[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.

                          ____________________