between Congress and the California Legislature in regard to those authorities. When the legislature met in special session, the first few days of the disaster, after you had taken your action with the President, they passed out a substantive package of bills in which they raised a one-quarter of 1 cent sales tax in 13 months. They still need to enact a lot of bills for a long time with regard to affordable housing. There is the CAL-DEBT Program for ownership of rental units that is going to prove to be quite helpful. The degree to which the State of California and the Federal Government work cooperatively to make sure those programs are fully funded-that will be quite helpful because at the same time that all of this need exists, the classic 75 percent/25 percent relationship between the Federal Government and the local government disaster relief is particularly difficult for emergencies. We have got a modest sales tax and cannot possibly go back on property taxes. The cash needed to make these programs work puts the solution beyond the grasp of the local government. So, I agree with my colleague that affordable long-term replacement housing is the single most important issue for the partnership of the Federal Government and California. Mr. RIOS. Yes. I would echo the same. I think that immediately, right now, there is that need to get us our trailers here, to get people out of the hotels. What is being spent on the hotels could have been used to either purchase land or to get some trailers right now. Even if we have the trailers, there is also the problem of land: Where do we put them? But I think that there is land here, there is a lot of land. Right now, we are in an emergency. I think that the other real need we have here is rebuilding the housing, maybe through the assistance of the Federal Government. That is also a source of employment. Our needs will be becoming greater as more people arrive here. Those are the two largest problems that I see as a result of this quake. Mr. PANETTA. Mardi. Ms. WORMHOUDT. In the city of Santa Cruz, even before the earthquake, we were definitely feeling the effects of the erosion of Federal support for affordable housing that has existed since about 1980. And I guess that amounts to about $25 billion a year of losses in the housing programs, between 1980 and 1990. So, we had a crisis before; now, our situation has gotten so that other people have said, "Without money, we are not going to be able to rebuild housing that will meet the needs of the people who lived here before us." And that is the real issue. We will rebuild, there is no doubt about that; but who will we serve by the housing we build? That is the real question, and I think that it is incumbent upon those of us who bear responsibility in the Government for the welfare of our constituents. Mr. PANETTA. Thank you. Todd. Mr. McFARREN. Yes. I concur with the long-term housing crisis analysis. We need some familiar faces from the community able to go down and work with those who need trailers. To me, that is the most specific problem that we have right now. We cannot wait until the weather gets better. Mr. PANETTA. Let me just ask one quick follow-up question: Let us assume that you had all the money that you needed for affordable housing, that somehow, we were able to make that available to your communities, Watsonville, Santa Cruz, the county. Would you be able to build affordable housing within the area as a result of your land use and other requirements that you have to meet? Is the land available? Would you face opposition with regard to the development of affordable housing within your communities? We need to know the answers to that, too. Mr. KEELEY. Well, Congressman, I will make an attempt at answering that. The county of Santa Cruz just went through the lengthy process of getting the housing element of our Federal plan recertified. Many questions came up over the years about the degree to which our proposals for housing were responded to. And through this process with the Department of Housing and Community Development at the State level, we were able to convince them that we had outlined our general plans that met their tests, that we were meeting our regional fair share of building low-income housing, of setting aside building permits, and by designating the sites in our local community plan for affordable housing. As to taking steps regarding our permit processing development for that general plan to provide processing for affordable housing developments, I think that the short answer is "yes"; the long answer is that we have proven that to the Department of Housing and Community Development. They have in fact certified our housing proposals. Ms. LEVY. I would just like to comment also. I know that it is a fact that in the city of Watsonville, they have used all available subsidy funds to build affordable housing. I have been in the city of Santa Cruz; they have a major project underway with affordable housing. I know that in our community, in my district, we have had affordable housing projects go up in very average areas without major outcries. It seems to me that if we had all the money that we needed, we could be offering subsidies to developers who are currently building the market rate, and bring those prices down to the level we could easily afford. Mr. Rios. I think that that would be wonderful. [Laughter.] Beacuse I have been talking to a lot of developers. There are very interested. It would also enhance the pride of our people. But I think that we have to also make the point that for some of these people that it is not just, it is not fair that you cannot have a house. I think that there are a lot of provisions to work on. That is why we were here so late last night, working on how to get funding. I think that we have to face the problem that there is a lack of housing. We need housing. And definitely, I think that we can use all the money that comes this way. Mr. PANETTA. Do not get carried away. [Laughter.] MS. WORMHOUDT. The panel that the city council appointed to oversee the revitalization program is currently in the process of compiling reports. They are going to do a market analysis for us and for the land surrounding Santa Cruz. And I am very happy to say that everybody agreed that we need to replace the housing. The continuum of opinion of the housing activists indicates that they would like to see a shift in housing toward the low-income needs. I feel that I can honestly sit here and say that there is a good deal of community support for this. Mr. McFARREN. Yes. If we can get some money, we can get the land and the houses. We have the backing of many organizations that if we can get some land, they will get the housing. Mr. PANETTA. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. MS. PELOSI. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Our witnesses gave us, indeed, something to bring back to Washington about the unmet needs. I wanted to hear about the earthquake from your perspective down here, and I have to say to you that there are many similarities to our situation in San Francisco. Certainly, Vice Mayor Rios, the insensitivity to our cultural diversity is a problem that was across the board in terms of the response. I do not think that that would happen again; there would be no excuse for it in the future, when we have seen how important it was to people to have their needs met and if we could not meet their needs, we could at least treat them with respect, and we needed people to understand the wonderful diversity of California in order to do that. The 30-day residency eligibility is an across-the-board problem. That is a regulation that could be changed that affects us very, very gravely in San Francisco, and I am interested to see how it affects you here as well. This quake dealt us a severe blow not only because of the physical disaster, but that it came on the heels of 10 years of neglect of housing in our country. Seventy-seven percent of the housing budget was cut in the Reagan years-a 77 percent cutback in that decade. And so, not to sound partisan, Mr. Chairman and Mr. Panetta, but it did aggravate the problem because we were coming into a very bare bone situation, where even with people who did have housing, many had substandard housing, and many of them were doubled and tripled up, and so forth And then, of course, we have the single-room occupancy and the "revolvers," people using the SROS who now, if they had not been there 30 days, cannot meet the standards. Supervisor Levy, you mentioned the $100,000 limit for individuals and $500,000 for businesses. The response that we have received since our last hearing from OMB has not been positive in that regard. We would like to go back to them with some additional documentation about how many people that really does affect, and how it affects the community that those people live in, in terms of the tax base and the economic vitality. Do you have any figures on your community? Ms. LEVY. I do not have any figures available today on that issue. I think that in terms of California, it is common-sense understanding; you know that when the housing costs and mortgage costs to the people are in excess of $100,000, in many, many instances, that immediately takes a big chunk out of their ability to repay. And $100,000 will not replace the houses that they had. MS. PELOSI. That is absolutely true. But can they afford to take out another loan? Ms. LEVY. Yes. MS. PELOSI. They could. And then, as far as the businesses are concerned, there is a little leeway; if it generates jobs, then perhaps, they can go over the $500,000? Ms. LEVY. Yes. MS. PELOSI. We do not need to go into it now, but if you have documentation from your communities about how many people and businesses would be affected and what impact that has on the economic life of your communities, as well as the individuals with the housing, we can go to OMB and say that we have these kinds of numbers. This would be helpful to show the ability to repay. Because it is a revolving fund, they consider it an expenditure but the money does come back. The rate of repayment has been good; the record speaks well for their increasing the amount. And if OMB is not so inclined to do so, we in Congress, at some point, may be able to lift the limits by law if we can get some cooperation but we do need the documentation. Ms. LEVY. We will get that information to you. MS. PELOSI. That will be great. I thank the witnesses. Mr. Chairman, I have no further questions. Chairman TORRES. Thank you, Representative Pelosi. I know that I speak for the ad hoc committee in thanking the witnesses as well. I think that you, as elected officials, by virtue of your positions have public trust, and there is a mandate upon you to do and carry out what you have talked about here today. I would like to tell you that, really, you are establishing history by doing this today. This is going to establish a national precedent; it is not just Watsonville, it will not just be San Francisco tomorrow. This is national history because the recommendations and the things that you have told us about are going to have national impact in the kind of legislation that will go back to Washington. It will cover floods, hurricanes, tornadoes and other great catastrophic disasters like the one that took place here. Tragically, it had to happen here; I am sure that we are all unhappy about it. But because of that, I think that we will have a better country to live in, in the future. Thank you very much. You are now excused. As our panel prepares to leave and we start setting up for the next one, I would like to call forth the next panel. I am going to deviate somewhat from our list here because I believe that it is important to hear from the community, the people that were directly affected by what we have heard elected officials talk about here today. And so, I am going to call them up in this order, and I would like them to speak in this order. First of all, Ms. Delores Huerta, the first vice president of the United Farm Workers of America, if she could come forth; Ms. Celia Organista, the program director of the Motel Voucher Program; Mr. Gary McNeil, the staff attorney for Legal Aid Society of Santa Cruz County; Mr. Darryel Nacua, staff attorney for the Salinas Regional Office of California Rural Legal Assistance; and Ms. Susan Peck, the director of the Western Regional Office of the Housing Assistance Council. Thank you very much for being with us here this morning. Some of you came in probably after I made initial introductions. Let me repeat some general ground rules that we want to follow this morning. Those ground rules are just specifically that we have-or if we do not have, we wish to have-your complete statement in its entirety; those statements will be placed in the record and printed. And therefore, I ask you to not make your entire statement, but to summarize your points in 5 minutes a piece. We need to do this in order to hear from all of you and to also have ample time to ask questions. I should say that after your panel, we would like to take a brief lunch break, maybe half an hour for us to go out and get some refreshment, and then reconvene again with Panel II. So, the leadoff witness in this case is Ms. Delores Huerta. Welcome, Delores. STATEMENT OF DELORES HUERTA, FIRST VICE PRESIDENT, UNITED FARM WORKERS OF AMERICA, KEENE, CA Ms. HUERTA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Members of the committee. I agree that our main problems concern housing. We also have problems in regard to food stamps. I have documented these and would like to submit them for the record. Chairman TORRES. Without objection. Ms. HUERTA. Thank you. We did a survey among the Loma Prieta victims living in the tents. We found that of the 400 families that we spoke to, over half of them did not have adequate facilities because of restrictions on the families. We talked to mothers who had to get up in the middle of the night to give milk to their babies because they were not allowed to bring milk into the tents. They could have any food in the tents for the children. When you have small children, you know that they get hungry at different times of the day. So, it was very difficult for them and many of them, instead of staying in the tent communities of Salinas, moved out of those tents into the cities, where they had a little bit more freedom and could take care of the needs of their families. Another thing that we found that really alarmed us was that many of these families who had been approached to leave the area were being told that they would need $1,500 to live in Watsonville. "Go to Bakersfield, go to Fresno, get out of this area." And of course, a lot of these families did not leave, they could not leave, because this is where they work. But given that restriction, it was very difficult for them to live. We have been aware of the housing shortage in this area for a long time now, directly. The housing shortage problem is still here and, as all of you are aware, has been more immediate recently. And also, many of these programs make it a lot more difficult. Farm workers are a part of this community. We represent several thousand farm workers who are getting contracts in this area. We are part of this community and we deserve to have decent housing. We should not have to live in poor quality housing. We deserve the same opportunities that other people in the community have. This community needs farm workers. I want to make that clear. I also want to reiterate what was said by Council Member Rios. There were many organizations wanted to help. We were here. |