Posted on Fri, May. 09, 2008

WASHINGTON -- Mississippi's plans to transfer $600 million from post-Katrina housing assistance to restore the Port of Gulfport came under scrutiny in a congressional hearing Thursday as three lawmakers said the diversion hurts efforts to provide desperately needed housing for the state's poor.

Jack Norris, who heads Gov. Haley Barbour's office for hurricane recovery and renewal, defended the plan and countered assertions that projected improvements for the Port of Gulfport would undercut continuing initiatives to construct and rebuild housing nearly three years after the devastating storm.

Quoting President Jack Kennedy's statement that "a rising tide lifts all boats," Norris told lawmakers the port's expansion would boost the state's overall economy, creating new jobs that would benefit all income groups.

"I completely agree that a rising tide does lift all boats - if you have a boat," responded Rep. Al Green, D-Texas. "Unfortunately we have many persons who are boatless."

Rep. Maxine Waters, D-Calif., who chaired the hearing before the Housing and Community Opportunity Subcommittee, joined Green and Rep. Emanuel Cleaver, D-Mo., in sharply questioning the project. Waters and Green also demanded Norris quickly submit additional details, including an audit of the port's financial picture.

"People are angry," Cleaver told Norris, saying transferring federal hurricane-recovery money to the port creates the appearance of putting the needs of low- and moderate-income residents "on the back burner."

"Nothing has been said here today that convinces me otherwise," said Cleaver.

Gov. Haley Barbour stood behind the project again Thursday.

"What Mississippi did is exactly what it said it would," he told the Sun Herald after a speech at the Southern Gaming Summit. "Everybody knew from the very beginning some of these funds would be used for the port.

"The federal government has given us enormous latitude, knowing the people in Mississippi know better how to spend the money on the Coast than the people in Washington," he said.

The transfer had been approved by former Housing and Urban Development Secretary Alphonso Jackson, who resigned in mid-April.

A leading opponent of the port-diversion plan, Reilly Morse, a senior attorney with the Mississippi Center for Justice, urged the subcommittee to order the next HUD secretary to re-examine Jackson's decision.

"We respectfully believe Congress meant what it said - that low- and moderate-income families would be at the front, not at the back of the line for federal aid," Morse said.

Derrick Johnson, president of the Mississippi NAACP, said the transfer of money to the port was "highly questionable"; he contended the state has done nothing to help low-income renters, whom he described as those most in need of help.

Waters called the hearing to evaluate the use of federal Community Development Block Grants in the five Gulf Coast states battered by hurricanes Katrina, Rita and Wilma. Although witnesses from Texas, Louisiana, Alabama and Florida also testified, much of the questions focused on Mississippi, prompting Waters to apologize at the end of the hearing for not giving more attention to other states.

After extensive questioning, Norris at one point bristled at what he called "a clear misconception that Mississippi is taking money and investing it in the port at the expense of housing."

"That's simply not the case," he said.

In carrying out Barbour's housing-recovery plan, he said, the state is pursing a "balanced long-term recovery" with the help of $5.4 billion in Community Development Block Grants awarded to Mississippi. More than 70 percent, or $3.8 billion, are targeted at direct and indirect housing assistance; $1.4 billion is aimed at community and economic recovery.

Norris also urged Congress to streamline or waive federal environmental requirements he said are slowing the development of affordable housing. An environmental review for each applicant's site, he said, involves more than eight federal and state agencies approving nine different categories.

"Depending on the site, reviews take up to three months to complete," he said. "Multiply this process by thousands of units, and the time and expense multiply exponentially."

Staff writer Mary Perez contributed to this report.