[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 55 (Thursday, May 1, 1997)]
[House]
[Pages H2107-H2150]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
HOUSING OPPORTUNITY AND RESPONSIBILITY ACT OF 1997
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 133 and rule
XXIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House
on the State of the Union for the further consideration of the bill,
H.R. 2.
{time} 1210
In the Committee of the Whole
Accordingly the House resolved itself into the Committee of the Whole
House on the State of the Union for the further consideration of the
bill (H.R. 2) to repeal the United States Housing Act of 1937,
deregulate the public housing program and the program for rental
housing assistance for low-income families, and increase community
control over such programs, and for other purposes, with Mr. Goodlatte
in the chair.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The CHAIRMAN. When the Committee of the Whole rose on Wednesday,
April 30, 1997, all time for general debate had expired.
Pursuant to the rule, the committee amendment in the nature of a
substitute printed in the bill shall be considered under the 5-minute
rule by titles and each title shall be considered read.
Before consideration of any other amendment, it shall be in order to
consider the amendment printed in the Congressional Record on April 29,
1997, if offered by the gentleman from New York [Mr. Lazio] or his
designee. That amendment shall be considered read, shall be debatable
for 10 minutes, equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an
opponent, shall not be subject to an amendment, and shall not be
subject to a demand for division of the question.
If that amendment is adopted, the bill, as amended, shall be
considered as an original bill for the purpose of further amendment.
During consideration of the bill for amendment, the Chair may accord
priority in recognition to a Member offering an amendment that he has
printed in the designated place in the Congressional Record. Those
amendments will be considered read.
The Chairman of the Committee of the Whole may postpone until a time
during further consideration in the Committee of the Whole a request
for a recorded vote on any amendment and may reduce to not less than 5
minutes the time for voting by electronic device on any postponed
question that immediately follows another vote by electronic device
without intervening business, provided that the time for voting by
electronic device on the first in any series of questions shall not be
less than 15 minutes.
Unfunded Mandate Point of Order
Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, pursuant to section 425 of
the Congressional Budget Act and Impoundment Control Act of 1974, I
make a point of order against consideration of the committee amendment
to the bill, H.R. 2.
Section 425 states that a point of order lies against legislation
which either imposes an unfunded mandate in excess of $50 million
annually against State or local governments, or does not publish prior
to floor consideration a CBO estimate of any unfunded mandates in
excess of $50 million annually for State and local entities or in
excess of $100 million annually for the private sector.
Sections 105 and 106, on pages 25 through 49 of H.R. 2, contain
violations of section 425 of the Congressional Budget and Impoundment
Control Act. Therefore, I make a point of order that this measure may
not be considered pursuant to section 425.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. Watt] makes a
point of order that the amendment in the nature of a substitute
violates section 425(a) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974.
In accordance with section 426(b)(2) of the act, the gentleman has
met his threshold burden to identify the specific language in the
amendment on which he predicates the point of order.
The text of section 105 and section 106 of the amendment, on pages 25
through 49 of the reported bill, is as follows:
SEC. 105. COMMUNITY WORK AND FAMILY SELF-SUFFICIENCY
REQUIREMENTS.
(a) Community Work Requirement.--
(1) In general.--Except as provided in paragraph (3), each
public housing agency shall require, as a condition of
occupancy of a public housing dwelling unit by a family and
of providing housing assistance under title III on behalf of
a family, that each adult member of the family shall
contribute not less than 8 hours of work per month (not
including political activities) within the community in which
the family resides, which may include work performed on
locations not owned by the public housing agency).
(2) Employment status and liability.--The requirement under
paragraph (1) may not be construed to establish any
employment relationship between the public housing agency and
the member of the family subject to the work requirement
under such paragraph or to create any responsibility, duty,
or liability on the part of the public housing agency for
actions arising out of the work done by the member of the
family to comply with the requirement, except to the extent
that the member of the family is fulfilling the requirement
by working directly for such public housing agency.
(3) Exemptions.--A public housing agency shall provide for
the exemption, from the applicability of the requirement
under paragraph (1), of each individual who is--
(1) an elderly person:
(2) a person with disabilities;
(3) working, attending school or vocational training, or
otherwise complying with work requirements applicable under
other public assistance programs (as determined by the
agencies or organizations responsible for administering such
programs); or
(4) otherwise physically impaired to the extent that they
are unable to comply with the requirement, as certified by a
doctor.
(b) Requirement Regarding Target Date for Transition Out of
Assisted Housing.--
(1) In general.--Each public housing agency shall require,
as a condition of occupancy of a public housing dwelling unit
by a family and of providing housing assistance under title
III on behalf of a family, that the family and the agency
enter into an agreement (included, pursuant to subsection
(d)(2)(C), as a term of an agreement under subsection (d))
establishing a target date by which the family intends to
graduate from, terminate tenancy in, or no longer receive
public housing or housing assistance under title III.
(2) Rights of occupancy.--This subsection may not be
construed (nor may any provision of subsection (d) or (e)) to
create a right on the part of any public housing agency to
evict or terminate assistance for a family solely on the
basis of any failure of the family to comply with the target
date established pursuant to paragraph (1).
(3) Factors.--In establishing a target date pursuant to
paragraph (1) for a family that receives benefits for welfare
or public assistance from a State or other public agency
under a program that limits the duration during which such
benefits may be received, the public housing agency and the
family may take into consideration such time limit. This
section may not be construed to require any public housing
agency to adopt any such time limit on the duration of
welfare or public assistance benefits as the target date
pursuant to paragraph (1) for a resident.
(4) Exemptions.--A public housing agency shall provide for
the exemption, from the applicability of the requirements
under paragraph (1), of each individual who is--
[[Page H2108]]
(1) an elderly person:
(2) a person with disabilities;
(3) working, attending school or vocational training, or
otherwise complying with work requirements applicable under
other public assistance programs (as determined by the
agencies or organizations responsible for administering such
programs); or
(4) otherwise physically impaired to the extent that they
are unable to comply with the requirement, as certified by a
doctor.
(c) Treatment of Income changes Resulting From Welfare
Program Requirements.--
(1) Covered family.--For purposes of this subsection, the
term ``covered family'' means a family that (A) receives
benefits for welfare or public assistance from a State or
other public agency under a program for which the Federal,
State, or local law relating to the program requires, as a
condition of eligibility for assistance under the program,
participation of a member of the family in an economic
self-sufficiency program, and (B) resides in a public
housing dwelling unit or is provided housing assistance
under title III.
(2) Decreases in income for failure to comply.--
Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 225 and 322
(relating to family rental contributions), if the welfare or
public assistance benefits of a covered family are reduced
under a Federal, State, or local law regarding such an
assistance program because of any failure of any member of
the family to comply with the conditions under the assistance
program requiring participation in an economic self-
sufficiency program, the amount required to be paid by the
family as a monthly contribution toward rent may not be
decreased, during the period of the reduction, as a result of
any decrease in the income of the family (to the extent that
the decrease in income is a result of the benefits
reduction).
(3) Effect of fraud.--Notwithstanding the provisions of
sections 225 and 322 (relating to family rental
contributions), if the welfare or public assistance benefits
of a covered family are reduced because of an act of fraud by
a member of the family under the law or program, the amount
required to be paid by the covered family as a monthly
contribution toward rent may not be decreased, during the
period of the reduction, as a result of any decrease in the
income of the family (to the extent that the decrease in
income is a result of the benefits reduction).
(4) Notice.--Paragraphs (2) and (3) shall not apply to any
covered family before the public housing agency providing
assistance under this Act on behalf of the family obtains
written notification from the relevant welfare or public
assistance agency specifying that the family's benefits have
been reduced because of noncompliance with economic self-
sufficiency program requirements or fraud and the level of
such reduction.
(5) Occupancy rights.--This subsection may not be construed
to authorize any public housing agency to establish any time
limit on tenancy in a public housing dwelling unit or on
receipt of housing assistance under title III.
(6) Review.--Any covered family residing in public housing
that is affected by the operation of this subsection shall
have the right to review the determination under this
subsection through the administrative grievance procedure
established pursuant to section 110 for the public housing
agency.
(7) Cooperation agreements for economic self-sufficiency
activities.--
(A) Requirement.--A public housing agency providing public
housing dwelling units or housing assistance under title III
for covered families shall make its best efforts to enter
into such cooperation agreements, with State, local, and
other agencies providing assistance to covered families under
welfare or public assistance programs, as may be necessary,
to provide for such agencies to transfer information to
facilitate administration of subsection (a) and paragraphs
(2), (3), and (4) of this subsection, and other information
regarding rents, income, and assistance that may assist a
public housing agency or welfare or public assistance agency
in carrying out its functions.
(B) Contents.--A public housing agency shall seek to
include in a cooperation agreement under this paragraph
requirements and provisions designed to target assistance
under welfare and public assistance programs to families
residing in public housing developments and receiving choice-
based assistance under title III, which may include providing
for self-sufficiency services within such housing, providing
for services designed to meet the unique employment-related
needs of residents of such housing and recipients of such
assistance, providing for placement of workfare positions on-
site in such housing, and such other elements as may be
appropriate.
(C) Confidentiality.--This paragraph may not be construed
to authorize any release of information that is prohibited
by, or in contravention of, any other provision of Federal,
State, or local law.
(d) Community Work and Family Self-Sufficiency
Agreements.--
(1) In general.--A public housing agency shall enter into a
community work and family self-sufficiency agreement under
this subsection with each adult member and head of household
of each family who is to reside in a dwelling unit in public
housing of the agency and each family on behalf of whom the
agency will provide housing assistance under title III. Under
the agreement the family shall agree that, as a condition of
occupancy of the public housing dwelling unit or of receiving
such housing assistance, the family will comply with the
terms of the agreement.
(2) Terms.--An agreement under this subsection shall
include the following:
(A) Terms designed to encourage and facilitate the economic
self-sufficiency of the assisted family entering into the
agreement and the graduation of the family from assisted
housing to unassisted housing.
(B) Notice of the requirements under subsection (a)
(relating to community work) and the conditions imposed by,
and exemptions from, such requirement.
(C) The target date agreed upon by the family pursuant to
subsection (b) for graduation from, termination of tenancy
in, or termination of receipt of public housing or housing
assistance under title III.
(D) Terms providing for any resources, services, and
assistance relating to self-sufficiency that will be made
available to the family, including any assistance to be made
available pursuant to subsection (c)(7)(B) under a
cooperation agreement entered into under subsection (c)(7).
(E) Notice of the provisions of paragraphs (2) through (7)
of subsection (c) (relating to effect of changes in income on
rent and assisted families rights under such circumstances).
(e) Lease Provisions.--A public housing agency shall
incorporate into leases under section 226, and into any
agreements for the provision of choice-based assistance under
title III on behalf of a family--
(1) a provision requiring compliance with the requirement
under subsection (a); and
(2) provisions incorporating the conditions under
subsection (c).
(f) Treatment of Income.--Notwithstanding any other
provision of this section, in determining the income or
tenancy of a family who resides in public housing or receives
housing assistance under title III, a public housing agency
shall consider any decrease in the income of a family that
results from the reduction of any welfare or public
assistance benefits received by the family under any Federal,
State, or local law regarding a program for such assistance
if the family (or a member thereof, as applicable) has
complied with the conditions for receiving such assistance
and is unable to obtain employment notwithstanding such
compliance.
(g) Definition.--For purposes of this section, the term
``economic self-sufficiency program'' means any program
designed to encourage, assist, train, or facilitate the
economic independence of participants and their families or
to provide work for participants, including programs for job
training, employment counseling, work placement, basic skills
training, education, workfare, financial or household
management, apprenticeships, or other activities as the
Secretary may provide.
SEC. 106. LOCAL HOUSING MANAGEMENT PLANS.
(a) 5-Year Plan.--The Secretary shall provide for each
public housing agency to submit to the Secretary, once every
5 years, a plan under this subsection for the agency covering
a period consisting of 5 fiscal years. Each such plan shall
contain, with respect to the 5-year period covered by the
plan, the following information:
(1) Statement of mission.--A statement of the mission of
the agency for serving the needs of low-income families in
the jurisdiction of the agency during such period.
(2) Goals and objectives.--A statement of the goals and
objectives of the agency that will enable the agency to serve
the needs identified pursuant to paragraph (1) during such
period.
(3) Capital improvement overview.--If the agency will
provide capital improvements for public housing developments
during such period, an overview of such improvements, the
rationale for such improvements, and an analysis of how such
improvements will enable the agency to meet its goals,
objectives, and mission.
The first 5-year plan under this subsection for a public
housing agency shall be submitted for the 5-year period
beginning with the first fiscal year for which the agency
receives assistance under this Act.
(b) Annual Plan.--The Secretary shall provide for each
public housing agency to submit to the Secretary a local
housing management plan under this section for each fiscal
year that contains the information required under subsection
(d). For each fiscal year after the initial submission of a
plan under this section by a public housing agency, the
agency may comply with requirements for submission of a plan
under this subsection by submitting an update of the plan for
the fiscal year.
(c) Procedures.--The Secretary shall establish requirements
and procedures for submission and review of plans, including
requirements for timing and form of submission, and for the
contents of such plans. Such procedures shall provide that a
public housing agency--
(1) shall, in conjunction with the relevant State or unit
of general local government, establish procedures to ensure
that the plan under this section is consistent with the
applicable comprehensive housing affordability strategy (or
any consolidated plan incorporating such strategy) for the
jurisdiction in which the public housing agency is located,
in accordance with title I of the Cranston-Gonzalez National
Affordable Housing Act; and
(2) may, at the option of the agency, submit a plan under
this section together with,
[[Page H2109]]
or as part of, the comprehensive housing affordability
strategy (or any consolidated plan incorporating such
strategy) for the relevant jurisdiction, and for concomitant
review of such plans submitted together.
(d) Contents.--An annual local housing management plan
under this section for a public housing agency shall contain
the following information relating to the upcoming fiscal
year for which the assistance under this Act is to be made
available:
(1) Needs.--A statement of the housing needs of low-income
and very low-income families residing in the community served
by the agency, and of other low-income families on the
waiting list of the agency (including the housing needs of
elderly families and disabled families), and the means by
which the agency intends, to the maximum extent practicable,
to address such needs.
(2) Financial resources.--A statement of financial
resources available for the agency the planned uses of such
resources that includes--
(A) a description of the financial resources available to
the agency;
(B) the uses to which such resources will be committed,
including all proposed eligible and required activities under
section 203 and housing assistance to be provided under title
III;
(C) an estimate of the costs of operation and the market
rental value of each public housing development; and
(D) a specific description, based on population and
demographic data, of the unmet affordable housing needs of
families in the community served by the agency having incomes
not exceeding 30 percent of the area median income and a
statement of how the agency will expend grant amounts
received under this Act to meet the housing needs of such
families.
(3) Population served.--A statement of the policies of the
agency governing eligibility, admissions, and occupancy of
families with respect to public housing dwelling units and
housing assistance under title III, including--
(A) the requirements for eligibility for such units and
assistance and the method and procedures by which eligibility
and income will be determined and verified;
(B) the requirements for selection and admissions of
eligible families for such units and assistance, including
any preferences and procedures established by the agency and
any outreach efforts;
(C) the procedures for assignment of families admitted to
dwelling units owned, leased, managed, operated, or assisted
by the agency;
(D) any standards and requirements for occupancy of public
housing dwelling units and units assisted under title III,
including resident screening policies, standard lease
provisions, conditions for continued occupancy, termination
of tenancy, eviction, and conditions for termination of
housing assistance;
(E) the procedures for maintaining waiting lists for
admissions to public housing developments of the agency,
which may include a system of site-based waiting lists under
section 224(c);
(F) the criteria for providing and denying housing
assistance under title III to families moving into the
jurisdiction of the agency; and
(G) the fair housing policy of the agency.
(4) Rent determination.--A statement of the policies of the
agency governing rents charged for public housing dwelling
units and rental contributions of assisted families under
title III and the system used by the agency to ensure that
such rents comply with the requirements of this Act.
(5) Operation and management.--A statement of the rules,
standards, and policies of the public housing agency
governing maintenance and management of housing owned and
operated by the agency, and management of the public housing
agency and programs of the agency, including--
(A) a description of the manner in which the agency is
organized (including any consortia or joint ventures) and
staffed to perform the duties and functions of the public
housing agency and to administer the operating fund
distributions of the agency;
(B) policies relating to the rental of dwelling units,
including policies designed to reduce vacancies;
(C) housing quality standards in effect pursuant to
sections 232 and 328 and any certifications required under
such sections;
(D) emergency and disaster plans for public housing;
(E) priorities and improvements for management of public
housing, including initiatives to control costs; and
(F) policies of the agency requiring the loss or
termination of housing assistance and tenancy under sections
641 and 642 (relating to occupancy standards for federally
assisted housing).
(6) Grievance procedure.--A statement of the grievance
procedures of the agency under section 110.
(7) Capital improvements.--With respect to public housing
developments owned or operated by the agency, a plan
describing the capital improvements necessary to ensure long-
term physical and social viability of the developments.
(8) Demolition and disposition.--With respect to public
housing developments owned or operated by the agency--
(A) a description of any such housing to be demolished or
disposed of under subtitle E of title II; and
(B) a timetable for such demolition or disposition.
(9) Designation of housing for elderly and disabled
families.--With respect to public housing developments owned
or operated by the agency, a description of any developments
(or portions thereof) that the agency has designated or will
designate for occupancy by elderly and disabled families in
accordance with section 227 and any information required
under section 227(d) for such designated developments.
(10) Conversion of public housing.--With respect to public
housing owned or operated by the agency, a description of any
building or buildings that the agency is required, under
section 203(b), to convert to housing assistance under title
III or that the agency voluntarily converts, an analysis of
such buildings required under such section for conversion,
and a statement of the amount of grant amounts under title II
to be used for rental assistance or other housing assistance.
(11) Homeownership activities.--A description of any
homeownership programs of the agency under subtitle D of
title II or section 329 for the agency and the requirements
and assistance available under such programs.
(12) Economic self-sufficiency and coordination with
welfare and other appropriate agencies.--A description of--
(A) policies relating to services and amenities provided or
offered to assisted families, including the provision of
service coordinators and services designed for certain
populations (such as the elderly and disabled);
(B) how the agency will coordinate with State, local, and
other agencies providing assistance to families participating
in welfare or public assistance programs;
(C) how the agency will implement and administer section
105; and
(D) any policies, programs, plans, and activities of the
agency for the enhancement of the economic and social self-
sufficiency of residents assisted by the programs of the
agency, including rent structures to encourage self-
sufficiency.
(13) Safety and crime prevention.--A plan established by
the public housing agency, which shall be subject to the
following requirements:
(A) Safety measures.--The plan shall provide, on a
development-by-development basis, for measures to ensure the
safety of public housing residents.
(B) Establishment.--The plan shall be established, with
respect to each development, in consultation with the police
officer or officers in command for the precinct in which the
development is located.
(C) Content.--The plan shall describe the need for measures
to ensure the safety of public housing residents and for
crime prevention measures, describe any such activities
conducted, or to be conducted, by the agency, and provide for
coordination between the public housing agency and the
appropriate police precincts for carrying out such measures
and activities.
(D) Secretarial action.--If the Secretary determines, at
any time, that the security needs of a development are not
being adequately addressed by the plan, or that the local
police precinct is not complying with the plan, the Secretary
may mediate between the public housing agency and the local
precinct to resolve any issues of conflict. If after such
mediation has occurred and the Secretary determines that the
security needs of the development are not adequately
addressed, the Secretary may require the public housing
agency to submit an amended plan.
(14) Annual audit.--The results of the most recent fiscal
year audit of the agency required under section 541(b).
(15) Troubled agencies.--Such other additional information
as the Secretary may determine to be appropriate for each
public housing agency that is designated--
(A) under section 533(c) as at risk of becoming troubled;
or
(B) under section 533(a) as troubled.
(16) Asset management.--A statement of how the agency will
carry out its asset management functions with respect to the
public housing inventory of the agency, including how the
agency will plan for the long-term operating, capital
investment, rehabilitation, modernization, disposition, and
other needs for such inventory.
(e) Citizen Participation.--
(1) Publication of notice.--Not later than 45 days before
the date of a hearing conducted under paragraph (2) by the
governing body of a public housing agency, the agency shall--
(A) publish a notice informing the public that the proposed
local housing management plan or amendment is available for
inspection at the principal office of the public housing
agency during normal business hours and make the plan or
amendment so available for inspection during such period; and
(B) publish a notice informing the public that a public
hearing will be conducted to discuss the local housing
management plan and to invite public comment regarding that
plan.
(2) Public hearing.--Before submitting a plan under this
section or a significant amendment under section 107(f) to a
plan, a public housing agency shall, at a location that is
convenient to residents, conduct a public hearing, as
provided in the notice published under paragraph (1),
regarding the public housing plan or the amendment of the
agency.
(3) Consideration of comments.--A public housing agency
shall consider any comments
[[Page H2110]]
or views made available pursuant to paragraphs (1) and (2) in
preparing a final plan or amendment for submission to the
Secretary. A summary of such comments or views shall be
attached to the plan, amendment, or report submitted.
(4) Adoption of plan.--After conducting the public hearing
under paragraph (2) and considering public comments in
accordance with paragraph (3), the public housing agency
shall make any appropriate changes to the local housing
management plan or amendment and shall--
(A) adopt the local housing management plan;
(B) submit the plan to any local elected official or
officials responsible for appointing the members of the board
of directors (or other similar governing body) of the public
housing agency for review and approval under subsection (f);
(C) submit the plan to the Secretary in accordance with
this section; and
(D) make the submitted plan or amendment publicly
available.
(f) Local Review.--The public housing agency shall submit a
plan under this subsection to any local elected official or
officials responsible for appointing the members of the board
of directors (or other similar governing body) of the public
housing agency for review and approval for a 45-day period
beginning on the date that the plan is submitted to such
local official or officials (which period may run
concurrently with any period under subsection (e) for public
comment.) If the local official or officials responsible
under this subsection do not act within 45 days of submission
of the plan, the plan shall be considered approved. If the
local official of officials responsible under this subsection
reject the public housing agency's plan, they shall return
the plan with their recommended changes to the agency within
5 days of their disapproval. The agency shall resubmit an
updated plan to the local official or officials within 30
days of receiving the objections. If the local official or
officials again reject the plan, the resubmitted plan,
together with the local official's objections, shall be
submitted to the Secretary for approval.
(g) Plans for Small PHA's and PHA's Administering Only
Rental Assistance.--The Secretary shall establish
requirements for submission of plans under this section and
the information to be included in such plans applicable to
public housing agencies that own or operate less than 250
public housing dwelling units and shall establish
requirements for such submission and information applicable
to agencies that only administer housing assistance under
title III (and do not own or operate public housing). Such
requirements shall waive any requirements under this section
that the Secretary determines are burdensome or unnecessary
for such agencies.
Under section 426(b)(4) of the act, the gentleman from North Carolina
[Mr. Watt] and a Member opposed to the point of order each will control
10 minutes of debate on the point of order.
Pursuant to section 426(b)(3) of the act, after debate on the point
of order, the Chair will put the question of consideration, to wit:
``Will the Committee now consider the amendment?''
The gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. Watt] is recognized for 10
minutes, and the gentleman from Iowa [Mr. Leach] who is opposed, will
be recognized for 10 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. Watt].
{time} 1215
Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, my colleagues, especially
those on the Republican side, have made a significant point that many
of us agree on a bipartisan basis is a valid point; that we should not
continuously pass along to State and local governments and entities of
State and local governments mandates which mandate that they take
certain action without passing along to them the funds to pay for those
mandates.
This bill, sections 105 and 106, in combination, pass such a mandate
along. Sections 105 and 106, in combination, according to the
Congressional Budget Office, impose an unfunded mandate of
approximately $65 million.
Section 105, according to the Congressional Budget Office, would
require local governments to expend an additional $35 million annually.
Section 106 would require local governments and public housing agencies
to expend an additional $35 million annually.
These provisions, in combination, should not be passed along to our
local housing authorities because we are not funding them. And if we
are going to be in compliance with the spirit and letter of the
resolutions and rules that we set up to govern ourselves, this bill
should not be considered without these provisions being stricken out of
the bill.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. LEACH. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
First, let me say what the distinguished gentleman from North
Carolina is doing is using a process technique to underscore a
political point. I understand the gentleman did not receive enough time
to discuss this issue yesterday. I would like to simply stress on the
time score that we were operating under the rules of the House and we
granted, at the request of the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr.
Kennedy], extra time on each side. I am sorry if the gentleman did not
get enough time to discuss this issue but we made every effort to be
accommodating to the minority.
On the process point, it should be stressed that it is a norm, when
Federal funds are extended, to put conditions and requirements into
programs. That is what is being done in this bill, and that is why in
the supplemental report filed by the committee we include a CBO
estimate. And the CBO, as this body knows, is the general overseer of
this circumstance.
The CBO states, and I quote directly, ``The bill would impose several
new requirements on PHA's. These requirements, which are conditions of
receiving assistance from HUD and, thus, are not mandates under the
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995, include establishing and
enforcing work requirements and self-sufficiency agreements with
residents of public housing.''
In further clarification, CBO has informed me today that while H.R. 2
does contain several intergovernmental mandates as defined by the
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act, in other parts of the bill, CBO has
determined that the cost of those mandates is insignificant and would
not exceed the threshold established under the law.
The bill contains other provisions that would have significant
budgetary impacts on public housing agencies, such as the one the
gentleman from North Carolina is concerned about, but these provisions
are conditions of receiving Federal financial assistance and,
therefore, would not be considered mandates under the Unfunded Mandates
Reform Act of 1995.
On the substantive issue, I think care has to be taken how the
community service requirement is described. Like the President's
AmeriCorps program, this is a work-for-benefit approach. It is
supported by Secretary Cuomo and his predecessor, Secretary Cisneros.
The model bills that were submitted to Congress by the administration--
one of which was introduced by request with the gentleman from
Massachusetts [Mr. Kennedy] as a cosponsor--included this work
requirement.
In terms of section 106 that the gentleman is referring to, this
section was also included in Secretary Cuomo's presentation and
recommendation to the House Committee on Banking and Financial
Services. It was further modified with amendments from the minority
side. For example, the requirement that PHA's look at the population
base in their areas with a particular eye to the poorest of the poor
was a significant minority amendment.
And what the gentleman from North Carolina is attempting to do in
this point of order, which I believe does not lie, on a substantive
basis, is to knock out a provision recommended by the administration,
further modified by the Democratic, not the Republican side, on the
House Committee on Banking and Financial Services.
So on process grounds, I would suggest to the gentleman that as
indicated by the CBO this amendment does not breach the requirements of
the law. On substantive grounds, the gentleman from North Carolina is
going against his administration and his party's amendments as adopted
in the House Committee on Banking and Financial Services. So as the
chairman of the committee, I am befuddled by the approach that is being
presented.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds.
Let me make two points. This is not whether this is a Republican bill
or a Democratic bill or a Republican amendment. The unfunded mandates
requirement applies to both parties. It applies to this Congress. This
is the integrity of our House that is at stake.
No. 2, this notion that a public housing authority is not a local
government is just defied by the very definitions in the bill itself on
page 17, which says that a local housing authority is one
[[Page H2111]]
authorized by State law to administer choice-based housing. That is a
State entity.
Mr. LEACH. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I want to be very categorical first of all. The CBO, which is the
overseer of this program, states that the public housing requirement in
terms of the work program is not an unfunded mandate, period. There are
other parts of the bill that involve small aspects of or that touch the
unfunded mandates act, but they do not reach the threshold. But the
requirement the gentleman is referencing in section 105, which is his
principal point, is not an unfunded mandate.
With regard to section 106, which the gentleman wants to knock out, I
would also point out that this section is largely maintained in the
alternative to be offered by the gentleman from Massachusetts. So the
gentleman is attempting to knock out a provision that will be in the
alternative of the gentleman from Massachusetts, which is supported by
the administration, and which is crafted in large measure with the
input of his side in the committee.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the
gentleman from Massachusetts, [Mr. Frank].
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, when the Republican
chairman of the committee gets up and his basic argument is ``The
President made me do it,'' we understand the weakness of his
substantive arguments.
The gentleman even said we should be for this because this is the
same principle as the AmeriCorps. I understood there was on the other
side no great love for AmeriCorps, so I assume all those who are
against AmeriCorps would agree with the gentleman from North Carolina
[Mr. Watt].
But most damaging is the argument the gentleman is making, and people
should understand here how he is narrowing the unfunded mandate piece.
What he says is this: An unfunded mandate should be considered only if
de novo, out of the blue, we impose a restriction. He acknowledges this
will cost the local communities more money, but he says it is a
condition and therefore we can impose greater costs on them as a
condition of funds.
But understand, these are funds they are now getting and have been
getting for a long time. Theoretically, his logical argument is, well,
if they do not like the mandate, they can say no to the funds;
therefore, it is not an unfunded mandate. But is it realistic to tell
local communities that, having built this public housing, having people
live in it, having the obligation to maintain it, they can now say no
to the funds?
What the gentleman from Iowa is doing is turning the unfunded mandate
point into a great ``gotcha'' for the communities. We give them grants,
we establish some programs, and under his interpretation, years later,
20 and 30 years later, having provided for a program where they are
locked in, where they are committed, where they have ongoing
obligations, we then add a condition, and under the gentleman from
Iowa's ruling, any expense, and it is a ``gotcha'' because we say, hey,
if you do not like the condition, give up the money. But of course this
is wholly unrealistic, to expect local communities which have now got
this ongoing responsibility to residents to give up the money.
So if we reject the point of order, we accept the gentleman from
Iowa's interpretation, it is yes, we cannot do a mandate out of the
blue. But where there has been an ongoing, long-continuing program,
where local communities have been given money to do something, we can
ratchet up the conditions, we can impose new conditions, and if they
complain it will cost them money, we say, well, they can always give it
up.
I do not think that is the spirit of the unfunded mandate.
Mr. LEACH. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Let me just stress, the gentleman from Massachusetts referenced my
interpretation. My interpretation is the interpretation of the CBO,
which is the overseer. What the law states is that an exception to the
unfunded mandates law are provisions imposing duties as a condition of
receiving Federal aid or arising from participation in a Federal
program.
What the gentleman from North Carolina is raising is a question of
law in terms of a point of order. That point of order clearly, without
any equivocation, does not rise.
Now, on the substance of the issue there are differences of judgment,
and I am simply making the point that the majority side supports the
precept of work for benefit. The President supports the precept of work
for benefit. The gentleman may disagree with that precept, that is his
philosophical prerogative, but he should not confuse a point of order
argument with a substantive argument.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to
the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Kennedy].
Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, first and foremost, let
me make certain the chairman understands that in no way does our work
requirement marry their work requirement. We simply say that we
encourage people to do some work if they are going to receive this
benefit. It is not a term or condition of the lease. No. 1.
No. 2, the fact is, according to the rules of the House, according to
the CRS report, a point of order against an unfunded mandate exists if
it meets a $50 million threshold. According to the CBO, this provision
is going to cost $65 million.
It is the gentleman's party which created the idea of the unfunded
mandate. It is his party that is categorically denying the people of
this House and the people of this country the opportunity to challenge
this based on the fact that we are going to cost the public housing
authorities the money.
Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from New York [Mr. Lazio] maintains we
are going to take this money out of the operating account for public
housing. The operating accounts are already underfunded in this bill.
That is the ultimate problem.
The gentleman from Iowa's party is unwilling to provide the funding
that is necessary to achieve basic affordable housing for the poorest
of the people of this country, and now what he is doing is scolding
them and telling them they have to work.
I say if the gentleman wants to go after the mining companies and the
oil and gas industry and get them to volunteer, go for it and I will be
standing there right with him, but he should not point his finger at
just the poor.
{time} 1230
Mr. LEACH. Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask how much time the two
sides have remaining.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Iowa has 4 minutes remaining, and
the gentleman from North Carolina has 4 minutes remaining.
The gentleman from Iowa has the right to close.
Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, let me take issue with
that. Why does the gentleman from Iowa have the right to close? It is
my point of order.
The CHAIRMAN. That has been established by precedent. The manager of
the bill has the right to close.
Mr. WATT of North Carolina. He is not managing the bill. The
gentleman from New York [Mr. Lazio] is managing the bill.
The CHAIRMAN. The chairman of the committee is at this point in time
managing the bill.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. If the gentleman from North Carolina will
yield, maybe it is because he is representing the President on this
issue.
The CHAIRMAN. No, that is not correct.
Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as
I may consume.
Let me just clarify what is at issue here. It is not whether we
support or do not support the underlying provision in the bill. I have
made it clear from day one that I do not support this volunteer
requirement. I do not know how you can require somebody to volunteer
without compensation. This is not about whether I support or do not
support that concept. This is about the rules of the House that we
adopted and the law that is in place that says we cannot pass an
unfunded mandate down to local governments and not pay for that
mandate.
[[Page H2112]]
The Congressional Budget Office says that section 105 will cost local
public housing authorities $35 million a year. The Congressional Budget
Office says section 106 will cost local housing authorities an
additional $30 million a year. That is a total of $65 million in
additional costs that we are passing along.
The argument seems to be, well, these are not local governments, but
if anybody believes that a local housing authority is not a part of the
local government, they ought to read the definition on page 17 of this
bill. It says that a local housing authority is anyone that is
authorized under this act to engage in or assist in the development or
operation of low income housing by any State, county, municipality or
other governmental body or public entity.
If that does not make the local housing authority a part of the local
government, I do not know what does.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. WATT of North Carolina. I yield to the gentleman from
Massachusetts.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. To give the gentleman from Iowa his due,
he has an alternative argument, which is once there is a vote of
Federal funds to a local government, then the unfunded mandate issue
disappears. His argument is that because the local governments have the
theoretical right to refuse all public housing funds, any condition we
impose on them which increases their cost is not an unfunded mandate.
As I said, that is the great gotcha. What it means is that you can
give money to a local government, they incur ongoing operations, and
the way they can get around it, the gentleman from Iowa says, is,
``It's not an unfunded mandate, you can abandon public housing
altogether, and if you don't, we gotcha.''
Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, let me
make it clear that the unfunded mandate rules are neither Republican
nor Democrat. They are bipartisan. Every single one of us has gone home
and heard our local governments and our State governments say, do not
pass along a mandate on us and then not give us the money to comply
with it.
The Congressional Budget Office says the combination of sections 105
and 106 of this bill will cost local governments, public housing
authorities, an additional $65 million a year. The threshold is $50
million under the law. We are $15 million over the threshold. We can
take this provision out, the bill can proceed. It is not going to be
the end of this public housing bill. But we do not need to pass an
unfunded mandate down to our local governments if we are going to be
true to the philosophies that we have said we believe in.
Mr. LEACH. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
What the gentleman from North Carolina is engaging in is captious
argumentation. Let me explain this as carefully as I can. We have a
long tradition in the House of Representatives, in the Congress of the
United States, when we expend Federal funds to put requirements on
them. Those in most instances are not unfunded mandates. Let me be as
precise as possible. We have rules about money going to States form
time to time, and we require that civil rights be enforced. That is not
an unfunded mandate. That is a requirement for receipt of Federal
funds.
The gentleman from North Carolina objects to the work requirement in
this bill. He is free at any point in the debate to offer an amendment
to strike it, and your side will attempt to do that. But I would simply
stress that under the definitions of law provided by the CBO, which is
the overseer of this program, this is a requirement for receipt of
Federal funds. It is not an unfunded mandate, section 105, which is
what the gentleman is principally getting at.
On the substantive side, let me say this. I was very intrigued the
other evening. All of us looked at this issue of voluntarism where the
President and the former Presidents met in Philadelphia, and I though
it made a great deal of sense. Some of the criticism that came out, to
the degree there was criticism, related to the fact that it may be a
little bit presumptuous for people from the outside to volunteer in
internal problems of other people. There was a degree of legitimacy to
this argument.
What this bill is saying is that people in poverty should have a work
component to also take care of themselves and assist in their
community. It is a community service requirement, it is a work-for-
benefit program. All of the gentlemen on the other side may object. I
would only again stress in this regard two points. First, Secretary
Cisneros, Secretary Cuomo, and the majority of the Committee on Banking
and Financial Services have brought this to the floor. Second, this
country and many people in it believe that reform in these programs is
vital, and that people are looking at people getting benefits and not
giving anything in return. This is an effort of stressing community
service, work for benefit.
With regard to the gentleman's point or order, it is one that is
clearly, and I say clearly, without merit. I would urge my colleagues
to uphold the committee on a straightforward point of law. We will deal
with the substance of the gentleman's issue at later points in time
when debate on amendments come forth.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN. All time on this question has expired.
Pursuant to section 426(b)(3) of the Act, the question is, Will the
Committee now consider the amendment in the nature of a substitute
recommended by the Committee on Banking and Financial Services?
The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
recorded vote
Mr. LEACH. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 237,
noes 183, not voting 13, as follows:
[Roll No. 99]
AYES--237
Aderholt
Archer
Armey
Bachus
Baker
Ballenger
Barcia
Barr
Barrett (NE)
Bartlett
Barton
Bass
Bateman
Bereuter
Berry
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bliley
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bono
Brady
Bryant
Bunning
Burr
Burton
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Canady
Cannon
Castle
Chabot
Chambliss
Chenoweth
Christensen
Coble
Coburn
Collins
Combest
Cook
Cooksey
Cox
Cramer
Crane
Crapo
Cubin
Cunningham
Davis (VA)
Deal
DeLay
Diaz-Balart
Dickey
Doolittle
Doyle
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Ehlers
Ehrlich
Emerson
Engel
English
Ensign
Everett
Ewing
Fawell
Foley
Forbes
Fowler
Fox
Franks (NJ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Ganske
Gekas
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gilman
Goode
Goodlatte
Goodling
Goss
Graham
Granger
Green
Greenwood
Gutknecht
Hansen
Hastert
Hastings (WA)
Hayworth
Hefley
Hill
Hilleary
Hobson
Hoekstra
Holden
Horn
Hostettler
Houghton
Hulshof
Hunter
Hutchinson
Hyde
Inglis
Jenkins
Johnson (CT)
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Kasich
Kelly
Kim
King (NY)
Kingston
Klink
Klug
Knollenberg
Kolbe
LaHood
Largent
Latham
LaTourette
Lazio
Leach
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Livingston
LoBiondo
Lucas
Manzullo
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McCrery
McDade
McHugh
McInnis
McIntosh
McKeon
Metcalf
Mica
Miller (FL)
Molinari
Moran (KS)
Moran (VA)
Morella
Myrick
Nethercutt
Neumann
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nussle
Oxley
Packard
Pappas
Parker
Paul
Paxon
Pease
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Pombo
Porter
Portman
Pryce (OH)
Quinn
Radanovich
Ramstad
Regula
Riggs
Riley
Rogan
Rogers
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Roukema
Royce
Ryun
Salmon
Sanford
Saxton
Scarborough
Schaefer, Dan
Schaffer, Bob
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Shimkus
Shuster
Skeen
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (OR)
Smith (TX)
Smith, Linda
Snowbarger
Solomon
Souder
Spence
Stearns
Stump
Sununu
Talent
Tauzin
Taylor (NC)
Thomas
Thornberry
Thune
Tiahrt
Traficant
Turner
Upton
Walsh
Wamp
Watkins
Watts (OK)
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Wexler
White
Whitfield
Wicker
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NOES--183
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allen
Baldacci
Barrett (WI)
Becerra
[[Page H2113]]
Bentsen
Berman
Bishop
Blagojevich
Blumenauer
Bonior
Borski
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd
Brown (CA)
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Capps
Cardin
Carson
Clay
Clayton
Clement
Clyburn
Condit
Conyers
Costello
Coyne
Cummings
Danner
Davis (FL)
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Dellums
Deutsch
Dicks
Dingell
Dixon
Doggett
Dooley
Edwards
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Fazio
Filner
Flake
Foglietta
Ford
Frank (MA)
Frost
Furse
Gejdenson
Gephardt
Gonzalez
Gordon
Gutierrez
Hall (OH)
Hall (TX)
Hamilton
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Hefner
Hilliard
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hooley
Hoyer
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
John
Johnson (WI)
Johnson, E. B.
Kanjorski
Kennedy (MA)
Kennelly
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind (WI)
Kleczka
Kucinich
LaFalce
Lampson
Lantos
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Lofgren
Lowey
Luther
Maloney (CT)
Maloney (NY)
Manton
Markey
Martinez
Mascara
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McDermott
McGovern
McHale
McIntyre
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek
Menendez
Millender-McDonald
Miller (CA)
Minge
Mink
Moakley
Mollohan
Murtha
Nadler
Neal
Oberstar
Obey
Ortiz
Owens
Pallone
Pastor
Payne
Pelosi
Peterson (MN)
Pickett
Pomeroy
Poshard
Price (NC)
Rahall
Rangel
Reyes
Rivers
Rodriguez
Roemer
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Sabo
Sanchez
Sanders
Sandlin
Sawyer
Schumer
Scott
Serrano
Sherman
Sisisky
Skaggs
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith, Adam
Snyder
Spratt
Stabenow
Stark
Stokes
Strickland
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor (MS)
Thompson
Thurman
Tierney
Torres
Towns
Velazquez
Vento
Visclosky
Waters
Watt (NC)
Waxman
Weygand
Wise
Woolsey
Wynn
Yates
NOT VOTING--13
Andrews
Baesler
Davis (IL)
DeFazio
Herger
Istook
Kaptur
Kennedy (RI)
Olver
Pascrell
Schiff
Stenholm
Stupak
{time} 1258
Messrs. McHALE, ACKERMAN, and KILDEE changed their vote from ``aye''
to ``no.''
Mr. GREENWOOD and Mr. CRAMER changed their vote from ``no'' to
``aye.''
So the question of consideration was decided in the affirmative.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
{time} 1300
amendment no. 15 offered by mr. lazio of new york
Mr. LAZIO of New York. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment No. 15 offered by Mr. Lazio of New York:
Page 78, line 22, after ``used'' insert ``, to the extent
or in such amounts as are or have been provided in advance in
appropriations Acts.''.
Page 79, after line 19, insert the following new
subsection:
(e) Eligible Activities for Increased Income.--Any public
housing agency that derives increased nonrental or rental
income, as referred to in subsection (c)(2)(B) or (d)(1)(D)
of section 204 or pursuant to provision of mixed-income
developments under section 221(c)(2), may use such amounts
for any eligible activity under paragraph (1) or (2) of
subsection (a) of this section or for providing choice-based
housing assistance under title III.
Page 116, line 6, after ``used'' insert ``, to the extent
or in such amounts as are or have been provided in advance in
appropriations Acts,''.
Page 137, line 14, strike ``for financial assistance under
this title'' and insert ``under section 282(l) for use under
the capital fund''.
Page 164, after line 16, insert the following:
(n) Treatment of Previous Selections.--A public housing
agency that has been selected to receive amounts under the
notice of funding availability for fiscal year 1996 amounts
for the HOPE VI program (provided under the heading ``public
housing demolition, site revitalization, and replacement
housing grants'' in title II of the Departments of Veterans
Affairs and Housing and Urban Development, and Independent
Agencies Appropriations Act, 1996 (42 U.S.C. 14371 note)
(enacted as section 101(e) of Omnibus consolidated Rescission
and Appropriations Act of 1996 (Public Law 104-134; 100 Stat.
1321-269)) may apply to the Secretary of Housing and Urban
Development for a waiver of the total development cost
rehabilitation requirement otherwise applicable under such
program, and the Secretary may waive such requirement, but
only (1) to the extent that a designated site for use of such
amounts does not have dwelling units that are considered to
be obsolete under Department of Housing and Urban Development
regulations in effect upon the date of the enactment of this
Act, and (2) if the Secretary determines that the public
housing agency will continue to comply with the purposes of
the program notwithstanding such waiver.
Page 170, line 24, strike ``bond issued by the agency'' and
insert, ``bonds issued by the agency or any State or local
governmental agency''.
Page 171, strike lines 5 through 10 and insert the
following:
With respect to any dwelling unit in a mixed-finance
housing development that is a low-income dwelling unit for
which amounts from a block grant under this title are used
and that is assisted pursuant to the low-income housing tax
credit under section 42 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986,
the rents charged to the residents of the unit shall be
determined in accordance with this title, but shall not in
any case exceed the amounts allowable under such section 42.
Page 173, line 24, strike ``and'' and all that follows
through line 2 on page 174, and insert a period.
Page 184, strikes line 7 and 8 and insert the following:
assistance under this title, such sums as may be necessary
for each of fiscal years 1998, 2000, 2001, and 2002 to
provide amounts for incremental assistance under this title,
for renewal of expiring contracts under section 302 of this
Act and renewal under this title of expiring contracts for
tenant-based rental assistance under section 8 of the United
States Housing Act of 1937 (as in effect before the effective
date of the repeal under section 601 (b) of this Act), and
for replacement needs for public housing under title II.
Page 184, line 22, after ``227'' insert the following: ``or
the establishment of occupancy restrictions in accordance
with section 658 of the Housing and Community Development Act
of 1992''.
Page 224, strike lines 21 through 25 and insert the
following:
(c) Rent Policy.--A participating jurisdiction shall ensure
that the rental contributions charged to families assisted
with amounts received pursuant to this title--
(1) do not exceed the amount that would be chargeable under
title II to such families were such families residing in
public housing assisted under such title; or
(2) are established, pursuant to approval by the Secretary
of a proposed rent structure included in the application
under section 406, at levels that are reasonable and designed
to eliminate any disincentives for members of the family to
obtain employment and attain economic self-sufficiency.
Page 228, line 18, strike ``section'' and insert ``title''.
Page 228, after line 25, insert the following:
(k) Community Work Requirement.--
(1) Applicability of requirements for pha's.--Except as
provided in paragraph (2), participating jurisdictions,
families assisted with amounts received pursuant to this
title, and dwelling units assisted with amounts received
pursuant to this title, shall be subject to the provisions of
section 105 to the same extent that such provisions apply
with respect to public housing agencies, families residing in
public housing dwelling units and families assisted under
title III, and public housing dwelling units and dwelling
units assisted under title III.
(2) Local community service alternative.--Paragraph (1)
shall not apply to a participating jurisdiction that,
pursuant to approval by the Secretary of a proposal included
in the application under section 406, is carrying out a local
program that is designed to foster community service by
families assisted with amounts received pursuant to this
title.
(1) Income Targeting.--In providing housing assistance
using amounts received pursuant to this title in any fiscal
year, a participating jurisdiction shall ensure that the
number of families having incomes that do not exceed 30
percent of the area median income that are initially assisted
under this title during such fiscal year is not less than
substantially the same number of families having such incomes
that would be initially assisted in such jurisdiction during
such fiscal year under titles II and III pursuant to sections
222(c) and 321(b)).
Page 233, line 7, after the period insert the following:
``Upon approving or disapproving an application under this
paragraph, the Secretary shall make such determination
publicly available in writing together with a written
statement of the reasons for such determination.''.
Page 320, line 13, strike the period and insert ``; or''.
Page 320, after line 13, insert the following:
(C) with respect only to activity engaged in by the tenant
or any member of the tenant's household, is criminal activity
on or off the premises.
Page 335, after line 6, insert the following new section:
SEC. 709. PROTECTION OF SENIOR HOMEOWNERS UNDER REVERSE
MORTGAGE PROGRAM.
(a) Disclosure Requirements; Prohibition of Funding of
Unnecessary or Excessive Costs.--Section 255(d) of the
National Housing Act (12 U.S.C. 1715z-20(d)) is amended--
(1) in paragraph (2)--
(A) in subparagraph (B), by striking ``and'' at the end;
(B) by redesignating subparagraph (C) as subparagraph (D);
and
(C) by inserting after subparagraph (B) the following:
[[Page H2114]]
``(C) has received full disclosure of all costs to the
mortgagor for obtaining the mortgage, including any costs of
estate planning, financial advice, or other related services;
and'';
(2) in paragraph (9)(F), by striking ``and'';
(3) in paragraph (10), by striking the period at the end
and inserting ``; and''; and
(4) by adding at the end the following:
``(11) have been made with such restrictions as the
Secretary determines to be appropriate to ensure that the
mortgagor does not fund any unnecessary or excessive costs
for obtaining the mortgage, including any costs of estate
planning, financial advice, or other related services; such
restrictions shall include a requirement that the mortgagee
ask the mortgagor about any fees that the mortgagor has
incurred in connection with obtaining the mortgage and a
requirement that the mortgagee be responsible for ensuring
that the disclosures required by subsection (d)(2)(C) are
made.''.
(b) Implementation.--
(1) Notice.--The Secretary of Housing and Urban Development
shall, by interim notice, implement the amendments made by
subsection (a) in an expeditious manner, as determined by the
Secretary. Such notice shall not be effective after the date
of the effectiveness of the final regulations issued under
paragraph (2) of this subsection.
(2) Regulations.--The Secretary shall, not later than the
expiration of the 90-day period beginning on the date of the
enactment of this Act, issue final regulations to implement
the amendments made by subsection (a). Such regulations shall
be issued only after notice and opportunity for public
comment pursuant to the provisions of section 553 of title 5,
United States Code (notwithstanding subsections (a)(2) and
(b)(B) of such section.)
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from New York [Mr.
Lazio] and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New York [Mr. Lazio].
Mr. LAZIO of New York. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I
may consume.
Mr. Chairman, we have before us the manager's amendment that speaks
to certain technical changes and substantive changes that would improve
and in some cases expand the bill before us.
Mr. Chairman, this manager's amendment speaks to certain technical
changes and improvements in the bill, including the following: There is
a technical correction regarding the fact that housing authorities can
use any additional money earned from increases in rental income for
more housing activities, including the provision of additional
vouchers, to try and make our money stretch as far as it can to serve
as many people as we possibly can.
We addressed, among other things, the ability of housing authorities
to help direct some of their money toward remodeling activities of
buildings where cost-benefit analysis would suggest that HOPE VI funds,
one of the HUD grant programs, would be relevant and appropriate. We
speak to the elimination of certain duplicative language having to do
with Operation Safe Home.
We eliminate in title III precise authorization levels and instead in
its place insert such sums as may be necessary to allow for the
following new assistance. One is incremental, two would be renewals of
tenant-based assistance, and three would be relocation assistance under
the disposition of public housing in title II.
The reason for that, Mr. Chairman, would be that we are not certain
exactly how much we need to authorize in terms of incremental
assistance because we are not sure exactly about what disposition of
public housing property might be. Namely, we do not know how many
buildings will go down, how many cost-benefit analyses will require
choice-based assistance; and so therefore, the more prudent course is
not to cap it.
There is a provision in this that speaks to the help for nonelderly
disabled who might as a consequence of the provisions of this bill be
displaced but would allow them in that case to be qualified and to
receive vouchers to allow them to participate in any number of programs
outside of the traditional elderly only programs such as 202.
There are protections in this manager's amendment that allow the home
rule flexibility grant option to be pursued, including rent
protections, the inclusion of the community service requirements, and
requiring targeting to lower income persons to ensure that the
jurisdiction who chooses this option will continue to assist the same
percentage of individuals with incomes under 30 percent of area median
income as would have been assisted under H.R. 2 and various other
clarifications of language that will provide direction to those people
that might pursue that option.
Finally, there is an inclusion in this bill of an effort to try and
eliminate the excessive fees that have been charged to senior citizens
as a result of the reversed equity bill that has been passed by this
House and signed into law. We have unfortunately found in some cases
fees as high as $10,000 and more have been charged to seniors for
services that would be provided for free by HUD, and that of course
preys on the most vulnerable citizens in our society. This provision
would permit the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development to
promulgate rules and regulations that will ensure that that would not
occur.
That is, in sum and substance, where we are with this manager's
amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Kennedy] is
recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time
as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, I want to thank my friend from New York, Mr. Lazio, for
the efforts that he has made to accommodate a number of the issues,
some technical in nature, and others I think of greater substance that
were included in the manager's amendment, and I support the manager's
amendment.
It does not go as far as we would have liked in a number of areas in
terms of targeting and particularly with regard to the block grant
provisions where I will have further amendments, and there will be
other amendments offered later in the bill to deal with some of these
issues.
Mr. Chairman, I do want to indicate that Democrats very much support
the changes that have been made to deal with the availability of
certificates for the disabled and making technical changes to finance
the programs so that PHAs can better develop mixed income housing. I
think that is of particular note.
Mr. Chairman, there are important changes that I believe,
particularly for the Members from New York and other high density
areas, that ought to be aware that contained in this manager's
amendment is a program that will allow public housing funds to go to
mixed income housing development, thereby changing the face of public
housing that has so concentrated the very poor in the past.
There are also, as I mentioned, provisions that I do not believe go
far enough with regard to block grants. Also, it has a very important
provision, to clamp down on the scam artists in the reverse mortgage
program where senior citizens and elderly people will not have to pay
exorbitant fees to invest in advisors for the privilege of securing
disposable income based on the equity of their home. This has been a
terrible scam that we have seen take place around the country.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr.
Vento] my good friend who worked very hard on some aspects of the
manager's amendment.
(Mr. VENTO asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, I am very concerned about one of the en bloc
amendments.
I want to rise in support of the reverse mortgage amendment which is
intended to prevent the abuse of those applying for such mortgage; that
is to say that some brokers and agents have, in the process of in fact
informing individuals of the availability of a reverse mortgage product
have accessed a finders fee on the client which is exorbitant, and
consumers need action quickly on this issue.
I would hope that an inclusion in this public housing bill as an
expression of support for the reverse mortgage provision in this bill,
that it would not subsequently get bogged down in conference, because
we know that the difference between the House and the Senate on this
bill in the last instance were not able to be bridged. I hope that that
is not the case in this instance, as I am sure the subcommittee
chairman also is going to work to avoid that.
[[Page H2115]]
Hopefully, we will be able to pass this very quickly, and with this
expression of support and maybe do it on the House suspension calendar.
As far as the other provisions are concerned, I will defer to my
colleague and the staff that have worked on these provisions.
Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself an
additional 1 minute.
I want to come back to some of the changes that I think are important
that we continue to try to keep in mind with regard to the block grant.
I think the block grant provisions that continue to be contained in the
bill and in the manager's amendment basically are very inadequate
toward dealing with the idea of sending all of this money back to the
States, back to the local communities, without having any stipulations
as to how the moneys can actually be spent. I am further concerned
about some of the provisions that continue to deal with the targeting
and the lack of response to the needs of the very, very poor.
I do appreciate, however, as I have said, the flexibility of the
gentleman from New York [Mr. Lazio] on a number of very technical
issues that required amendments in the initial part of this bill. He
and his staff deserve a lot of credit, Mr. Ventrone and others, for
their reasonableness in trying to work out some of these issues, and we
thank the gentleman very much for his consideration.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. LAZIO of New York. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the
distinguished gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Frelinghuysen] a member of
the Committee on Appropriations.
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, today I rise in support of H.R. 2,
particularly the manager's amendment. First, I would like to thank the
gentleman from New York [Mr. Lazio], the chairman, for his hard work in
addressing the housing needs for people all across the country and for
his keen desire which we all share to empower people so that they live
with dignity and true independence.
I am particularly thankful that the chairman has included in his
manager's amendment a technical change that I requested to address the
housing needs of individuals with disabilities.
Mr. Chairman, last year we worked together to ensure that $50 million
was set aside for tenant-based rental assistance for nonelderly
disabled families. This successful effort was possible because of our
shared commitment to meet the housing needs of people with
disabilities. However, in administrating this program, HUD adopted an
overly restricted definition of federally funded assisted housing,
which restricted access for the very people this setaside was intended
for, individuals with disabilities.
This manager's amendment, Mr. Chairman, the amendment of the
gentleman from New York [Mr. Lazio], corrects the situation and I thank
him for his assistance.
Mr. LAZIO of New York. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from New
Jersey for his assistance and cooperation. I also wanted to thank again
the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Kennedy] for his cooperation in
trying to put this manager's amendment together. Again, it speaks to a
number of concerns to provide the flexibility but also to provide the
level of protections that we need to ensure that that money is
dedicated to low and moderately low-income people.
At the same time, we looked for market-based solutions, competitive
solutions to help drive some of our needs or overarching needs for new
housing in America. That in fact is one of our goals here, to look for
new ways in which we can rechannel the dollars and work as hard as we
possibly can to meet the needs of America.
The CHAIRMAN. All time on this amendment has expired.
The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from New
York [Mr. Lazio].
The amendment was agreed to.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate section 1.
The text of section 1 is as follows:
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE AND TABLE OF CONTENTS.
(a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the ``Housing
Opportunity and Responsibility Act of 1997''.
(b) Table of Contents.--The table of contents for this Act
is as follows:
Sec. 1. Short title and table of contents.
Sec. 2. Declaration of policy to renew American neighborhoods.
TITLE I--GENERAL PROVISIONS
Sec. 101. Statement of purpose.
Sec. 102. Definitions.
Sec. 103. Organization of public housing agencies.
Sec. 104. Determination of adjusted income and median income.
Sec. 105. Community work and family self-sufficiency requirements.
Sec. 106. Local housing management plans.
Sec. 107. Review of plans.
Sec. 108. Reporting requirements.
Sec. 109. Pet ownership.
Sec. 110. Administrative grievance procedure.
Sec. 111. Headquarters reserve fund.
Sec. 112. Labor standards.
Sec. 113. Nondiscrimination.
Sec. 114. Prohibition on use of funds.
Sec. 115. Inapplicability to Indian housing.
Sec. 116. Regulations.
TITLE II--PUBLIC HOUSING
Subtitle A--Block Grants
Sec. 201. Block grant contracts.
Sec. 202. Grant authority, amount, and eligibility.
Sec. 203. Eligible and required activities.
Sec. 204. Determination of grant allocation.
Sec. 205. Sanctions for improper use of amounts.
Subtitle B--Admissions and Occupancy Requirements
Sec. 221. Low-income housing requirement.
Sec. 222. Family eligibility.
Sec. 223. Preferences for occupancy.
Sec. 224. Admission procedures.
Sec. 225. Family choice of rental payment.
Sec. 226. Lease requirements.
Sec. 227. Designated housing for elderly and disabled families.
Subtitle C--Management
Sec. 231. Management procedures.
Sec. 232. Housing quality requirements.
Sec. 233. Employment of residents.
Sec. 234. Resident councils and resident management corporations.
Sec. 235. Management by resident management corporation.
Sec. 236. Transfer of management of certain housing to independent
manager at request of residents.
Sec. 237. Resident opportunity program.
Subtitle D--Homeownership
Sec. 251. Resident homeownership programs.
Subtitle E--Disposition, Demolition, and Revitalization of Developments
Sec. 261. Requirements for demolition and disposition of developments.
Sec. 262. Demolition, site revitalization, replacement housing, and
choice-based assistance grants for developments.
Sec. 263. Voluntary voucher system for public housing.
Subtitle F--Mixed-Finance Public Housing
Sec. 271. Authority.
Sec. 272. Mixed-finance housing developments.
Sec. 273. Mixed-finance housing plan.
Sec. 274. Rent levels for housing financed with low-income housing tax
credit.
Sec. 275. Carry-over of assistance for replaced housing.
Subtitle G--General Provisions
Sec. 281. Payment of non-Federal share.
Sec. 282. Authorization of appropriations for block grants.
Sec. 283. Funding for operation safe home.
Sec. 284. Funding for relocation of victims of domestic violence.
TITLE III--CHOICE-BASED RENTAL HOUSING AND HOMEOWNERSHIP ASSISTANCE FOR
LOW-INCOME FAMILIES
Subtitle A--Allocation
Sec. 301. Authority to provide housing assistance amounts.
Sec. 302. Contracts with PHA's.
Sec. 303. Eligibility of PHA's for assistance amounts.
Sec. 304. Allocation of amounts.
Sec. 305. Administrative fees.
Sec. 306. Authorizations of appropriations.
Sec. 307. Conversion of section 8 assistance.
Sec. 308. Recapture and reuse of annual contract project reserves under
choice-based housing assistance and section 8 tenant-
based assistance programs.
Subtitle B--Choice-Based Housing Assistance for Eligible Families
Sec. 321. Eligible families and preferences for assistance.
Sec. 322. Resident contribution.
Sec. 323. Rental indicators.
Sec. 324. Lease terms.
Sec. 325. Termination of tenancy.
Sec. 326. Eligible owners.
Sec. 327. Selection of dwelling units.
Sec. 328. Eligible dwelling units.
Sec. 329. Homeownership option.
Sec. 330. Assistance for rental of manufactured homes.
Subtitle C--Payment of Housing Assistance on Behalf of Assisted
Families
Sec. 351. Housing assistance payments contracts.
Sec. 352. Amount of monthly assistance payment.
Sec. 353. Payment standards.
[[Page H2116]]
Sec. 354. Reasonable rents.
Sec. 355. Prohibition of assistance for vacant rental units.
Subtitle D--General and Miscellaneous Provisions
Sec. 371. Definitions.
Sec. 372. Rental assistance fraud recoveries.
Sec. 373. Study regarding geographic concentration of assisted
families.
Sec. 374. Study regarding rental assistance.
TITLE IV--HOME RULE FLEXIBLE GRANT OPTION
Sec. 401. Purpose.
Sec. 402. Flexible grant program.
Sec. 403. Covered housing assistance.
Sec. 404. Program requirements.
Sec. 405. Applicability of certain provisions.
Sec. 406. Application.
Sec. 407. Training.
Sec. 408. Accountability.
Sec. 409. Definitions.
TITLE V--ACCOUNTABILITY AND OVERSIGHT OF PUBLIC HOUSING AGENCIES
Subtitle A--Study of Alternative Methods for Evaluating Public Housing
Agencies
Sec. 501. In general.
Sec. 502. Purposes.
Sec. 503. Evaluation of various performance evaluation systems.
Sec. 504. Consultation.
Sec. 505. Contract to conduct study.
Sec. 506. Report.
Sec. 507. Funding.
Sec. 508. Effective date.
Subtitle B--Housing Evaluation and Accreditation Board
Sec. 521. Establishment.
Sec. 522. Membership.
Sec. 523. Functions.
Sec. 524. Powers.
Sec. 525. Fees.
Sec. 526. GAO audit.
Subtitle C--Interim Applicability of Public Housing Management
Assessment Program
Sec. 531. Interim applicability.
Sec. 532. Management assessment indicators.
Sec. 533. Designation of PHA's.
Sec. 534. On-site inspection of troubled PHA's.
Sec. 535. Administration.
Subtitle D--Accountability and Oversight Standards and Procedures
Sec. 541. Audits.
Sec. 542. Performance agreements for authorities at risk of becoming
troubled.
Sec. 543. Performance agreements and CDBG sanctions for troubled PHA's.
Sec. 544. Option to demand conveyance of title to or possession of
public housing.
Sec. 545. Removal of ineffective PHA's.
Sec. 546. Mandatory takeover of chronically troubled PHA's.
Sec. 547. Treatment of troubled PHA's.
Sec. 548. Maintenance of records.
Sec. 549. Annual reports regarding troubled PHA's.
Sec. 550. Applicability to resident management corporations.
Sec. 551. Advisory council for Housing Authority of New Orleans.
TITLE VI--REPEALS AND RELATED AMENDMENTS
Subtitle A--Repeals, Effective Date, and Savings Provisions
Sec. 601. Effective date and repeal of United States Housing Act of
1937.
Sec. 602. Other repeals.
Subtitle B--Other Provisions Relating to Public Housing and Rental
Assistance Programs
Sec. 621. Allocation of elderly housing amounts.
Sec. 622. Pet ownership.
Sec. 623. Review of drug elimination program contracts.
Sec. 624. Amendments to Public and Assisted Housing Drug Elimination
Act of 1990.
Subtitle C--Limitations Relating to Occupancy in Federally Assisted
Housing
Sec. 641. Screening of applicants.
Sec. 642. Termination of tenancy and assistance for illegal drug users
and alcohol abusers.
Sec. 643. Lease requirements.
Sec. 644. Availability of criminal records for tenant screening and
eviction.
Sec. 645. Definitions.
TITLE VII--AFFORDABLE HOUSING AND MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS
Sec. 701. Rural housing assistance.
Sec. 702. Treatment of occupancy standards.
Sec. 703. Implementation of plan.
Sec. 704. Income eligibility for HOME and CDBG programs.
Sec. 705. Prohibition of use of CDBG grants for employment relocation
activities.
Sec. 706. Use of American products.
Sec. 707. Consultation with affected areas in settlement of litigation.
Sec. 708. Use of assisted housing by aliens.
Sec. 709. Effective date.
The CHAIRMAN. Are there any amendments to section 1?
The Clerk will designate section 2.
The text of section 2 is as follows:
SEC. 2. DECLARATION OF POLICY TO RENEW AMERICAN
NEIGHBORHOODS.
The Congress hereby declares that--
(1) the Federal Government has a responsibility to promote
the general welfare of the Nation--
(A) by using Federal resources to aid families and
individuals seeking affordable homes that are safe, clean,
and healthy and, in particular, assisting responsible,
deserving citizens who cannot provide fully for themselves
because of temporary circumstances or factors beyond their
control;
(B) by working to ensure a thriving national economy and a
strong private housing market; and
(C) by developing effective partnerships among the Federal
Government, State and local governments, and private entities
that allow government to accept responsibility for fostering
the development of a healthy marketplace and allow families
to prosper without government involvement in their day-to-day
activities;
(2) the Federal Government cannot through its direct action
alone provide for the housing of every American citizen, or
even a majority of its citizens, but it is the responsibility
of the Government to promote and protect the independent and
collective actions of private citizens to develop housing and
strengthen their own neighborhoods;
(3) the Federal Government should act where there is a
serious need that private citizens or groups cannot or are
not addressing responsibly;
(4) housing is a fundamental and necessary component of
bringing true opportunity to people and communities in need,
but providing physical structures to house low-income
families will not by itself pull generations up from poverty;
(5) it is a goal of our Nation that all citizens have
decent and affordable housing; and
(6) our Nation should promote the goal of providing decent
and affordable housing for all citizens through the efforts
and encouragement of Federal, State, and local governments,
and by the independent and collective actions of private
citizens, organizations, and the private sector.
The CHAIRMAN. Are there any amendments to section 2?
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate title I.
The text of title I is as follows:
TITLE I--GENERAL PROVISIONS
SEC. 101. STATEMENT OF PURPOSE.
The purpose of this Act is to promote safe, clean, and
healthy housing that is affordable to low-income families,
and thereby contribute to the supply of affordable housing,
by--
(1) deregulating and decontrolling public housing agencies,
thereby enabling them to perform as property and asset
managers;
(2) providing for more flexible use of Federal assistance
to public housing agencies, allowing the authorities to
leverage and combine assistance amounts with amounts obtained
from other sources;
(3) facilitating mixed income communities;
(4) increasing accountability and rewarding effective
management of public housing agencies;
(5) creating incentives and economic opportunities for
residents of dwelling units assisted by public housing
agencies to work, become self-sufficient, and transition out
of public housing and federally assisted dwelling units;
(6) recreating the existing rental assistance voucher
program so that the use of vouchers and relationships between
landlords and tenants under the program operate in a manner
that more closely resembles the private housing market; and
(7) remedying troubled public housing agencies and
replacing or revitalizing severely distressed public housing
developments.
SEC. 102. DEFINITIONS.
For purposes of this Act, the following definitions shall
apply:
(1) Acquisition cost.--When used in reference to public
housing, the term ``acquisition cost'' means the amount
prudently expended by a public housing agency in acquiring
property for a public housing development.
(2) Development.--The terms ``public housing development''
and ``development'' (when used in reference to public
housing) mean--
(A) public housing; and
(B) the improvement of any such housing.
(3) Disabled family.--The term ``disabled family'' means a
family whose head (or his or her spouse), or whose sole
member, is a person with disabilities. Such term includes 2
or more persons with disabilities living together, and 1 or
more such persons living with 1 or more persons determined
under the regulations of the Secretary to be essential to
their care or well-being.
(4) Drug-related criminal activity.--The term ``drug-
related criminal activity'' means the illegal manufacture,
sale, distribution, use, or possession with intent to
manufacture, sell, distribute, or use, of a controlled
substance (as such term is defined in section 102 of the
Controlled Substances Act).
(5) Effective date.--The term ``effective date'', when used
in reference to this Act, means the effective date determined
under section 601(a).
(6) Elderly families and near elderly families.--The terms
``elderly family'' and ``near-elderly family'' mean a family
whose head (or his or her spouse), or whose sole member, is
an elderly person or a near-elderly person, respectively.
Such terms include 2 or more elderly persons or near-elderly
persons living together, and 1 or more such persons living
with 1 or more persons determined under the regulations of
the Secretary to be essential to their care or well-being.
(7) Elderly person.--The term ``elderly person'' means a
person who is at least 62 years of age.
(8) Eligible public housing agency.--The term ``eligible
public housing agency'' means, with respect to a fiscal year,
a public housing agency that is eligible under section 202(d)
for a grant under this title.
(9) Family.--The term ``family'' includes a family with or
without children, an elderly family, a near-elderly family, a
disabled family, and a single person.
(10) Group home and independent living facility.--The terms
``group home'' and ``independent living facility'' have the
meanings
[[Page H2117]]
given such terms in section 811(k) of the Cranston-Gonzalez
National Affordable Housing Act.
(11) Income.--The term ``income'' means, with respect to a
family, income from all sources of each member of the
household, as determined in accordance with criteria
prescribed by the applicable public housing agency and the
Secretary, except that the following amounts shall be
excluded:
(A) Any amounts not actually received by the family.
(B) Any amounts that would be eligible for exclusion under
section 1613(a)(7) of the Social Security Act.
(12) Local housing management plan.--The term ``local
housing management plan'' means, with respect to any fiscal
year, the plan under section 106 of a public housing agency
for such fiscal year.
(13) Low-income family.--The term ``low-income family''
means a family whose income does not exceed 80 percent of the
median income for the area, as determined by the Secretary
with adjustments for smaller and larger families, except that
the Secretary may, for purposes of this paragraph, establish
income ceilings higher or lower than 80 percent of the median
for the area on the basis of the public housing agency's
findings that such variations are necessary because of
unusually high or low family incomes.
(14) Low-income housing.--The term ``low-income housing''
means dwellings that comply with the requirements--
(A) under title II for assistance under such title for the
dwellings; or
(B) under title III for rental assistance payments under
such title for the dwellings.
(15) Near-elderly person.--The term ``near-elderly person''
means a person who is at least 55 years of age.
(16) Operation.--When used in reference to public housing,
the term ``operation'' means any or all undertakings
appropriate for management, operation, services, maintenance,
security (including the cost of security personnel), or
financing in connection with a public housing development,
including the financing of resident programs and services.
(17) Person with disabilities.--The term ``person with
disabilities'' means a person who--
(A) has a disability as defined in section 223 of the
Social Security Act,
(B) is determined, pursuant to regulations issued by the
Secretary, to have a physical, mental, or emotional
impairment which (i) is expected to be of long-continued and
indefinite duration, (ii) substantially impedes his or her
ability to live independently, and (iii) is of such a nature
that such ability could be improved by more suitable housing
conditions, or
(C) has a developmental disability as defined in section
102 of the Developmental Disabilities Assistance and Bill of
Rights Act.
Such term shall not exclude persons who have the disease of
acquired immunodeficiency syndrome or any conditions arising
from the etiologic agent for acquired immunodeficiency
syndrome. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no
individual shall be considered a person with disabilities,
for purposes of eligibility for public housing under title II
of this Act, solely on the basis of any drug or alcohol
dependence. The Secretary shall consult with other
appropriate Federal agencies to implement the preceding
sentence.
(18) Production.--When used in reference to public housing,
the term ``production'' means any or all undertakings
necessary for planning, land acquisition, financing,
demolition, construction, or equipment, in connection with
the construction, acquisition, or rehabilitation of a
property for use as a public housing development, including
activity in connection with a public housing development that
is confined to the reconstruction, remodeling, or repair of
existing buildings.
(19) Production cost.--When used in reference to public
housing, the term ``production cost'' means the costs
incurred by a public housing agency for production of public
housing and the necessary financing for production (including
the payment of carrying charges and acquisition costs).
(20) Public housing.--The term ``public housing'' means
housing, and all necessary appurtenances thereto, that--
(A) is low-income housing, low-income dwelling units in
mixed-finance housing (as provided in subtitle F), or low-
income dwelling units in mixed income housing (as provided in
section 221(c)(2)); and
(B)(i) is subject to an annual block grant contract under
title II; or
(ii) was subject to an annual block grant contract under
title II (or an annual contributions contract under the
United States Housing Act of 1937) which is not in effect,
but for which occupancy is limited in accordance with the
requirements under section 222(a).
(21) Public housing agency.--The term ``public housing
agency'' is defined in section 103.
(22) Resident council.--The term ``resident council'' means
an organization or association that meets the requirements of
section 234(a).
(23) Resident management corporation.--The term ``resident
management corporation'' means a corporation that meets the
requirements of section 234(b)(2).
(24) Resident program.--The term ``resident programs and
services'' means programs and services for families residing
in public housing developments. Such term includes (A) the
development and maintenance of resident organizations which
participate in the management of public housing developments,
(B) the training of residents to manage and operate the
public housing development and the utilization of their
services in management and operation of the development,
(C) counseling on household management, housekeeping,
budgeting, money management, homeownership issues, child
care, and similar matters, (D) advice regarding resources
for job training and placement, education, welfare,
health, and other community services, (E) services that
are directly related to meeting resident needs and
providing a wholesome living environment; and (F) referral
to appropriate agencies in the community when necessary
for the provision of such services. To the maximum extent
available and appropriate, existing public and private
agencies in the community shall be used for the provision
of such services.
(25) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary
of Housing and Urban Development.
(26) State.--The term ``State'' means the States of the
United States, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of
Puerto Rico, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana
Islands, Guam, the Virgin Islands, American Samoa, and any
other territory or possession of the United States and Indian
tribes.
(27) Very low-income family.--The term ``very low-income
family'' means a low-income family whose income does not
exceed 50 percent of the median family income for the area,
as determined by the Secretary with adjustments for smaller
and larger families, except that the Secretary may, for
purposes of this paragraph, establish income ceilings higher
or lower than 50 percent of the median for the area on the
basis of the public housing agency's findings that such
variations are necessary because of unusually high or low
family incomes.
SEC. 103. ORGANIZATION OF PUBLIC HOUSING AGENCIES.
(a) Requirements.--For purposes of this Act, the terms
``public housing agency'' and ``agency'' mean any entity
that--
(1) is--
(A) a public housing agency that was authorized under the
United States Housing Act of 1937 to engage in or assist in
the development or operation of low-income housing;
(B) authorized under this Act to engage in or assist in the
development or operation of low-income housing by any State,
county, municipality, or other governmental body or public
entity;
(C) an entity authorized by State law to administer choice-
based housing assistance under title III; or
(D) an entity selected by the Secretary, pursuant to
subtitle D of title V, to manage housing; and
(2) complies with the requirements under subsection (b).
The term does not include any entity that is an Indian
housing authority for purposes of the United States Housing
Act of 1937 (as in effect before the effectiveness of the
Native American Housing Assistance and Self-Determination Act
of 1996) or a tribally designated housing entity, as such
term is defined in section 4 of the Native American Housing
Assistance and Self-Determination Act of 1996.
(b) Governance.--
(1) Board of directors.--Each public housing agency shall
have a board of directors or other form of governance as
prescribed in State or local law. No person may be barred
from serving on such board or body because of such person's
residency in a public housing development or status as an
assisted family under title III.
(2) Resident membership.--
(A) In general.--Except as provided in subparagraph (B), in
localities in which a public housing agency is governed by a
board of directors or other similar body, the board or
body shall include not less than 1 member who is an
elected public housing resident member (as such term is
defined in paragraph (5)).
(B) Exceptions.--The requirement in subparagraph (A) with
respect to elected public housing resident members shall not
apply to--
(i) any State or local governing body that serves as a
public housing agency for purposes of this Act and whose
responsibilities include substantial activities other than
acting as the public housing agency, except that such
requirement shall apply to any advisory committee or
organization that is established by such governing body and
whose responsibilities relate only to the governing body's
functions as a public housing agency for purposes of this
Act;
(ii) any public housing agency that owns or operates less
than 250 public housing dwelling units (including any agency
that does not own or operate public housing); or
(iii) any public housing agency in a State that requires
the members of the board of directors or other similar body
of a public housing agency to be salaried and to serve on a
full-time basis.
(3) Full participation.--No public housing agency may limit
or restrict the capacity or offices in which a member of such
board or body may serve on such board or body solely because
of the member's status as a resident member.
(4) Conflicts of interest.--The Secretary shall establish
guidelines to prevent conflicts of interest on the part of
members of the board or directors or governing body of a
public housing agency.
(5) Definitions.--For purposes of this subsection, the
following definitions shall apply:
(A) Elected public housing resident member.--The term
``elected public housing resident member'' means, with
respect to the public housing agency involved, an individual
who is a resident member of the board of directors (or other
similar governing body of the agency) by reason of election
to such position pursuant to an election--
(i) in which eligibility for candidacy in such election is
limited to individuals who--
(I) maintain their principal residence in a dwelling unit
of public housing administered or assisted by the agency; and
(II) have not been convicted of a felony;
(ii) in which only residents of dwelling units of public
housing administered by the agency may vote; and
(iii) that is conducted in accordance with standards and
procedures for such election, which shall be established by
the Secretary.
[[Page H2118]]
(B) Resident member.--The term ``resident member'' means a
member of the board of directors or other similar governing
body of a public housing agency who is a resident of a public
housing dwelling unit owned, administered, or assisted by the
agency or is a member of an assisted family (as such term is
defined in section 371) assisted by the agency.
(c) Establishment of Policies.--Any rules, regulations,
policies, standards, and procedures necessary to implement
policies required under section 106 to be included in the
local housing management plan for a public housing agency
shall be approved by the board of directors or similar
governing body of the agency and shall be publicly
available for review upon request.
SEC. 104. DETERMINATION OF ADJUSTED INCOME AND MEDIAN INCOME.
(a) Adjusted Income.--For purposes of this Act, the term
``adjusted income'' means, with respect to a family, the
difference between the income of the members of the family
residing in a dwelling unit or the persons on a lease and the
amount of any income exclusions for the family under
subsections (b) and (c), as determined by the public housing
agency.
(b) Mandatory Exclusions From Income.--In determining
adjusted income, a public housing agency shall exclude from
the annual income of a family the following amounts:
(1) Elderly and disabled families.--$400 for any elderly or
disabled family.
(2) Medical expenses.--The amount by which 3 percent of the
annual family income is exceeded by the sum of--
(A) unreimbursed medical expenses of any elderly family;
(B) unreimbursed medical expenses of any nonelderly family,
except that this subparagraph shall apply only to the extent
approved in appropriation Acts; and
(C) unreimbursed reasonable attendant care and auxiliary
apparatus expenses for each handicapped member of the family,
to the extent necessary to enable any member of such family
(including such handicapped member) to be employed.
(3) Child care expenses.--Any reasonable child care
expenses necessary to enable a member of the family to be
employed or to further his or her education.
(4) Minors, students, and persons with disabilities.--$480
for each member of the family residing in the household
(other than the head of the household or his or her spouse)
who is less than 18 years of age or is attending school or
vocational training on a full-time basis, or who is 18 years
of age or older and is a person with disabilities.
(5) Child support payments.--Any payment made by a member
of the family for the support and maintenance of any child
who does not reside in the household, except that the amount
excluded under this paragraph may not exceed $480 for each
child for whom such payment is made.
(6) Earned income of minors.--The amount of any earned
income of a member of the family who is not--
(A) 18 years of age or older; and
(B) the head of the household (or the spouse of the head of
the household).
(c) Permissive Exclusions From Income.--In determining
adjusted income, a public housing agency may, in the
discretion of the agency, establish exclusions from the
annual income of a family. Such exclusions may include the
following amounts:
(1) Excessive travel expenses.--Excessive travel expenses
in an amount not to exceed $25 per family per week, for
employment- or education-related travel.
(2) Earned income.--An amount of any earned income of the
family, established at the discretion of the public housing
agency, which may be based on--
(A) all earned income of the family,
(B) the amount earned by particular members of the family;
(C) the amount earned by families having certain
characteristics; or
(D) the amount earned by families or members during certain
periods or from certain sources.
(3) Others.--Such other amounts for other purposes, as the
public housing agency may establish.
(d) Median Income.--In determining median incomes (of
persons, families, or households) for an area or establishing
any ceilings or limits based on income under this Act, the
Secretary shall determine or establish area median incomes
and income ceilings and limits for Westchester and Rockland
Counties, in the State of New York, as if each such county
were an area not contained within the metropolitan
statistical area in which it is located. In determining such
area median incomes or establishing such income ceilings or
limits for the portion of such metropolitan statistical area
that does not include Westchester or Rockland Counties, the
Secretary shall determine or establish area median incomes
and income ceilings and limits as if such portion included
Westchester and Rockland Counties.
SEC. 105. COMMUNITY WORK AND FAMILY SELF-SUFFICIENCY
REQUIREMENTS.
(a) Community Work Requirement.--
(1) In general.--Except as provided in paragraph (3), each
public housing agency shall require, as a condition of
occupancy of a public housing dwelling unit by a family and
of providing housing assistance under title III on behalf of
a family, that each adult member of the family shall
contribute not less than 8 hours of work per month (not
including political activities) within the community in which
the family resides, which may include work performed on
locations not owned by the public housing agency).
(2) Employment status and liability.--The requirement under
paragraph (1) may not be construed to establish any
employment relationship between the public housing agency and
the member of the family subject to the work requirement
under such paragraph or to create any responsibility, duty,
or liability on the part of the public housing agency for
actions arising out of the work done by the member of the
family to comply with the requirement, except to the extent
that the member of the family is fulfilling the requirement
by working directly for such public housing agency.
(3) Exemptions.--A public housing agency shall provide for
the exemption, from the applicability of the requirement
under paragraph (1), of each individual who is--
(A) an elderly person;
(B) a person with disabilities;
(C) working, attending school or vocational training, or
otherwise complying with work requirements applicable under
other public assistance programs (as determined by the
agencies or organizations responsible for administering such
programs); or
(D) otherwise physically impaired to the extent that they
are unable to comply with the requirement, as certified by a
doctor.
(b) Requirement Regarding Target Date for Transition Out of
Assisted Housing.--
(1) In general.--Each public housing agency shall require,
as a condition of occupancy of a public housing dwelling unit
by a family and of providing housing assistance under title
III on behalf of a family, that the family and the agency
enter into an agreement (included, pursuant to subsection
(d)(2)(C), as a term of an agreement under subsection (d))
establishing a target date by which the family intends to
graduate from, terminate tenancy in, or no longer receive
public housing or housing assistance under title III.
(2) Rights of occupancy.--This subsection may not be
construed (nor may any provision of subsection (d) or (e)) to
create a right on the part of any public housing agency to
evict or terminate assistance for a family solely on the
basis of any failure of the family to comply with the target
date established pursuant to paragraph (1).
(3) Factors.--In establishing a target date pursuant to
paragraph (1) for a family that receives benefits for welfare
or public assistance from a State or other public agency
under a program that limits the duration during which such
benefits may be received, the public housing agency and the
family may take into consideration such time limit. This
section may not be construed to require any public housing
agency to adopt any such time limit on the duration of
welfare or public assistance benefits as the target date
pursuant to paragraph (1) for a resident.
(4) Exemptions.--A public housing agency shall provide for
the exemption, from the applicability of the requirements
under paragraph (1), of each individual who is--
(1) an elderly person;
(2) a person with disabilities;
(3) working, attending school or vocational training, or
otherwise complying with work requirements applicable under
other public assistance programs (as determined by the
agencies or organizations responsible for administering such
programs); or
(4) otherwise physically impaired to the extent that they
are unable to comply with the requirement, as certified by a
doctor.
(c) Treatment of Income Changes Resulting From Welfare
Program Requirements.--
(1) Covered family.--For purposes of this subsection, the
term ``covered family'' means a family that (A) receives
benefits for welfare or public assistance from a State or
other public agency under a program for which the Federal,
State, or local law relating to the program requires, as a
condition of eligibility for assistance under the program,
participation of a member of the family in an economic self-
sufficiency program, and (B) resides in a public housing
dwelling unit or is provided housing assistance under title
III.
(2) Decreases in income for failure to comply.--
Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 225 and 322
(relating to family rental contributions), if the welfare or
public assistance benefits of a covered family are reduced
under a Federal, State, or local law regarding such an
assistance program because of any failure of any member of
the family to comply with the conditions under the
assistance program requiring participation in an economic
self-sufficiency program, the amount required to be paid
by the family as a monthly contribution toward rent may
not be decreased, during the period of the reduction, as a
result of any decrease in the income of the family (to the
extent that the decrease in income is a result of the
benefits reduction).
(3) Effect of fraud.--Notwithstanding the provisions of
sections 225 and 322 (relating to family rental
contributions), if the welfare or public assistance benefits
of a covered family are reduced because of an act of fraud by
a member of the family under the law or program, the amount
required to be paid by the covered family as a monthly
contribution toward rent may not be decreased, during the
period of the reduction, as a result of any decrease in the
income of the family (to the extent that the decrease in
income is a result of the benefits reduction).
(4) Notice.--Paragraphs (2) and (3) shall not apply to any
covered family before the public housing agency providing
assistance under this Act on behalf of the family obtains
written notification from the relevant welfare or public
assistance agency specifying that the family's benefits have
been reduced because of noncompliance with economic self-
sufficiency program requirements or fraud and the level of
such reduction.
(5) Occupancy rights.--This subsection may not be construed
to authorize any public housing agency to establish any time
limit on tenancy in a public housing dwelling unit or on
receipt of housing assistance under title III.
[[Page H2119]]
(6) Review.--Any covered family residing in public housing
that is affected by the operation of this subsection shall
have the right to review the determination under this
subsection through the administrative grievance procedure
established pursuant to section 110 for the public housing
agency.
(7) Cooperation agreements for economic self-sufficiency
activities.--
(A) Requirement.--A public housing agency providing public
housing dwelling units or housing assistance under title III
for covered families shall make its best efforts to enter
into such cooperation agreements, with State, local, and
other agencies providing assistance to covered families under
welfare or public assistance programs, as may be necessary,
to provide for such agencies to transfer information to
facilitate administration of subsection (a) and paragraphs
(2), (3), and (4) of this subsection, and other information
regarding rents, income, and assistance that may assist a
public housing agency or welfare or public assistance agency
in carrying out its functions.
(B) Contents.--A public housing agency shall seek to
include in a cooperation agreement under this paragraph
requirements and provisions designed to target assistance
under welfare and public assistance programs to families
residing in public housing developments and receiving choice-
based assistance under title III, which may include providing
for self-sufficiency services within such housing, providing
for services designed to meet the unique employment-related
needs of residents of such housing and recipients of such
assistance, providing for placement of workfare positions on-
site in such housing, and such other elements as may be
appropriate.
(C) Confidentiality.--This paragraph may not be construed
to authorize any release of information that is prohibited
by, or in contravention of, any other provision of Federal,
State, or local law.
(d) Community Work and Family Self-Sufficiency
Agreements.--
(1) In general.--A public housing agency shall enter into a
community work and family self-sufficiency agreement under
this subsection with each adult member and head of household
of each family who is to reside in a dwelling unit in public
housing of the agency and each family on behalf of whom the
agency will provide housing assistance under title III. Under
the agreement the family shall agree that, as a condition of
occupancy of the public housing dwelling unit or of receiving
such housing assistance, the family will comply with the
terms of the agreement.
(2) Terms.--An agreement under this subsection shall
include the following:
(A) Terms designed to encourage and facilitate the economic
self-sufficiency of the assisted family entering into the
agreement and the graduation of the family from assisted
housing to unassisted housing.
(B) Notice of the requirements under subsection (a)
(relating to community work) and the conditions imposed by,
and exemptions from, such requirement.
(C) The target date agreed upon by the family pursuant to
subsection (b) for graduation from, termination of tenancy
in, or termination of receipt of public housing or housing
assistance under title III.
(D) Terms providing for any resources, services, and
assistance relating to self-sufficiency that will be made
available to the family, including any assistance to be made
available pursuant to subsection (c)(7)(B) under a
cooperation agreement entered into under subsection (c)(7).
(E) Notice of the provisions of paragraphs (2) through (7)
of subsection (c) (relating to effect of changes in income on
rent and assisted families rights under such circumstances).
(e) Lease Provisions.--A public housing agency shall
incorporate into leases under sections 226, and into any
agreements for the provision of choice-based assistance under
title III on behalf of a family--
(1) a provision requiring compliance with the requirement
under subsection (a); and
(2) provisions incorporating the conditions under
subsection (c).
(f) Treatment of Income.--Notwithstanding any other
provision of this section, in determining the income or
tenancy of a family who resides in public housing or receives
housing assistance under title III, a public housing agency
shall consider any decrease in the income of a family that
results from the reduction of any welfare or public
assistance benefits received by the family under any Federal,
State, or local law regarding a program for such assistance
if the family (or a member thereof, as applicable) has
complied with the conditions for receiving such assistance
and is unable to obtain employment notwithstanding such
compliance.
(g) Definition.--For purposes of this section, the term
``economic self-sufficiency program'' means any program
designed to encourage, assist, train, or facilitate the
economic independence of participants and their families or
to provide work for participants, including programs for job
training, employment counseling, work placement, basic skills
training, education, workfare, financial or household
management, apprenticeship, or other activities as the
Secretary may provide.
SEC. 106. LOCAL HOUSING MANAGEMENT PLANS.
(a) 5-Year Plan.--The Secretary shall provide for each
public housing agency to submit to the Secretary, once every
5 years, a plan under this subsection for the agency covering
a period consisting of 5 fiscal years. Each such plan shall
contain, with respect to the 5-year period covered by the
plan, the following information:
(1) Statement of mission.--A statement of the mission of
the agency for serving the needs of low-income families in
the jurisdiction of the agency during such period.
(2) Goals and objectives.--A statement of the goals and
objectives of the agency that will enable the agency to serve
the needs identified pursuant to paragraph (1) during such
period.
(3) Capital improvement overview.--If the agency will
provide capital improvements for public housing developments
during such period, an overview of such improvements, the
rationale for such improvements, and an analysis of how such
improvements will enable the agency to meet its goals,
objectives, and mission.
The first 5-year plan under this subsection for a public
housing agency shall be submitted for the 5-year period
beginning with the first fiscal year for which the agency
receives assistance under this Act.
(b) Annual Plan.--The Secretary shall provide for each
public housing agency to submit to the Secretary a local
housing management plan under this section for each fiscal
year that contains the information required under subsection
(d). For each fiscal year after the initial submission of a
plan under this section by a public housing agency, the
agency may comply with requirements for submission of a plan
under this subsection by submitting an update of the plan for
the fiscal year.
(c) Procedures.--The Secretary shall establish requirements
and procedures for submission and review of plans, including
requirements for timing and form of submission, and for the
contents of such plans. Such procedures shall provide that a
public housing agency--
(1) shall, in conjunction with the relevant State or unit
of general local government, establish procedures to ensure
that the plan under this section is consistent with the
applicable comprehensive housing affordability strategy (or
any consolidated plan incorporating such strategy) for the
jurisdiction in which the public housing agency is located,
in accordance with title I of the Cranston-Gonzalez National
Affordable Housing Act; and
(2) may, at the option of the agency, submit a plan under
this section together with, or as part of, the comprehensive
housing affordability strategy (or any consolidated plan
incorporating such strategy) for the relevant jurisdiction,
and for concomitant review of such plans submitted together.
(d) Contents.--An annual local housing management plan
under this section for a public housing agency shall contain
the following information relating to the upcoming fiscal
year for which the assistance under this Act is to be made
available:
(1) Needs.--A statement of the housing needs of low-income
and very low-income families residing in the community served
by the agency, and of other low-income families on the
waiting list of the agency (including the housing needs of
elderly families and disabled families), and the means by
which the agency intends, to the maximum extent practicable,
to address such needs.
(2) Financial resources.--A statement of financial
resources available for the agency the planned uses of such
resources that includes--
(A) a description of the financial resources available to
the agency;
(B) the uses to which such resources will be committed,
including all proposed eligible and required activities under
section 203 and housing assistance to be provided under title
III;
(C) an estimate of the costs of operation and the market
rental value of each public housing development; and
(D) a specific description, based on population and
demographic data, of the unmet affordable housing needs of
families in the community served by the agency having incomes
not exceeding 30 percent of the area median income and a
statement of how the agency will expend grant amounts
received under this Act to meet the housing needs of such
families.
(3) Population served.--A statement of the policies of the
agency governing eligibility, admissions, and occupancy of
families with respect to public housing dwelling units and
housing assistance under title III, including--
(A) the requirements for eligibility for such units and
assistance and the method and procedures by which eligibility
and income will be determined and verified;
(B) the requirements for selection and admissions of
eligible families for such units and assistance, including
any preferences and procedures established by the agency and
any outreach efforts;
(C) the procedures for assignment of families admitted to
dwelling units owned, leased, managed, operated, or assisted
by the agency;
(D) any standards and requirements for occupancy of public
housing dwelling units and units assisted under title III,
including resident screening policies, standard lease
provisions, conditions for continued occupancy, termination
of tenancy, eviction, and conditions for termination of
housing assistance;
(E) the procedures for maintaining waiting lists for
admissions to public housing developments of the agency,
which may include a system of site-based waiting lists under
section 224(c);
(F) the criteria for providing and denying housing
assistance under title III to families moving into the
jurisdiction of the agency; and
(G) the fair housing policy of the agency.
(4) Rent determination.--A statement of the policies of the
agency governing rents charged for public housing dwelling
units and rental contributions of assisted families under
title III and the system used by the agency to ensure that
such rents comply with the requirements of this Act.
(5) Operation and management.--A statement of the rules,
standards, and policies of the public housing agency
governing maintenance and management of housing owned and
operated by the agency, and management of the public housing
agency and programs of the agency, including--
[[Page H2120]]
(A) a description of the manner in which the agency is
organized (including any consortia or joint ventures) and
staffed to perform the duties and functions of the public
housing agency and to administer the operating fund
distributions of the agency;
(B) policies relating to the rental of dwelling units,
including policies designed to reduce vacancies;
(C) housing quality standards in effect pursuant to
sections 232 and 328 and any certifications required under
such sections;
(D) emergency and disaster plans for public housing;
(E) priorities and improvements for management of public
housing, including initiatives to control costs; and
(F) policies of the agency requiring the loss or
termination of housing assistance and tenancy under sections
641 and 642 (relating to occupancy standards for federally
assisted housing).
(6) Grievance procedure.--A statement of the grievance
procedures of the agency under section 110.
(7) Capital improvements.--With respect to public housing
developments owned or operated by the agency, a plan
describing the capital improvements necessary to ensure long-
term physical and social viability of the developments.
(8) Demolition and disposition.--With respect to public
housing developments owned or operated by the agency--
(A) a description of any such housing to be demolished or
disposed of under subtitle E of title II; and
(B) a timetable for such demolition or disposition.
(9) Designation of housing for elderly and disabled
families.--With respect to public housing developments owned
or operated by the agency, a description of any developments
(or portions thereof) that the agency has designated or will
designate for occupancy by elderly and disabled families in
accordance with section 227 and any information required
under section 227(d) for such designated developments.
(10) Conversion of public housing.--With respect to public
housing owned or operated by the agency, a description of any
building or buildings that the agency is required, under
section 203(b), to convert to housing assistance under title
III or that the agency voluntarily converts, an analysis of
such buildings required under such section for conversion,
and a statement of the amount of grant amounts under title II
to be used for rental assistance or other housing assistance.
(11) Homeownership activities.--A description of any
homeownership programs of the agency under subtitle D of
title II or section 329 for the agency and the requirements
and assistance available under such programs.
(12) Economic self-sufficiency and coordination with
welfare and other appropriate agencies.--A description of--
(A) policies relating to services and amenities provided or
offered to assisted families, including the provision of
service coordinators and services designed for certain
populations (such as the elderly and disabled);
(B) how the agency will coordinate with State, local, and
other agencies providing assistance to families participating
in welfare or public assistance programs;
(C) how the agency will implement and administer section
105; and
(D) any policies, programs, plans, and activities of the
agency for the enhancement of the economic and social self-
sufficiency of residents assisted by the programs of the
agency, including rent structures to encourage self-
sufficiency.
(13) Safety and crime prevention.--A plan established by
the public housing agency, which shall be subject to the
following requirements:
(A) Safety measures.--The plan shall provide, on a
development-by-development basis, for measures to ensure the
safety of public housing residents.
(B) Establishment.--The plan shall be established, with
respect to each development, in consultation with the police
officer or officers in command for the precinct in which the
development is located.
(C) Content.--The plan shall describe the need for measures
to ensure the safety of public housing residents and for
crime prevention measures, describe any such activities
conducted, or to be conducted, by the agency, and provide for
coordination between the public housing agency and the
appropriate police precincts for carrying out such measures
and activities.
(D) Secretarial action.--If the Secretary determines, at
any time, that the security needs of a development are not
being adequately addressed by the plan, or that the local
police precinct is not complying with the plan, the Secretary
may mediate between the public housing agency and the local
precinct to resolve any issues of conflict. If after such
mediation has occurred and the Secretary determines that the
security needs of the development are not adequately
addressed, the Secretary may require the public housing
agency to submit an amended plan.
(14) Annual audit.--The results of the most recent fiscal
year audit of the agency required under section 541(b).
(15) Troubled agencies.--Such other additional information
as the Secretary may determine to be appropriate for each
public housing agency that is designated--
(A) under section 533(c) as at risk of becoming troubled;
or
(B) under section 533(a) as troubled.
(16) Asset management.--A statement of how the agency will
carry out its asset management functions with respect to the
public housing inventory of the agency, including how the
agency will plan for the long-term operating, capital
investment, rehabilitation, modernization, disposition, and
other needs for such inventory.
(e) Citizen Participation.--
(1) Publication of notice.--Not later than 45 days before
the date of a hearing conducted under paragraph (2) by the
governing body of a public housing agency, the agency shall--
(A) publish a notice informing the public that the proposed
local housing management plan or amendment is available for
inspection at the principal office of the public housing
agency during normal business hours and make the plan or
amendment so available for inspection during such period; and
(B) publish a notice informing the public that a public
hearing will be conducted to discuss the local housing
management plan and to invite public comment regarding that
plan.
(2) Public hearing.--Before submitting a plan under this
section or a significant amendment under section 107(f) to a
plan, a public housing agency shall, at a location that is
convenient to residents, conduct a public hearing, as
provided in the notice published under paragraph (1),
regarding the public housing plan or the amendment of the
agency.
(3) Consideration of comments.--A public housing agency
shall consider any comments or views made available pursuant
to paragraphs (1) and (2) in preparing a final plan or
amendment for submission to the Secretary. A summary of such
comments or views shall be attached to the plan, amendment,
or report submitted.
(4) Adoption of plan.--After conducting the public hearing
under paragraph (2) and considering public comments in
accordance with paragraph (3), the public housing agency
shall make any appropriate changes to the local housing
management plan or amendment and shall--
(A) adopt the local housing management plan;
(B) submit the plan to any local elected official or
officials responsible for appointing the members of the board
of directors (or other similar governing body) of the public
housing agency for review and approval under subsection (f);
(C) submit the plan to the Secretary in accordance with
this section; and
(D) make the submitted plan or amendment publicly
available.
(f) Local Review.--The public housing agency shall submit a
plan under this subsection to any local elected official or
officials responsible for appointing the members of the board
of directors (or other similar governing body) of the public
housing agency for review and approval for a 45-day period
beginning on the date that the plan is submitted to such
local official or officials (which period may run
concurrently with any period under subsection (e) for public
comment). If the local official or officials responsible
under this subsection do not act within 45 days of submission
of the plan, the plan shall be considered approved. If the
local official or officials responsible under this subsection
reject the public housing agency's plan, they shall return
the plan with their recommended changes to the agency within
5 days of their disapproval. The agency shall resubmit an
updated plan to the local official or officials within 30
days of receiving the objections, If the local official or
officials again reject the plan, the resubmitted plan,
together with the local official's objections, shall be
submitted to the Secretary for approval.
(g) Plans for Small PHA's and PHA's Administering Only
Rental Assistance.--The Secretary shall establish
requirements for submission of plans under this section and
the information to be included in such plans applicable to
public housing agencies that own or operate less than 250
public housing dwelling units and shall establish
requirements for such submission and information applicable
to agencies that only administer housing assistance under
title III (and do not own or operate public housing). Such
requirements shall waive any requirements under this section
that the Secretary determines are burdensome or unnecessary
for such agencies.
SEC. 107. REVIEW OF PLANS.
(a) Review and Notice.--
(1) Review.--The Secretary shall conduct a limited review
of each local housing management plan submitted to the
Secretary to ensure that the plan is complete and complies
with the requirements of section 106. The Secretary shall
have the discretion to review a plan to the extent that
the Secretary considers review is necessary.
(2) Notice.--The Secretary shall notify each public housing
agency submitting a plan whether the plan complies with such
requirements not later than 75 days after receiving the plan.
If the Secretary does not notify the public housing agency,
as required under this subsection and subsection (b), the
Secretary shall be considered, for purposes of this Act, to
have made a determination that the plan complies with the
requirements under section 106 and the agency shall be
considered to have been notified of compliance upon the
expiration of such 75-day period. The preceding sentence
shall not preclude judicial review regarding such compliance
pursuant to chapter 7 of title 5, United States Code, or an
action regarding such compliance under section 1979 of the
Revised Statutes of the United States (42 U.S.C. 1883).
(b) Notice of Reasons for Determination of Noncompliance.--
If the Secretary determines that a plan, as submitted, does
not comply with the requirements under section 106, the
Secretary shall specify in the notice under subsection (a)
the reasons for the noncompliance and any modifications
necessary for the plan to meet the requirements under section
106.
(c) Standards for Determination of Noncompliance.--The
Secretary may determine that a plan does not comply with the
requirements under section 106 only if--
(1) the plan is incomplete in significant matters required
under such section;
(2) there is evidence available to the Secretary that
challenges, in a substantial manner, any information provided
in the plan;
[[Page H2121]]
(3) the Secretary determines that the plan does not comply
with Federal law or violates the purposes of this Act because
it fails to provide housing that will be viable on a long-
term basis at a reasonable cost;
(4) the plan plainly fails to adequately identify the needs
of low-income families for housing assistance in the
jurisdiction of the agency;
(5) the plan plainly fails to adequately identify the
capital improvement needs for public housing developments in
the jurisdiction of the agency;
(6) the activities identified in the plan are plainly
inappropriate to address the needs identified in the plan; or
(7) the plan is inconsistent with the requirements of this
Act.
The Secretary shall determine that a plan does not comply
with the requirements under section 106 if the plan does not
include the information required under section 106(d)(2)(D).
(d) Treatment of Existing Plans.--Notwithstanding any other
provision of this title, a public housing agency shall be
considered to have submitted a plan under this section if the
agency has submitted to the Secretary a comprehensive plan
under section 14(e) of the United States Housing Act of 1937
(as in effect immediately before the effective date of the
repeal under section 601(b) of this Act) or under the
comprehensive improvement assistance program under such
section 14, and the Secretary has approved such plan, before
January 1, 1997. The Secretary shall provide specific
procedures and requirements for such authorities to amend
such plans by submitting only such additional information as
is necessary to comply with the requirements of section 106.
(e) Actions To Change Plan.--A public housing agency that
has submitted a plan under section 106 may change actions or
policies described in the plan before submission and review
of the plan of the agency for the next fiscal year only if--
(1) in the case of costly or nonroutine changes, the agency
submits to the Secretary an amendment to the plan under
subsection (f) which is reviewed in accordance with such
subsection; or
(2) in the case of inexpensive or routine changes, the
agency describes such changes in such local housing
management plan for the next fiscal year.
(f) Amendments to Plan.--
(1) In general.--During the annual or 5-year period covered
by the plan for a public housing agency, the agency may
submit to the Secretary any amendments to the plan.
(2) Review.--The Secretary shall conduct a limited review
of each proposed amendment submitted under this subsection to
determine whether the plan, as amended by the amendment,
complies with the requirements of section 106 and notify each
public housing agency submitting the amendment whether the
plan, as amended, complies with such requirements not later
than 30 days after receiving the amendment. If the Secretary
determines that a plan, as amended, does not comply with the
requirements under section 106, such notice shall indicate
the reasons for the noncompliance and any modifications
necessary for the plan to meet the requirements under section
106. If the Secretary does not notify the public housing
agency as required under this paragraph, the plan, as
amended, shall be considered, for purposes of this section,
to comply with the requirements under section 106.
(3) Standards for determination of noncompliance.--The
Secretary may determine that a plan, as amended by a proposed
amendment, does not comply with the requirements under
section 106 only if--
(A) the plan, as amended, would be subject to a
determination of noncompliance in accordance with the
provisions of subsection (c);
(B) the Secretary determines that--
(i) the proposed amendment is plainly inconsistent with the
activities specified in the plan; or
(ii) there is evidence that challenges, in a substantial
manner, any information contained in the amendment; or
(C) the Secretary determines that the plan, as amended,
violates the purposes of this Act because it fails to provide
housing that will be viable on a long-term basis at a
reasonable cost.
(4) Amendments to extend time of performance.--
Notwithstanding any other provision of this subsection, the
Secretary may not determine that any amendment to the plan of
a public housing agency that extends the time for performance
of activities assisted with amounts provided under this title
fails to comply with the requirements under section 106 if
the Secretary has not provided the amount of assistance set
forth in the plan or has not provided the assistance in a
timely manner.
SEC. 108. REPORTING REQUIREMENTS.
(a) Performance and Evaluation Report.--Each public housing
agency shall annually submit to the Secretary, on a date
determined by the Secretary, a performance and evaluation
report concerning the use of funds made available under this
Act. The report of the public housing agency shall include an
assessment by the agency of the relationship of such use of
funds made available under this Act, as well as the use of
other funds, to the needs identified in the local housing
management plan and to the purposes of this Act. The public
housing agency shall certify that the report was available
for review and comment by affected tenants prior to its
submission to the Secretary.
(b) Review of PHA's.--The Secretary shall, at least on an
annual basis, make such reviews as may be necessary or
appropriate to determine whether each public housing agency
receiving assistance under this section--
(1) has carried out its activities under this Act in a
timely manner and in accordance with its local housing
management plan; and
(2) has a continuing capacity to carry out its local
housing management plan in a timely manner.
(c) Records.--Each public housing agency shall collect,
maintain, and submit to the Secretary such data and other
program records as the Secretary may require, in such form
and in accordance with such schedule as the Secretary may
establish.
SEC. 109. PET OWNERSHIP.
Pet ownership in housing assisted under this Act that is
federally assisted rental housing (as such term is defined in
section 227 of the Housing and Urban-Rural Recovery Act of
1983) shall be governed by the provisions of section 227 of
such Act.
SEC. 110. ADMINISTRATIVE GRIEVANCE PROCEDURE.
(a) Requirements.--Each public housing agency receiving
assistance under this Act shall establish and implement an
administrative grievance procedure under which residents of
public housing will--
(1) be advised of the specific grounds of any proposed
adverse public housing agency action;
(2) have an opportunity for a hearing before an impartial
party (including appropriate employees of the public housing
agency) upon timely request within a reasonable period of
time;
(3) have an opportunity to examine any documents or records
or regulations related to the proposed action;
(4) be entitled to be represented by another person of
their choice at any hearing;
(5) be entitled to ask questions of witnesses and have
others make statements on their behalf; and
(6) be entitled to receive a written decision by the public
housing agency on the proposed action.
(b) Exclusion From Administrative Procedure of Grievances
Concerning Evictions From Public Housing.--A public housing
agency shall exclude from its procedure established under
subsection (a) any grievance concerning an eviction from or
termination of tenancy in public housing in any State which
requires that, prior to eviction, a resident be provided a
hearing in court which the Secretary determines provides the
basic elements of due process.
(c) Inapplicability to Choice-Based Rental Housing
Assistance.--This section may not be construed to require any
public housing agency to establish or implement an
administrative grievance procedure with respect to assisted
families under title III.
SEC. 111. HEADQUARTERS RESERVE FUND.
(a) Annual Reservation of Amounts.--Notwithstanding any
other provision of law, the Secretary may retain not more
than 2 percent of the amounts appropriated to carry out title
II for any fiscal year for use in accordance with this
section.
(b) Use of Amounts.--Any amounts that are retained under
subsection (a) or appropriated for use under this section
shall be available for subsequent allocation to specific
areas and communities, and may only be used for the
Department of Housing and Urban Development and--
(1) for unforeseen housing needs resulting from natural and
other disasters;
(2) for housing needs resulting from emergencies, as
determined by the Secretary, other than such disasters;
(3) for housing needs related to a settlement of
litigation, including settlement of fair housing litigation;
and
(4) for needs related to the Secretary's actions under this
Act regarding troubled and at-risk public housing agencies.
Housing needs under this subsection may be met through the
provision of assistance in accordance with title II or title
III, or both.
SEC. 112. LABOR STANDARDS.
(a) In General.--Any contract for grants, sale, or lease
pursuant to this Act relating to public housing shall contain
the following provisions:
(1) Operation.--A provision requiring that not less than
the wages prevailing in the locality, as determined or
adopted (subsequent to a determination under applicable State
or local law) by the Secretary, shall be paid to all
contractors and persons employed in the operation of the low-
income housing development involved.
(2) Production.--A provision that not less than the wages
prevailing in the locality, as predetermined by the Secretary
of Labor pursuant to the Davis-Bacon Act (40 U.S.C. 276a-
276a-5), shall be paid to all laborers and mechanics employed
in the production of the development involved.
The Secretary shall require certification as to compliance
with the provisions of this section before making any payment
under such contract.
(b) Exceptions.--Subsection (a) and the provisions relating
to wages (pursuant to subsection (a)) in any contract for
grants, sale, or lease pursuant to this Act relating to
public housing, shall not apply to any individual who--
(1) performs services for which the individual volunteered;
(2)(A) does not receive compensation for such services; or
(B) is paid expenses, reasonable benefits, or a nominal fee
for such services; and
(3) is not otherwise employed at any time in the
construction work.
SEC. 113. NONDISCRIMINATION.
(a) In General.--No person in the United States shall on
the grounds of race, color, national origin, religion, or sex
be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of,
or be subjected to discrimination under any program
[[Page H2122]]
or activity funded in whole or in part with amounts made
available under this Act. Any prohibition against
discrimination on the basis of age under the Age
Discrimination Act of 1975 or with respect to an otherwise
qualified handicapped individual as provided in section 504
of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 shall also apply to any
such program or activity.
(b) Civil Rights Compliance.--Each public housing agency
that receives grant amounts under this Act shall use such
amounts and carry out its local housing management plan
approved under section 107 in conformity with title VI of the
Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Fair Housing Act, section 504
of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, the Age Discrimination Act
of 1975, and the Americans With Disabilities Act of 1990, and
shall affirmatively further fair housing.
SEC. 114. PROHIBITION ON USE OF FUNDS.
None of the funds made available to the Department of
Housing and Urban Development to carry out this Act, which
are obligated to State or local governments, public housing
agencies, housing finance agencies, or other public or quasi-
public housing agencies, shall be used to indemnify
contractors or subcontractors of the government or agency
against costs associated with judgments of infringement of
intellectual property rights.
SEC. 115. INAPPLICABILITY TO INDIAN HOUSING.
Except as specifically provided by law, the provisions of
this title, and titles II, III, IV, and V shall not apply to
public housing developed or operated pursuant to a contract
between the Secretary and an Indian housing authority under
the United States Housing Act of 1937 or to housing assisted
under the Native American Housing Assistance and Self-
Determination Act of 1996.
SEC. 116. REGULATIONS.
(a) In General.--The Secretary may issue any regulations
necessary to carry out this Act. This subsection shall take
effect on the date of the enactment of this Act.
(b) Rule of Construction.--Any failure by the Secretary to
issue any regulations authorized under subsection (a) shall
not affect the effectiveness of any provision of this Act or
any amendment made by this Act.
amendments offered by mr. lazio of new york
Mr. LAZIO of New York. Mr. Chairman, I offer several amendments
consisting of the amendment of the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Smith]
which is at the desk and replaces the amendment printed in the Record
and numbered 37, the amendment of the gentleman from Michigan [Mr.
Knollenberg] printed in the Record and numbered 34, the amendment of
the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Vento] printed in the Record and
numbered 22, and the amendment of the gentleman from Michigan [Mr.
Smith] printed in the Record and numbered 38, and I ask unanimous
consent that they be considered en bloc.
I believe, Mr. Chairman, that Members of the minority have the
amendments, including the corrected amendment that is at the desk.
{time} 1315
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will report amendment No. 37 and designate
the remaining amendments.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment No. 37 offered by Mr. Smith of Michigan:
Page 16, line 14, after the period insert the following:
``This paragraph may not be construed to require any public
housing agency to provide any programs or services for
residents.''.
The text of amendment No. 34 offered by Mr. Knollenberg is as
follows:
Page 25, after line 20, insert the following new
subsection:
(e) Availability of Income Matching Information.--
(1) Disclosure to pha.--A public housing agency shall
require any family described in paragraph (2) who receives
information regarding income, earnings, wages, or
unemployment compensation from the Department of Housing and
Urban Development pursuant to income verification procedures
of the Department of disclose such information, upon receipt
of the information, to the public housing agency that owns or
operates the public housing dwelling unit in which such
family resides or that provides the housing assistance on
behalf of such family, as applicable.
(2) Applicability to families receiving public housing or
choice-based housing assistance.--A family described in this
paragraph is a family that resides in a dwelling unit--
(A) that is a public housing dwelling unit; or
(B) for which housing assistance is provided under title
III (or under the program for tenant-based assistance under
section 8 of the United States Housing Act of 1937 (as in
effect before the effective date of the repeal under section
601(b) of this Act)).
(3) Protection of applicants and participants.--Section 904
of the Stewart B. McKinney Homeless Assistance Amendments Act
of 1988 (42 U.S.C. 3544) is amended--
(A) in subsection (b)--
(i) in paragraph (2), by striking ``and'' at the end;
(iii) in paragraph (3), by striking the period at the end
and inserting ``; and ''; and
(ii) by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
``(4) only in the case of an applicant or participant that
is a member of a family described in section 104(e)(2) of the
Housing Opportunity and Responsibility Act of 1997, sign an
agreement under which the applicant or participant agrees to
provide to the appropriate public housing agency the
information required under such section 104(e)(1) of the
Housing Opportunity and Responsibility Act of 1997 for the
sole purpose of the public housing agency verifying income
information pertinent to the applicant's or participant's
eligibility or level of benefits, and comply with such
agreement.''; and
(B) in subsection (c)--
(i) in paragraph (2)(A), in the matter preceding clause
(I)--
(I) by inserting before ``or'' the first place it appears
the following: ``, pursuant to section 104(e)(1) of the
Housing Opportunity and Responsibility Act of 1997 from the
applicant or participant,''; and
(II) by inserting ``or 104(e)(I)'' after ``such section
303(i)''; and (ii) in paragraph (3)--
(I) in subparagraph (A), by inserting ``, section 104(e)(1)
of the Housing Opportunity and Responsibility Act of 1997,''
after ``Social Security Act''; and
(II) in subparagraph (A), by inserting ``or agreement, as
applicable,'' after ``consent'';
(III) in subparagraph (B), by inserting ``section 104(e)(1)
of the Housing Opportunity and Responsibility Act of 1997,''
after ``Social Security Act,''; and
(IV) in subparagraph (B), by inserting ``such section
104(e)(1),'' after ``such section 303(i),'' each place it
appears.
The text of amendment No. 22 offered by Mr. Vento is as follows:
Page 40, line 19, strike ``and''.
Page 40, line 19, insert the following new subparagraph:
(G) the procedures for coordination with entities providing
assistance to homeless families in the jurisdiction of the
agency; and
Page 40, line 20, strike ``(G)'' and insert ``(H)''.
The text of amendment No. 38 offered by Mr. Smith of Michigan is as
follows:
Page 43, line 19, strike ``of any'' and all that follows
through line 19, and insert the following:
of--
(A) any homeownership programs of the agency under subtitle
D of title II or section 329 for the agency;
(B) the requirements and assistance available under the
programs described pursuant to subparagraph (A); and
(C) the annual goals of the agency for additional
availability of homeownership units.
Offered by: Mr. Smith of Michigan
Amendment No. 39: Page 56, strike lines 14 through 18, and
insert the following:
Pet ownership policy shall be established by the public
housing agency. When establishing such policy, the public
housing agency shall consider the positive effects of pet
ownership.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
New York?
Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Reserving the right to object, Mr.
Chairman, I rise to say I might withdraw my objection, but I just want
to seek some clarification on a couple of these issues that have been
raised.
As I understand it, Mr. Chairman, on the Smith amendment No. 37, that
is now going to read something to the effect that this paragraph may
not be construed to require any public housing agency to provide any
program or services for residents.
I just wondered if the chairman of the committee might explain that
to us.
Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. LAZIO of New York. I yield to the gentleman from Michigan.
Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, the language currently does not
require the housing authority to perform these functions. However, a
lot of my housing authorities feel that the existing language does
require them to provide these kinds of services and counseling, so as
we talked to the gentleman's counsel and our counsel, they were
comfortable with making that more specific, that the PHA's do not have
to provide that function.
Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Continuing to reserve my right to
object, Mr. Chairman, the gentleman and I agree on a number of
different issues out here. I cannot say that a requirement that says
``This paragraph may not be construed to require any public housing
agency to provide any programs or services for residents,'' that sounds
patently ridiculous. What are we talking about here?
That is exactly what public housing is supposed to do. I think we
ought to be encouraging public housing agencies to work with tenant
organizations in
[[Page H2123]]
order to make certain that the basic services that are required in
order for public housing to work well are in fact included.
I do not know why we would be including language like this. I
understand what the gentleman's concerns are, but I do not think that
this particular language really gets to the gentleman's concerns.
Mr. SMITH of Michigan. If the gentleman will continue to yield, Mr.
Chairman, if the gentleman is not comfortable, I would suggest maybe we
move to exclude it, but let me try once more at the explanation.
This is under ``Definitions,'' and it starts on page 15, line 18, of
what resident programs are. It is a definition of ``resident program.''
The only other area that ``resident programs'' is referenced is in a
funding provision that says ``Included in funding may be these
different functions.''
Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Continuing to reserve my right to
object, Mr. Chairman, I understand the concern that the gentleman from
Michigan has, but I would like to maybe just ask the chairman of the
housing committee, the gentleman from New York [Mr. Lazio] to engage in
a colloquy as well.
I would say to the gentleman, I think this language is far too broad
to be actually included in this bill. I would be willing to work with
the gentleman between now and the conference to make certain that there
could be no misunderstanding, and to perhaps include some language that
might get to the concern of the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Smith].
But I do not believe this is appropriate language to be included in
this bill.
Mr. LAZIO of New York. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. I yield to the gentleman from New York.
Mr. LAZIO of New York. Mr. Chairman, I would offer this, if this is
acceptable to my friend.
If I could move to have this amendment removed from the en bloc
unanimous-consent request, and then I will ask the gentleman from
Michigan [Mr. Smith] to come over and see if we can work out some
language. If that is not possible, then we will see what we need to do
subsequent to that. But for the time being, what we can do is delete
this from the en bloc request.
If this is of some concern to the gentleman, I am happy to try to
accommodate that.
Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, on that issue with the
dropping of amendment 37 from this en bloc, and with the understanding
we will try to work something out, I am happy to withdraw my
reservation of objection.
The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman from New York [Mr. Lazio] modify his
unanimous-consent request?
Mr. LAZIO of New York. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to
withdraw amendment No. 37 from the unanimous-consent request.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
New York?
There was no objection.
Mr. LAZIO of New York. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that
amendment No. 34 offered by the gentleman from Michigan [Mr.
Knollenberg], amendment No. 22 offered by the gentleman from Minnesota
[Mr. Vento], and amendment No. 38 offered by gentleman from Michigan
[Mr. Smith] be considered en bloc.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will redesignate the amendments.
The Clerk redesignated amendment No. 34 offered by Mr. Knollenberg,
amendment No. 22 offered by Mr. Vento, and amendment No. 38 offered by
Mr. Smith of Michigan.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
New York?
There was no objection.
Mr. LAZIO of New York. Mr. Chairman, I yield back my time.
Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, what I want to do is thank the gentleman from New York
[Mr. Lazio], his staff, and the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr.
Kennedy] for their willingness and cooperation on the language that was
part of the request for the amendments en bloc. I believe that that
language will do a great deal to reduce the amount of fraud and abuse
that exists when an individual is on public housing and the public
housing PHA's are required to report their income.
What I wanted to do today, and I am not going to offer it, I wanted
to submit another amendment that would go further. The language in the
en bloc amendments did not go far enough, in my judgment, but I believe
that another time, another day, we will be able to offer this, because
what it does, it strengthens the disclosable income that individuals
have that is presented to the housing authority.
I want to work continually with the gentleman from New York [Mr.
Lazio], with the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Kennedy], and also
with the Committee on Ways and Means to present this in a fashion that
I believe will be a provision that will strengthen further what it is
that we want to do. We want to actually eliminate fraud and abuse. We
only have so many dollars to go around. My language that would be
presented in a second amendment will make sure that as much money as
possible goes to those people who need it.
I think the most important thing is that each dollar that is lost due
to fraud and abuse denies money to others. Again, I simply want to
thank the chairman, the gentleman from New York [Mr. Lazio], the staff,
and the ranking member, the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Kennedy]
for their cooperation and willingness.
Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Lazio en bloc amendment.
Mr. Chairman, as Members know, in this bill we provide for a 5-year
local housing management plan to be developed. I felt it was important,
and I offered a committee amendment in the full committee during the
consideration that this include consideration in terms of community
planning with regard to the homeless and the type of planning that is
being done for the total needs of the community, and the nature of that
population in this community planning process.
This rewrite of that amendment has won the support of the
subcommittee chairman, and I thank him for that support. The homeless
issue is obviously important, now as we move this bill to the Senate,
that we look to a future rewrite of the McKinney homeless assistance
programs, which I know the subcommittee chairman has introduced. This
amendment will be helpful in terms of closing the loop in the housing
planning process, I believe, so there is no difference in terms of the
plans that are developed necessarily by communities under the McKinney,
or under this public housing bill that is before us.
I thank the gentleman from New York [Mr. Lazio] and the gentleman
from Massachusetts [Mr. Kennedy] again for their support with this
amendment.
As Members know, H.R. 2 creates a requirement in section 106 that
PHA's must create a 5-year local housing management plan and annual
plans that provide information to show housing needs, what resources
are available, the policies of the agency governing eligibility and
admissions, et cetera.
I revised an amendment I offered in committee because of concerns
raised by the chairman of the Housing Subcommittee. My revised
amendment No. 22, has been included in the en bloc amendment.
My amendment seeks to improve the local housing management plans by
requiring them to include information explaining the procedures for
coordination with the entities that provide assistance to homeless
families in the jurisdiction of the agency.
It is a simple amendment that seeks to close the loop in terms of
community planning for the very low-income persons who are homeless and
may have difficulty participating in the public comment period. It will
provide for a method to tie together the homeless planning that we
envision in a future rewrite of the McKinney homeless assistance
programs.
The amendment will assure that the populations who are the most
vulnerable in a community, the homeless, will be taken into account in
localities planning for the public housing. This is more important as
we begin to see the impacts of welfare reform and changes in the
targeting provisions of this bill that may increase the ranks of the
homeless.
Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the
requisite number of words.
Mr. Chairman, briefly, I just want to thank my good friend, the
gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Vento] for all the work he has done on
behalf of homeless
[[Page H2124]]
families. There is no one in the Congress of the United States who has
worked for more years to bring this issue up. He took a great deal of
leadership on the original McKinney act, of which those provisions,
most of those provisions actually, the gentleman from Minnesota wrote.
He then chaired for many years the homeless committee here in the
Congress, and rewrote many of those provisions, and put together, I
think, a very, very important block grant proposal that has greatly
refined the way those programs operate. He is continuing those efforts
today with this provision that tries to make certain we take into
account some of the issues pertaining to homelessness when we are
dealing with public housing policy.
So I think on behalf of the members of the Committee on Banking and
Financial Affairs, and the Subcommittee on Housing and Community
Opportunity in particular, we want to thank him for the efforts that he
continues to make.
Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleagues for
supporting and passing my amendment No. 38 in yesterday's Journal that
promotes home ownership.
Conventional wisdom in Washington is that low-income families can't
afford to own their own homes. Habitat for Humanity and other programs
have shown that even families earning $10,000, $15,000, or $20,000 per
year can own their own homes. America's families, including those with
low incomes, should have the chance to achieve the American Dream.
My amendment encourages public housing agencies to provide assistance
for low-income families desiring homeownership. It also directs
agencies to establish annual goals for additional homeownership units.
This is not a government giveaway program. Each new homeowner would
have to save a downpayment, demonstrate the responsibility to be a
homeowner, and make timely payments. Housing agencies would work with
the community--banks, mortgage originators, realtors, religious
institutions, charities, and government agencies--to provide these
opportunities.
Owning property and accumulating net worth empowers and motivates the
poor. It is a possibility that should be held out to low-income workers
who are disciplined and industrious. For the specific language of the
amendment, see the Congressional Record of April 30 or contact my
office at 225-6276.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendments offered by the
gentleman from New York [Mr. Lazio].
The amendments were agreed to.
Amendment No. 8 offered by Mr. Jackson of Illinois
Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I offer amendment No. 8.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment No. 8 offered by Mr. Jackson of Illinois: Page
25, line 25, strike the second comma and all that follows
through the comma in line 3 on page 26.
Page 27, after line 10, insert the following:
(4) Rights of occupancy.--This subsection may not be
construed (nor may any provision of subsection (d) or (e)) to
create a right on the part of any public housing agency to
evict or terminate assistance for a family solely on the
basis of any failure of the family to comply with the
community work requirement under paragraph (1).
Page 33, line 14, before the comma insert ``(except to the
extent that this section specifically limits any authority to
evict or terminate assistance)''.
Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I have some serious concerns
with section 105 of the bill which mandates uncompensated community
work in return for housing assistance. Evicting residents from their
homes if they fail to volunteer is not voluntarism. We cannot mandate
voluntarism. The concept is obviously a contradiction in terms.
My amendment would keep section 105 basically intact by requiring
public housing residents to fulfill community work requirements. The
only change that it will make will be to protect residents from
eviction for failure to perform volunteer work in exactly the same way
the majority did in the manager's amendment with regard to the target
date provision.
Let us be absolutely clear about what we are debating with respect to
the work requirements in section 105. I believe we should encourage
voluntary community service, because it provides an invaluable benefit
to the community and to the persons volunteering their time. I believe
public housing residents have a responsibility to maintain their
communities in proper condition. I believe poor people should work,
want to work in living wage jobs.
Section 105 is not about jobs or voluntarism, however. It, in fact,
undermines those objectives and undermines the majority's stated goal
of fostering personal responsibility. Community service, when it is
voluntary, allows residents to take pride and personal responsibility
in their efforts. Forced community work, however, brings to mind the
type of punishment imposed by a judge for a crime. It is inappropriate
to treat residents of housing assistance as if they have committed a
crime simply by being poor.
Forced voluntarism, under penalty of eviction, demeans residents by
saying they are lazy. It tells them that we do not trust them to take
part in their own communities, so we must force them to do so. There is
no pride in community service when it is mandated as if residents have
done something wrong.
There are many examples of community service which already exist in
our public housing communities today. Many committed residents take
part in neighborhood watches, in resident councils, and cleanup
efforts. In the Chicago Housing Authority, about 800 residents take
part in tenant patrols. No one has tried to force them into these
efforts until now. We must not take away their sense of pride by
telling them that they are merely fulfilling a mandatory work
requirement.
Section 105 also undermines job creation for the very people we are
trying to empower, and displaces low wage workers. If we want to
encourage self-sufficiency, we should assist residents in finding jobs,
not force uncompensated labor. If we create a steady flow of millions
of hours of free labor, why would PHA's, nursing homes, or other
organizations need to hire employees for housekeeping, for groundswork,
for maintenance or other low-wage jobs? Labor groups are strongly
opposed to this provision because it will displace low-wage labor with
thousands of unpaid servants.
{time} 1330
It is no accident that this provision requires 8 hours of work, the
number of hours in a regular workday. The most disturbing aspect of
section 105 is its disparate treatment of the Nation's poor. In this
country we hold adequate housing to be a matter of such fundamental
dignity that we provide Federal home ownership subsidies to middle and
upper class income Americans in the amount of $86.6 billion per year.
By contrast all Federal low income housing assistance equals roughly
only $29 billion per year. We do not mandate community work in return
for homeownership deductions. Why do we mandate uncompensated labor
upon those hit hardest by our Nation's affordable housing crisis?
The message is that you are middle or upper class and can afford a
downpayment, then housing is a right. But if you are poor, then
adequate shelter is a privilege that you must repay.
One very important thing that the majority seems to forget is that
public housing residents do not receive housing assistance for free.
They pay rent. On a full-time minimum wage salary earning less than
$11,000 per year, residents may not be able to pay as much for rent as
others, but they pay what they can.
Section 105 would threaten them with eviction if they do not perform
community work in addition to the rent that they already pay. If we
begin mandating community work in return for housing assistance, what
is next? Will we require community work in return for farm subsidies,
for LIHEAP assistance, for Medicare, for Federal insurance for banks
and savings and loans, food stamps or corporate welfare?
The 13th amendment to the U.S. Constitution prohibits involuntary
servitude, except as punishment for crime. This amendment was enacted
so that no person in this country would be forced to work without
compensation unless convicted of a crime.
Being poor and receiving housing assistance, Mr. Chairman, is not a
crime. On the contrary, the Housing Act of 1937 established that access
to adequate shelter should be a basic human right. H.R. 2 would strip
this basic dignity from all Americans and abandon our Nation's
commitment to ensuring that poor and working class Americans have
shelter.
[[Page H2125]]
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Jackson]
has expired.
(By unanimous consent, Mr. Jackson of Illinois was allowed to proceed
for 1 additional minute.)
Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I would like clarification on
just one section of the bill. Page 26, line 1, it appears that this
bill makes the 8 hours of work a condition of occupancy. Does this mean
that a person can be evicted if they fail to perform the work?
Mr. LAZIO of New York. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. I yield to the gentleman from New York.
Mr. LAZIO of New York. Mr. Chairman, it does.
Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, are we prepared to put human
beings and their families on the street if they fail to satisfy this
requirement?
Mr. LAZIO of New York. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will continue
to yield, as with other conditions of the lease, it is a legally
enforceable element of the lease and can be enforced subject to the
force of law in any court.
Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, does this mean that only
public housing residents are being singled out for this voluntary work
requirement?
Mr. LAZIO of New York. Mr. Chairman, I would say the gentleman's
characterization of it being a voluntary work requirement, the bill
calls it ``community service,'' and that is, in fact, what it is. It
applies to all people who receive the benefits of public housing under
H.R. 2.
Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last
word.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment of the gentleman
from Illinois. I think I have made my feelings about this issue of
mandated voluntarism well known in the committee. I hope that my
colleagues on both sides of the aisle will take this debate seriously
and understand exactly how paternalistic this provision is.
There are no parallels that I have been able to find in any other
Federal Government laws. This is not a work requirement. Work implies
compensation. This is a volunteer mandate. If you are to live in public
housing, you are mandated to volunteer, if that is not inconsistent, 8
hours of work per month, 8 hours of voluntarism.
There is not another parallel in the Federal law. We do not require
recipients of the benefits of introductions for homeownership to
volunteer their time. We do not require anybody to volunteer their time
without being compensated for it. There are no parallels to this except
an experiment that we had many, many years ago that we should be
ashamed of.
As we have previously talked about, local public housing agencies are
being mandated to administer, organize, and run these volunteer
programs. The total cost to local public housing agencies, according to
Congressional Budget Office estimates, will be $35 million per year.
That is $35 million per year that local housing authorities could spend
on other housing needs. They must now hire somebody to run these
programs.
My colleagues on the committee and the proponents of this bill have
failed to address the liability issues associated with this provision.
If I am an elderly person and I am mandated to go, a poor person, and I
am mandated to go out and volunteer time, I am cutting grass in the
public square, a piece of glass flies up and cuts me on the leg. Guess
what this bill says? It says the housing authority has no liability.
Nobody has any liability other than the person that we sent out there
and mandated that they do this work. So there is no provision for what
happens if somebody gets hurt. We should not be doing this, Mr.
Chairman.
I know it sounds like a good idea, as we sit in our ivory towers and
we try to make it sound like these people who live in public housing
are irresponsible and trifling and do not want to do anything, but that
is inconsistent with my experience. The public housing residents are
already voluntarily, they do not have to be mandated, they are
voluntarily, many of them, keeping up their communities, going to
community watch meetings, going to various meetings that they must go
to to try to make their lives better. And here we are mandating that
they volunteer.
This is a mandated requirement. There is no parallel. I ask my
colleagues to take this provision from the bill and pass the amendment
of the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Jackson].
Mr. LAZIO of New York. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite
number of words, and I rise in opposition to the amendment.
Let us first identify what this amendment is not about. This
amendment is not about striking the community service portion from the
bill. What it is about is striking the provision that allows us to
enforce it. Why in the world would we have something in the bill that
we consider a requirement, a condition of a leasehold, and then not
allow for enforcement?
What that does, Mr. Chairman, is to encourage people to disrespect
the rules, the mutual obligations, and the laws that we put in place.
We are either for it or not for it.
This is not without precedent. We ask people who get medical school
scholarships to contribute a certain amount of time in low-income areas
in their practice. I wonder if we tied this to this amendment if this
House would still vote for it, if we said people no longer, students no
longer need to work low-income areas in exchange for their scholarship
money.
This House has adopted the Americorps Program, and many people might
say that the people that participate in Americorps could not pursue an
education but for the fact that they are asked to do something in
return, a sense of reciprocity. We are asking not 18 or 80 hours a
month; we are asking 8 hours a month, 2 hours a week in return for
rental payment, for an apartment, and in many cases utilities.
We are asking people to contribute in any number of ways, whether it
is from sweeping their own halls to removing graffiti to helping with
the Neighborhood Watch Program, to helping with the not-for-profit in
their own backyard.
Let me tell my colleagues something: When we say this, we are saying
we also respect you as tenants, we respect the fact that we think that
you can contribute to your community, we think that you have talents,
we think that some of the residents may find that they have talents
that they had not recognized previously, talents that include teaching
other people, helping other people, organizing, managing, working.
This is an effort to reconnect people with civic responsibility, and
it is both an unfair and inaccurate representation to compare these
things to issues involving deductions in the Tax Code. Because if you
do that, you must presume that the Government has the first claim on
your money and then you are lucky to get some back.
This is the case of a benefit for people who are not able to get into
public housing, and that is the majority of people. We have heard in
this Chamber that we are probably meeting the needs of only one-quarter
of the population who needs help. And for those three-quarters who are
not lucky enough to get into public housing, they are not working 8
hours a month, they are not working 8 hours a week, they are working 30
and 40 and 50 and 60 hours a month simply to pay the rent; and that
does not even include the utilities and maintenance costs for the
places that they live.
It is entirely reasonable to ask people who have asked for public
housing who are receiving a benefit to contribute back to their
community and to help themselves. We are not asking people to give to
Big Brother in Washington. We are asking people to help their own
neighborhood, to start with their own hallway, their own building,
their own complex, their own development.
Mr. Chairman, we are exempting people who are elderly from this
provision, we are exempting people who are disabled in this provision,
we are exempting people who are employed part time or full time from
this provision. We are simply asking people to give back who are able-
bodied, who are younger or middle-aged and who have the capacity to
give something, anything, back to their community.
How that strikes anybody as unreasonable is really beyond me. It is a
sense of helping to reconnect America. I hope that we ask more
Americans to contribute to their neighborhoods and to their
communities. We have almost
[[Page H2126]]
1\1/2\ million families in America that avail themselves of the benefit
of public housing. Probably less than one-third of those would be
eligible and ask to participate through this program. But even with
that, we are talking about hundreds of thousands of Americans
contributing to improve their own community.
Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the
requisite number of words.
Mr. Chairman, I do not think there could be any more classic example
of this House, particularly the Republican Party, in equating poverty
with a morality. That is what this amendment gets to.
Basically, what is suggested here is that, if you are poor and you
are eligible for public housing, you must volunteer or you are going to
be thrown out of your house. We have a provision in our bill that asks
people to volunteer. I think it is wonderful that we encourage people
to volunteer.
{time} 1345
But this provision that is contained in the bill as it sits right now
does not ask. As the gentleman from New York [Mr. Lazio] just said he
wants to ask people to volunteer, this does not ask anybody. This says
if they do not, they are out.
Now, I have supported provisions in the welfare bill that say that
people who accept funds in the form of welfare from their government
ought to be expected to work, and if they refuse their job, they should
be thrown off welfare. I believe that. But it is news to me that we are
going to start down all the programs that we provide and say that as a
fundamental moral suggestion that if an individual receives any benefit
from the Federal Government they must volunteer.
Is that where we are at today? Because if it is, I might actually
support this provision. I would be interested in whether or not we can
convince our Republican colleagues to say that anybody that receives
any benefit whatsoever from the Federal Government, particularly in
terms of equating the amount of money they get in benefits for
receiving public housing, that they have to volunteer.
So let us take everybody that invests in project-based section 8.
Should we ask all of them, that get a heck of a lot more money than the
monthly subsidy that comes to the poor families that are already paying
30 percent of their income in rent, the vast majority of whom are
already working, they just do not make enough money to be able to pay
the rents that landlords can receive in most of the cities and towns
across our country.
It may be news to some people around here, but the truth of the
matter is minimum wage jobs simply do not allow people to pay the rents
that can be required by the rest of this society without paying 50 or
60 percent of their annual income in rents, so we have housing programs
that make up the difference. Now we are saying, listen, if an
individual gets that housing program, in addition to everything else
they have to go out and volunteer or else we will snap their housing
program back.
All I say is, fine, let us go ahead and start with this mandate. Let
us start it across the board. Let us go to the oil and gas industry and
say to the oil and gas fellows, I used to be one before I came to the
Congress, let us say to them, anyone who gets an oil depletion
allowance, let us say to them they have to volunteer. Anybody who
receives a timber subsidy, let us see if they want to go out and
volunteer. Anybody around the Congress of the United States maybe,
because we get paid by the Government. Maybe all of us ought to
volunteer.
There are a lot of reasons to suggest that voluntarism ought to work
and ought to be encouraged in America, but to try to suggest that we
are going to do this only for residents of public housing is
essentially immoral. It requires not a level of morality to say we are
going to choose one particular group that everybody in the country
seems to like to beat up on as the fundamental building block of all
the moral decay of America.
What we do is we go before some monstrosity of public housing and say
look at the disaster. Let us look at the way we treat our poor and then
let us scold them for the conditions they live in, and then let us
condemn them and say that the reason why they are poor is because they
do not work. The reason why they are poor is because they live like
animals. The reason why they are poor is because they do not have any
sense of righteousness on their behalf in terms of how they treat one
another.
So we will come here as a Congress and we will say, we know that they
are the evil of America and we are now going to require them to go out
and work. I say, listen, fine, let us encourage people to go out and
volunteer. Let us encourage people to take ahold of their own destinies
and to move themselves out of poverty, but let us not do it in a
gratuitous, paternalistic way that ends up condemning the poor and
contributing to the notion in this society that somehow the wealthy and
powerful have greater morality than the poor and the vulnerable.
Mr. LEACH. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words and rise in opposition to the amendment.
First, I think we have to be very careful about semantics. It has
been suggested that this is a voluntary mandate. It is not. This is
work for benefit. It is a traditional, old-fashioned American precept.
There is a suggestion here that this is a Republican effort; that
poverty equals immorality. Extraordinary. An extraordinary observation.
And yet, so that we understand what is happening here, this is proposed
by the Democratic administration.
Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. LEACH. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.
Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. The truth of the matter is the
Democratic version does not throw a person out of their house.
Mr. LEACH. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, the Democratic version
is what the gentleman is offering to this bill. The Democratic
administration is what I referred to.
I will be very precise. This administration submitted a bill to the
Committee on Banking and Financial Services which was introduced by
request of the gentleman from New York [Mr. Lazio] and the gentleman
from Massachusetts [Mr. Kennedy]. That bill contained 8 hours of
community service as a requirement. That approach was endorsed in the
last Congress by Secretary Cisneros.
What we have here is an approach that has been suggested that there
are no parallels. The fact of the matter is the AmeriCorps Program
might be defined as paid voluntarism. It is a parallel. It is not like
this. This is work for benefit.
We have a number of education loan programs where when teachers work,
for example, in the math area, their loans are considered written off.
The work study programs is a similar analogy. There is a Perkins Loan
Program where medical students are required to work in low-income
environments. If an individual graduates from a military academy, that
person must serve their country. Americans have a long tradition of
wanting people that receive benefits to do something in return for
those benefits.
Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. LEACH. I yield to the gentleman from Illinois.
Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I thank the distinguished
chairman for yielding.
When one volunteers for the military, one receives compensation for
that service. When one receives a medical scholarship and then
subsequently works in a low-income community, one receives compensation
for that. Why are we requiring of poor people in public housing the
only compensation that they volunteer?
Mr. LEACH. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, housing is part of the
compensation. It is part of the compensation in the military, it is
part of the compensation in other things as well, as well as in certain
student environments.
And let me also be very clear. The issue of the minimum wage was
raised. As someone who supported the recent raise in the minimum wage,
let me say anyone that is working for a minimum wage or higher does not
come under this requirement. It is not a part of this circumstance.
Anyone that is
[[Page H2127]]
working is not required to participate in this program.
Let me also say the issue of paternalism has been raised. And I would
like to go back to the issue of the week, where we had three Presidents
of the United States meet under Colin Powell in Philadelphia to discuss
voluntarism--which was largely well received by the American public.
But the criticism, to the degree it is rendered, has been is that it is
not a bit paternalistic?
So what this is, is not outsiders coming in for community service, it
is for insiders to serve their own community in appropriate, thoughtful
ways defined at the local level, not by outsiders. That is the reverse
of paternalism. It is work for benefit. There is an element of pride,
of community service.
Finally, there is an issue of reform here. I know of nothing that
implies more of the status quo than the current system. We are trying
to get the American public to support housing for poor people. This
committee has come forth with a bill at precisely the administration's
request for dollars and calling for community service reform as
advocated by the administration.
The minority side in this body is objecting. In my judgment, one of
the great questions that we have to ask is, Who is philosophically in
step? Is it the administration with the Republicans in Congress or is
it the minority in this body?
I would say the American people, as I listen to my constituents, as I
get phone calls from around the country, as I read my mail, is saying
let us put a work requirement to the degree possible in Federal
programs. That is what this is.
Ms. KILPATRICK. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number
of words.
This debate has been very fruitful and enlightening, but I want to go
back to 1937 when Franklin Delano Roosevelt instituted the legislation
that put forth public housing in America. At that time and certainly
some 60 years later some Americans are in need of public housing. Some
Americans find themselves in need, as they did in 1937, to have the
Federal Government assist them in safe, decent housing.
As we debate H.R. 2, and we began this yesterday, I stand here
supporting the Jackson amendment. I think the issue is not whether they
ought to volunteer. Public housing residents volunteer all the time, as
many of us do, in large proportion. Many public housing residents
volunteer their time at their site to do wonderful things with their
site, with the buildings, with their family. It is happening already.
The objection which the Jackson amendment supports is the mandate. We
do not have to mandate poor people to volunteer; they do that.
Actually, public assistance people are already required by the welfare
bill just passed to volunteer 25 hours. This 8 hours will be on top of
that.
What poor people want is a job. They do not want a handout, in spite
of what you might think. This is an unfunded mandate. It would be a
monster administratively for the public housing authorities even to
administer this provision. But I think this Congress does ourselves,
America, and poor people a disservice when we assume that they do not
want to work, because they do; when we assume that they do not want to
volunteer, because they do.
A high percentage of people in public housing are on welfare. They
are required, by a law that was passed by this Congress in the 104th
and signed by the President, to work, to volunteer 25-plus hours.
So the Jackson amendment should be considered. It should be passed.
It should be included as it is not now in H.R. 2. One thing that this
Jackson amendment does do is not mandate but continue the voluntarism
that public recipients are already doing.
What H.R. 2 does not have in it is a grievance procedure, so that
when these people who already have to do the 25 hours, who already now
will have to do 8 additional hours, do not have an avenue to even speak
to. The grievance procedure has been moved out of H.R. 2. Those people
now volunteering 32 hours of their life a month will have to go
straight to court or be evicted. Our homeless population will increase.
Mr. Chairman, I support the Jackson amendment.
Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
Ms. KILPATRICK. I yield to the gentleman from Illinois.
Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I thank the distinguished
gentlewoman for yielding.
The distinguished chairman of the committee indicated that this was
against Colin Powell's summit on voluntarism. Forced, mandated
voluntarism is not what was discussed in Philadelphia this past week.
I believe in voluntarism, Democrats believe in voluntarism, and I
genuinely believe that Republicans also believe in voluntarism, if that
definition means emanating from self-will, from self-definition, one's
own choice and consent, and not a Government mandate.
And I want to ask a question of the chairman if he would be so
willing. Is the chairman willing to evict people who live in public
housing for failure to volunteer 8 hours a month?
Mr. LEACH. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
Ms. KILPATRICK. I yield to the gentleman from Iowa.
Mr. LEACH. First, Mr. Chairman, let me say to the gentleman I made
reference to the weekend's work on voluntarism. I did not say this was
part of voluntarism. This is work for benefit.
Ms. KILPATRICK. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, if I might, as
lively a debate as we are having today, and I know we will go on and
on, let us not forget that poor people want to work. Poor people do
volunteer. Let us support the Jackson amendment.
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
The amendment offered by the gentleman from Illinois, I think, raises
some very interesting ideas. The point being, how do we protect civil
liberties once somebody accepts welfare?
{time} 1400
This is not unique to just public housing, because in many ways this
happens in our public schools. Public schools, we go there, but we
still want to protect our civil liberties and we cannot overly dictate,
and yet we have rules and regulations. Although I think these points
are very important that the gentleman brings up, I am inclined not to
support his amendment, but I think they are worth talking about.
First, I think the point about the other recipients of the welfare in
the housing program is very important. Last week there was a rumor
going around that I might introduce legislation that would repeal all
of HUD, which would be a proper, good economic position and a proper
constitutional position. I had a lot of phone calls. But none came from
the poor people. They all came from the wealthy people, those who were
receiving $850 rents for $400 houses, those who get to build the
buildings, those who are the contractors and those who do the
financing. They are very interested in this program.
I think the gentleman has a very good point. If we are going to
punish people receiving welfare or have requirements, put the
requirements on the others as well. I think this is very legitimate.
But I think the idea of civil liberties, the whole notion here, the
definition, has been distorted, because the one thing I think so many
people forget, we should have concern about the civil liberties of
those in a housing development.
For one, I have seen great danger about the abuse of the fourth
amendment when it comes to the tenement houses, where they can go in
without the proper issuing of a search warrant. I think that is very,
very bad and seems like maybe that would put me over the line and say
we should not permit this. Just because they belong, or they are living
in Government housing, that should not allow us to say they have
sacrificed their protections.
So I think this is important. But there are some civil liberties also
of others that we have not discussed at all, because we are talking
about the protection of the civil liberties of those who are receiving
a house. What about the person who is paying for the house? It is
assumed by so many that the wealthy are paying for these houses, but
under our very regressive tax system, if we look at the amount of money
the poor people pay through FICA, they are the ones who are paying. The
wealthy do not pay the taxes.
So the poor individual, the low, middle income, the individual who is
capable of still taking care of himself, is
[[Page H2128]]
hurt the most by what we do here in the Congress. Whether it is public
housing or the deficit or our monetary system, these are the
individuals who are hurt and are pushed aside. But they are losing
their homes because we are pretending to do good to others and provide
houses for them. So we should be concerned about their civil liberties
as well, but it seems like we forget that.
But this whole notion about work condition, how many people can stay
in a room, the search and seizures, I think these are very, very
important and should not be ignored. But again we should not ignore the
civil liberties of those who had to work and pay for these houses
because quite frankly I think we should ask the question.
It is assumed by so many that we have a constitutional, natural right
to a house. That is not in the Constitution. We have a right to our
liberty, we have a right to our life, we have a right to pursue our
happiness, and we ought to have the right to keep what we own. So think
of the civil liberties of those who suffer when you take.
I agree that we should think of the benefits accrued to the welfare
recipients and what kind of conditions we have, but I think we should
think about the benefits accrued to the businessman who really is
benefiting from these programs as well.
Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. PAUL. I yield to the gentleman from Illinois.
Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. I thank the gentleman for yielding. I
appreciate the spirit of his critique. I would like to make the
argument, however, that my amendment specifically addresses condition
of occupancy. Are we prepared to put people who live in public housing,
to evict them for failure to volunteer 8 hours a month? I would
appreciate the gentleman's answer to that.
Mr. PAUL. Yes; and I have great sympathy for the gentleman. It is
just I believe that some conditions do exist in everything we do in
Government. You do not go into a public school without conditions. You
cannot come in there and be disruptive, or you get thrown out. So if
there are conditions, you come in, and the contract is the person who
accepts the housing comes in, voluntarily accepting Government housing
under the conditions that they will do A, B, and C.
Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. PAUL. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.
Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I just wonder, given the
formulation that the gentleman has made about the responsibilities of
individuals and of Government, is it his contention, and would he
support an amendment that would suggest that anybody, for instance,
that gets benefit from the Eximbank or FmHA, that those individuals
have a responsibility as a term and condition of those loans and of
those programs to volunteer as well, or is it just the members of
public housing?
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Paul] has
expired.
(On request of Mr. Kennedy of Massachusetts, and by unanimous
consent, Mr. Paul was allowed to proceed for 30 additional seconds.)
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, I think that would be a very good suggestion.
Seeing that I think the Export-Import Bank is welfare for the very
wealthy businessman, I think the conditions would be very good.
Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. I would like to perhaps work with the
gentleman from Texas [Mr. Paul] on these kinds of issues.
Mr. PAUL. I will think about that and think about the ramifications,
but I certainly will consider it.
Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Do not back off now.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the
requisite number of words.
Let me begin with that point and assure the gentleman from Texas and
others that when the Export-Import Bank reauthorization comes up, and I
am for the Export-Import Bank, I think it performs an important
function, but I think we will offer an amendment to require some
community service.
Colin Powell has been invoked. One of the things that my friend the
chairman is very good at is the principle of selective invocation. The
President alternatively is someone to be scorned and someone whose word
is not to be questioned when there is an unpopular issue he wants to
hide behind.
Colin Powell specifically criticized the corporate sector. My
colleagues may have read he asked to be invited to speak to the boards
of directors, where the corporate executives have said voluntary work
and contributions are not in the shareholders' interest.
We will offer an amendment, I guarantee to the gentleman, applying
this principle, if it is to be mandatory, to the Export-Import Bank. We
will not evict them from their homes, their homes are generally too
large to find them, the people who live in them, but we will make it a
condition.
We should also do it with Farmers Home. We have in this committee
jurisdiction over the Farmers Home Program, a very justified and
sometimes very comfortable level of subsidy. The gentleman says, no,
how can you say we are doing this because of some animus against poor
people? How can that be? I should have said, no, it is about urban poor
people. When has anyone ever suggested doing this for the Farmers Home
Program? A direct benefit. We are not talking now about a tax subsidy,
we are not talking about a tax thing.
This committee has jurisdiction over a lot of benefits. One group,
the poorest among us, are being singled out. I would also say, people
have said, well, they should have jobs. Frankly, one thing that is
going to happen, more people in public housing will be unemployed if
the Federal Reserve has its way. I wish the chairman would join us in
having a hearing on the Federal Reserve System.
The gentleman who just spoke talked about the monetary system. The
Federal Reserve Open Market Committee just decided that we have about
450,000 too many jobs in America. It is very clear if you look at them
that they thought when unemployment went from 5.5 down to 5.2 that that
had exceeded what they thought was the level of jobs and they are
moving to increase it.
By the way, when you talk about the very wealthy, they are solicitous
there. Mr. Meyer in his speech said that the Fed had to act to
``validate the bond market.'' God forbid there should be low self-
esteem on Wall Street. We will step in there. But the cost of
validating the bond market is about .3 percent, we can estimate, of
unemployment, another 436,000 people thrown out of work, more than
that.
I would say to the chairman, let us have a hearing. Many of us, every
single Democrat, the Independent member of the Committee on Banking and
Financial Services have asked for a hearing. The chairman is refusing
to allow us to have a hearing until after two more meetings of the Open
Market Committee. These are tied in, these are relevant, I would say to
the Parliamentarian anticipatorily, because the more we let the Federal
Reserve, without debate, increase unemployment in America, the greater
we will exacerbate these conditions.
The fact is that there is one other great example of selective
principle on the Republican side here. This is not a mandate, but it is
mandatory imposition on every public housing authority in America.
Public housing authorities may say, well, you know in our case it would
not make sense. The general principle of requiring people to work may
be a good one, but in this particular circumstance given the nature of
our buildings, given the neighborhood we are in, given the population
we have, it would not make sense. What is the Republican answer to a
housing authority that says in our special local conditions that would
not make sense. The answer is: The Federal Government knows best, shut
up and do it.
This is an example of as binding a centrally imposed detailed
requirement as you will see. Maybe in my housing authority it should be
6 hours. Maybe it should be 12. No, 8 hours. We are going to tell every
housing authority everywhere in the country exactly what they have to
do. When it comes in fact to roughing up the poor a little bit, and the
gentleman from Iowa is correct, he says he feels in tune
philosophically with the American people. Unfortunately I think that is
correct. I
[[Page H2129]]
think public housing has been so mischaracterized and the
misunderstanding of what drives people into poverty is so widespread
that he may well be philosophically in tune with the American people,
but I would rather be philosophically in tune with the fundamental
moral principle of decency and compassion and social justice. And to
say to the people who get a lot of money through the Export-Import
Bank, or housing through the Farmers Home, Godspeed, not a nickel in
return. But to the poorest of the poor, you will do 8 hours of work a
month whether your housing authority makes sense or not.
I do not think that is a very good idea. I am not sure what the
President of the United States thinks about that. If it gives comfort
to the chairman of the committee, that instead of having to defend it
on the merit he can invoke the President, he is welcome to invoke the
President. But I do not think that selective invocation of an
administration with which he is often in disagreement helps when we are
talking about the violation of fundamental principles of States rights
and fairness. I hope the amendment is adopted.
Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I yield to the gentleman from Illinois.
Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr.
Frank] has expired.
(By unanimous consent, Mr. Frank of Massachusetts was allowed to
proceed for 30 additional seconds.)
Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, to the best of my knowledge,
there is not one Member of this body who is homeless and not one Member
of the Senate who is homeless. Some of us I know stay in our office,
which is certainly a Federal benefit because we do not pay rent here in
Washington, DC. However, none of us have ever signed a lease term that
evicts us as a condition of our Federal subsidy.
Mr. BAKER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
There appears to be quite a bit of confusion over the subject before
the House now, Mr. Chairman. It seems we do not recall the actions of
this House just last Congress when a majority of Republicans and, yes,
a majority of Democrats voted for a proposal which included workfare.
Did it require 8 hours a month or 8 hours a year? No, it required some
80 hours of work in order for a recipient to continue to receive
Federal benefits. That target not only stays at 80 hours, but it
increases to 30 hours a week, or 120 hours, by 2000.
So the precedent for work for benefits received has been adopted by
this House, by a majority of Members on both sides. During the course
of that debate no one suggested it was demeaning, it was somehow
inappropriate public policy but yet it was the right thing to do in
order to facilitate transition. What transition? If one walks through
public housing today, I would not say all public housing, I think we
will agree there are many public housing projects in America today that
are well run, that are well kept, where there are not significant
problems, but in many of our urban centers, unfortunately one in my own
State, in the city of New Orleans, it is not beyond deplorable, it is a
bomb site, it is a disaster, it is an embarrassment.
In fact, I am reluctant to say it, but it is true, the U.S.
Government has become the world's largest slum landlord. We warehouse
people like tires in buildings and we stack them in there with no hope,
no future, no prospect for a better tomorrow. Moms who do not have the
ability to read, dads who do not have job skills, kids whose only role
model is the drug dealer in the courtyard. They have no place to go.
There is no future. That is why 13-year-old kids shoot another 13-year-
old over tennis shoes, because they do not believe that tomorrow will
be any better than today. They are without a sense of direction or
hope.
So what are we doing with this wild Republican proposal? Are we
mandating things that are unreasonable? No, we are saying to a person
who is living in housing provided by the U.S. Government and taxpayers
that if you are not already under the workfare requirement of the
welfare proposal, if you are not disabled, if you are not elderly and,
by the way, if you happen to have a job, you are not subject to this
requirement. We are saying to those few people who remain, we would
like you to get out of that public housing unit and do something in
your community.
Why? Are we invoking some sort of slavery, as some have suggested, on
these individuals? No, there is another purpose behind this. It is to
let that individual who stayed within the walls of public housing get
out into the community and learn what skills are necessary to get a
real job. And perhaps some of the work these individuals may do in this
volunteer effort may enable them to get employed. Nothing is more
dignity building, establishing more esteem, giving a person more hope
than to go earn a paycheck and pay for their own child's tennis shoes
without the Federal Government having to say, here it is on a plate, we
know better, we know how to take care of you.
If I am wrong, let us look back the past 60 years since the 1937 act
passed and see what has happened to people who are poor in this
country. You tell me that the Federal Government has done its job in
providing for the needs of these individuals? I tell you they have not.
I tell you it is an embarrassment.
This bill that the gentleman from New York [Mr. Lazio], the chairman,
is bringing forth to this House is not only right, it is an effort to
restore dignity to the poor of this country. Working families across
this country get up every morning, mom, dad, sometimes the kids go to
work. They work 40 hours, 50 hours. They take their little paycheck
after FICA, income tax, anything that is left, they pay their house
note. What happens if they do not? They get evicted. What happens if
they do not buy the kids tennis shoes and blue jeans? Well, it is an
embarrassing situation. You have got to take care of those needs. They
provide for their children. What they are saying to me is, we do not
mind helping people in need. We do not think it is inappropriate for
you to use our resources to help a guy when he is down. But do not turn
public housing into a permanent retirement village where you can never
move on; do not take my money and give it to people who will not make
the effort to help themselves or their own families; give them a break,
give them an opportunity, but hey, guys, if they do not want to take
the first step, there is an end to this process.
Mr. Chairman, that is what the Lazio bill is about.
Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. BAKER. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.
{time} 1415
Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I would just like to
point out to the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Baker] that while many
of the conditions that he has articulated have in fact evolved in terms
of public housing policy, that first and foremost 40 percent of the
residents in public housing are senior citizens, there are 3,400 public
housing authorities in this country, there are 100 out of the 3,400
that are in trouble. The Democratic version of this bill, Rick, in fact
allows the Secretary to take over those badly run housing authorities,
it allows the Secretary to take over badly run housing projects within
well-run housing projects.
Mr. BAKER. If I may reclaim my time just to respond briefly.
Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. We just have a basic disagreement.
Mr. BAKER. The basic number of people the gentleman cites as far as
units are correct, but the vast number of people that are involved are
far more significant because of very large, very troubled housing
units.
There is one more important part about this legislation that I think
is important to observe.
That is, the bill does allow a working person on welfare to keep
earnings as opposed to giving it up for rent, a very important part of
this legislation.
Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. And that is contained in this version
of the bill.
Announcement By The Chairman
The CHAIRMAN. The Chair must remind all Members of the importance of
using proper forms of address. By directing remarks to the Chair and
thereby refraining from speaking in
[[Page H2130]]
the second person, Members avoid undue familiarity and thereby maintain
that level of formality which properly dignifies the proceedings of the
House. The first step in avoiding personalities in debate is to refer
to another Member as, quote, the gentleman from Virginia or whatever
the appropriate State might be.
Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Would the Chairman explain why that is
so important here?
The CHAIRMAN. The Chair has just read why that is important. This
refers to referring to a Member by their first name.
Mr. GONZALEZ. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
First of all I want to compliment the gentleman from Illinois [Mr.
Jackson]. He brings to this House an enormous capacity for work. He
brings it a sense of decency and dignity and also wisdom beyond his
years. So I am very proud to be associated with him.
I support the amendment offered by the gentleman from Illinois [Mr.
Jackson]. In the first place it is absurd to say that community service
hours required by H.R. 2 are voluntary. In fact the bill says that
unless one does the service they can be evicted from their home. That
hardly seems voluntary.
What this amendment does is to say that voluntary service is just
that, voluntary. The bill does not, as I said yesterday, provide any
money to administer the mandatory service program. It does not provide
the housing agencies any money to set up and keep the elaborate records
that will be required to verify hours that are worked. It does not
provide any money to buy the tools and equipment that might be needed.
It provides nothing to pay for the cost of training and supervising
workers who may be unwilling or unskilled or maybe both, and it indeed
provides nothing to verify whether the effort expended is doing any
good. The provision in this bill or the provisions are not only
offensive, they are unworkable.
By all means let us encourage people to do constructive work in their
community, but it is clear that the only good volunteer is one who is
truly a volunteer. Moreover, the very best volunteers are those who are
given some training and who are given the support they need to do the
job they choose to do. That is what the Jackson amendment is all about.
It says encourage community work but do not make it involuntary
servitude and do not make the housing agencies do more than they
reasonably can.
Under the bill there is no money at all to pay the out-of-pocket cost
that community work entails, bus fare, if the work site is away from
home, or the orange hats and the vests and flashlights and radios that
community patrols need, nor is there any money to do anything else like
buy tools or paint or protective gear or insurance for workers who may
be doing repairs of some kind or another.
The Jackson amendment recognizes these kinds of reality. It says that
community work is good but that good community work cannot be coerced
and it cannot be done for free, as the bill assumes.
Mr. Chairman, we should consider the gentleman's views very
carefully. There is probably nobody else in America who knows more
about voluntary community work than the gentleman from Illinois [Mr.
Jackson] who was born and brought up in the midst of one of America's
great community self-help organizations. He knows what it is to be a
volunteer, what it takes to organize a volunteer, a truly volunteer
effort, and how much is required to create a program that works. He
knows the difference between realism and wishful thinking. He knows the
difference between a helping hand and a slap in the face.
The bill is a slap in the face. The Jackson amendment speaks to the
necessity of giving a sense of dignity and self-worth to people who
need to know they count for something.
Mr. Chairman, I support the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Jackson].
Mr. LUCAS of Oklahoma. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite
number of words.
Mr. Chairman, I sat here and listened to this very interesting and
insightful debate coming from a number of points of view, and one of
the questions that comes to my mind as I look at the issues addressed
since we are so concerned about the 8-hour work requirement, just
exactly who does this requirement, who would this requirement apply to?
And if I could, Mr. Chairman, I would like to yield to the gentleman
from New York [Mr. Lazio] to respond to a series of questions if that
would be all right.
Now, Mr. Chairman, I say to the gentleman from New York, as I
understand it, and clarify this to make sure that it is crystal clear
in my mind, that in this language in this proposed section 105 there
are exemptions for the elderly.
Mr. LAZIO of New York. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. LUCAS of Oklahoma. I yield to the gentleman from New York.
Mr. LAZIO of New York. It does.
Mr. LUCAS of Oklahoma. That there would not be a requirement that the
elderly have to meet this; they would be exempt?
Mr. LAZIO of New York. If the gentleman would continue to yield, the
bill does provide for an exemption for all those who are elderly. They
would not form the provisions of the 8-hour work requirement per month.
Mr. LUCAS of Oklahoma. Now we also have a section that exempts the
disabled; is that correct?
Mr. LAZIO of New York. If the gentleman would yield again, in fact
that is the case that all those who suffer with a disability would be
exempt from the provisions of H.R. 2 which would require 8 hours of
work of community service as a condition of public housing.
Mr. LUCAS of Oklahoma. And those residents who are working or
attending school or receiving vocational training; would they not be
exempt also?
Mr. LAZIO of New York. If the gentleman will yield once again, in
fact the gentleman is correct that in all those circumstances whether
one is employed full-time or part-time, whether one is attending school
or involved in vocational education, they would be exempt from the
provisions of this bill that require 8 hours of community service.
Mr. LUCAS of Oklahoma. What about the physical imparity?
Mr. LAZIO of New York. If the gentleman would yield once again, all
those that are physically impaired or have a disability would be
exempted under the terms of this provision.
Mr. LUCAS of Oklahoma. So if the gentleman would give me one more
response, if we make all of these exemptions for the elderly, the
disabled, the working, those receiving additional education, those who
are physically impaired, who is left for this to apply to?
Mr. LAZIO of New York. If the gentleman would yield, the provision
would apply to all able-bodied adults who are receiving the benefit of
public housing and who have the capacity to give back to the community.
Those individuals would be asked to contribute no less than 2 hours of
community service a week.
Mr. LUCAS of Oklahoma. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from New
York for his insight.
So essentially as I see it the only people that this would apply to
would be the able-bodied nonworking. What a concept, requesting that
they return a little bit of what has been done for them. What a
concept.
Mr. Chairman, I am just amazed, now that I have had this so precisely
and so clearly laid out for me, I cannot imagine why there would be any
opposition because, after all, we are all good citizens. Whether we
live in public housing or nonpublic housing, we all want to do our part
for our community, we all want to work our way through this world, so
to speak. Having provided these kinds of exceptions, having given the
people who need the exceptions the exceptions, clearly those left are
the able-bodied working, folks who I am sure want an opportunity to
make a difference in their community and in their housing.
Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield for a
question?
Mr. LUCAS of Oklahoma. I yield to the gentleman from Illinois.
Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. Is the gentleman aware that the bill does
not exempt those persons who are providing for an elderly person or
providing for children in public housing? Is the gentleman aware of
that?
Mr. LUCAS of Oklahoma. I am not aware of that particular point. I
would
[[Page H2131]]
think that certainly that would qualify within the definition, but not
being an expert on the definition, I cannot say that with certainty.
Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. The gentleman should be very well aware that
my next amendment to the bill would include that definition which is
presently not in section 105, and I would certainly hope that the
gentleman would support that.
Mr. LUCAS of Oklahoma. I would gladly look at that next amendment
when I am compelled unfortunately and have to vote against this
amendment.
I thank the gentleman from Illinois for his input, and I respectfully
thank my colleagues for an opportunity to clarify the true nature of
this bill.
Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment of my colleague, the
gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Jackson], to prevent public housing
residents from being evicted for failing to comply with the
congressional majority's mandated volunteerism provisions. The majority
calls the, quote, community work hours, requirements that are contained
in H.R. 2 for public housing residents volunteerism. But it is
volunteerism only in the most Orwellian sense. The real name for this
is forced labor, and as my colleagues before me have pointed out, the
overtones of these provisions are profound and frankly disturbing.
Residents of public housing are not criminals. Many work to support
their families. They volunteer their time to housing projects and to
their community. Forcing an individual to volunteer to avoid being
thrown into the streets is hardly likely to provide positive results to
the community. This is true if this volunteer requirements take a
parent away from child care or efforts to find or to keep a job.
The congressional majority has a history of supporting tax breaks for
the wealthiest corporations. Many support subsidies for farmers and
loan guarantees for businesses. When in the history of this body have
we required a farmer or a CEO of a major corporation to volunteer in
return for a subsidy or loan guarantee? In the last session of this
Congress we could not even get the congressional majority to close a
loophole on those companies that made a fortune in this country and
then turned around and gave up there citizenship, went to the Bahamas,
went someplace else, denied being a citizen of the United States so
that in fact they would not have to pay taxes, and we could not get the
congressional majority to close that loophole. What do we do about the
tobacco CEOs who lied about the addictive quality of tobacco, who have
received billions of dollars in subsidies? What are we going to require
of them for having killed people in this country because of tobacco, an
addiction?
What we are talking about here? A true public housing volunteerism
provision could have been written in any number of ways. It could have
required housing authorities to establish outreach programs to
encourage volunteerism; it could have provided financial resources to
nonprofit organizations to increase volunteerism in public housing.
There are many ways to engage people in volunteerism, as we just saw in
this last weekend. Instead the majority has chosen to force nearly all
public housing residents to volunteer their time, no matter what other
commitments? These individuals may have.
The bill does not even contain an exemption, and I am delighted to
hear that my colleague the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Jackson], is
going to offer that as his next amendment. There is no exemption for
the moment for caregivers, single mothers, individuals who care for the
elderly, or even individuals who care for a disabled loved one.
Please accept this amendment on this issue. Let us do the right thing
by the people who live in public housing in this country.
Mrs. KELLY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, I simply want to speak to the work benefit program.
This is work for the benefit of living in housing which we, the
American taxpayers, are subsidizing.
{time} 1430
We are also anxious to educate people in the United States of
America. One of the benefits of work is an education in how to work.
One of the benefits of this program will be an education for people
hopefully in how to work at a particular job where they then will be
able to earn their salary so that they can pay for their own rent. We
need to educate everyone in America to higher and higher levels. That
is why I feel so strongly about supporting education.
However, in this instance where we have people who are able bodied
and able to work and are able to find a job, but living in public
supported housing, by putting them out, by helping them find a job and
putting them out into the community where they can work in some place,
they can work for the benefit of themselves as well as the fact that
they are doing something for their community.
Consider the fact that in a public housing authority, one can work as
a part of a floor watch, or one's block watch. Consider what that
means. If someone is a part of the block watch for 2 hours a week, will
that not help that person feel good? Most volunteers feel much better;
they get more out of the voluntarism that they do than what they put
in.
This is not voluntarism. This is work for a public benefit. The
benefit would be for the person living in the housing authority. I
quite frankly think there are so many opportunities that people can
have. One can go to one's church and polish the collection plates, or
one can work with Girl Scouts. One can do a lot of other things besides
having to do things that are in a very limited scope, that have been
presented here.
I believe very strongly that this is good, solid legislation. People
on welfare who are working would be exempt, and I think that that was
not clearly stated. We must understand that those who are working in
any capacity would be exempt from this work requirement. It is only
those who are able bodied and who do not work who would be out there
and we would ask them to give a simple 8 hours a month.
Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
First of all, I want to commend my good friend and colleague from
Illinois, [Mr. Jackson]. I wanted to thank him for his efforts in this
regard and for his efforts to uplift the poor people of our country. I
also thank the gentleman for realizing and trying to get the word out
that the poor too is America.
Mr. Chairman, I rise today in opposition to section 105 of the bill
and support the Jackson amendment. I am saddened. It seems that my
colleagues on the other side of the aisle have blinders on. I
understand that their intent in crafting this bill must have been
honorable; however, what this body is doing today is abhorrent to the
citizens that are the poorest in our Nation.
I might add, Mr. Chairman, that within 5 blocks of my home there are
probably about 2,000 public housing residents. I represented them in my
legislative district in the State of Maryland and I represent them now.
I would invite the Members who are supporting section 105 to come and
visit my district.
There appears to be a presumption that the poor just sit home and do
nothing, and that is a major, major problem. Here we are today saying
that we will dictate, we will sit here and we will dictate to them what
they should be doing. I invite my colleagues to come into my district.
I invite Members that supported this bill in committee and who support
it today on the floor to visit the Seventh Congressional District, and
they will see that these citizens have no other place to go.
My colleagues must understand that public housing is not the greatest
place to live. They have no other place to live. This section is
telling our poorest citizens that they must volunteer or they are to be
evicted. Evicted to go where? Evicted to be set on the street.
I ask my colleagues who support this bill, who will take care of the
children when they are volunteering? Or more importantly, will these
citizens gain valuable work experience to put on a resume, to help to
find a job and have self-sufficiency? This is not work for benefit, no,
this is not work for benefit. It is an edict, an order: Work or live on
the street.
[[Page H2132]]
This section is placing misguided values on the poorest of the poor.
We already have a society of the haves and the have nots and we are
underscoring and highlighting this class distinction; a two-tier
society. We are blocking the have nots and we are saying that have nots
cannot be haves. We are keeping these citizens down and not allowing
them to stand upon our shoulders to reach for higher ground and a
higher way of life.
In my home State of Maryland, we already require welfare
beneficiaries to do certain types of work. Additional regulations will
constitute an administrative and bureaucratic nightmare which will
place even greater burdens on local housing authorities, instead of
allowing them greater flexibility to deal with the pressures they are
facing as a result of declining funding. Mandating that poor citizens
volunteer is demeaning and it is burdensome on the recipients, and it
is also burdensome on our local housing authority.
I urge my colleagues to support the Jackson amendment.
Mr. EHRLICH. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, I rise to make two points. One is a point I would like
to reiterate concerning this really constructive debate that we are
having on the floor over the last 2 days which pertains to the
philosophical, the real philosophical difference between folks on that
side of the aisle and folks on this side of the aisle.
When one really gets down to it, it is all about mutuality of
obligation. Some people believe those who take a benefit from the
Federal taxpayer have no mutual obligation on the back end, and some
do. That is basically what we are discussing with respect to this very
minimal work requirement.
With respect to my second point, I want to get back to the facts of
actually what the bill says and does, and with that, I would ask the
gentleman from New York [Mr. Lazio], chairman of the subcommittee and
my good friend, if he would engage in a short colloquy.
Mr. Chairman, I have before me the transcript of the hearing that we
had with Secretary Cuomo on March 6, 1997. Does the gentleman recall
that hearing?
Mr. LAZIO of New York. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. EHRLICH. I yield to the gentleman from New York.
Mr. LAZIO of New York. Mr. Chairman, in fact I do remember the fact
that the Secretary testified before the committee with respect to H.R.
2.
Mr. EHRLICH. Now, with respect to the substance of this debate, I
have a question for the chairman, because I think it is very important
that people all over the country understand exactly what we are talking
about, and the folks that we are expecting this very minimal work
requirement from.
Mr. Chairman, it appears from my reading of the transcript that the
chairman, in answer to a question by the gentleman from Texas [Mr.
Sessions], said that we would require community work for residents not
already meeting welfare reform requirements, which is also my view of
what the bill says.
Is that not correct, Mr. Chairman?
Mr. LAZIO of New York. If the gentleman would yield, just as was the
case with Secretary Cisneros when Secretary Cisneros, an articulate
man, very often spoke about the need for community service and
community work requirements in public housing, to build that type of
social capital, so too is the case with the administration's proposal
as submitted to the House, and so too is the position of Secretary
Cuomo that a community work requirement is appropriate, is good, is a
positive step in terms of public housing reform.
Mr. EHRLICH. Mr. Chairman, a positive step with respect to the
building of human capital with respect to these folks, correct?
Mr. LAZIO of New York. If the gentleman would yield further, once
again, not pretending to speak for them, but rather for myself, it is a
fact that we are talking about the potential of hundreds of thousands
of hours that can be contributed, a huge potential to begin to meet the
significant challenges facing underserved communities, and it is at our
disposal if we just tap into that.
Mr. EHRLICH. Mr. Chairman, I would like to read for the record, and I
am sure the chairman would appreciate these words, exactly what the
Secretary said. The Secretary, and I quote from page 38 of the
transcript: ``We would agree with what the bill says, community work
for residents who are not already meeting the welfare reform
requirements'' which is my reading of the bill and the chairman's
reading of the bill; is that not correct?
Mr. LAZIO of New York. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman would yield
once again, it is absolutely my reading of the bill. It was in the bill
last year, a bill that was supported by nearly 100 Democratic Members
who embraced this bill.
Mr. EHRLICH. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from New York [Mr.
Lazio], the chairman of the subcommittee.
Mr. LEACH. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. EHRLICH. I yield to the gentleman from Iowa.
Mr. LEACH. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman yielding.
Let me just say what is occurring here is an effort to say the
Democratic Party does not favor the work requirement, the Republican
Party does, and therefore, to somehow socially divide the two political
parties in these inner city environments.
The facts are, the administration has supported a work requirement
and does, and to be very precise, let me read from the bill that was
sent up by Secretary Cuomo, under a section called community service
requirements for the public housing and section 8 programs.
The Secretary's bill states: ``Notwithstanding any other provision of
law, each adult member of each family residing in a public housing or
assisted under section 8 shall, without compensation, participate for
not less than 8 hours per month in community services activities, not
to include any political activity, within the community in which that
adult resides.''
In other words, the Republican Party has taken great care to work
with the administration in producing an approach that is a common sense
reform initiative. At this time on the floor of the House, the
congressional Democratic Party is objecting.
Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, I am deeply troubled by Congress's persistent attacks
on America's poorest families. Let me just say this is one of the most
mean-spirited provisions. It is an insult to poor people in this
country. Here they come again. Today we are lecturing poor people.
My colleagues want poor people to work for human capital. Let us
provide them with the tools that they need to become self-sufficient,
not by imposing this provision.
We cannot expect families to work and to make the transition from
welfare to work if they have no income or a place to live. How do my
colleagues think they are going to acquire the tools that they need to
become self-sufficient by cleaning toilets and collecting garbage? Is
that the way that we are going to provide them with the skills that
they need to become self-sufficient?
Let us be honest and serious about it. What we are doing today is
victimizing the victims, and I can tell my colleagues, most of them
have never been into a public housing development because if they have
been, they know that they do volunteer. They know that they are the
ones working and without any resources to do their job.
Let us be serious and stop talking about volunteerism. Yes, I will
welcome IBM, I will welcome Johnson & Johnson to come to my district
and come to the public housing development and provide some of the
money that my Republican colleagues are taking away from poor people.
Mr. COOK. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
I am especially supportive of the work requirement for public housing
residents. Few can disagree that current Federal housing policy creates
disincentives to work, encourages the breakup of families, and has
resulted in an undue concentration of poverty in certain neighborhoods.
The Housing Opportunity and Responsibility Act addresses the problems
with our Nation's public housing projects with common-sense solutions.
[[Page H2133]]
One key component of this approach is the work requirement for the
public housing residents. The work requirement is not unreasonable. It
applies only to able-bodied public housing residents without dependent
children. It demands that a resident of public housing, as a condition
of receiving Federal assistance, display a commitment to putting
themselves on a path to self-sufficiency and economic independence.
As a member of the Subcommittee on Housing and Community Opportunity,
I have heard criticisms of this work requirement from my friends on the
other side of the aisle.
{time} 1445
They will question why those who receive a tax deduction for the
interest paid on their mortgages are not similarly required to work. I
see that kind of logic as totally flawed, as evidenced by our decaying
public housing projects across America.
The Federal Government has decided that owning one's home is an
integral part to a strong and safe America and increases the quality of
life in our great country. The Government encourages Americans to own
their own home by giving some of the money they pay in taxes back to
them. The mortgage interest deduction is very different from a work
requirement for recipients of a government program that do not pay
taxes or otherwise earn the benefits they are receiving.
The overwhelming majority of my constituents tell me that they are
troubled by government handouts. We have seen time and time again that
handout programs do not work. Public housing was intended to be a
helping hand toward self-sufficiency, not another handout. I urge my
colleagues to defeat any attempt to remove the work requirement from
this very important piece of legislation.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Jackson].
The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote, and
pending that I make a point of order that a quorum is not present.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 133, further proceedings
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Jackson]
will be postponed.
The point of no quorum is considered withdrawn.
Amendment No. 9 offered by Mr. Jackson of Illinois
Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I offer amendment No. 9.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment No. 9 offered by Mr. Jackson of Illinois:
Page 27, line 7, strike ``or''.
Page 27, line 10, strike the period and insert ``; or''.
Page 27, after line 10, insert the following:
(E) a single parent, grandparent, or spouse of an otherwise
exempt individual, who is the primary caretaker of 1 or
more--
(i) children who are 6 years of age or under;
(ii) elderly persons; or
(iii) persons with disabilities.
Page 29, line 3, strike ``or''.
Page 29, line 6, strike the period and insert ``; or''.
Page 29, after line 6, insert the following:
(5) a single parent, grandparent, or spouse of an otherwise
exempt individual, who is the primary caretaker of 1 or
more--
(A) children who are 6 years of age or under;
(B) elderly persons; or
(C) persons with disabilities.
Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I am joined by the gentleman
from Wisconsin in offering this amendment, which addresses what I view
to be a glaring oversight by the majority in the crafting of the
community work provision of section 105.
While I am firmly opposed to the community work requirement because,
as I have stated, I believe it demeans voluntarism and vilifies the
poor, I am pleased that H.R. 2 at a minimum exempts the elderly, the
disabled, and those individuals who are working, attending school, or
receiving vocational training.
I would like to express my appreciation to the majority for their
support of my amendment in committee, which clarified that these
exemptions occur automatically and do not saddle another burden of
proof on individuals who fall into one of these categories.
These exemptions, however, do not go far enough. Under this bill
single parents who are not otherwise exempted will be forced to either
leave their young children home alone, or pay costly child care or home
care fees for fragile seniors or disabled family members. This
amendment will exempt from mandatory community work requirement
residents who are single parents with children under the age of 6 and
grandparents or spouses who are the primary caregivers of dependent
children or senior citizens.
Mr. Chairman, it is no wonder that the American public thinks this
body is out of touch with reality. How can we not acknowledge that the
care of the elderly, the disabled, or young children is a full-time job
worthy of respect and appreciation? Who will care for their dependents
while these primary caregivers are forced to do community work?
Just yesterday during general debate, a speaker in defense of the
bill pointed to the tragic instance in Chicago where a 5-year-old boy
was thrown to his death from Ida B. Welles House housing complex by two
other children. If we require that single parents who are responsible
for supervising young children are forced to leave their homes to
perform mandated work hours or face possible eviction, will we not be
creating the potential for more of these tragic incidents to occur?
We know that public housing residents will be hard-pressed to pay for
costly child care or nursing assistance, and that the waiting list for
affordable care may be a couple of years long. Will we expand upon the
unfunded mandate that we already have imposed upon public housing
authorities by putting them in a position to have to also provide child
care?
I believe in voluntarism, but let us not confuse its meaning or its
use. We have an all-volunteer armed services. Our young men and women
volunteer to join. They are not subscripted into the military. But once
they volunteer to serve, they are paid for their service. In fact, they
receive a variety of forms of financial compensation, even after they
leave the military, such as veterans and educational benefits, points
in securing employment, and if their service is long enough, pensions.
Proponents of mandated community work insist that other Federal
benefits are tied to community service. Yesterday, the gentleman from
New York referred to particular medical school scholarships in exchange
for which graduates agree to work in a low-income community for a
certain period of time. The difference is that they likewise are paid
for their medical work in the community.
I believe poor people should work. They want to work and will work if
there are enough jobs paying adequate wages. Poor people do not have to
be whipped to work. About 4 years ago, Mr. Chairman, in Chicago, the
new Sheraton Hotel advertised the availability of 1,000 jobs. In the
middle of a Chicago snowstorm, 10,000 people showed up.
Mr. LAZIO of New York. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. I yield to the gentleman from New York.
Mr. LAZIO of New York. Mr. Chairman, I would ask the gentleman, did
he have an inquiry of me?
Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. It is my understanding we may have the
opportunity to work something out with respect to my amendment.
Mr. LAZIO of New York. Mr. Chairman, what we are trying to do is to
submit a proposal that would ensure that a certain percentage of people
that might fall into some of these categories could be exempted by the
housing authority without it being an across-the-board exemption for
all in that category. I do not know if that is something the gentleman
is interested in, but if he is, we will continue to pursue that.
Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I do not understand what the
gentleman means by a particular percentage. Either they are a caregiver
or someone providing for a 6-year-old-or-under child, or not. The
gentleman needs to clarify.
Mr. LAZIO of New York. If the gentleman will continue to yield, Mr.
Chairman, what we are trying to do is work on a counterproposal that
might
[[Page H2134]]
meet the concerns of the gentleman and also meet my concerns and that
of the Members on my side of the aisle.
Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, continuing, the assumption
underlying the goal of self-sufficiency is full employment, but there
are currently not enough jobs for a living wage for everyone. If we
create the jobs, I believe the people will come.
One of the unintended consequences of section 105 about which I am
particularly concerned is that it will effectively displace thousands
of low-wage workers who are currently employed by housing authorities.
If we mandate millions of hours of uncompensated free labor by housing
residents, PHA's, nursing homes, and other facilities can replace paid
employees with public housing residents who are performing their 8-hour
shifts; that is, 1 full day of uncompensated labor per month to perform
maintenance grounds work and other low-wage jobs.
Mr. LAZIO of New York. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the
amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I know we are still trying to submit some language to
the gentleman from Illinois that he might find acceptable, but on the
chance that that is not the case, let me explain to the Members why I
have reservations about this portion of the bill.
Even with respect to welfare reform, which requires not 2 hours a
week but 20 hours of workfare, there is far more flexibility and no
across-the-board exemptions that mirror the type of broad exemption
that the gentleman from Illinois is offering in this bill.
Mr. Chairman, I ask again, for those people who are not in public
housing, who are just as poor and who labor under just as difficult
circumstances, do they find a way, even though they may be caregivers
to people, whether they are children or older Americans, do they find a
way to discharge those responsibilities and yet also go out there and
earn enough money to put a roof over their head and pay for the
utilities? The answer, Mr. Chairman, is absolutely yes.
The concern, of course, that I have is for working people who are
already outside of the umbrella of public housing, who do not receive
the benefit of public housing, who would do a great deal of work in
order to put a roof over their head and over that of their family's.
Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. LAZIO of New York. I yield to the gentleman from Illinois.
Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for
yielding.
Are we now saying that we do not trust the primary caregivers of
senior citizens, or a woman who may be heading a household where there
are children under 6 years old?
Mr. LAZIO of New York. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, what we are
saying is that all people who receive the benefit of public housing who
are able-bodied and who are not exempted because of age, who are not
exempted because of disability, who are not exempted because of
education, vocational training, or work will be expected to contribute
2 hours to their own backyard.
Again, that may include helping to sweep the hallway right in front
of their apartment, it may include doing something in their apartment,
it may include removing graffiti, or ensuring that somebody gets day
care in that building. It may include working downtown or it may
include, for some people, doing a Neighborhood Watch Program. There is
extraordinary flexibility in this program to meet the concerns of
people who actually do have some other obligations.
But the idea that only people in public housing have extra
obligations diverts from reality. In fact, people who do not live in
public housing, who have enormous obligations, who have families, who
have needs, who may have parents who need to receive care, who do not
receive the benefit of public housing, who do not receive the benefit
of having their utilities paid for, are also asked to do something.
They are asked to go to work to contribute to their rent. If they do
not do that, yes, they are thrown out. That is what happens to people
outside of public housing.
To afford special protections to the fortunate few who are accepted
in terms of their application for public housing I think undermines
some of the basic premises of this bill, which is a sense of mutual
obligation and responsibility.
Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. If the gentleman will continue to yield, Mr.
Chairman, this is really a common-sense amendment. The purpose of this
amendment, it is really the family values amendment. It says that if we
have a single mother at home who has children under the age of 6, or we
have a person at home who is responsible for taking care of someone who
is physically disabled, that we provide an exemption for it.
Mr. LAZIO of New York. Reclaiming my time, I understand what the
amendment is trying to do, but what I am saying is there is no reason
why somebody who is a caregiver cannot help out in their own hallway,
in their own apartment, if they are not given enough work requirements
so they can meet both concerns.
I might add that that flexibility is more than most people on the
outside are able to get. Most people who are not beneficiaries of
public housing who have to go out there to work are not lucky enough to
have the type of flexible work requirement that will allow them to work
in their apartment or work in their hall or in their building. They
must go and travel to another area, very often. They must leave, they
must make accommodations, they must ask family to watch their children
or their parents. They find ways to do that.
Yet, we are not willing to ask the same of people in public housing,
to give not 20 hours a week, as is called for under the requirements of
workfare, but 2 hours a week, 2 hours over 7 days. That is what we are
asking, in return for a subsidized apartment unit, and often utilities
being paid. That is what is common sense.
That is the very essence of the proposal that has been embraced by
both this administration and the past administration, by both Secretary
Cisneros and Secretary Cuomo. That is the very provision that was in
this bill last year, supported by nearly 100 Members who believe in a
commonsense approach to solving some of the Nation's problems.
The idea here is to tap into the huge resource, the huge potential
human resource that we have out there, people who can bring talent,
people who can do things in their own back yard.
Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. If the gentleman will continue to yield, Mr.
Chairman, I just want to make it clear that we are talking about a
single parent, a grandparent, or a spouse.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from New York [Mr. Lazio] has
expired.
(On request of Mr. Jackson of Illinois, and by unanimous consent, Mr.
Lazio of New York was allowed to proceed for 30 additional seconds.)
Mr. LAZIO of New York. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I understand
what the gentleman's amendment does. I am telling the gentleman that I
cannot accept that amendment, because I believe that people on the
outside are asked to actually do more; that there is flexibility in
this bill for people who are caregivers to work close to home.
I think there are some in this Chamber who want to gut this entire
provision using different means of gutting it. I want to protect this
provision. I think this is an important part of the bill. I think
people should be asked to contribute to their own community.
Mr. BARRETT of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the
requisite number of words.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in support, and am pleased to offer this
amendment with my friend, the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Jackson].
Mr. Chairman, I come to this issue from a little different
perspective. My wife and I have a son who is 4 years old, we have a
daughter who is 2 years old, and we have another daughter who is 12
weeks old. I am very well paid. But if you were to tell me or if you
were to tell my wife that she has to give 8 hours of community service,
to volunteer, my reaction would be, I will tell you what good community
service is for a caregiver, either a mother or a father who is alone
with a child. The best community service that that person can give is
to take care of their child, whether the child is 12 weeks old, 2 years
old, or 4 years old. I want that parent to be there to help that child.
[[Page H2135]]
I understand why the gentleman from New York is saying, well, if you
are an able-bodied person and you do not have kids around the house, or
if you are able, we do not want you to lie around on the couch.
We may agree or disagree on the merits of that. But I think all of us
recognize that at certain times in a person's life you simply do not
have the time to go out and help in community service. I would imagine
any mother who is in this Chamber today, if they were told when their
baby was 4 months old, we now want you to go give 8 hours a month for
community service, would say no, I think I should be with my baby.
{time} 1500
They may decide that they have a care giver who shares the
responsibilities with them that would allow them to do so. If they
could do that, they would do so, they could volunteer. That is the
nature and the essence of volunteerism, that a person gives willingly.
But to tell a mother of a 3-month-old or a 6-month-old or a 3-year-old,
all right, you are a single mother, now you have to leave your child
and go out and perform some community service that has been delegated
by the Federal Government, to me is exactly the wrong way we should be
going. We should be encouraging these people to do the best they can to
support their children and to help their children along.
So for me this amendment is a very common sense amendment. It is
recognizing that there are times in a person's life where the most
important community service they can give is to take care of their
children, and to suggest otherwise I think is demeaning to young
mothers and young fathers. For some reason we are saying, OK, you have
to give 8 hours community service. If community service is so great for
these poor people, then let us apply it to everybody.
The gentleman from New York says there are poor people who are now
living in public housing that do things beyond what is called on them.
That is fine, I applaud them for doing it. I am happy that they are
involved in the community. But we do not require them to give 8 hours
community service. We do not require millionaires to give 8 hours
community service. We do not require anybody to give 8 hours community
service except for these people.
At a time when in many States in this country there are work
requirements under welfare that are requiring these people to work
maybe 20 hours a week in order to get welfare benefits, now we are
saying we are going to tack on an additional requirement above and
beyond; that I think is moving in the wrong direction.
I think this is a common sense amendment. I think it does go in the
right direction. It recognizes that there are people who do think it is
important to require people to work, but it also recognizes that if you
are a young person, if you are elderly, if you are disabled, that it is
really not fair to ask you to perform the service.
I would ask the Members to please support this amendment. Again, I
think it is a very common sense amendment. It does not hurt anybody. It
is not carrying out an exception that you can drive a truck through. It
is just a commonsense exception.
Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite
number of words.
Mr. Chairman, I just want to address the gentleman's amendment
briefly if I may. I am prepared to offer a secondary amendment, a
perfecting amendment to his amendment, but I just want to make a few
general comments before we get into this. I am coming from this as a
person who has lived in government housing.
When I was in college, I got a free dorm room and I got that free
dorm room in exchange for working 6 hours a week in the dorm. And I had
to do that over and above and on top of my requirements as a college
student. I was a biochemistry major, it was a very demanding
curriculum. I had to take a lot of courses in chemistry, physics. I
also had to work my way through college, so on weekends I had to work.
As a matter of fact, I worked the 11 p.m. to 7 a.m. shift on Friday
days and Saturday nights at a local hospital. In exchange for that, I
got a little room about as big as a walk-in closet.
I think what we are trying to do here with this amendment is ask
people to work substantially fewer hours than I had to work. I had to
work about 24 hours a month. We are asking people to work 8 hours a
month. As a matter of fact, I am going to have an amendment I will
introduce later because I think 8 hours is too little. I am going to
try to increase that with an amendment to 12 hours.
I think the issue that we are bringing up right now, single moms,
kids at home, I think that there is some legitimacy to that. I
personally think in these housing authorities that people will be able
to work together to say that somebody cannot find 2 hours a week to me
is a little hard to swallow.
I am prepared to offer a secondary amendment to the gentleman's
amendment, and I have that at the desk right now, that would give the
housing authority the authority to exempt up to 20 percent on the
grounds that are being brought up. I think that is a very reasonable
compromise here to the gentleman's proposal. I think there is some
legitimacy to what we are talking about in that there will be, there is
some legitimacy to what the gentleman is talking about. I think to have
the housing authority given the ability to exempt a certain percentage
of people on the grounds that the gentleman is talking about, that they
are very burdened with the requirements of their kids, might I just add
that I think this requirement ultimately will be good for many of those
moms to get out and to actually do some work, contributing to their
local community.
I think we need to have some flexibility with the housing authority,
and I think the gentleman's proposal should be allowed for a certain
percentage. I would ask that the gentleman would consider my amendment.
I think if the chairman will accept this and the gentleman will accept
it, then we can move on to the other amendments.
Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. WELDON of Florida. I yield to the gentleman from North Carolina.
Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, what is magic about
exempting 20 percent? Suppose it happens to be 30 or 40 percent in a
particular housing project? Is there something magic or special about
20 percent?
Mr. WELDON of Florida. Well, actually it could be 10 percent, it
could be 5 percent.
Mr. WATT of North Carolina. What would be magic about that?
Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Chairman, this is something we can revisit
in the future. We can get some testimony. I am on the committee with
the gentleman.
Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, my point is that it will
vary from housing community to housing community. It is not going to be
20 percent all across the Nation.
Mr. WELDON of Florida. I think what we are proposing here is a very
reasonable solution to the issue at hand. I think we can get testimony
in the future on this issue, and if there needs to be more flexibility
given to the housing authority, I think we will be able to do that.
Amendment offered by Mr. Weldon of Florida to the Amendment offered by
Mr. Jackson of Illinois
Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment to the
amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Weldon of Florida to the amendment
offered by Mr. Jackson of Illinois:
In the amendment, before ``a single parent'', each place it
appears insert ``for not more than 20 percent of the total
number of families assisted by a public housing agency,''.
Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I will not consume the entire 5
minutes because I basically, I think, have made my case. I think there
will be some situations in the housing authority where it may be
appropriate for the housing authority to exempt some residents. My own
personal opinion is the vast majority of the people in the housing
authority will be able to meet this work requirement because it is
ridiculously low. I started out saying, I used to have to work 24 hours
a month to get a room the size of a walk-in closet.
We have got people who are getting apartments with several bedrooms,
a
[[Page H2136]]
kitchen. They are getting free electricity, free heat, and the
gentleman is saying they cannot work 2 hours a week. Come on. Give me a
break. That is one Oprah Winfrey show, that they cannot find somebody
to mind their kids for 2 hours within the authority.
Now, there may be some situations where that would arise. I believe
my exemption here would give the authority some flexibility to do that.
I just want to comment on one thing. In Florida, we had welfare
reform in Florida and in one of the counties in Florida there is a work
requirement in the whole State. After 2 years they have to go to work.
In one of the counties, they decided to set up a citizens panel to see
if they were doing something wrong. They had these citizens review
these cases of people being put off of welfare. On every single case
they reviewed about 36 cases. They have put every single one of them
off because the people were making absolutely no attempt to find a job.
I think what we are doing here with my secondary amendment is we are
giving the housing authority some flexibility. If there is a mom in the
building who really legitimately cannot break away for 2 hours a week
or 8 hours a month, you are talking about one 8-hour shift a month. I
think this is a very, very fair and reasonable solution.
I will say it again, I think 8 hours is too low. I have got an
amendment I will offer, I think it should be 12 hours or more. I had to
work 24 hours a month to get a room the size of a walk-in closet.
Do my colleagues want to know something? In the dormitory I lived in,
that was very competitive. All the students in the dorm wanted that.
There was very, very vigorous competition for the privilege of getting
a room the size of a broom closet in exchange for working 24 hours a
month. So I think this perfecting amendment is a reasonable compromise
to the concerns of the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Jackson].
If his concerns are that he does think that there are some people in
the housing authority who will not be able to meet the work
requirement, my amendment achieves that desired goal. I personally do
not think that is the intent. The intent is to gut this. They do not
want any work requirement.
Mr. BARRETT of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. WELDON of Florida. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.
Mr. BARRETT of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, I went to college, worked my
way through college as well. I was not a single parent at the time. Was
the gentleman from Florida a single parent at the time he was asked to
do this work requirement?
Mr. WELDON of Florida. No. I was a college student.
Mr. BARRETT of Wisconsin. OK. I thank the gentleman.
Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. WELDON of Florida. I yield to the gentleman from Illinois.
Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, what does the gentleman from
Florida [Mr. Weldon] propose should happen to the other 80 percent
under his amendment who do not meet the gentleman's threshold?
Mr. WELDON of Florida. I believe that they will be able to make
accommodations and they will be able to meet the work requirement, and
I think it will serve the community extremely well. I think there will
be enhanced community spirit. I think it will deal with a lot of the
problems with vandalism in the housing projects. I think it will help
deal with crime in the housing projects.
Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. The gentleman from Florida's specific
amendment states before ``single parent,'' the gentleman wants to
insert ``for not more than 20 percent of the total number of families
assisted by a housing agency.''
My specific question is, what becomes of the 80 percent in any given
public housing agency who meet the threshold, who meet the criteria
that we speak of in the amendment but do not meet the gentleman's
threshold, which is precisely what the gentleman's amendment proposes
to do?
Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I think it
is absurd to argue that 100 percent are not going to be able to eke out
2 hours a week or 8 hours a month.
Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. WELDON of Florida. I am happy to yield to the gentleman from
Illinois.
Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, why should not 100 percent of
people who are primary care givers for children under the age of 6 or
elderly persons or persons with disability meet that criteria?
Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, there are
some people who will have a legitimate case that they cannot get away.
There are some that do not.
Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last
word.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the gentleman's amendment for
reasons I have already stated but I want to reiterate. This last-minute
amendment strikes and allows before ``single parents'' that a public
housing authority can only exempt 20 percent of the total number of
families assisted by that public housing agency for a particular
amendment that my amendment offers.
We simply provide an exemption for a single parent, a grandparent or
a spouse of an otherwise already exempt individual who is the primary
caretaker of one or more of the following: children who are 6 years of
age or under, elderly persons who obviously cannot care for themselves,
and persons with disabilities.
This is a common-sense, family-values amendment; and why the
gentleman from Florida [Mr. Weldon] is opposed to this particular
amendment as it is stated and written is just unfortunate, Mr.
Chairman. I think it speaks to the mean-spiritedness that is certainly
surrounding some elements of this bill.
Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to
this amendment. I think that the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Jackson]
has a very reasonable approach to this.
The chairman of the committee has indicated that there are a number
of exemptions. The only issue here is whether or not a mother with
children or a primary care giver ought to be considered to have been
doing a public service or volunteer work.
I do not know anybody in this country who has had children who does
not think that taking care of those children is the most important
volunteer work we can do in the United States of America. It is the
future of our country. It takes an enormous amount of energy. It is the
kind of values that I think we ought to be sustaining and encouraging
in this country.
I am shocked to hear that the Republicans oppose this, and the
Republican agenda is now that we no longer consider taking care of
children to be volunteer work. What could be more important than taking
care of our Nation's children?
If we are going to be considering this in terms of public housing,
why should we not be considering that to be qualified? Is it not as
well qualified as raking leaves? Is it not as well qualified as going
down and cleaning up a playground? I know that the gentleman from
Florida [Mr. Weldon], the doctor, feels that people in public housing
hang around and watch Oprah Winfrey, as he suggested in his last
comments.
{time} 1515
But I do not think that is a fair characterization of what goes on in
public housing. And all we are trying to suggest is that if someone is
the primary caregiver to a family with underage children, then maybe
this should be considered a worthy voluntary effort on their part to
take up those children.
We pay caregivers across this country. We pay and encourage child
care. There was an effort to include child care in the past welfare
bill.
I am really kind of taken aback by the fact that this amendment was
not accepted by the chairman of the committee. I asked the chairman of
the committee if he would accept this provision. It seemed to me to be
a very fair and reasonable provision that the gentleman from Illinois
had come up with, and in the spirit of working together in a bipartisan
way to come up with a reasonable approach to how to deal with these
issues that divide us, I thought this was a very reasonable way to move
forward.
I guess I am just dumbfounded by the fact the chairman would not have
accepted what I think is a very reasonable position. And I would
predict that
[[Page H2137]]
if this bill ever moves to conference and actually gets to a point
where we are talking about enacting this and its coming back into law,
I would be very shocked to find that this provision was not taken up.
I do not know what the move is here. It seems to me it is fairly
straightforward; that anybody that is taking care of children under the
age of six ought to be recognized for the contributions they are making
not only to that family but to the future of this country.
Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. I yield to the gentleman from Florida.
Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for
yielding, and I would point out to the gentleman that part of the work
requirement would include child care; if there is a day care center in
the project, that working in that child care center would qualify as a
work requirement.
Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, I
would point out to the gentleman that maybe he has access to a lot of
child care, but most public housing agencies do not have access, and
most public housing projects do not have access to child care.
So while that may appear to be an easy solution for the gentleman, it
is not, in fact, an easy solution for a lot of the public housing
residents we are talking about.
Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield again?
Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. I yield to the gentleman from Florida.
Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I would say to the gentleman
that they would be able with this work requirement to create a child
care facility within the housing project.
Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Taking back my time, Mr. Chairman, the
gentleman obviously does not understand some of the costs that are
associated with taking up child care.
If the gentleman was here and paid attention to the child care
debate, there are all sorts of rules and regulations pertaining to
child care and the like. That is not really what the issue is.
The truth of the matter is I think we should be encouraging mothers
and families to take care of their children in their own homes and
valuing that as a society. They do not have to be dropping them off in
a child care center in order to get credit for it. They ought to be
getting just as much credit in the family home as they do taking them
to a child care center.
I thought that was, as a matter of fact, one of the core values we
were trying to encourage in this country, not to go take children off
to somebody else's home but to bring them up ourselves. And why is that
not an effort? Why is that not a reasonable effort and one that should
qualify under the gentleman's notions of volunteerism?
Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. I yield to the gentleman from Florida.
Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Chairman, the intent here is that it is
possible within the constraints the gentleman is describing----
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. (Mr. LaHOOD). The time of the gentleman
from Massachusetts [Mr. Kennedy] has expired.
Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the
requisite number of words.
I made no bones about it, I thought it was cavalier, paternalistic,
and demeaning to even have a provision that mandates volunteerism,
which, in itself, to me, are two internally inconsistent concepts:
mandates and volunteerism. Those two things do not even go together.
We are demeaning this institution now, and we have gone from the
sublime to the ridiculous. The gentleman comes forward with a
completely reasonable amendment that says let us exempt people from
this volunteer requirement if they are taking care of a disabled
relative or if they are taking care of a child at home, both provisions
that are not made in the underlying bill. It is a very, very reasonable
amendment that the gentleman from Illinois has raised.
My colleague from Florida comes and says, oh no, we cannot accept
that, but we will give the gentleman a 20 percent requirement. This
takes us back to yesterday when in the general debate the notion was
that anybody who disagreed with anything in this bill was bad.
We have got a perfect bill here, according to my colleagues, and
anybody who disagrees with anything in it, regardless of how ridiculous
it is, we are going to stand up and defend it at all costs. We will be
here all afternoon defending this ridiculous provision in the bill.
Mr. LEACH. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. WATT of North Carolina. I yield to the gentleman from Iowa.
Mr. LEACH. Mr. Chairman, I would say to the gentleman, as he knows,
in the Committee on Banking and Financial Services on which he sits, 65
amendments from the minority side were considered and 29 were passed.
So this bill has the strong fingerprints of the minority.
Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, let me
say to the chairman that we have never, ever passed a perfect bill out
of this House. Never. I do not care who wrote it, who amended it,
regardless of the circumstance, we have never passed a perfect bill out
of this House.
And the notion that somehow somebody who comes forward, just because
they happen to be on the Democratic side, with a good idea and amends
this bill is somehow protecting the status quo or is disingenuous or
not being reasonable, is just ridiculous to me. We have never had a
perfect bill out of this institution. We never will. And this one is
not perfect.
Now, if I accept the chairman's argument, we got to a perfect bill in
the Committee on Banking and Financial Services and, therefore, we
ought not do anything else on the floor to improve that bill. This is
an improvement to the bill. It is something that the Republicans told
us in committee that they thought would be covered anyway.
If a person went out to work at a rest home or a nursing home where
there are disabled people, then they would qualify as a volunteer. Why
can they not do it in the confines of their own house and have it. If
they go out and work at a child care center and volunteer, it
qualifies. Why could it not qualify if they are volunteering in the
confines of their own home?
This is ridiculous, to stand up and try to defend against this
reasonable amendment. And now my chairman comes back and says, oh,
well, reasonable housing authorities at the local level will let people
go outside their door and sweep and they can satisfy their volunteer
requirement that way. That is ridiculous.
And when the local housing authorities, who they will not give any
discretion under the provisions of this bill, when they go and say, OK,
we will let them sweep right outside their door.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The time of the gentleman from North
Carolina [Mr. Watt] has expired.
(By unanimous consent, Mr. Watt of North Carolina was allowed to
proceed for 1 additional minute.)
Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Then they will come back and cite the
local housing authorities for not complying with the law, because they
will say, oh no, we wrote a perfect bill, and how dare they tell the
Federal Government that they will not comply with the spirit and the
letter of the law.
My colleagues, we have reached a point of ridiculousness here. It is
ridiculous partisanship. If this amendment were offered by a Republican
on the floor of this House, it would have passed just like that. And
the only thing we are defending against is pride here. Partisan pride.
That is all we are defending against and we ought to be ashamed of
ourselves.
Mr. LEACH. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. WATT of North Carolina. I yield to the gentleman from Iowa.
Mr. LEACH. First, I hope the gentleman recognizes that this side has
a lot of respect for the perspective being put forth.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The time of the gentleman from North
Carolina [Mr. Watt] has again expired.
(By unanimous consent, Mr. Watt of North Carolina was allowed to
proceed for 30 additional seconds.)
Mr. LEACH. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
[[Page H2138]]
Mr. WATT of North Carolina. I yield to the gentleman from Iowa.
Mr. LEACH. This side has never made a statement this is a perfect
bill. We are dealing with each issue on its merits. But I would stress
to the gentleman, in terms of partisanship, the provision that we are
defending came to us, largely speaking, from the administration and we
supported it.
Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, the
administration, I believe, would support the gentleman's amendment to
this bill.
Has anybody called the administration? I guess we are going to call
the President every time we pass some legislation in this body. We have
never done that before and I do not want to start now.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The time of the gentleman from North
Carolina [Mr. Watt] has again expired.
(On request of Mr. Kennedy of Massachusetts, and by unanimous
consent, Mr. Watt of North Carolina was allowed to proceed for 30
additional seconds.)
Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. WATT of North Carolina. I yield to the gentleman from
Massachusetts.
Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I just want to point out
to the chairman of the full committee that he has cited on a number of
occasions the fact this is a Democratic provision. The truth of the
matter is, if we go back through the legislative history of this
provision, it came from a Senator on the Republican side of the other
body who inserted it in a bill 2 years ago that nobody thought was
going anywhere.
It is not a proper representation to suggest that this is a provision
that came from the Democratic side or from the President of the United
States. It is just not proper.
Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I will
say it should not matter who offered the amendment. It is a good
amendment. We should support it. The gentleman from Iowa should consent
to it.
Mr. LEACH. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
I think it only fair that we lay on the record what is the
circumstance in the fairest possible way. The gentleman from
Massachusetts may well be right that originally a legislator may have
come up with this idea. But the gentleman from Massachusetts, I think,
will acknowledge that the bill that was transferred from the Department
of Housing and Urban Development under Secretary Cuomo, that was
introduced by the gentleman from New York, [Mr. Lazio], and by the
gentleman from Massachusetts, [Mr. Kennedy], contained a community
service component of 8 hours of work per month.
And I would ask the gentleman, is it not true that, basically
speaking, in the nomenclature and the vocabulary of the House of
Representatives, when an executive branch agency or department presents
a bill to the U.S. Congress, it is normally considered to be the
administration position?
Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. LEACH. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.
Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. For purposes of clarification, it is my
understanding that the bill that the President, that HUD submitted,
does not contain this as a binding agreement. It does not evict
someone, and it is not a term of the lease, No. 1. No. 2, it does in
fact contain the provisions that the gentleman from Illinois [Mr.
Jackson], is offering.
Mr. LEACH. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, I will respond directly
to the gentleman.
The majority would like to acknowledge that there are certain
tightening up circumstances that have occurred in this bill under the
committee markup process. But I would like to read to the gentleman
precisely the bill submitted by Secretary Cuomo, under section 111,
community service requirements for the public housing in section 8
programs. And it reads, and I quote directly, this is the position of
the Department of Housing and Urban Development, which is a part of the
Clinton administration:
``Notwithstanding any other provision of law, each adult member of
each family residing in public housing or assisted under section 8,
shall, without compensation, participate for not less than 8 hours per
month in community service activities not to include any political
activity within the community in which that adult resides.''
{time} 1530
The reason I stress this, I think it is absolutely fair for any
individual Member on either side of this body to disagree with the
administration. I think it is absolutely fair to disagree with any
provision in this bill. I happen to believe that virtually all American
Presidents are more than half right more than half the time, and so I
have been criticized for being inconsistent in sometimes supporting a
President and sometimes not. That is a matter of individual judgment at
a time, and I think the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Kennedy] and
the gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. Watt] are thoroughly within
their rights to disagree, even though they are disagreeing with a
provision of a bill that they themselves introduced by request, and
when you introduce by request, it does not mean that you agree with all
subtle points.
Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. LEACH. I yield to the gentleman from North Carolina.
Mr. WATT of North Carolina. I appreciate the gentleman yielding.
My question to the gentleman is, what difference does it make? If the
gentleman thinks this is a good idea, and I think everybody does, what
difference does it make whether the President sent a bill over that
said something different? What difference does it make if you passed a
bill out of the committee? If you think it is a good idea, support it.
Mr. LEACH. Let me recapture my time. The gentleman makes a very good
point, with this exception. It has been your side of the aisle that is
trying to define a partisan differentiation, not simply an issue of
judgment. Repeatedly on your side of the aisle, there has been an
effort directed at given constituencies in America to try to say the
miserable Republicans, or implying the Republicans are attempting to do
this to you. All I am suggesting is that this is a judgment that I
think the majority of Republicans probably support, a number on your
side of the aisle will probably support, and the Executive Branch
supports in broad precept. I make this point because it is very
important in terms of public policy, if Congress passes a law of this
nature, that people in public housing should not then come to think
that this is a Republican ax held over their head. It is the judgment
of the Congress, a bipartisan kind of judgment of which there are
individuals that will differ. But I refuse to hear the suggestion and
implication that you as individual Members stand for the complete
Democratic Party. You may stand for the majority of the Congressional
Democrats, but on this particular issue in broad measure, the Executive
Branch differentiates itself from you and is closer to our side.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). The time of the gentleman from
Iowa [Mr. Leach] has expired.
(On request of Mr. Kennedy of Massachusetts, and by unanimous
consent, Mr. Leach was allowed to proceed for 2 additional minutes.)
Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. LEACH. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.
Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, first I want to go back
to the gentleman citing this initial law. I go back to the issue that
there was an intention and there is an intention on the Democratic side
to encourage individuals to participate in volunteering who receive
public housing. There is also a recognition that this should not be a
term of the lease. In other words, yes, they shall in fact participate
in volunteerism and the like. We do not as Democrats always agree on
every provision. The gentleman is correct in pointing out that there is
perhaps a broad agreement in this country that what we ought to do is
fix up public housing by virtue of abandoning our commitment to the
very poor. It is within the rights of those of us within the Democratic
Party, and I would hope maybe a few in the Republican Party, that think
that it is wrong as policy of this country for us to turn around and
abandon the poorest people
[[Page H2139]]
in this country so that we can say that public housing works simply
because we no longer provide them a benefit. I think that that is a
moral question, and I think that these are issues that get to the heart
of what this country is all about, and I think that these are issues
that need to be openly and honestly debated. I think when one
particular party happens to agree with that set of policies and there
is great division in the other party, that it is perfectly reasonable
for us to characterize what is coming out by your own admission as a
policy that is generated largely by virtue of what your party has come
to stand for. It seems to me that it is eminently reasonable for us to
characterize the way your party has acted towards the poorest and most
vulnerable as insensitive to their needs. I appreciate the gentleman
yielding.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The time of the gentleman from Iowa [Mr.
Leach] has again expired.
(By unanimous consent, Mr. Leach was allowed to proceed for 2
additional minutes.)
Mr. LEACH. Mr. Chairman, in responding, let me just put this in a
little broader background: 2\1/2\ years ago, there was a major effort
and consideration by this administration to eliminate HUD. That effort
received widespread consideration in this body. Our committee, of which
the gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. Watt] and the gentleman from
Massachusetts [Mr. Frank] are members, made a collective kind of
decision to try to not eliminate public housing but to reform it. The
dollars that we have put on the table are precisely the dollars
requested by the President of the United States, Mr. Clinton. The
reforms are in large measure consistent with the proposals of the
Department of Housing and Urban Development. I acknowledge on this
issue, and also with regard to this amendment, there are some
differentiations. This amendment, for example, addresses a point where
the committee may have gone further than the bill that HUD supplied,
but we think we are largely consistent. But having said that, the big
picture is that we have made a decision to try to reform rather than to
allow continued stultification and decay. We believe we are in tune
with the American people on the view that when one receives a benefit,
to the maximum extent possible, there ought to be something provided
back in a public kind of way. That is what we have on the table and
what you have every right to individually differentiate yourself with.
But in large measure, the approach the Committee on Banking and
Financial Services has brought forth is one in which we have worked
very closely with HUD. HUD has worked very closely with us, and by HUD,
I do not mean it in broad terms, I mean the administration and the
Presidency.
Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. LEACH. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The time of the gentleman from Iowa [Mr.
Leach] has again expired.
(On request of Mr. Kennedy of Massachusetts, and by unanimous
consent, Mr. Leach was allowed to proceed for 2 additional minutes.)
Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I would point out to the
gentleman that I have been asked by HUD to submit an alternative bill
because of the significant differences that exist between HUD and the
Republican version of this bill, No. 1.
No. 2, I do believe, as I have said earlier, that there are
significant differences between the way we are approaching taking care
of the very poor in this country, the kinds of requirements that we are
putting only on the poor in this bill with regard to how we are
handling the fact that we expect them to volunteer. I am sure the
gentleman from Iowa, who has had a very balanced approach to his
legislative career, would understand that there are a lot of people in
this country that gain great benefits, financial benefits, much more
substantial than the families that go into public housing, that are
never asked to volunteer at all. I would just like to understand from
the gentleman from Iowa why he believes that it is fair to ask people
in public housing to submit to this kind of voluntarism but it is not
fair to ask people that get other kinds of tax benefits, people that
get oil and gas benefits, people that get benefits from the Eximbank,
or the Housing Administration.
Mr. LEACH. I think the gentleman makes a fair inquiry. Whether it is
exactly apples and oranges, I will put aside. But I would say the
effort of the majority side at this time is to enhance and increase the
incentive for work and to enhance social obligation. The gentleman's
uncle was a great believer in community service, in public service.
That is what this bill is designed to enhance at the local level. I do
not mean to say I presume that I speak more for the gentleman's uncle
than he can.
Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. I appreciate that, Mr. Chairman. I am
not going to react to that one. I appreciate the fact that the
gentleman has cited, I assume, President Kennedy for his efforts on
trying to give people the notion that we all have a responsibility to
give back to this country.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The time of the gentleman from Iowa [Mr.
Leach] has again expired.
(On request of Mr. Kennedy of Massachusetts, and by unanimous
consent, Mr. Leach was allowed to proceed for 2 additional minutes.)
Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. But I do not believe that President
Kennedy or anybody else ever suggested for one moment that that was to
be the exclusive provision of the poor, but rather that that ought to
be a uniform sense across this country.
The trouble, Mr. Chairman, is that within this bill what we see is an
almost mean spiritedness that qualifies only the poor for the programs.
If they gain a benefit from the United States, they are forced to give
back, or they are thrown out of their homes. This is patently unfair
and is an indication that poverty is equated with immorality.
Mr. LEACH. Mr. Chairman, if I could reclaim my time, I say to the
gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Kennedy], nobody on this side of the
aisle said poverty is equated with immorality. That is language that
comes from your side and it is a debate technique attempting to put an
idea on our side.
The second point, I just think it very important to say, the words
mean spirited has been introduced. No one to my knowledge has
approached this from a mean-spirited direction. To the degree that any
appellation applies, it has to also apply to the administration who
submitted this precept. And so if there is either a positive or a
pejorative, it has to be considered collective, I am sure shared by
some on the gentleman's side of the aisle as it is shared by the
administration.
Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I would just point out to
the gentleman that another gentleman on your side of the aisle
suggested that what the poor in public housing do is sit around and
watch Oprah Winfrey. I believe, Mr. Chairman, that that has racist
characteristics that ought to be dealt with by the gentleman's side.
That is a mean-spirited comment.
Mr. LEACH. I did not hear those words. I will look for them in the
Record.
Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. LEACH. I yield to the gentleman from Illinois.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The time of the gentleman from Iowa [Mr.
Leach] has again expired.
(On request of Mr. Jackson of Illinois, and by unanimous consent, Mr.
Leach was allowed to proceed for 1 additional minute.)
Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Chairman, I just want to make one clear observation. My amendment
says that a mother with a newborn can be exempted from this particular
requirement for caring for her newborn. His amendment specifically says
that only 20 percent of those residing in a public housing authority
can be exempted for having a newborn. That is the difference between my
amendment and his amendment. I say 100 percent of women with newborns
under the age of 6 or caring for their children, caring for senior
citizens, caring for those that are physically disabled should be
exempted. His amendment calls for only 20 percent and no provision
whatsoever for how that 20 percent should be determined in a given
public housing authority. That, sir, from my position and my
perspective, and I say this respectfully, is quite mean spirited.
[[Page H2140]]
Mr. LEACH. I think the gentleman makes decent points and they ought
to be respected.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the
requisite number of words.
Let me begin in a spirit of conciliation. The chairman has several
times cited the position of the President. I would ask unanimous
consent that we substitute the language submitted in this regard by the
administration for the language in the bill.
Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I object.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. The gentleman objects. The gentleman has
a right to object, but what he cannot do is object to the insertion of
the President's language and continue to cite it. I know lawyers
sometimes get criticized but they have a very useful term called
estoppel. If in fact the gentleman objects as he has just done to using
the President's language on this as the legislation, he is estopped
from using the President as the justification. So I trust the
Republican side having objected to my effort to amend it with the
President's language, we will not hear the President again invoked. The
President I suppose in this bill as far as you are concerned will be
here in spirit even though he cannot be here in language, but I do not
think that is an appropriate parliamentary thing. Let us now get that
stalking horse out of here.
We are prepared to accept the President's language. Your side
apparently is not. If you want to, and it is only one objective, maybe
we can work this out. Second, let us now talk about the substance. The
fact is, and here is why I subscribe to the language of my friends from
North Carolina, Illinois, and Massachusetts, why I believe this does
bespeak a meanness toward people in low income. Let me give an analogy.
We had a very similar debate about this during the welfare bill. Some
of us felt that the language as it applied to legal immigrants, with
regard to the exclusion of legal immigrants from a whole variety of
programs was mean. We were told, oh, no, that is just soft. The
American people want it. The gentleman from Iowa said we are in tune
with the American people. You may have been in tune with the American
people last year and what have you got, a situation which almost
everybody admits is intolerable. We did exactly that last year. We
listened to the people who said let us get tough and let us not fool
around and we now have 80-year-olds desperate, 80-year-olds committing
suicide in some cases. You are going to have to try to fix it. Do not
make the mistake again.
Impose on every housing authority, everywhere in America, this
obligation. By the way, let us note that using this kind of labor in
some cases will cost you more than it will bring in in dollars. We are
not talking about something that has any cash value. It is going to be
expensive for some housing authorities to administer this.
{time} 1545
What did CBO say it is going to cost? About $30 million, $35 million.
For the larger housing authorities, they can probably absorb it. For
the smaller ones, it does not. My colleagues underfund the housing
authorities and simultaneously impose this requirement on them, and
they impose it only on the very poor, only on the unemployed poor.
We can say, ``Well, we'll think about it,'' but nobody has done this
for recipients of direct subsidy from the Export-Import Bank, nobody
has done this for the people who get farm subsidies, no one has done it
for a whole range of other things, and to single out the lowest income
group and impose this restriction bespeaks the sense that they are
therefore really people of low moral fiber. Why do my colleagues have
to force them to do this? Why do they pick out the poorest of the poor
and say, if they are not working, we are going to make them do this,
because the underlying assumption is these are not people of great
moral worth, these are not people who will do it, and please, as I say
again, do not, basic principle, do not invoke the President if my
colleagues are not prepared to invoke the President. If my colleagues
want to accept the President's language, invoke the President for
support, but if they object to the President's language, let us not
have the President being thrown in that way.
This is a very clear-cut singling out of the poorest of the poor in
public housing.
Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I yield to the gentleman from Illinois.
Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I just want to make sure that
it is clear, because I get the impression we are getting ready for a
vote shortly, this is the amendment that says that 80 percent of
mothers in public housing with newborns can be evicted for failure to
volunteer.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman has clearly
not followed this. Yes, we believe in this body that women with their
children or fathers with their children should be there and there is
some evidence that that is important, but if they are poor enough, then
they lose that right to do it all the time, and 8 hours a month in
principle may not be that much, but if one does not have child care
available to them, 8 hours a month could be a problem, particularly if
they have to schedule the 8 hours. There may be some unscheduled
problems with the children, and I have to say imposing this restriction
on every housing authority, whether they want to do it or not, on
everyone in the country, yes, it does to us mean that our colleagues
are singling out the poorest of the poor for a harsh treatment.
And I will concede one thing to the gentleman from Iowa. He says this
is philosophically in tune with the people. I recognize, given the
distorted view of things it comes across, it will be popular, but it is
mean, it is not right, and I would hope we would at least make this
exemption.
Mr. POSHARD. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, I think citizens in this country ask one thing of their
government above all other things. That is a sense of fairness, a sense
of justice, a sense of consistency in the way we treat people
irrespective of their economic wherewithal or irrespective of their
needs.
There is a wonderful line in a poem by Robert Frost, the poem called
``Death of the Hired Man.'' Silas, the old hired man, has come back
home. He is still able-bodied, but the gentleman who owned the farm
said to the lady he ought to have to earn his way here. He has come
back home, and we should not keep him unless he can earn his way.
Now I remember the words of the lady who spoke to her husband, and
she said, ``You know, home is something you somehow have not to
deserve. Home is the place that when you got to go there, they got to
take you in.''
Now think about that. That is the real argument here. America, out of
its goodness, provides a home for a lot of people who are in very
difficult circumstances, and what some folks here want to do is say,
``Nah, before we provide it, they have to somehow earn it, they have to
deserve it.'' That is not what the heart of America says. That has
never been what the heart of America says. America says just what
Robert Frost said:
``Home is somehow something you have not to deserve.''
That is what we owe our poorest people. We cannot legalize their
sense of contribution to the little box where they live. That does not
make it right or make it better.
If we want to do something, why do we not direct our efforts to
provide more education, more training, more opportunity so people can
escape some of these circumstances? That ought to be the real thrust of
what we do out of the heart of America.
I have 46,000 families in my district, one of the largest districts
in the Nation, that have earned income tax credit qualifiers. I know
what people's perception of poverty is in this country. Five percent of
those people in the earned income tax credit in my district are black;
the rest of them are all white.
Listen. They work really hard. They do not want to stay in these
circumstances. They never wanted to be in them to begin with. They want
hope. Just go there and talk to them. My colleagues would not get a
sense that they are lazy or they want to be there. Most of them already
work 20 hours a week for the welfare benefits that they get. That
little box they call home is about
[[Page H2141]]
all they really feel is theirs. Do not demean their ownership.
Opportunity, not mandating their innate sense of contribution, is what
they need.
None of us, none of us in this country, really deserve the tremendous
good that our country gives to all of us. I can think of 100 different
categories of people which the Federal Government helps who we do not
mandate that they do anything to deserve the help. We build ballparks,
race tracks for people who are multimillionaires, and we do not say,
``You got to do something to deserve it.''
I go through a major airport at least two or three times a week. I do
not see many poor people there flying. We pay for that with tax money.
I go to our great land grant institutions of higher learning. Ninety
percent of the children that are there are children that are from
wealthy families or families at least that have a decent wherewithal.
They are not poor children. We pay for that with tax dollars. We do not
say they have to deserve this.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). The time of the gentleman from
Illinois [Mr. Poshard] has expired.
(On request of Mr. Jackson of Illinois, and by unanimous consent, Mr.
Poshard was allowed to proceed for 1 additional minute.)
Mr. POSHARD. Let us not make the poor people of our country feel like
they are the only ones who have to deserve the goodness, the heart of
our Nation, that they have to prove that they are deserving to live in
housing that the rest of us here in this body probably would not live
in if it were given to us for free. That is what this is really about.
We are changing the ground rules here. We are flying in the face of
something very basic and fundamental as Americans, and we ought not to
do it unless we are willing to do it across all classes and be
consistent for all manner of people and needs.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, the words that have been spoken today on both sides do
address the heart of the issue. The heart of the issue is whether we
are going to ask those people who are American citizens, those people
who live in public housing, whether they are going to participate in an
America that is moving forward.
On March 6 of this year, I am the person that engaged Secretary Cuomo
on the discussion as it related to H.R. 2, section 105, and that is the
discussion that I attempted to engage with the leading housing
authority in this country on this specific issue, the issue of how are
we going to have people who live in public housing who are not employed
but who receive something of substance from the Government, how are we
going to enable these people to become a part of the process not only
within their own housing unit but within the general community? And I
must tell my colleagues that as I talked to Secretary Cuomo the sense
that I received was that in the spirit in which we meant it is that we
need people to participate in America.
Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Chairman, I will yield to the gentleman in just one
moment, because we were there that same day and I would like the
gentleman to recount the same things that I heard.
I would like for the Record to once again be noted that Secretary
Cuomo agreed with this section, and it is specifically my point in
rising today that I believe we are asking for participation from those
people who live in public units to become a part of that public unit
and to make it work.
Lastly my point, and then I will yield, I believe that what we should
do is listen to the people who are in the business of public housing
about how they see the public policy working, and Secretary Cuomo said
he agreed with it. It was a forthright, honest question that I gave to
him, and he gave me a forthright honest answer.
Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr.
Kennedy].
Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for
yielding.
Mr. Chairman, I think a lot of the sort of inclinations that the
gentleman has I think are reasonable. I think that the real question is
whether or not we are going to be evenhanded with this notion of how we
expect people to react to this renewed sense of commitment to America,
and what I wonder is in this bill there are a lot of landlords that are
going to have, they are going to make millions of dollars.
Mr. SESSIONS. That is not the discussion of this bill. That is not
the discussion about who is making money and who is not because that is
an investment issue.
Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. If the gentleman will continue to
yield, I just have a question for him.
There are a lot of landlords that in this bill are going to make
millions of dollars this year. They are going to be people that own
project-based section 8 housing, people that receive section 8
vouchers, and be all sorts of folks that make money.
Now, I wonder whether or not the gentleman feels that those
individuals that are going to make money out of this bill have the same
requirement for voluntarism that the people that occupy the public
housing do.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Chairman, it should be noted that they have
invested that money for the purpose which is for the good of all
people. They get up and go to work every day. I would like to say that
even though I have what might be considered a full-time job I still
take time to volunteer.
Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. If the gentleman would continue to
yield, I am not discounting his voluntarism.
Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. SESSIONS. I yield to the gentleman from Illinois.
Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I want to make it clear
because I was also a participant in the conversation with Secretary
Cuomo on that particular occasion. Secretary Cuomo also made it clear
that failure to volunteer was not a binding lease term and he would not
support the eviction of an individual for failing to volunteer. And we
made a distinction on that occasion between public service in terms of
voluntarism; i.e., Boy Scouts and Girl Scouts, a form of volition, and
another form punitive in nature, which this bill and this particular
section that the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Weldon] has recommended
speaks to, and that is that right now 80 percent of mothers in public
housing, under Mr. Weldon's amendment, 80 percent of women in public
housing who have newborns will subsequently be evicted if, in fact,
they do not volunteer, and that is what we are talking about.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, let me ask the
gentleman this. The gentleman's amendment evidently talks about
children up to the age of 6; is that correct?
Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. I would think that is exactly what my
amendment speaks to.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Sessions] has
expired.
(On request of Mr. Jackson of Illinois, and by unanimous consent, Mr.
Sessions was allowed to proceed for 1 additional minute.)
Mr. SESSIONS. So the question is, is that we should take these women
who have babies, children that are under 6, and to exempt them simply
because they might have children that they have to take care of?
Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman from Texas
again yield?
Mr. SESSIONS. I yield to the gentleman from Illinois.
Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. No, my amendment specifically states that a
single parent, a grandparent or a spouse of an otherwise already exempt
individual who is the primary caretaker of a child under 6, an elderly
person or person with disability, that they be exempted from the
community work requirement. The gentleman then subsequently proposed an
amendment that allows a public housing authority an amendment to my
amendment which simply suggests that only 20 percent of people living
in public housing should meet this requirement, and that is the
specific amendment that we are addressing, and therefore I raise the
question about the additional 80 percent that would not be exempted
under the gentleman's amendment.
That is specifically what we are talking about. His amendment says
that 80 percent of women in public housing who have newborn children
must volunteer, leave their child at home or
[[Page H2142]]
face eviction. That is what his amendment says.
{time} 1600
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the
requisite number of words.
Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the leadership of the gentleman from
Massachusetts [Mr. Kennedy] and of the gentleman from Illinois [Mr.
Jackson] on this issue in bringing it up for our attention.
I was prepared today to offer an amendment to eliminate totally this
aspect of this legislation. I think the amendment of the gentleman from
Illinois [Mr. Jackson] is eminently fair, it is reasonable, and it
responds to the concerns that I have heard expressed on behalf of the
American people.
I would simply like to ask the gentlemen on the other side of the
aisle why they would not accept the Jackson amendment, why they do not
believe that this is eminently fair, that they would distinguish those
parents, those disabled individuals, those caretakers. First of all,
they are representing that they are representing the American people,
and that is that America now is caught up in the emotion of
volunteerism.
Might I emphasize that volunteerism is just that. I believe in
volunteerism. I believe in what the President did over the last weekend
when thousands of people came and voluntarily came and voluntarily
committed themselves to volunteering. I believe in the schools who are
saying, we are not going to give diplomas unless some of our children
are engaged in volunteerism as a part of the diploma. I believe in
that. Why? Because children are in a learning mode.
So all of us are not to be labeled as fighting against this concept
of volunteerism, and the other side of the aisle holds up the moral
standard of volunteerism for this Nation.
The question is that my colleagues on the other side of the aisle are
forcing individuals who need a roof over their head to be able to say
that we have a place to live, to go out and abandon children, to not be
able to be the appropriate caretakers. And in actuality, my colleagues
are taking from them, without due process.
If we explain to the American people that we are categorizing poor
people, taking from them their rights without due process, I think the
American people would understand and believe that this side of the
aisle with this amendment, this fair amendment, is right. My colleagues
are denigrating them, and they are also disrespecting the volunteerism
that goes on in housing authorities across this land.
I have almost the largest number of housing units in my district in
the State of Texas, public housing units, section 8 vouchers. Those
individuals volunteer. I have personally worked with them myself to
clean up housing projects, housing developments. I have personally
worked with them, personally swept up, personally planted plants with
people who live in housing authorities. I have seen no lack of interest
in cleaning up their area, no lack of interest in beautification, no
lack of interest in volunteerism, begging for the community to come to
the housing developments, begging for them to volunteer with us.
This is an outrage. It is an outrage because my colleagues are
forcing the 8 hours on individuals that have been claimed, as the
Jackson amendment exempts, grandparents, spouses who are primary
caretakers for dependent young children, senior citizens or disabled
persons.
I cannot understand, and I would ask the gentleman from New York [Mr.
Lazio] as well, why he is not willing to accept this as a faithful
compromise to this issue, why the gentleman is not wanting to see us
work together to be able to provide this kind of leadership on this
issue.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding and,
in the bipartisanship from the State of Texas, I appreciate her words.
It is our concept and idea that this is a good idea. That is why we
are not yielding on this amendment. We think that volunteerism is
important. We would like to encourage, where appropriate, each of the
people who are in section 8 housing units to get together, those
mothers, to band together, to know each other, to get to know who their
children are, who those children are and to work together, and then to
allow, as a result of this community work, this volunteerism, to allow
a mother to go out and to expand her horizons.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I thank
the gentleman very much, out of the spirit of bipartisanship in the
State of Texas. Let me respond to that.
We had the welfare reform package that has indicated to those on
welfare, some of whom are in the public housing from welfare to work.
We have already set parameters for individuals to transition out of
dependency into independence. This issue of volunteerism should be what
it is.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). The time of the gentlewoman
from Texas [Ms. Jackson-Lee] has expired.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent for 1
additional minute.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentlewoman from Texas?
Mr. LAZIO of New York. Mr. Chairman, I am going to object to this.
People are waiting in line. Everyone is wanting to have a chance to
speak.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from New York
[Mr. Lazio] has not answered my question, and he has not objected to
more time for all the other speakers, and I would like to get an answer
to my question. It certainly seems to be unfair when we engage in this
debate to not give appropriate time. There have been unanimous consents
before without an objection.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. There is an objection.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Let me simply say, Mr. Chairman, the
gentleman is misguided and misdirected. I am withdrawing my amendment
in support of the amendment of the gentleman from Illinois [Mr.
Jackson], and I think my colleagues on the other side of the aisle all
need to do the same thing.
Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, I think everybody in the Chamber this afternoon wants
to resolve a problem that has persisted in this Nation for decades, and
that is the problem of poverty, particularly the problem of poverty in
public housing.
Someone mentioned that we are about to change the ground rules. I
think it is about time to change the ground rules. We are attempting to
change the ground rules so that we can cut the cycle of the paralysis
of poverty that has existed in public housing for far too long. We are
talking about women who have children should not be a part of this
particular program of voluntarism.
Well, No. 1, if someone living in public housing with children has a
part-time job, it is my understanding that they are exempt from this
voluntarism program. However, let us take a look at the women who are
not exempted, let us take a look at the women who are not working and
who have children. It seems to me that, if we create a structure where
these women will have an opportunity to have an exchange, a simple,
human exchange with other people for a couple of hours a week, that is
a positive thing. If we are to break the cycle of poverty, we need
people to have an exchange of information, an honest exchange of
information with other people within the community.
Women with children should be offered an opportunity to improve the
quality of their life. They will not improve the quality of their life
unless they have the chance, created by this structure, to exchange
information with other people, and the community, the public housing
project, the manager of that project, has the opportunity to create an
infinite number of volunteering opportunities, not just one or two. We
could even have two women in that project who would volunteer to baby-
sit 2 hours a week for their neighbor. That is an opportunity to
volunteer.
Let me make one other point. As we discuss this issue, I think a
fundamental issue has to be raised here. As we
[[Page H2143]]
discuss the issue of trying to break the cycle of poverty, which is
what has paralyzed people, often for decades, what is the mystery of
human initiative? Why do some people seem to be successful and other
people are not so successful? It seems to me, the mystery of human
initiative is responsibility, dignity, and compassion, and offering the
structure, a very flexible structure, so people will have the
opportunity to meet other people, to exchange ideas, to listen and
learn, to improve the quality of their life, the structure that we are
offering here, that the gentleman from New York [Mr. Lazio] is offering
here I think is beginning to resolve or solve that mystery. We are
offering people responsibility, we are offering people dignity, and in
the process we are offering people compassion.
Now, I want to look at public housing. I have many public housing
units in my district. I go from Baltimore city to the rural Eastern
Shore, and I can tell my colleagues some housing projects are wonderful
and some housing projects no one would want to live there, and no one
should live there.
The reasons for that are several. There is a lot of money pumped into
public housing projects. I can tell my colleagues just in my district,
and we relentlessly pursue this, a lot of that money never reaches the
maintenance of the public housing project. It never reaches the
problems of drug abuse. It never reaches the problems of recreation. It
never reaches the people that we intended that money to be served for.
Whose responsibility is that? It is each Member of Congress that needs
to get into every housing project in their district and see what some
of the problems are.
When we pass this bill, and I hope we pass this bill and I hope this
bill is signed into law by the President, it is not the end of it; it
is only the beginning of it. We should begin to pursue not only how
this volunteerism program works but follow the money trail, because I
would say right here on this House floor, Mr. Chairman, that there
should not be one housing project in the United States that is managed
well that should not be a fine example of how people should live, not
only the maintenance, but the education and how people are nurtured.
So I would support the amendment of the gentleman from New York [Mr.
Lazio].
Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, let me offer a suggestion as to what I think underlies
this. Mr. Chairman, I think that some of our friends over here on this
side know that the American people, many American people are very angry
and they are very frustrated. The reason is that, despite what we read
in the newspapers every day about our, quote unquote, booming economy,
what our Republicans friends know, some of our Democratic friends know,
is that the ordinary American is working longer hours for lower wages.
What our Republican friends know is that most of the new jobs that are
being created are low-wage jobs, they are often part-time jobs, they
are temporary jobs.
So the average American today is frustrated and is angry, because his
or her standard of living is in decline. They look around and they say,
well, why am I in worse shape than I was 10 years ago? Why are my kids
in worse shape than was the case in the previous generation? And
instead of having the courage to look at the real causes of our
problems, trying to understand that our jobs now are going to China and
to Mexico, trying to deal with the fact that, while the richest people
in America have never had it so good, the standard of living of working
people is in decline, trying to understand that the minimum wage has
not kept pace with inflation for 4 years, trying to really address the
frustrations and the angers of the middle class when our Republican
friends are saying, we know why they are hurting, and they are hurting
because all of their money is going to those poor people.
They are the ones who are taking the tax dollars. They forget to talk
about the $125 billion a year that goes in corporate welfare, tax
breaks and subsidies for the largest multinational corporations in the
country, many of which are taking our jobs to China and Mexico. We do
not talk about that. They do not talk about a housing policy through
the home interest mortgage reduction program which allows billionaires
to get checks from the Government when they deduct the interest on
their mortgage from their mansions.
We do not talk about that. But what we say, it is the poor people.
And then if we are going to target the poor people, we have to figure
out a way to humiliate them.
So what we say is: If you are poor and you live in a housing project,
you must work. Now, how do we have a volunteer program when we force
somebody to work? I have never heard about that. Now, some people say
well, we want to help these poor people. What about creating jobs that
actually pay something? Are my colleagues going to work with me for
having public works programs and get those people out so they can earn
a paycheck? I have not heard that.
What my colleagues are saying is: We want you to work, but we are not
going to pay you. We are going to give tremendous power and authority
to your supervisor, the administrator at the public housing authority,
to tell you what you are going to be volunteering to do.
{time} 1615
I would suggest that what this entire process is really about is
scapegoating; is having the middle class and the working people think
that their problems are because of the poor, rather than looking at
what the wealthy and the powerful are doing.
Mr. Chairman, I would suggest, somebody here before said about upper-
income people, you have upper-income people who are getting checks who
do not work. We have not heard any suggestion that maybe those people
might want to be forced to volunteer in order to get their checks from
the government.
I would suggest that this entire policy is one of an effort to
humiliate poor people; to get the middle class in opposition to poor
people, rather than to really look at what the causes of our problems
are.
Mr. FORD. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Jackson] and
the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Kennedy] for their leadership,
and even Chairman Lazio, and really make a final appeal to my
Republican colleagues to withdraw the Weldon amendment; that we all
recognize as we negotiate here on this House floor we must do what is
best for the American citizens, particularly our weakest citizens, our
economically weakest citizens.
Mr. Chairman, I echo and underscore many of the points that have been
made by several of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle,
particularly those who would suggest to us that we ought to be fair and
consistent in how we treat all Americans from an economic perspective.
To mandate to those who happen to be poor, who happen to not be able
to write huge checks to our campaigns, who happen to not be as
politically strong as some constituencies in this Nation, Mr. Speaker,
and I say to my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, we all know that
is wrong.
Let us support the Jackson amendment and do what is right for
America. If we are indeed sincere and serious about eradicating
poverty, or reducing levels of poverty, of giving children and young
people a chance in this Nation, let us do the right thing and provide
for senior citizens and caretakers to this Nation, who in a sense are
providing the grandest form of volunteer service, the tallest and
proudest form of public service.
I appeal to my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, do the right
thing. Do the American thing. Do the fair thing. Bring a sense of
justice or restore a sense of justice to this issue. Treat those who
live in public housing authorities like we treat those who receive tax
and oil subsidies in this Nation. Treat those who live in public
housing authorities like we treat those who receive any type of other
subsidy in this Nation.
Let us do the right thing. Let this body restore the confidence that
we know we deserve, that we have lost, that has been shattered. Let us
do the right thing and treat public housing residents like American
citizens.
[[Page H2144]]
Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Speaker, I have been listening to this debate in my office,
absolutely fascinated. I am seeing some people on both sides of the
aisle who I absolutely have the most tremendous admiration for. I
basically feel I have friends arguing with friends.
But this is a very important debate. It is a debate about an attitude
and an approach. I think that we could probably misread some of the
motivation on that side of the aisle, and I think they could probably
misread some of the motivation on this side. In my view, in the final
analysis, it is not what you do for your children but what you have
taught them to do for themselves that will make them successful human
beings.
I am sincerely not troubled by seeing a 4- or 5-year-old by his or
her mother. I think of my dad taking me outside and working at 2 or 3
or 4, just seeing my parents active and doing something. I do not view
this in the sense that this is a type of servitude. I view this as
opportunity.
If this legislation were to say or this amendment were to say 3 and
under, I would be more sympathetic. If it was disabled, I would be more
sympathetic. But it is just, to me, a gutting amendment. I do not
understand why a 6-year-old or a 5-year-old cannot work by their
parent. For me, I just feel that there is some kind of a disconnect
that is taking place here.
Democrats have pushed national service, legislation I strongly
support; AmeriCorps, which I strongly support. Our side says we do not
want the mandate and we do not want this kind of enforced opportunity
to volunteer. Now I see the role reversed. It is almost like they are
on the other side arguing against this concept of AmeriCorps and our
side is arguing for it. For me, this is a logical step.
Mr. Chairman, I had a young woman call me when I was a State
legislator and say she wanted to live in Stamford. She had a young
child at age 16. She was adamant that she be allowed to live in public
housing in Stamford. I said, we do not have any. But she said, it is my
right. I said, you have a young child. You are going to receive
welfare. You are also going to be provided a place in Bridgeport. Maybe
it is not Stamford.
Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. SHAYS. I yield to the gentleman from Illinois.
Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for
yielding.
Mr. Chairman, all of the information that we have from Time this
week, the cover of Newsweek, all of the indications are that children
between zero and 6, that is when their personalities are formed, it is
who they will be.
Are we saying that single parents can no longer----
Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I would love for a 4-
and a 5- and a 6-year-old who is going to be influenced, that they
would be influenced by seeing their parent work, and to see them at a
gainful activity that is of community service. So I view that as a
positive.
Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. SHAYS. I yield to the gentleman from North Carolina.
Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, one of the concerns I
expressed, and the gentleman should know this, I understand that what
the gentleman is suggesting is that they should take the children to
work with them when they are doing this volunteer work. One of the
serious concerns that we have raised is that there is no liability
protection if somebody gets hurt, and that is going to double that
concern, because not only can the parent then get hurt and not have
coverage, but the child can also get hurt.
Mr. SHAYS. Reclaiming my time, with all due respect, Mr. Chairman, I
think we can find 100 reasons why they may not want this. I think it is
an approach and an attitude. I view this as opportunity.
I congratulate the gentleman from New York [Mr. Rick Lazio] for what
he is trying to do. I understand the concern. If there was an effort to
amend this, I would be speaking for an amendment that said apply to 3
and under and disabilities, but it is just too broad. In my judgment it
is a gutting amendment.
Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. SHAYS. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.
Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. I would just like to follow up on the
point that my friend, the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Jackson], made.
The issue pertaining to the development of youngsters does not have
to do with the fact that they are in some kind of an eligible home or
some kind of day care center. It has to do with whether or not they are
in the loving arms of a parent or a grandparent. That is what all these
recent studies show.
What we are trying to suggest----
Mr. SHAYS. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, to me it is not just
being in the loving arms, it is seeing a parent who is setting an
example. Sometimes it is in the loving arms, sometimes it is working
side by side.
Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. If the gentleman will continue to yield, he
said to him; that is the operative word, to the gentleman from
Connecticut [Mr. Chris Shays], to you. But the reality is that the
scientific evidence says from zero to 6 they should stay close to their
parent.
Mr. SHAYS. Reclaiming my time, the gentleman misses the point. I do
think between 1 and 6 is a very important time in a child's life. I
think part of that is seeing a parent contributing to society and to
their community. I want a young child to see a parent contributing to
society.
Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the
requisite number of words.
We all know what is going on here. We should know what is going on
here. It is nothing different from the welfare bashing that we saw in
the last Congress. My colleague, the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr.
Frank] said it really well. They are playing upon a perception here.
They are bashing poor people just as they bashed immigrants.
Make no mistake, if the immigrants had been Irish overstays, there
would not have been half the impetus to pass that bill and go after
immigrants. It was the perception of Hispanic-Americans coming across
the southwestern border of this country, the anecdotal mythology about
legal immigrants and illegal immigrants. They did not even want to make
the distinction between legal immigrants and illegal immigrants.
What I am saying, Mr. Chairman, is they are going to pass a policy
here that says make the poor pay, because we know what the poor are. We
are talking minorities here. Make the poor pay. OK?
What they should be doing, if they really thought that people, the
Federal Government, ought to be getting a little bit of return on its
investment, which is what they are trying to cloak this argument as,
then why not apply it to every other Federal contract and Federal
program that is out there? They and I know why they are not doing it to
defense contractors. They and I know why they are not doing it to
farmers. They and I know, because that is not the same.
Excuse me, it is not the same? They are receiving taxpayers' money.
Why are they not volunteering? Because they know and I know what we are
talking about. They are talking about a perception out there of the
poor being minorities, and they are thinking, they ought to go out and
work, because my taxpayers back home are sick and tired of this welfare
state.
It was the same mistake they made with the immigrant, the legal
immigrants, because they did not want to make the distinction between
legal immigrants and illegal aliens, because they figure they are all
immigrants, OK? And we do not want to make the distinction because it
would hurt our political cause to be true to what the reality is,
because we are playing politics here. That is what we are doing.
We are playing politics, which is a dangerous thing. It is playing
politics with prejudice and playing politics in the kind of divide-and-
conquer way that these people have been so good at playing politics in
the last Congress, and they are continuing to play that same brand of
politics in this Congress.
I want to say that I want to support the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Jackson]. I think he is absolutely correct
in what he is fighting for here. If we are really caring about having
everyone sort of
[[Page H2145]]
volunteer if they are going to be given some Federal program, then we
ought to have it apply to a lot more programs than the ones that they
are trying to target here. That is poor people in Federal housing.
I think it is just a clear case of scapegoating, as my friend, the
gentleman from Vermont [Mr. Sanders] said earlier.
Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island. I yield to the gentleman from Minnesota.
Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, I want to rise in support of the Jackson
amendment and against the amendment being offered to the Jackson
amendment. I think the gentleman raises some important points.
I think we passed welfare reform. The question is, how many more
layers of bureaucracy do we need? How many more do we need? Do we need
one for food stamps? Do we need a layer of bureaucracy for public
housing? Why do we want to turn our public housing agencies into
employment? Is that going to be their role with this type of block
grant, these new types of mandates?
I think it is really a mistake to go down the path that is being
proposed here by the majority in this public housing. But for this fact
and some others, I think there have been some changes in this bill for
the good. But I think this fact, in terms of this sufficiency contract,
is superimposing something from Washington on thousands of local public
housing authorities, where we have already programs that deal with
JTPA, that deal with welfare reform. We already have those programs in
place now.
There was great debate about that in the last Congress. We are
obviously trying to clean up some of the problems with that that dealt
with the unfair aspects of it, that dealt with legal immigrants. I hope
we can do that.
The fact is, why do we not build in what we have in place in terms of
the child care, the skills, the education, the counseling and the other
services that are necessary? We know that those elements are necessary
in terms of health care, in order to move people into the world of
work, to let people do what they can for themselves.
But to try and superimpose this on a housing agency, with separate
records, proprietary and personal information that has to be dealt
with, the recordkeeping. Basically it comes down as a very, very
significant problem, a lot of debate. I think it really stands as
political symbolism as opposed to a substantive effort to deal with and
to try to provide for people, in the world of work, an opportunity.
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, there has been a lot of talk here that there has been
an attack on the poor. Quite frankly, I do not believe that either side
of the aisle is really attacking the poor. Even in this bill, which is
supposed to be a radical change in direction on public housing, I find
that in the budget we are appropriating $5 billion more, so that is
hardly an attack, in an effort to help the poor.
But I do think the poor are suffering. I think there are a lot of
people in this country who are suffering. I think the recipients of
public housing are suffering. I think those who are paying for it are
suffering.
There is a problem much more perceived in the hinterlands of America
than we seem to realize. The poor in this country are suffering, but
this is a result of the type of policy that we have here in the
Congress, the policy of spending too much, the policy of inflating, the
policy of destroying the currency. When a Nation destroys its currency,
it transfers wealth from the poor and the middle class to the wealthy.
Even in this very bill where we are appropriating more money, it is
to the benefit of many wealthy people: the people who build the houses,
the people who receive the rents. So there is a transfer. There is a
transfer of wealth, but the achievement on public housing policy has
never been successful. This is what we are facing today.
But we are also facing the fact that the consequence of a 30- to 50-
year welfare state is coming to an end.
{time} 1630
This is why the great debate is on. We have this every 30 years. We
were much wealthier in 1965 and subsequently spent $5 trillion on a
welfare state. Now we are facing a bankruptcy.
The concern for the poor is justified. The poor are suffering. The
poor are suffering because they pay the bills. I would like to see the
challenge of the welfare for corporate welfare in this very bill
itself. There are wealthy beneficiaries from this.
Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. PAUL. I yield to the gentleman from Illinois.
Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, my amendment specifically
calls for the exemption of a mother who has a single child to keep her
from being evicted for failure to do 8 hours a month of community
service work. If the gentleman would speak to that particular part, we
may reach some agreement on this.
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, I think that is a minor point and something
we should be concerned about. But I am also concerned about those
individuals who have been evicted from their homes because they have
been taxed. The system that we have today works on a regressive tax
system.
We talk about the Social Security tax that goes into the general
revenues. Those are on individuals that have a greater tax burden than
the wealthy. And this is the reason this country is getting poorer. But
you are taking money from poor people and giving it to another group of
poor people and in the transition, the wealthy get more money. So we do
not have a very good system here.
Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. PAUL. I yield to the gentleman from North Carolina.
Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I hope the gentleman was
here when we debated the mandate, the unfunded mandate amendment, and
understands that to implement the plan that is in the bill, it is going
to cost $65 million a year. The gentleman is aware of that.
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, I think so. This is the reason I have great
concern about most of the details of this bill and also the reason I
will be voting against the bill. I think the gentlemen make many good
points.
Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will continue
to yield, I thank the gentleman for supporting our efforts.
Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, first of all, I want to again commend the gentleman
from Illinois [Mr. Jackson] for his efforts. I particularly want to
commend him for his concern about the children of the poor.
One of the things I think we must keep in mind is children's
personalities. I am the father of a 3-year-old, and I know for a fact
that from zero to 6 is a very critical time for a child. If we think
about children's development, they develop their personalities; they
become who they are. And our children have basically one life to live.
And there are no dress rehearsals and this is it. And that is why it is
so critical that parents be with children.
Somebody asked a question just a moment ago, why is it not zero to 3?
Well, the fact still remains that zero to 3 is a critical period, but
most children go to school at 5 to 6. The question becomes, who takes
care of those children before they go to school? I think that is
extremely important.
Another thing that we have to keep in mind is that taking care of
children is a very, very significant job. It takes time. Children need
their parents. So the fact is that the Jackson amendment is very, very
critical.
If we want to talk about ending the cycle of poverty, one of the
greatest ways to end that cycle is to make sure that children are taken
care of so that they then form the personalities so that they then grow
up so that they then become responsible citizens. And what happens to
those children between zero and 6 will go with them for the rest of
their lives.
My distinguished colleague from North Carolina on the Democratic side
just talked about something that was very critical. He talked about
liability. Somebody asked a question, well, why can we not take these
children to work with us and do this volunteer work?
[[Page H2146]]
First of all, I want to define volunteer. We keep saying volunteer.
This is not volunteering. We would not be having this debate if it was
volunteering. It is not.
What we are saying to people is that if they do not do a certain
thing, we will put them in the street. And that is what is called
punishment. If we are connecting what we call volunteering to
punishment, it is not volunteering.
Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. CUMMINGS. I yield to the gentleman from Vermont.
Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman makes, I think, the key
point in this whole debate. If we want a volunteer program, let us
develop a volunteer program. But a volunteer program says, we would
like you to volunteer. And we create the circumstances.
That is a good idea. If we want people to work, we have got to pay
them. I would hope that my Republican friends, who have talked about
the virtue of work and how people's self-enhancement and self-esteem
goes up with work, would understand that when most people work they
expect a paycheck.
I look forward to an amendment from my Republican friends that says,
when we get people to work, we are going to pay them so their kids can
see them earning a paycheck.
Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Chairman, that goes back to what I am saying. We
have to put all of this discussion in some kind of context. We must
define what we are doing. I am getting tired of hearing us talk about
volunteering when we are not.
Mr. Chairman, I submit that if we are going to stop the cycle of
poverty, what we must first do is invest in our children, lift our
children up. There is no greater thing that a parent can do than to be
beside a child to help form that personality to pass on wonderful
ideas, wonderful feelings and give them a sense of self-worth.
Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. CUMMINGS. I yield to the gentleman from Illinois.
Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I want to try and work this
out. I would like to call for a vote very soon on the Weldon amendment,
but I want to make it clear that if the Weldon amendment passes, that I
want Members to vote against my amendment, because 20 percent does not
cover the number of housing residents who will be single mothers with
children who will be affected by the Weldon amendment to my amendment,
which is very basic, very family-value oriented, and it is very clear
and very well worded.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Cummings]
has expired.
Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that
the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Cummings] be allowed to proceed for 1
additional minute.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
Illinois?
Mr. LAZIO of New York. Mr. Chairman, I object.
The CHAIRMAN. Objection is heard.
Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words, and I yield to the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Weldon].
Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I support the efforts of the
gentleman from Illinois to bring this issue to a vote.
Let me just say that my intention in offering this amendment was
purely one that I felt there was some merits to what the gentleman was
talking about. I wanted to give the housing authority the flexibility
it needed to accommodate situations that the gentleman is describing.
Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. VENTO. I yield to the gentleman from Illinois.
Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from
Minnesota for yielding to me.
I am of the opinion that there is no such thing as 20 percent of a
person. There is no such thing as 20 percent of a child.
My amendment is a very common sense amendment. It simply says that
single parents, grandparents, or spouses or otherwise exempt
individuals who are the primary caretaker of a child under the age of
6, 6 or under, elderly persons or persons with disabilities should be
exempt from 8 hours of monthly mandatory service.
Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Weldon] is amending my
amendment by saying that only 20 percent of those who meet my
qualifications are entitled to be exempt, and I think that is clearly
wrong.
I yield back to the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. VEnto].
Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, I would just point out that this is the type
of detail we get into when we begin to require public housing agencies
to, in fact, mandate or permit them to mandate certain requirements
with regard to work requirements for receiving housing.
My point is that I think I understand that the gentleman from Florida
[Mr. Weldon] is trying to do something in the positive sense to try and
provide some relief. I think the Jackson amendment really addresses
what the issue is. If, in fact, this is a good-faith effort in terms of
work, we would obviously incorporate that.
Personally, I have real problems with housing authorities having this
responsibility. I do not think it is their role for 3,400 housing
authorities to have this particular responsibility, especially when we
have counties, we have welfare programs within the States, they are
fully developed, it is, in fact, quite a task for them on their own.
This comes across as being punitive. This comes across as punishing
people because they are poor, because they are in public housing. Mr.
Chairman, I think that that is wrong. I think that, if we are going to
put this in place, the least we can do is to deal with women that have
children that, in fact, those children need care.
They cannot afford quality day care and child care. In many
communities it simply is not available. We increased that amount in the
welfare bill last year. I think we are going to have to deal with that
if we are serious about welfare reform and seeing it work. To a greater
extent, I think it is the right way to go in terms of work requirements
under one set of Federal requirements, working with the States, rather
than superimposing for every program we have a new type of work
requirement.
I think, if anything, it confuses, it undercuts, it works against a
sound type of welfare reform. That is what these particular provisions,
these so-called self-sufficiency provisions in this bill cause; and I
think they ought to be all taken out. But if we are going to have them,
at least we should deal with women that have children, single women, or
single parents I might say, that have children that are living in
public housing that they can receive the assistance.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr.
Kennedy].
Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman
from Massachusetts [Mr. McGovern] for yielding.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to just get a clarification of where we
are on these votes so that the Democratic and Republican Members both
understand exactly what we anticipate coming and we can give our best
judgment on our side of the aisle what we think the proper votes might
be.
So if the gentleman from New York [Mr. Lazio], the chairman of the
Subcommittee on Housing and Community Opportunity, will let me know
what he anticipates being the votes and in what order they will come.
Mr. LAZIO of New York. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman would yield, I
anticipate that we will have three votes and that they will be in the
following order: the Jackson amendment, which we have debated; the
Weldon amendment would be the second vote; and the Jackson amendment
which we are currently debating would be the third vote that we would
have.
Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. So the previously debated Jackson
amendment would be the first vote; is that correct?
Mr. LAZIO of New York. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman would yield,
the Jackson amendment, as printed in the Record as No. 8, would be the
first amendment, if that helps out.
Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will
suspend for just one moment.
[[Page H2147]]
Amendment No. 8 does what?
Mr. LAZIO of New York. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman would yield,
this is the amendment that totally strikes the provision.
Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. So this is the amendment that we
previously postponed a vote on; it has nothing to do with the debate
that is currently taking place, correct?
Mr. LAZIO of New York. Yes, the gentleman is correct.
Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. OK. So the first vote on the first
Jackson amendment has nothing to do with the vote on the provision
surrounding whether or not parents have to work who are taking care of
their children; that would be the third vote?
Mr. LAZIO of New York. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman would yield,
that is correct. That is my understanding.
Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. And the second vote will be on the
Weldon amendment?
Mr. LAZIO of New York. That is correct.
Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. And the third vote will be on the
Jackson amendment as potentially amended by the Weldon amendment.
Mr. LAZIO of New York. That is correct.
Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I want to make it very
clear that the Democratic side is strongly in favor of the first
Jackson amendment, strongly opposed to the second Weldon amendment, and
strongly opposed to the Jackson amendment if, in fact, the Weldon
amendment passes.
Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield
for a parliamentary inquiry?
Mr. McGOVERN. I yield to the gentleman from North Carolina.
Parliamentary Inquiry
Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I have a parliamentary
inquiry.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from North Carolina will state his
inquiry.
Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, it is my understanding that
we have been debating the Weldon amendment to the Jackson amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from North Carolina is correct.
Mr. WATT of North Carolina. And that there are Members who still
desire to debate the underlying Jackson amendment. When we vote on the
Weldon amendment, if we do that today, will that foreclose the
possibility of continuing debate on the Jackson underlying amendment?
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman is correct, there will be continued
debate on the Jackson amendment if any Member seeks recognition on that
amendment, unless there is a time agreement reached limiting debate
between those supporting and opposing the amendment.
{time} 1645
Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Further parliamentary inquiry, Mr.
Chairman.
If we call for a vote on the Weldon amendment to the Jackson
amendment, and that vote is taken, we would still have ongoing debate
on the underlying Jackson amendment if there were people who wished to
be heard?
The CHAIRMAN. That is possible.
The time of the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. McGovern] has
expired.
The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from
Florida [Mr. Weldon] to the amendment offered by the gentleman from
Illinois [Mr. Jackson].
The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the ayes
appeared to have it.
Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 133, further proceedings
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Weldon]
will be postponed.
Sequential Votes Postponed in Committee of the Whole
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 133, proceedings will now
resume on those amendments on which further proceedings were postponed,
in the following order: Amendment No. 8 offered by the gentleman from
Illinois [Mr. Jackson]; an amendment offered by the gentleman from
Florida [Mr. Weldon] to amendment No. 9 offered by the gentleman from
Illinois [Mr. Jackson]; and a possible recorded vote on amendment No. 9
offered by the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Jackson].
The Chair will reduce to 5 minutes the time for any electronic vote
after the first vote in this series.
Amendment No. 8 Offered by Mr. JACKSON of Illinois
The CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a recorded vote
on amendment No. 8 offered by the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Jackson]
on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the noes
prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.
Recorded Vote
The CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 160,
noes 251, not voting 22, as follows:
[Roll No. 100]
AYES--160
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allen
Baldacci
Barrett (WI)
Becerra
Bentsen
Berman
Berry
Bishop
Blumenauer
Bonior
Borski
Boucher
Brown (CA)
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Campbell
Capps
Cardin
Carson
Clay
Clayton
Clyburn
Conyers
Costello
Coyne
Cummings
Davis (FL)
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Dellums
Diaz-Balart
Dixon
Doggett
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Fazio
Filner
Flake
Foglietta
Forbes
Ford
Frank (MA)
Frost
Furse
Gejdenson
Gephardt
Gonzalez
Green
Gutierrez
Hall (OH)
Hamilton
Hastings (FL)
Hefner
Hilliard
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hooley
Hoyer
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Johnson (WI)
Johnson, E. B.
Kennedy (MA)
Kennedy (RI)
Kennelly
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind (WI)
Kleczka
Kucinich
Lampson
Lantos
LaTourette
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Lofgren
Lowey
Maloney (NY)
Markey
Martinez
Mascara
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCarthy (NY)
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek
Menendez
Millender-McDonald
Miller (CA)
Minge
Mink
Moakley
Mollohan
Morella
Nadler
Neal
Obey
Olver
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Pelosi
Poshard
Price (NC)
Rahall
Rangel
Reyes
Rivers
Rodriguez
Roemer
Ros-Lehtinen
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Sabo
Sanders
Sandlin
Sawyer
Schumer
Scott
Serrano
Skaggs
Skelton
Slaughter
Snyder
Stark
Stokes
Thompson
Thurman
Tierney
Torres
Towns
Velazquez
Vento
Visclosky
Waters
Watt (NC)
Waxman
Wexler
Weygand
Wise
Woolsey
Wynn
Yates
NOES--251
Aderholt
Archer
Armey
Bachus
Baesler
Ballenger
Barcia
Barr
Barrett (NE)
Bartlett
Bass
Bateman
Bereuter
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Blagojevich
Bliley
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bono
Boswell
Boyd
Brady
Bryant
Bunning
Burr
Burton
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Canady
Cannon
Castle
Chabot
Chambliss
Chenoweth
Christensen
Clement
Coble
Collins
Combest
Condit
Cook
Cooksey
Cox
Cramer
Crane
Crapo
Cubin
Cunningham
Danner
Davis (VA)
Deal
Deutsch
Dickey
Dingell
Dooley
Doolittle
Doyle
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Edwards
Ehlers
Ehrlich
Emerson
English
Ensign
Everett
Ewing
Fawell
Foley
Fowler
Fox
Franks (NJ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Ganske
Gekas
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gilman
Goode
Goodlatte
Goodling
Gordon
Goss
Graham
Granger
Gutknecht
Hall (TX)
Hansen
Harman
Hastert
Hastings (WA)
Hayworth
Hefley
Hill
Hilleary
Hobson
Hoekstra
Holden
Horn
Hostettler
Houghton
Hulshof
Hunter
Hutchinson
Inglis
Istook
Jenkins
John
Johnson (CT)
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kasich
Kelly
Kim
King (NY)
Kingston
Klink
Knollenberg
Kolbe
LaHood
Latham
Lazio
Leach
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Livingston
LoBiondo
Lucas
Luther
Maloney (CT)
Manzullo
McCollum
McCrery
McDade
McHale
McHugh
McInnis
McIntosh
McKeon
Metcalf
Mica
Miller (FL)
Molinari
Moran (KS)
Moran (VA)
Murtha
Myrick
[[Page H2148]]
Nethercutt
Neumann
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nussle
Oxley
Packard
Pappas
Parker
Paul
Paxon
Pease
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pickett
Pitts
Pombo
Pomeroy
Porter
Portman
Pryce (OH)
Quinn
Radanovich
Ramstad
Regula
Riggs
Riley
Rogan
Rogers
Rohrabacher
Roukema
Royce
Ryun
Salmon
Sanchez
Sanford
Saxton
Scarborough
Schaefer, Dan
Schaffer, Bob
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Sherman
Shimkus
Shuster
Sisisky
Skeen
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (OR)
Smith (TX)
Smith, Adam
Smith, Linda
Snowbarger
Solomon
Souder
Spence
Spratt
Stabenow
Stearns
Stenholm
Strickland
Stump
Sununu
Talent
Tanner
Tauscher
Tauzin
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Thomas
Thornberry
Thune
Tiahrt
Traficant
Turner
Upton
Wamp
Watkins
Watts (OK)
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
White
Whitfield
Wicker
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NOT VOTING--22
Andrews
Baker
Barton
Bonilla
Buyer
Coburn
Davis (IL)
DeFazio
DeLay
Dicks
Greenwood
Herger
Hyde
Klug
LaFalce
Largent
Manton
Oberstar
Ortiz
Schiff
Stupak
Walsh
{time} 1707
The Clerk announced the following pair:
On this vote:
Mr. Manton for, with Mr. Ortiz against.
Messrs. DAVIS of Virginia, FRELINGHUYSEN, HUNTER, SAXTON, JOHN, ADAM
SMITH of Washington, BARTLETT of Maryland, FOLEY, and Mrs. TAUSCHER
changed their vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
Mr. MINGE changed his vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Announcement by the Chairman
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, the Chair announces that he will
reduce to a minimum of 5 minutes the period of time within which a vote
by electronic device will be taken on each amendment on which the Chair
has postponed further proceedings.
Amendment Offered by Mr. Weldon of Florida to Amendment No. 9 Offered
by Mr. Jackson of Illinois
The CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a recorded vote
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Weldon] to
amendment No. 9 offered by the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Jackson] on
which further proceedings were postponed and on which the ayes
prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The Clerk designated the amendment.
Recorded Vote
The CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The CHAIRMAN. This will be a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 153,
noes 252, not voting 28, as follows:
[Roll No. 101]
AYES--153
Aderholt
Archer
Armey
Barr
Barrett (NE)
Bateman
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Blunt
Bono
Boucher
Brady
Bryant
Burr
Burton
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Canady
Cannon
Chambliss
Christensen
Coble
Collins
Combest
Cooksey
Cramer
Crane
Cubin
Cunningham
Deal
Diaz-Balart
Dickey
Doggett
Dreier
Duncan
Edwards
Ehlers
Emerson
Everett
Ewing
Fawell
Foley
Fowler
Frelinghuysen
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gilman
Goode
Goodlatte
Goss
Granger
Green
Gutknecht
Hall (TX)
Hansen
Hastert
Hastings (WA)
Hayworth
Hill
Hilleary
Hoekstra
Horn
Hostettler
Houghton
Hulshof
Hutchinson
Johnson (CT)
Jones
Kelly
Kim
Kingston
Kolbe
Latham
Lazio
Leach
Lewis (KY)
Lucas
McCollum
McCrery
McHale
McHugh
McInnis
McIntosh
McKeon
Mica
Miller (FL)
Molinari
Nethercutt
Ney
Norwood
Oxley
Packard
Parker
Paul
Paxon
Pease
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Porter
Portman
Pryce (OH)
Quinn
Ramstad
Riggs
Rogan
Rogers
Ros-Lehtinen
Royce
Ryun
Salmon
Sanford
Saxton
Schaefer, Dan
Schaffer, Bob
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Sherman
Shimkus
Shuster
Sisisky
Smith (NJ)
Smith (OR)
Smith (TX)
Smith, Adam
Smith, Linda
Snowbarger
Souder
Spence
Stearns
Stenholm
Stump
Sununu
Tauzin
Taylor (MS)
Thomas
Thornberry
Thurman
Towns
Upton
Wamp
Watkins
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Whitfield
Wicker
Young (AK)
NOES--252
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allen
Bachus
Baesler
Baldacci
Ballenger
Barcia
Barrett (WI)
Bartlett
Bass
Becerra
Bentsen
Bereuter
Berman
Berry
Bishop
Blagojevich
Bliley
Blumenauer
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonior
Borski
Boswell
Boyd
Brown (CA)
Brown (FL)
Bunning
Campbell
Capps
Cardin
Carson
Castle
Chabot
Chenoweth
Clay
Clayton
Clement
Clyburn
Condit
Conyers
Cook
Costello
Cox
Coyne
Crapo
Cummings
Davis (FL)
Davis (VA)
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Dellums
Deutsch
Dingell
Dixon
Dooley
Doolittle
Doyle
Dunn
Ehrlich
Engel
English
Ensign
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Fazio
Filner
Flake
Foglietta
Forbes
Ford
Fox
Frank (MA)
Franks (NJ)
Frost
Furse
Ganske
Gejdenson
Gekas
Gephardt
Gonzalez
Goodling
Gordon
Graham
Gutierrez
Hall (OH)
Hamilton
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Hefley
Hefner
Hilliard
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hobson
Holden
Hooley
Hoyer
Hunter
Inglis
Istook
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee
(TX)
Jefferson
Jenkins
John
Johnson (WI)
Johnson, E. B.
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy (MA)
Kennedy (RI)
Kennelly
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind (WI)
King (NY)
Kleczka
Klink
Knollenberg
Kucinich
LaHood
Lampson
Lantos
LaTourette
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (GA)
Linder
Lipinski
Livingston
LoBiondo
Lofgren
Lowey
Luther
Maloney (CT)
Maloney (NY)
Manzullo
Markey
Martinez
Mascara
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCarthy (NY)
McDade
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek
Menendez
Metcalf
Millender-McDonald
Miller (CA)
Minge
Mink
Moakley
Mollohan
Moran (KS)
Moran (VA)
Morella
Murtha
Myrick
Nadler
Neal
Neumann
Northup
Nussle
Obey
Olver
Owens
Pallone
Pappas
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Pelosi
Peterson (MN)
Pickett
Pombo
Pomeroy
Poshard
Price (NC)
Radanovich
Rahall
Rangel
Regula
Reyes
Riley
Rivers
Rodriguez
Roemer
Rohrabacher
Rothman
Roukema
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Sabo
Sanchez
Sanders
Sandlin
Sawyer
Scarborough
Schumer
Scott
Serrano
Skaggs
Skeen
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (MI)
Snyder
Solomon
Spratt
Stabenow
Stark
Stokes
Strickland
Talent
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor (NC)
Thompson
Thune
Tiahrt
Tierney
Torres
Traficant
Turner
Velazquez
Vento
Visclosky
Waters
Watt (NC)
Watts (OK)
Waxman
Wexler
Weygand
White
Wise
Wolf
Woolsey
Wynn
Yates
Young (FL)
NOT VOTING--28
Andrews
Baker
Barton
Bonilla
Brown (OH)
Buyer
Coburn
Danner
Davis (IL)
DeFazio
DeLay
Dicks
Gallegly
Greenwood
Herger
Hyde
Johnson, Sam
Kasich
Klug
LaFalce
Largent
Manton
Oberstar
Ortiz
Schiff
Sensenbrenner
Stupak
Walsh
{time} 1718
The Clerk announced the following pair:
On this vote:
Mr. Greenwood for, with Mr. Manton against.
Ms. DUNN changed her vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
Messrs. WELLER, BRADY, and CRAMER changed their vote from ``no'' to
``aye.''
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Mr. LAZIO of New York. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that
debate be limited prior to the vote to 3 minutes on each side. This has
been fully debated, and I think each side wants to clarify their
positions and make a summation, and then this will be the last expected
recorded vote, as I understand it, of the day.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
New York?
There was no objection.
[[Page H2149]]
Parliamentary Inquiry
Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I have a parliamentary
inquiry.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state his inquiry.
Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, could you explain to us
the rules? Who has the right to close this debate?
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from New York [Mr. Lazio] as the chairman
of the subcommittee has the right to close.
The gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Jackson] will control 3 minutes, and
the gentleman from New York [Mr. Lazio] will control 3 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Jackson].
Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I
may consume.
Mr. Chairman, I want to reiterate once again how important this
particular amendment is. This is the family values amendment that will
simply exempt single parents, grandparents, spouses of otherwise
already exempt individuals under the bill who are the primary
caretakers of one or more children who are under the age of 6, elderly
persons, or persons with disabilities.
I do not know what is so difficult about this particular amendment
and why it has been such a tremendous source of concern for my
colleagues on the other side of the aisle. This amendment is one that
when we are no longer in public service we indeed will be able to
provide the kind of opportunities, if in fact we have children under
the age of 6, that we can spend time with them.
Mr. Chairman, in a housing project in the city of Chicago, because
the parents were not home, a 9-year-old child was thrown to his death
from the 14th story of a building by a 13- and a 14-year-old. It was
clear that the parents were delinquent because they were not present on
that particular occasion.
My amendment exempts those primary caretakers for children under the
age of 6, those who have senior citizens who are senior citizens, and
those who have disabilities from this particular community work
requirement. We have an opportunity, Mr. Chairman, to make this
particular provision a more humane bill.
And let me just take a moment, if I can, Mr. Chairman, of personal
privilege. This is the first time since I have been a Member of this
Congress that I have had the opportunity to engage in a dialogue on
substantive issues across the aisle with Members of this body. These
are the first amendments that I have passed and attempted to pass in
this institution, and I would certainly hope that my colleagues would
support this amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. LAZIO of New York. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I
may consume.
Mr. Chairman, this amendment speaks to the very essence of whether we
believe that people should contribute community service in return for a
benefit. There are people in America that want to get into public
housing but do not have the capacity to get in public housing. Three
out of four Americans who are eligible for public housing are still out
there working not 8 hours a month or 8 hours a week, but 30 or 40 or 50
hours a week in order to pay for their rent. In many cases they are not
just paying for the rent in public housing, we are paying for the
utilities as well.
This 8-hour-a-month community service requirement comes to 2 hours a
week, 15 minutes a day. Fifteen minutes a day. And we are asking people
not to give to Big Brother, we are asking people to give to themselves,
to contribute to their own housing, to sweep their own hallway, to
remove graffiti in their own building, to make sure that grass is cut
or to help with the community watch program or to help to read to the
blind or to work with a not-for-profit.
There is broad flexibility as to how they can do this, and if they
happen to have somebody that they are caring for in their house, they
have the flexibility to do work and to contribute and fulfill this
requirement by staying in their own unit or working in their own
hallway. This is a flexible, commonsense approach. This defines the
difference between those people who want to change the culture of
disaster and despair in some public housing complexes around this
country and those who are willing to allow the status quo to continue.
We believe in this because we think that people will find tenants who
contribute to this system will find that they can do things that they
did not imagine they can possibly do. We are tapping into the huge
human resources that we have in this country to be able to begin to
transform low-income areas because that change is not going to happen
in Washington. That change, the real war to beat poverty, is going to
happen in the communities, and it is going to be begun by people who
live there.
And, yes, we are asking them to give back for this benefit. Yes, we
believe in reciprocity. Yes, we believe in responsibility. And, yes, we
believe that children should watch it as well.
Now my friend, the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Weldon] had proposed
an amendment that would provide a little more flexibility which
unfortunately was opposed by this body and by some on the other side.
But let me say this is a gutting amendment because in this bill we
exempt seniors, we exempt the disabled, we exempt people of vocational
training, we exempt people who are being educated, we exempt people in
college, we exempt people who are part-time workers, we exempt people
who are full-time workers; we just simply ask that people who are able-
bodied and can work and can contribute to their own backyard, do
something, do anything, but do something to help inspire others and to
help improve the quality of life for their own community, and for that
reason I ask for a ``no'' vote on this amendment.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the
Jackson amendment. Mr. Chairman, when I was growing up my grandmother
insisted that I learn one new word every day. Interestingly, I learned
that the word volunteer means ``one who enters into or offers himself
for a service of his own free will.'' His own free will, Mr. Chairman.
This bill mandates volunteerism. Only Republicans could think of
something like this.
Congressman Jackson's amendment simply prevents residents from being
evicted for failure to comply with the community work requirement. As
the gentleman from Chicago has already so eloquently expressed,
mandated volunteerism just does not make sense. Additionally, it very
well could be unconstitutional according to the 13th Amendment to the
Constitution.
Mr. Chairman, we place no termination dates or work requirements on
middle and upper class recipients of homeowner deductions. Why do we
impose such restrictions on those most severely affected by our
Nation's affordable housing crisis--especially when they are already
required by welfare agencies to work toward self-sufficiency? Frankly,
this is absurd.
We don't require community work from other recipients of federal
assistance--agricultural subsidies, LIHEAP, corporate welfare, loan
guarantees, and the list goes on. Chairman Lazio points to medical
school scholarships which require work in low-income areas. The major
difference, however, is that these doctors are paid for their work.
They are not forced to work for free.
I ask my colleagues to support Congressman Jackson's amendment and
return volunteer community service to its proper meaning.
The CHAIRMAN. All time on this amendment has expired.
The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from
Illinois [Mr. Jackson].
The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Recorded Vote
Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The CHAIRMAN. This is a 15-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 181,
noes 216, not voting 36, as follows:
[Roll No. 102]
AYES--181
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allen
Baldacci
Barrett (WI)
Becerra
Bentsen
Berman
Berry
Bishop
Blagojevich
Bonior
Borski
Boswell
Boucher
Brown (CA)
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Campbell
Capps
Cardin
Carson
Clay
Clayton
Conyers
Costello
Coyne
Cummings
Davis (FL)
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Dellums
Deutsch
Diaz-Balart
Dingell
Dixon
Doggett
Dooley
[[Page H2150]]
Edwards
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Fazio
Filner
Flake
Foglietta
Forbes
Ford
Frank (MA)
Franks (NJ)
Frost
Furse
Gejdenson
Gephardt
Gonzalez
Green
Gutierrez
Hall (OH)
Hamilton
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Hefner
Hilliard
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hooley
Hoyer
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Johnson (WI)
Johnson, E. B.
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy (MA)
Kennedy (RI)
Kennelly
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind (WI)
Kleczka
Kucinich
LaHood
Lampson
Lantos
LaTourette
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Lofgren
Lowey
Luther
Maloney (CT)
Maloney (NY)
Markey
Martinez
Mascara
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCarthy (NY)
McDermott
McGovern
McHugh
McIntyre
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek
Menendez
Millender-McDonald
Miller (CA)
Minge
Mink
Moakley
Mollohan
Moran (VA)
Murtha
Nadler
Neal
Obey
Olver
Owens
Pallone
Pastor
Payne
Pelosi
Pomeroy
Poshard
Price (NC)
Quinn
Rahall
Rangel
Reyes
Rivers
Rodriguez
Roemer
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Sabo
Sanders
Sandlin
Sawyer
Schumer
Scott
Serrano
Skaggs
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (NJ)
Snyder
Spratt
Stabenow
Stark
Stokes
Thompson
Thurman
Tierney
Torres
Towns
Turner
Velazquez
Vento
Visclosky
Waters
Watt (NC)
Watts (OK)
Waxman
Wexler
Weygand
Whitfield
Wise
Wolf
Woolsey
Wynn
Yates
NOES--216
Aderholt
Archer
Armey
Bachus
Baesler
Ballenger
Barcia
Barr
Barrett (NE)
Bartlett
Bass
Bereuter
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bliley
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bono
Boyd
Brady
Bryant
Burr
Burton
Calvert
Camp
Canady
Cannon
Castle
Chabot
Chambliss
Chenoweth
Clement
Coble
Collins
Combest
Condit
Cook
Cooksey
Cox
Cramer
Crane
Crapo
Cubin
Cunningham
Davis (VA)
Deal
Dickey
Doolittle
Doyle
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Ehlers
Ehrlich
Emerson
English
Ensign
Everett
Ewing
Fawell
Foley
Fowler
Fox
Frelinghuysen
Ganske
Gekas
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gilman
Goode
Goodlatte
Goodling
Gordon
Goss
Graham
Granger
Gutknecht
Hall (TX)
Hansen
Hastert
Hastings (WA)
Hayworth
Hefley
Hill
Hilleary
Hobson
Hoekstra
Holden
Horn
Hostettler
Houghton
Hulshof
Hunter
Hutchinson
Inglis
Istook
Jenkins
John
Johnson (CT)
Jones
Kasich
Kelly
Kim
King (NY)
Kingston
Klink
Knollenberg
Kolbe
Latham
Lazio
Leach
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Livingston
Lucas
Manzullo
McCollum
McCrery
McDade
McHale
McIntosh
McKeon
Metcalf
Mica
Miller (FL)
Molinari
Moran (KS)
Morella
Myrick
Nethercutt
Neumann
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nussle
Oxley
Packard
Pappas
Pascrell
Paul
Paxon
Pease
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pickett
Pitts
Pombo
Porter
Portman
Pryce (OH)
Radanovich
Ramstad
Regula
Riggs
Riley
Rogan
Rogers
Rohrabacher
Roukema
Royce
Ryun
Salmon
Sanchez
Sanford
Saxton
Scarborough
Schaefer, Dan
Schaffer, Bob
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Sherman
Shimkus
Shuster
Sisisky
Skeen
Smith (MI)
Smith (OR)
Smith (TX)
Smith, Adam
Smith, Linda
Snowbarger
Solomon
Souder
Spence
Stearns
Stenholm
Strickland
Stump
Sununu
Talent
Tanner
Tauscher
Tauzin
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Thomas
Thornberry
Thune
Tiahrt
Traficant
Upton
Watkins
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
White
Wicker
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NOT VOTING--36
Andrews
Baker
Barton
Bateman
Blumenauer
Bonilla
Bunning
Buyer
Callahan
Christensen
Clyburn
Coburn
Danner
Davis (IL)
DeFazio
DeLay
Dicks
Gallegly
Greenwood
Herger
Hyde
Johnson, Sam
Klug
LaFalce
Largent
Manton
McInnis
Oberstar
Ortiz
Parker
Ros-Lehtinen
Schiff
Sensenbrenner
Stupak
Walsh
Wamp
{time} 1742
The Clerk announced the following pairs:
On this vote:
Mr. Manton for, with Mr. Greenwood against.
Mr. Blumenauer for, with Mr. Ortiz against.
Mr. QUINN changed his vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Personal Explanation
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, due to unforeseen
circumstances I was unable to vote during rollcall vote No. 102 on
Jackson-Lee amendment No. 9. If I had been present, I would have voted
``aye.''
Mr. LAZIO of New York. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now
rise.
The motion was agreed to.
Accordingly the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr.
Pease) having assumed the chair, Mr. Goodlatte, Chairman of the
Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union, reported that
that Committee, having had under consideration the bill, (H.R. 2) to
repeal the United States Housing Act of 1937, deregulate the public
housing program and the program for rental housing assistance for low-
income families, and increase community control over such programs, and
for other purposes, had come to no resolution thereon.
____________________