Campaign for America's Future Conference Call with Robert Borosage, Co-Director, CFAF; House Majority Whip Rep. James Clyburn (D-SC); and Rep. Maxine

Statement

CAMPAIGN FOR AMERICA'S FUTURE CONFERENCE CALL WITH ROBERT BOROSAGE, CO-DIRECTOR, CFAF; HOUSE MAJORITY WHIP REP. JAMES CLYBURN (D-SC); AND REP. MAXINE WATERS (D-CA) SUBJECT: SECOND ANNIVERSARY OF HURRICANE KATRINA
MODERATOR: TOBY CHAUDHURI, COMMUNICATIONS DIRECTOR FOR CFAC

Copyright ©2007 by Federal News Service, Inc., Ste. 500, 1000 Vermont Ave, Washington, DC 20005 USA. Federal News Service is a private firm not affiliated with the federal government. No portion of this transcript may be copied, sold or retransmitted without the written authority of Federal News Service, Inc. Copyright is not claimed as to any part of the original work prepared by a United States government officer or employee as a part of that person's official duties. For information on subscribing to the FNS Internet Service at www.fednews.com, please email Jack Graeme at jack@fednews.com or call 1-800-211-4020.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

REP. WATERS: Yes, I'm on the line.

REP. CLYBURN: Oh, very good. Well, then let me use this time, Maxine, to go to you, and hopefully you can -- because you're doing tremendous work. I think it's H.R. 1227?

REP. WATERS: Yes.

REP. CLYBURN: And maybe you can pick up there to go into the housing and talk about the GSE provisions as well, and I won't deal with any housing and let you do that. So let me yield now to Maxine Waters, if I may.

REP. WATERS: Hello?

REP. CLYBURN: Yes. Maxine?

REP. WATERS: Yes. Okay. Hi. This is Congresswoman Waters.

And I'm here in New Orleans at this time getting prepared to go over to do a panel on disaster recovery. And I also will be meeting one more time with the public housing residents. Since Katrina hit, I've been in New Orleans and over in Houston, where many of the residents are living with a lot of uncertainty and not knowing what's going to happen to them. I've been here about 10 times.

And I understand -- what is happening, particularly with the housing, public housing and the Road Home program, AB 1227 was designed to try and resolve a lawsuit that is pending that was placed by the Advancement Project on behalf of the tenants of public housing and to try and keep the federal government from dismantling all of the public housing before the return of the residents here.

What has happened, in my estimation, is HUD and this administration is attempting to use Katrina as an opportunity to dismantle all of the public housing that they have wanted to tear down for quite some time. They have boarded up -- they have evacuated these tenants. These tenants are living over in Houston and Dallas and Atlanta and other places around the country. And once they had evacuated them, then they announced that they were going to dismantle this housing and they would have it redone in five or six years and people could return.

However, nobody trusts HUD and HANO, the local housing authority here in the New Orleans area, because these were the kinds of promises that were made years ago when they tore down public housing such as St. Thomas and many of the -- most of the people never got back in. It took them 10 years to restore some of that housing, and they reduced the number of units available to poor people in these HOPE VI type operations, where they had more market-rate housing and some ownership.

And so the people are in limbo that's stuck over in Houston and Dallas and places. These public housing units have been boarded up for two years. The people want to return home. Plus you have people who are in trailers.

Some of them are public housing. Some of them are not. But they have no place else to go.

There are very few rental units in the area, and the cost of a rental unit is astronomical. It has gone up because of supply and demand. There's so few units available.

And so all of these people -- some poor people, some working people -- have no place to live. And these public housing units are boarded up. They could have rehabbed them. Some of them only needed minimum rehab, like the Lafitte project, where the damage was only to the first and second floor, and above that it was not damaged at all.

But the scheme of this administration to tear down public housing because they don't want to deal with poor people is just absolutely unconscionable. A.B. 1227 basically -- well, it would guarantee that at least 3,000 of those units would be back in place. And they promised that they would put 3,000 units back on the market by the end -- well, 2,500 of those by the end of August, another -- balance, 500, by October.

But I discovered when I was down here last week that they have not even started on any rehab to those units, because they don't intend to restore them. They claim that they have houses available and scattered homes, but those were places that were destroyed by Katrina. They haven't even started on those.

And so the people who have lived in the major public housing units of St. Bernard's, Lafitte, Cooper and C.J. Peete just have no place to return to.

And the Road Home program, the program that we immediately gave almost $12 billion to, for homeowners to restore their properties and to rebuild, has been so badly handled. We came down, and we held a hearing on that some months ago and put some fire up under them. And they rushed the work on some of the applications, but it's been handled badly. It was all calculated wrong. The whole philosophy behind it is not a good one. And so now they're running out of money, and they're probably going to need another $6 billion, and still no neighborhoods have been rebuilt through their Road Home program.

It is a housing disaster in this New Orleans area, and this administration is not committed to doing what needs to be done to get people returned.

And we are continuing to push. My bill was passed out of the House back in March, 1227. In addition to that, Barney Frank and I put together a National Housing Trust Fund. And the first -- over $50 billion of that is -- for the first year is dedicated to this area to build housing, and the president is threatening to veto that.

So we know what needs to be done, and we're trying our best to work on it. But as we come and gather here on these two days in New Orleans, where community groups and organizations and national groups and organizations are assessing what has been done, what is needed, what is going to be a glaring lost opportunity is this housing and an inability and not even a desire by the administration to house poor people. There should have been a policy by this administration not only to open up the public housing to the people who stayed there, but those units that had been boarded up -- they had a long waiting list for people seeking housing. All of the units should have been open and even for people who were not in public housing prior to Katrina. They should have been afforded a place to live, and if they had income, they would pay according to their income until they could transition into housing that was being built for low-and moderate- income people. But that policy has not been developed, and we have a housing crisis here.

MR. CHAUDHURI: Thank you, Representative.

We have some time for questions. To ask questions, simply press star one on your dial pad.

And in the meantime, if folks are interested in getting an electronic copy of the report that Robert Borosage mentioned, that the Campaign For America's Future is releasing today on how the federal government has failed to rebuild the devastated areas after Katrina two years later, that's available at www.ourfuture.o-r-g, and as part of that, we're also released -- we've released a YouTube video called, "Disconnected," which contrasts the promises President Bush made two years ago in a speech from Jackson Square to the tragic realities that Katrina survivors are facing now. That's also available at www.ourfuture.o-r-g, and it's already received over a hundred-and- twenty thousand views on YouTube alone. So that's definitely worth a note.

But to ask a question, simply press star one, and we'll go from there. We'll give folks a minute to dial in.

But we'll take our first question from Mark Gruenberg with the Press Associates Union.

Mark, you want to go ahead?

Q Yeah, two questions. One specific one for Congresswoman Waters and the other for everybody.

Congresswoman Waters, when you were just talking about the Road Home program, you said it was, quote, "handled badly and calculated wrong." I wonder if you could go a little more detail into what went wrong there, since this is the program that would presumably help the home owners in places like the Lower Ninth Ward.

And for everybody, there have been some private rebuilding efforts, especially by the union movement in New Orleans, which, unlike the rest of the South, does have strong union movement. Can you talk about what has been done despite the Bush administration, if you will?

REP. WATERS: Well, to the first question, the Road Home program was designed to rebuild communities, I guess, house by house or home by home, and that program envisioned that homes that were destroyed by home owners -- be they senior citizens or anyone else -- that somehow the monies that they would calculate that they were deserving would be used to rebuild their house.

There are a lot of people who are not capable or able of negotiating with contractors and rebuilding their homes, and perhaps don't want to rebuild their homes. So it was a bad way to think of rebuilding communities, and there should have been more thought placed into how you assist those homeowners and rebuild communities without thinking that each of them was going to enter into some kind of contract with a developer or a homebuilder to build their particular home. I don't think you can get the community to rebuild that way.

And number two, what they did was they said that they would give up to $150,000 to those homeowners, but they really calculated it in ways that not everybody would get $150,000. And they started out to give people the least amount of money that they could, meaning that they came up with all kind of ways by which to deny people the total 150,000, and some people got as little as, you know, 10,000 or less, 25,000. And the rules were not understood by people and they were arbitrary in some cases, and it was not good.

And it was very slow getting started. We came down and we held a hearing where we criticized Governor Blanco and the state and the way the program was being managed and the contractor, the consultants or whoever they are, the firm that's doing the work. And then there was a surge, and they speeded it up, and they may not have done due diligence because of the criticism. And then because of the publicity, a lot more people who had not applied then applied and increased substantially the number of applications. And now they're out of money and they're saying they're going to need another 5 (billion) to $6 billion to accommodate the surge in applications that has taken place.

MR. BOROSAGE: Okay, would somebody -- would anybody like to comment on the second question, which is, despite the administration, what has been done, particularly by workers themselves and by the union movement?

Representative Clyburn, do you want to get into that?

REP. CLYBURN: I'm not aware of that. I do know that there is a lot that is going on down there. But I have just been focused on the government response and so I have not done any kind of looking into what may or may not be taking place by unions.

MR. BOROSAGE: I do know that the AFL-CIO did a remarkable mobilization of its members, sent down literally thousands of skilled workers both to help in the cleaning up of -- and salvaging of neighborhoods, and offered to construct and to help finance through its pension funds, various pension funds, construct a whole range of housing -- I'm not quite sure of the scope of it, but thousands of houses -- and were frustrated on the latter part with the inability to get decisions made at the local level to be able to go forward.

Some of it's gone forward, but not as much as they had hoped.

REP. WATERS: Well, it's my understanding that they bid on some of the redevelopment of public housing. What has happened in all of this, while this housing has been voided up and the criticism has been leveled against HUD, HUD has been -- well, they've proceeded with talking with developers and even trying to enter into some kind of contract with developers to do -- redevelop these -- some of these public housing projects.

One of them, for example, the Lafitte projects -- they have some arrangement with Enterprise and Providence to redevelop those, but they promised us it would be phased redevelopment, where they would come in and they would rehab parts of Lafitte, move people back in, and as new units come on line, they would move people into the new units. That way, people could return from out of state, get back into Lafitte and be there where the new units are developed.

Now, we have said to them, we're not opposed to redevelopment. And so we believe that it should be phased redevelopment, whether it's at Lafitte or St. Bernard's or C.J. Cooper (sic; B.W. Cooper) or Peete, we think that a phased redevelopment makes good sense. You get people -- you rehab the existing units, get people back home. They continue to grow the new units, move people into the new units section by section. And we understand that AF of L did bid for some of that, but I don't think this administration responded too kindly to the AF of L's bid. And they're dealing with private developers other than Providence and Enterprise on Lafitte.

MR. CHAUDHURI: Again, to ask questions, simply press star-1. We'll take our next question from Jack Muse with The Huffington Post. Jack, you want to go ahead?

Q Yeah, hi. I was wondering what you think can be done a year and a half from now when a new president takes over. To what extent do you think changes can be made? And who do you think, of the current candidates, has the -- is best in position to -- or has the best plan to do something?

REP. WATERS: Who was that directed to?

Q Oh, that was for anybody.

REP. CLYBURN: Well, let me say a couple things about that. I think that in addition to all the things that we have mentioned here this morning, we are also addressing other reform measures.

For one, I do believe that FEMA ought be an independent agency. I think that putting FEMA into Homeland Security was a bad idea, and I think that we need to look at making FEMA an independent agency. And I would hope that the presidential candidates will make some assessments regarding that, and I would hope that those of us in the Congress will pass legislation to do that. I suspect it will get vetoed by this president, but one of the things I would want to do is see whether or not we would get someone in office that will sign such legislation, because I think the Democrats in the House and Senate, by and large, favor that.

Secondly, I think we need to update our -- this whole Stafford Act.

I think the Stafford Act needs to be modernized. I think that those of us who subscribe to the theory that climate change is, in fact, taking place all across this world -- in fact, I just got back from the Netherlands. I spent three days -- two and a half days -- in Amsterdam taking a look at what's taking place there, and it's amazing what people are doing in these countries where the Kyoto protocols have been adopted and they're going forward with making plans.

And they too have been -- in fact, one gentleman that I spent some time with has been down to New Orleans three times. They are using technology out of this country to secure Amsterdam and surrounding areas, and we're just refusing to use our own technology. So I think that we have to develop the congressional and presidential will to update and modernize our response to these disasters.

REP. WATERS: Well, let me just say that I think there are a number of things that a new administration could do very quickly. I think that this lawsuit could be resolved. The judge really is looking to the Advancement Project and HUD to work it out. And I think because of this administration's unwillingness to rehab those housing units, it's just holding up everything. And I think that a new administration could direct a rehab of units and could even go on with rebuilding in a phased way and get rid of that obstacle that's in the way of people returning.

Secondly, I do believe that the Road Home program really does have to be rethought and redone in ways that make good sense. I think that they have problems in the state in knowing how to clear title. A lot of the houses that have been passed down from, you know, family to family, generation to generation, they're unable to clear title on.

There needs to be a fund that is set aside that would take care of any liability that would be caused by, you know, being able to package properties. I think people, when they cannot clear title and people don't want to rebuild, for many of those reasons, that that land should be packaged and houses should be built for the people to be able to return and even for those homeowners who would like to participate in some kind of program which they could have a residence without having to do it themselves.

I do think the infrastructure development must be helped more and assisted more by the federal government. We can't leave it to the locals to put the water systems in, the schools and the health clinics. It is such a basic part of, you know, trying to have a decent quality of life for the average citizen that the federal government is going to have to give more leadership to getting that infrastructure replaced and redone. Otherwise, you know, this water system is going to fall apart. I heard Jim Clyburn alluding to that when I first picked up the telephone here. But the leaks are such that the water quality is compromised, and I really do think, just as the Army Corps of Engineers are responsible for building the levees, that the federal government is going to have to assume a stronger role in the infrastructure redevelopment and repair here. And I think a new administration could certainly do that.

MR. BOROSAGE: This is Bob Borosage. Let me say a few things about that. One is, I think just to reemphasize what Maxine just said, the fundamental set of decisions have to be made that this administration, I think, has refused to make. One is a decision about the levees, are we going to build the levees to the strength to withstand a full-force storm. That decision has to be made. It has to be a announced one way or the other because people have to know that they're going to be safe before many of them will want to come back to these neighborhoods.

Secondly, we have to change the philosophy of the reconstruction project. This administration believes that tax breaks and private enterprise will redevelop a society. The fact is that a modern urban metropolitan area depends on public infrastructure -- on sewers, on roads, on public hospitals, on public schools, on public housing -- and none of this has been rebuilt in any sufficient manner because you have a philosophical disagreement at the top about the benefits of doing this.

And I think you probably have a cynical political calculation about not wanting to have a lot of the people who are dispersed come back.

So a kind of fundamental change has to be done, with the federal government making the commitment to build a modern public infrastructure there that will the allow people to build their own homes and rebuild and make their lives. But without the public infrastructure getting rebuilt, that city will remain in trouble, or at least the areas that were impacted the worst.

The third thing: You asked about the presidential candidates. On the Democratic side, of course, John Edwards opened his campaign in New Orleans and has brought real attention to the failure there and the plight there, and is clearly committed to changing course. Senator Obama just released a plan two days ago which talked about a set of things that would represent a dramatic, different course. And Senator Clinton has also talked about appointing a special czar for New Orleans and putting it at the top of her agenda. So I think you have, among the leading Democrats for the nomination, a commitment in the campaign to make these decisions and to change course dramatically.

MR. CHAUDHURI: We have time for two more questions. We'll take the next one from Leutisha Stills with the CBC Monitor.

Q Good morning, everyone.

My question has to do more with what is being done to hold the current officials that's in charge of Katrina rebuilding accountable in the sense that they are being financed with, you know, with federal money, you know. And I understand, from Representative Clyburn, 30 hearings, oversight hearings have been held. And what has been the results of those hearings? You know, what has been the results in terms of, have they been able to justify the spending of the monies and, you know, actually demonstrate what has actually been done? Because we see a lot of what's not been done.

REP. CLYBURN: Well, to begin with, remember, we took office in January. These 30 hearings have been held since January. This is the eighth month, and we have not completed that month yet. All of the reports from these hearings have not been developed or done yet.

We have, though, responded to some of the information that we've gotten out of the hearings, and a lot of things lead to a lot of follow-up.

For instance, when I was in New Orleans two weeks ago, we started hearing people respond to some of the information or the -- that's been coming out, the testimony, should I say, during the hearings. And we have been able to develop better working relationships with people as a result of that. People are really looking for some hope, some feeling that the government is going to treat them with dignity and respect.

There was a marked difference in the attitudes this time when I went to St. Bernard's Parish. I felt welcome. When I was there a year ago, I actually was a little bit in fear for my own safety, because people actually were angry, and they were lashing out, and lot of us were very anxious. This time it was totally different, and I think it's because people now see government responding. They now feel the emotions that -- or the -- that -- the compassionate responses that we are providing, and they feel it, and they accept it, and they have been expressing it.

So I think that by the end of the year -- when we get into the next fiscal year, I think we'll have a lot of information from the report from these hearings that we don't have yet. It takes a little time to develop the kind of record that you need to develop from the hearings and know whether or not -- and not just whether or not we ought to be doing something, but I really believe that we're going to get to some very serious law-breaking that's taken place down there.

Q Congressman, can I have just a quick follow-up? Has Secretary Jackson been called before Congress to give his version of the events?

REP. WATERS: Yes.

REP. CLYBURN: I don't know if Maxine -- I think they've had --

REP. WATERS: He's been before my committee and before the Financial Services Committee.

Q (Off mike.)

REP. WATERS: At least on two occasions, and we've had -- I've had three private meetings with him. I go over to HUD and try and walk through what needs to be done, particularly on public housing, and try to help resolve the lawsuit and try and move him in terms of getting these units done.

So his take is that they want to rebuild public housing. And yes, they have been boarded up, and yes, they are going to dismantle them. He did agree that they would rehab the 3,000 units to get the most desperate back in as quickly as possible, but he's basically reneged on that and has not done that.

Q Oh, he has, okay.

REP. WATERS: No, he has not.

I was here last week. I was here the week before that. I've reviewed all of the public housing projects and even some of the scattered sites that they claim to have, and it's not there. They have not done it.

Q Okay.

REP. WATERS: So yes, he's been before us. I've met with him. Like I said, I've taken my staff over to HUD and sat with him and his staff three times now in between coming down here and meeting with public housing residents and holding hearings. So we've interacted with him. We've done everything possible to try and move him, and it is not good.

REP. CLYBURN: And I think -- if I may -- he -- he's not making the decisions on this. I think it was mentioned earlier in this conversation, Karl Rove has been the final arbiter in what will or will not take place down there.

Q So Mr. Rove's resignation is not going to affect this?

REP. CLYBURN: Oh, I'm sure it will in some way, but I have no idea what role he is going to play just because he's not in the White House --

Q Bob Borosage mentioned that.

REP. CLYBURN: -- (inaudible).

REP. WATERS: As Bob Borosage mentioned, Jim --

REP. CLYBURN: Yes.

REP. WATERS: -- philosophically, they're just in a different place.

REP. CLYBURN: (Laughs.)

REP. WATERS: Last night when I came in, I went to a townhall meeting that was put on by Mary Landrieu called Hope and Recovery, where she had invited the presidential candidates. One of them that showed up was Duncan Hunter, and the people were in complete disbelief when they heard his presentation about that it's not really the government's responsibility, that the people should be depend on volunteers and in the goodwill of good Americans and not the government. They were in absolute awe and disbelief at this United States congressman who was absolutely philosophically opposed to too much government assistance in intervention.

So it's not whether or not it's Jackson or Rove, it's all of them. You have a -- basically a very conservative administration that has disdain for government, even though they're in it, and do not believe that it's government's role really. So you're not talking about one person; you're talking about a basic philosophical belief of the right-wing conservatives.

Q Thank you.

MR. BOROSAGE: I think -- Bob Borosage -- I think that's true, there's not any question. I do think it would be very useful to have a set of hearings that probed whether or not -- and maybe you can't get these documents out of the White House -- whether or not Rove consciously set out to take 200,000 voters out of New Orleans in order to make certain that that would be a red state. Louisiana's been one of the few southern states that's a swing state.

It has a Democratic governor, a Democratic senator. But it's all over closely contested elections, very much dependent on the mobilization of black voters in New Orleans. And the notion that they dispersed 200,000 voters across the country to 50 states and then haven't found a way to get them back strikes me as not an accident, and we're probing whether it was in fact intentional.

REP. WATERS: Well, you're right --

REP. CLYBURN: I don't think it was an accident either.

REP. WATERS: Yes.

REP. CLYBURN: And if I may, there is a connection, I think. And I think Congresswoman Waters has put her finger right on it. There is a philosophy of governance here, or the lack thereof, that's taking place. And it's interesting to me that immediately upon his resignation, the number-one successor to Mr. Gonzales is being pushed -- is the Homeland Security person. Now, here is a guy who everybody knows has not responded adequately to the people of the Gulf Coast, and now we are talking about rewarding him with the top law enforcement position in the country.

And so I think all of this is a part of making government smaller, if it has any existence at all; putting people -- that's conservative thought, that people will just fend for themselves, unless it is in their own backyards.

MR. CHAUDHURI: I'd promised two last questions, and we'll take the last two, the first from First-Draft.com and then from TomPaine.com. So, Lois, do you want to go ahead?

Q Hi. Yeah, this is Lois from First-Draft.com. I also was at Senator Landrieu's summit yesterday. I went with -- and I've been down here quite frequently. I went -- (inaudible) --

REP. WATERS: I can't hear you.

Q I have been down here quite frequently, and I went with two residents from New Orleans.

When they saw that there was an opportunity to ask a question, the one that they wanted to ask was -- and I guess I'll put it out to you -- is that, you know, given that this is an ongoing crisis; it's felt that way, that it deeply impacts people's lives in every facet every day, their question was, just what are we supposed to do until 2009?

REP. WATERS: I don't -- speaking about housing, one of the reasons I am coming so often -- and I've gone over to Houston. When I was in Houston, I remember two different sets of residents from public housing, and "I'm going over to Dallas" and "I'm going to Atlanta" is number one.

First of all, somebody has to connect with them and tell them that they're not just left out there alone, that somebody is paying attention, my committee is paying attention, I'm paying attention. I literally took the names of the people who came to the meetings, and I walked through with them what their situation was when Katrina struck -- and they were living in public housing, whether or not they were head of household, what units they lived in, on and on and on -- all of the information that is needed to go back and negotiate with HUD getting people back.

We then took all of that information and came back to HANO, the local housing authority. I met with them last week for about four hours, and I went through one by one the different people and what their needs were, and I discovered some very, very disturbing things.

Number one, that public housing was saying, we're only responsible for people who lived in public housing prior to Katrina. I said, but when I was there, there was a homeless person that was in my meeting who's from New Orleans that doesn't have anything and anyplace to live; they said it's our not responsibility. I said, and I discovered two sisters who lived together; one was considered head of household, the other was not. One is staying in Texas, the other one wants to come back. They said, well, the second one can't come back. If she was not head of household -- cannot come back.

This is the same thing for children. Some of the children have left their families who are over here in New Orleans now, living with other people, living together, trying to go to school, and their parents are still in Houston and Dallas and other places because they can't get the local housing authority to connect them with a unit.

So what I'm trying to do now, having met with HANO and having gone through their rules of return, I think we need to develop some new public policy relative to all of this at the national level. Some of this could be worked out at the local level, but I'm going to develop a handbook for people who want to return to tell them who to call, what they're entitled to, describe their relocation assistance for them, describe not only who to contact and what they're eligible for and how it's calculated, but how, if they don't have a unit, are turned down, maybe -- well, if they can't get a unit, the unit that they lived in, what's available to them and how they can get in line for that, given that they don't have -- in all of everything that they're doing, there may be 200 units between the GUST (sp) project and the --

MR. : (Off mike.)

REP. WATERS: No, it's another one, one that's near the French Quarter.

MR. : Iberville.

REP. WATERS: Iberville. There's a few units in Iberville, a few scattered unit, and a few in GUST (sp)?. And now, you know, as I look at the people who want to return and what's available, how you compete for those, I mean it's awesome. But I'm trying to meet with people to let them know that they have not been forgotten, that I'm working on it, and if I have to come here every week, and my staff, we're going to do it and we're going to push HANO and we're going to push HUD for these return rights.

And hopefully, we could resolve this. If we don't resolve it, 1227, my bill, is sitting over there on the Senate side since last March. And I want to tell you, Democrat or Republican, I don't care who takes up my bill. But I don't know why 1227 -- which would guarantee the rehab and force HUD to redo these 3,000 units, guarantee the right of return and force them to do one-on-one replacement and redevelopment -- I don't know why none of the Democratic candidates even are taking up my legislation over there. It's absolutely frustrating. But I am meeting with people and letting them know that I'm fighting for them, that we are working for them, that our caucus is working for them, and people are not left out there by themselves.

MR. CHAUDHURI: Great. Isaiah with TomPaine? You want to have the closing question?

Q Yes. I wanted to ask both Cong Congressman Clyburn and Congresswoman Walters (sic) about the amount of federal dollars that have been poured into institutions such as charter schools instead of public schools, about dollars that have been used for tax cuts for developers and incentives for developers while, as you said, there's been an absence of investment in public infrastructure. What has been the consequence of that? And can you speak to the extent to which there has been a tilt toward using federal resources for private interests as opposed to public interests?

REP. CLYBURN: Well, I'll begin, Maxine, with the education part, if I may.

REP. WATERS: Okay.

REP. CLYBURN: On the trip with me on the 12th -- we were there for three days; the 12th, I think, was the day we got there -- was Bobby Scott. And we went to a school that has a very emotional connection for me because the school was recently named in honor of Mary McLeod Bethune.

And at Bethune Elementary School, we met with the superintendent, with the principal and other teachers, and we were very, very concerned about this whole charter school business because what it seems to us is that they have created a two-tier school system down there -- and that's what Congressman Waters was talking about earlier, if you're talking about this new philosophy or this conservative philosophy they have employed in the rebuilding efforts down there. And what they have done is they've left all the debt on the public school system or whatever that school system is called, and these new charter schools they are creating debt-free.

And so Bobby Scott was asked in the meeting, that when we get back next week, that we are going to sit down with George Miller and take a hard look at the reauthorization of No Child Left Behind to do two things: to take a hard look at what we've done down there to make sure that we maintain a strong public school. Now nobody opposes charter schools, but that the charter schools will not be able to exist debt-free and leaving -- taking all -- creaming the students off the top, and then leaving all these other students in the debt-ridden public school system. And of course, we are going to try to take a look at that.

Secondly, we want to -- really, we think that it's time to replan No Child Left Behind because it's been a total failure. It was a failure even before Katrina, and we think that it's even worse of a problem now. So we are very aware of what they are attempting to do down there.

Now, this is not the case of Pass Christian over in Mississippi. They are doing, I think, what needs to be done the way it should be done, and we are assisting them as well.

We did, in the supplemental, approve monies for them to recruit and hire teachers for the public school system as they requested.

REP. WATERS: Well, on the schools, I think that if you take a look at the paper that Bob Borosage put together, that portion of it about schools and libraries -- it basically concisely describes what's happening with the school systems here in the area. First of all, they did not have a very strong school system here in New Orleans prior to Katrina. And it was one of the shames of the area that the school systems had not received the kind of support that they needed, nor did it have very good results. But of course that's true in many of our cities and towns across America.

So what has happened is with Katrina, a lot of the private conservative interests have moved in, people who were involved in, you know, the charter schools movement or takeover of the public schools for some years now, and they've been very aggressive. Many of them have gone out to the colleges and universities at the end of graduation this year and recruited college graduates. And they've run them through a limited kind of training program and they're putting them into venues that have been rehabbed -- churches and other places with these charter schools.

But it -- this Katrina for them has provided an opportunity to do what many people have always wanted to do with the charter schools movement and privatize, move toward privatization of education. That is taking place. That is one of the reasons why I think that the federal government has to provide more leadership and oversight in the actual construction of schools, libraries, hospitals and clinics and the police department.

I think that while much of this is always thought of as local and that the locals somehow will get it done or can do it -- has to be rethought. And I think that the feds have to be involved in the actual, physical development of this infrastructure.

And while that is going on, the locals can be involved a lot of training and development about the operations thereafter for these schools and libraries and clinics. But if they're to get back on line any time soon, we're going to have aggressively put together to do the actual reconstruction of these schools and other institutions.

MR. CHAUDHURI: Great. That's all we have time for today. Thank you very much for joining today's call.

REP. CLYBURN: Okay. Thank you all so much for having it. Bye.

REP. WATERS: Thank you very much. Goodbye, now.

REP. CLYBURN: Okay. Bye-bye.

OPERATOR: Ladies and gentlemen, if you have any further questions, please contact Toby Chaudhuri at 202-587-1653, or by e-mail at chaudhuri@ourfuture.org.

This will conclude today's conference call. You may now disconnect.

END.

Source