considered, did that information come from your own evaluation, or did 

it come from Mr. Rainwater, or HUD? 

Mr. GARRATT. I would say that that is probably information that 

came from both of our efforts. We are in fact operating in a joint 

environment in the field, so these are collaborative efforts. 

Ms. NORTON. Given your testimony that you are not trying to 

precipitously evict people, I am not going to do anything here but 

speak to the need for analysis-based on the figures Mr. Rainwater, 

Mr. Tombar and Mr. Garratt gave about the number of months. 

Quite a few people were within building, given the fact—now, these 

people have resources. We are talking about people who have some 

insurance money. I am sure hope this means that people understand you shouldn’t be spending insurance money. Do people understand that? Do people understand that? Or does the insurance 

company only give the money when they see that you are—if you 

say you are going to rebuild—rebuilding? 

Mr. RAINWATER. No, ma’am. One of the challenges that we have 

had in Louisiana is there are a number of lawsuits related to the 

insurance companies. And so what we have been doing last year, 

and this year is working with residents to make sure they get their 

Road Home grant. We have taken ourselves mostly out of the debate between the citizen and the insurance company so that 

they—— 

Ms. NORTON. But I’m just asking, if she has got $28,000 worth 

of insurance, is she just given that money and told, here, go rebuild, or go do something else? 

Mr. RAINWATER. No, ma’am. There are two choices. One, you can 

rebuild where you are at; you can rebuild in Louisiana but at a different location; or you can rebuild out of State. Each time someone 

gets a grant though, they sign a 3-year covenant that requires that 

they meet the new elevations, that they build to the new building 

code or they repair their house. So there are requirements. 

Ms. NORTON. So it is true that we are talking about people who 

have some resources? 

43 

Mr. RAINWATER. Yes, ma’am. 

Ms. NORTON. And when the economy recovers, it may be that it 

is going to be, God help us, easier to rebuild because we were working in a very elevated, escalated, really false, made out of derivatives and non-money, really, false kind of economy. Now people 

need, work and contractors need business, as they say in the city, 

they need some business. So it may turn out to be easier to build 

than it would have been even when recovery began and was going 

on because people will be up and running now, the contractors will 

be up and running. 

In 45 days, I am going to ask the task force simply to give us 

information. We don’t have any basis to know where these people 

are. The only strictures we have are ones imposed on all of us 

alike, and that is the economy. And I have indicated that the Subcommittee continues to be the overriding public interest in keeping 

these people who are—people who own homes are the most productive people in the society. So we would have an interest in helping 

them help themselves. They have a habit of saving. Most of them 

have owned homes and bought homes that required them to save. 

And we believe that they will be building and rebuilding the parish 

and rebuilding the State and becoming taxpayers. 

Now, you may find differently. This is a rebuttable presumption. 

It is certainly rebuttable with respect to the 711 that Mr. Garratt 

says are not rebuilding at all. We can’t tell what in the world to 

do there. But at some point, the government has to fish or cut bait. 

That may mean with the trailers as well, as harsh as that seems. 

The Stafford Act does not allow for government to perpetually provide trailers. That would be, even for these self-sufficient people, 

an enabling kind of activity and an activity that encourages dependency. 

The reason we have great sympathy with these people is these 

have been independent people. Mother Nature took over from them 

and took away their independence. So we don’t want to make them 

any further dependent than they are, but if they can’t rebuild at 

all, ultimately they are going to need some case work or some other 

reality that they are going to have to come to grips with or else 

they are not operating in the public interest. The area is not being 

rebuilt. Their land is not going to contribute to the tax base of the 

parish or of the State. And they are going to have to help us help 

them. 

I don’t know what to do about them yet, and I don’t expect you 

to know. So all I am asking, in 45 days—and we are going to send 

you this in writing—is to know what it means—Mr. Garratt’s helpful figures. And he only meant them as an outline of what we know 

now. You may know more or your own offices may know more, but 

what it means for people within 5 months, 11 months, at least a 

year, what that means, 50 percent would take at least a year, want 

that broken down; send to the Committee as much information as 

you can. This information will be necessary because we will have 

to decide whether or not any extensions are called for, and if so, 

for whom. 

We believe that the State has been enabled by the extensions, 

even though we have felt we needed them. We think the State has 

understood that we don’t strand people. And just because there has 

44 

been a change in administration, do not think that the standard 

has changed. We do not like that the decision gets made at the last 

minute. We do believe that it is permissible, so long as there is 

adequate case work going on, to continue to tell people they have 

to leave now. In other words, if people are given notice—and I don’t 

know what the usual notice is, let’s say it is a month’s notice, but 

they have all of the surrounding—we don’t think it is improper to 

give people notice that, let us say, in the middle of June, that by 

the middle of July, one of the three sources that they have been 

given is one they have to take. And this is a service. 

So we are not trying to stop you from doing what is reasonable. 

But we are saying that it is not permissible to do that without very 

sensitive case work that lets these people understand that they are 

being given that date for a reason. And at that point, they subject 

themselves to eviction. Because a State then has done all it can; 

it has provided you with transportation. It has provided you with 

a case worker you can always be in touch with. It has provided you 

with a way to get to your medical services. It has provided you 

with information, if you work every day, about how to get to your 

job even though it is at a part of the parish that normally is harder 

to get to. The government can’t do the impossible. 

So we are not trying to stop you from giving people notice. We 

are trying to let you keep doing that so that we are not left at the 

last minute with the need for another extension, and we are not 

left at the last minute with people thinking that the government 

has done it before, so they are going to do it again. But the shorter 

time limits are based on being assured that we are doing what we 

are supposed to do within the time limits that have been previously 

set. 

And this Committee will feel free to have further hearings next 

month if we find that the only remedy you are leaving for us is to 

extend the deadline. That is the least, that is the least acceptable 

remedy to the government. Because that will mean to this Subcommittee that the government hasn’t done its job, not given what 

Mr. Tombar has told us, not given the figures that Mr. Garratt has 

given. If in fact there is a need to extend it, the greatest reason 

will be that the combination of forces recognized here—except for 

Rev. Jenkins, who testified before us—have not done what is needed to move people out. And we are not willing, because the government has failed, to say that the government can keep on failing. 

So expect there will be another hearing next month, unless the figures you provide us indicate you are making the necessary 

progress. 

Now, I realize that I have kept people long beyond what these 

hearings keep you, but you know why? Because these hearings are 

usually about, ′′I got you, Mr. Rainwater,′′ ′′see, I told you, Mr. 

Garratt,′′ ′′see, Mr. Tombar, you haven’t done what I wanted you 

to do.′′ I don’t believe in those kind of hearings. The hearings that 

serve us best are hearings that help us help you solve a problem. 

Mr. Rainwater, one question before you go. The figure that has 

blown me out of the water since I first heard it was $3.4 billion 

held by the State of Louisiana that could be used to rebuild Charity Hospital. Mr. Garratt or Mr. Rainwater, your forces couldn’t get 

yourselves together. The Senator from the State then went to a nuVerDate Aug 31 2005 11:14 Mar 15, 2010 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00056 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\49956 JASON
45 

clear remedy and said that there would be arbitration. Then the 

new Secretary for DHS said, oh, no, we are going to get it together, 

and we will have some remedy that is within what Senator 

Landrieu has offered. 

So the first thing I want to ask you, sir, you testified here—it must have been 2 months ago—how much of the $3.4 billion has 

now been put to good use in the State of Louisiana? 

Mr. RAINWATER. Madam Chair, you are referring to the Community Development Block Grant money, the Disaster Recovery Community Development Block Grant money? 

Ms. NORTON. It is the public assistance program, $3.4 billion. 

Mr. RAINWATER. Yes, ma’am. Let me look at my numbers real 

quick. Just bear with me one second. 

Ms. NORTON. Sorry. This is the last question. 

Mr. RAINWATER. Madam Chair, of the $3.6 billion, so far we have 

spent down $2.8 billion. And what we have done since our last 

hearing is, FEMA has sent down some decision teams that are 

working. And what we have done is we have broken up our groups 

down the State to some real action-oriented teams that are making 

decisions. So we have actually spent down from the $3.6, we are 

at about $2.8 billion now that are unspent. 

Now, some of those have to do with the gaps that exist, and we 

continue to work through those issues. FEMA’s Transitional Recovery Office, Acting Director Tony Russell, and the action people that 

they have sent down, are doing a very good job. And we are—— 

Ms. NORTON. This is good news. It is progress. Let me ask you, you have spent down from $3.6 to $2.8, or you 

have obligated—— 

Mr. RAINWATER. Yes, ma’am. 

Ms. NORTON. What are those obligations for? 

Mr. RAINWATER. A multitude of projects, anything from Southern 

University of New Orleans to Tulane University to Delgado Technical College to fire stations and police stations. If you go out into 

New Orleans and St. Bernard, you will see construction occurring 

from those public assistance dollars. 

Ms. NORTON. So what happened, Mr. Garratt and Mr. Rain- water? This is some progress, $.8 million spent. What happened? 

How was the logjam broken? 

Mr. GARRATT. There are a couple of issues here at play. One of 

them, obviously, is this unobligated—or this amount of funding 

that was obligated to the State but was not drawn down by subgrantees. In fact, the fact that there is several billion dollars in 

there doesn’t necessarily indicate a problem. What it may indicate 

and what it does indicate is the State is doing its due diligence. 

This is a reimbursement program, so it doesn’t immediately go to 

the State then immediately go to a subgrantee. They do work; they 

submit invoices; the State validates those invoices and then reimburses them for that. So there is a process involved. 

Ms. NORTON. Wait a minute. I thought much of this had to do 

with a dispute between FEMA and the State. 

Mr. GARRATT. Not in terms of the funding that has been obligated to the State.That funding is for projects that were approved, 

but it is up to the applicants to actually do the work on those 

projects and submit the paperwork to get reimbursement. 

46 

Ms. NORTON. That is an important clarification. 

Mr. RAINWATER. What you are seeing, Madam Chair, is the gap 

is being filled. And remember we had a dispute over what dollars 

were owed to State, another piece that is just recently taking place, 

it is very positive, in the recovery school district in New Orleans, 

FEMA has agreed to what we call a quick-start reconstruction program that allows the schools to lump-sum $150 million and rebuild 

the way they need to rebuild back to a more efficient process. 

Ms. NORTON. So there is a difference between the obligation of 

funds that have been approved and funds where there is a dispute 

between the State and the city. So, it is really progress, particularly in this recessionary climate, that at least the obligations have 

commenced. 

Now, how much in funding is still in dispute between the State 

of Louisiana and FEMA? 

Mr. RAINWATER. That is approximately around $1 billion. And 

some of that relates back to the Charity Hospital dispute, which is 

half of that, which the dispute is over whether or not the building 

was damaged over 51 percent or more. 

Ms. NORTON. How is that dispute being resolved, if at all? 

Mr. RAINWATER. We just got through our first appeal. That appeal was denied by FEMA Region Six. We can now go to our second 

appeal, or there is conversation about using panel arbitration. 

Ms. NORTON. All right. When we last met on this issue, it wasn’t 

at the appeal level; it was at the primary decision area. I mean, 

appeals take time, and I want to know about that time in a moment, but it seems to me the issue that was most disturbing was 

at the initial dispute of how much. You can’t appeal until one side 

or the other in fact takes a stand—and I guess, in this case, it 

would be FEMA, this is how much we are going to pay. At that 

point, you go to an appeal. I want to know at the ′′how much we 

are going to pay stage′′ are we? 

Mr. GARRATT. $150 million. 

Ms. NORTON. You see my issue; $150 million has been agreed 

upon. Now, that says to me—and I understand the position Mr. 

Garratt is in; his job is to husband the funds. 

Your job, Mr. Rainwater, is to get as much of the funds as possible. 

If we understand this as a structural problem, it won’t be hard. 

As I understand after the last hearing, a number of different 

ways to just crack the nut, so it could go to appeal. We had discussions with Senator Landrieu’s office, we had discussions with the 

American Arbitration Association. There was some understanding 

in Senator Landrieu’s office about some administrative law judges. 

I had some concern about those, unless they were people who 

could resolve a dispute and weren’t simply operating in an appeal 

mode. Has any of that come to your attention? 

Mr. RAINWATER. Yes, Madam Chair, I have spoken with a number of Committee staff. And as I understand it, the panel arbitration piece hasn’t been put together yet. There are a number of players at the State level in this project. 

There is some conversation about just going to the second appeal, 

because it does—under the new appeals process, it does allow for 

an oral appeal, and we can present additional information. 

47 

Ms. NORTON. Wait a minute, help me out, because I wasn’t even 

at the appeal. The $150 million is the amount that interests me. 

Mr. RAINWATER. Yes, ma’am. 

Ms. NORTON. That has come out of the initial dispute negotiations. Now, part of what could happen here is that the slow-up may 

be because FEMA is, in fact, continuing to negotiate with the State 

at all. They could hasten an appeal just by coming down with numbers, one after another, and you will have to appeal it. 

So I take it at the dispute level, it is because somebody is negotiating with FEMA and that they are negotiating in good faith; is 

that true? 

Mr. RAINWATER. Madam Chair, when we negotiated last year we 

went from 23 million to $150 million. 

So in our particular case, our particular client is LSU, the medical center of New Orleans, which is the new hospital to be built. 

If you look at the two studies that were done, we still believe it was 

$492 million. 

And so we feel like that the attorneys—and I am not an attorney—but the attorneys in our group feel like they have a case 

based off two studies we had done last year. 

Ms. NORTON. But you see, you cracked the nut on that. I am not 

even—on that one, I have been less critical. 

It is the initial dispute, so we can get to appeal, and still we have 

most of the money there. We have the money that you have obligated. That is very important, because that meant—and correct me 

if I am wrong—that it was not held up as an initial dispute. 

That is money you have since obligated that FEMA had already 

signed on and that was included in the 3.6 billion and.8 billion of 

that has been obligated. All told, Mr. Garratt testified, is about a 

billion dollars still in the dispute stage—is that true—and 150 million of that has been—150 million of that has gone down since we 

last met. 

Mr. GARRATT. I think it was actually Mr. Rainwater who testified 

that he thought there was about a billion dollars worth of unobligated project worksheets that were still out there. 

Ms. NORTON. So if it is unobligated, that means you have already 

approved it? 

Mr. GARRATT. Unobligated, we still have a number of projects 

that we are still working through. 

Ms. NORTON. I want to know how much in that number—that 

you are still working through—there are? 

Mr. RAINWATER. That would be—when we last testified, it was 

about, we felt like there was about a 1.4 billion gap. 

Ms. NORTON. In disputed amounts? 

Mr. RAINWATER. In disputed amounts, yes, ma’am. 

Ms. NORTON. All I am trying to do is figure out what we are 

doing with that. 

Mr. RAINWATER. But that number is continuing to come down 

based off decisions that are being—— 

Ms. NORTON. It is $150 million, Mr. Garratt just testified. 

Mr. RAINWATER. Yes, ma’am. And so what—— 

Ms. NORTON. How has that come down, since that was in dispute—— 

48 

Mr. RAINWATER. We went from $23 million to $150 million, 

which was—— 

Ms. NORTON. What procedures were used to do that, please? 

Mr. RAINWATER. Conversation. 

Ms. NORTON. Well, I don’t see any evidence of any new procedures in place. You are still haggling. 

Mr. RAINWATER. However, Madam Chair, I will say that at the 

ground level, what FEMA has done and what we have done is put 

these decision teams in place, and they continue to work through. 

The Charity Hospital piece is being treated—— 

Ms. NORTON. How much of it is Charity Hospital? 

Mr. RAINWATER. About 492 million. That is our disputed number. 

Ms. NORTON. Okay, how about the rest of it, is projects under— 

what is it—500 million? They are smaller projects. There is a recession going on. Get some people to work. Why can’t we get decisions 

on those? 

Mr. RAINWATER. Yes, ma’am. That is what we are working on 

right now. I just said we just decided $150 million for the recovery 

school district. 

Ms. NORTON. Did the decision team help in some way, and, if so, 

how? 

Mr. RAINWATER. Yes, ma’am. The decision team sat down and 

worked through the issues. 

Ms. NORTON. Who is on the decision team? 

Mr. RAINWATER. Tony Russell is the Changes for Recovery Office; 

a gentleman name Bill Vogel, and a gentleman named Charlie 

Axton from FEMA. 

Ms. NORTON. They are all from FEMA? 

Mr. RAINWATER. Yes, ma’am. And then from the State we have 

a gentleman named Mark Riley, who is the deputy director; and a 

gentleman named Mark Debosier and a gentleman named James 

Clark, who sit down and work through these issues. 

We have a multitude of other folks underneath. But those are 

the folks that come together. I am brought in at particular points 

when there are very difficult decisions, and we work through it and 

make decisions together. So we are making progress on this. But 

it just takes time. 

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Garratt, we were pleased when the new Secretary stationed these teams to be helpful. 

Are those people in Louisiana who are on the ground now the 

three people named by Mr. Rainwater? 

Mr. GARRATT. They are. 

Ms. NORTON. Could I ask you to do this? Congress went on its 

vacation, we anticipated we would be here this morning at least, 

but they went on the May 30 recess for a week yesterday. 

Would you make available to the staff those three people so that 

they can have an understanding—we would like to have confidence 

in that process. Because if we don’t, then what we intend to do is 

to modify what Senator Landrieu put in place. That is already statutory law to, in fact, make decision-making occur. 

We can’t stand it that there is almost a $1 billion out there that 

could be putting people to work in Louisiana. We understand the 

difficulty, nor are we criticizing you for simply not giving in to the 

49 

State, nor the State for trying to get as much out of you as possible. 

We are saying this. This is a classic dispute where a third 

party—you are using a third party from within the agency—is almost surely, as a structural matter, going to have to put their foot 

down or else we just go on and on and on, and each side has to 

haggle itself out. He is under an obligation to get as much money 

from you as possible, and you are under oversight from us to make 

sure you don’t give them any more than what they deserve. 

Whatever they get, they are going to complain about. This is 

classic third party; help us out. 

And we are not willing to go forward without knowing more. So 

could I ask you to make available to staff these three people to 

make us understand how this new process is working? 

Mr. GARRATT. Our staff are always available to support you and 

your staff, Madam. 

Ms. NORTON. We would expect to see them next week before Congress comes back in session. 

I want to thank all of you for, really, very helpful testimony that 

we have regarded as very problem-solving-oriented. We believe we 

have gotten someplace. We are going to put it in writing so that 

you will see what we believe has resulted in commitments from 

this testimony and so that we can all track each other to make the 

best things happen for the people of Louisiana. 

Thank you again for your patience. 

[Whereupon, at 1:07 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.] 

50 


Insert offset folio 7 here 49956.007
51 


Insert offset folio 8 here 49956.008
52 


Insert offset folio 9 here 49956.009
53 


Insert offset folio 10 here 49956.010
54 


Insert offset folio 11 here 49956.011
55 


Insert offset folio 12 here 49956.012
56 


Insert offset folio 13 here 49956.013
57 


Insert offset folio 14 here 49956.014
58 


Insert offset folio 15 here 49956.015
59 


Insert offset folio 16 here 49956.016
60 


Insert offset folio 17 here 49956.017
61 


Insert offset folio 18 here 49956.018
62 


Insert offset folio 19 here 49956.019
63 


Insert offset folio 20 here 49956.020
64 


Insert offset folio 21 here 49956.021
65 


Insert offset folio 22 here 49956.022
66 


Insert offset folio 23 here 49956.023
67 


Insert offset folio 24 here 49956.024
68 


Insert offset folio 25 here 49956.025
69 


Insert offset folio 26 here 49956.026
70 


Insert offset folio 27 here 49956.027
71 


Insert offset folio 28 here 49956.028
72 


Insert offset folio 29 here 49956.029
73 


Insert offset folio 30 here 49956.030
74 


Insert offset folio 31 here 49956.031
75 


Insert offset folio 32 here 49956.032
76 


Insert offset folio 33 here 49956.033
77 


Insert offset folio 34 here 49956.034
78 


Insert offset folio 35 here 49956.035
79 


Insert offset folio 36 here 49956.036
80 


Insert offset folio 37 here 49956.037
81 


Insert offset folio 38 here 49956.038
82 


Insert offset folio 39 here 49956.039
83 


Insert offset folio 40 here 49956.040
84 


Insert offset folio 41 here 49956.041
85 


Insert offset folio 42 here 49956.042
86 


Insert offset folio 43 here 49956.043
87 


Insert offset folio 44 here 49956.044
88 


Insert offset folio 45 here 49956.045
89 


Insert offset folio 46 here 49956.046
90 


Insert offset folio 47 here 49956.047
91 


Insert offset folio 48 here 49956.048
92 


Insert offset folio 49 here 49956.049
93 


Insert offset folio 50 here 49956.050
94 


Insert offset folio 51 here 49956.051
95 


Insert offset folio 52 here 49956.052
96 


Insert offset folio 53 here 49956.053
97 


Insert offset folio 54 here 49956.054
98 


Insert offset folio 55 here 49956.055
99 


Insert offset folio 56 here 49956.056
100 


Insert offset folio 57 here 49956.057
101 


Insert offset folio 58 here 49956.058
102 


Insert offset folio 59 here 49956.059
103 


Insert offset folio 60 here 49956.060
104 


Insert offset folio 61 here 49956.061
105 


Insert offset folio 62 here 49956.062
106 


Insert offset folio 63 here 49956.063
107 


Insert offset folio 64 here 49956.064
108 


Insert offset folio 65 here 49956.065
109 


Insert offset folio 66 here 49956.066
110 


Insert offset folio 67 here 49956.067
111 


Insert offset folio 68 here 49956.068
112 


Insert offset folio 69 here 49956.069
113 


Insert offset folio 70 here 49956.070
114 


Insert offset folio 71 here 49956.071
115 


Insert offset folio 72 here 49956.072
116 


Insert offset folio 73 here 49956.073
117 


Insert offset folio 74 here 49956.074
118 


Insert offset folio 75 here 49956.075
119 


Insert offset folio 76 here 49956.076
120 


Insert offset folio 77 here 49956.077
121 


Insert offset folio 78 here 49956.078
122 


Insert offset folio 79 here 49956.079
123 


Insert offset folio 80 here 49956.080
124 


Insert offset folio 81 here 49956.081
125 


Insert offset folio 82 here 49956.082
126 


Insert offset folio 83 here 49956.083
127 


Insert offset folio 84 here 49956.084
128 


Insert offset folio 85 here 49956.085
129 


Insert offset folio 86 here 49956.086
130 


Insert offset folio 87 here 49956.087
131 


Insert offset folio 88 here 49956.088
132 


Insert offset folio 89 here 49956.089
133 


Insert offset folio 90 here 49956.090
134 


Insert offset folio 91 here 49956.091
135 


Insert offset folio 92 here 49956.092
136 


Insert offset folio 93 here 49956.093
137 


Insert offset folio 94 here 49956.094
138 


Insert offset folio 95 here 49956.095
139 

Æ