[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 55 (Thursday, May 1, 1997)]
[House]
[Page H2151]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




   A CLARIFICATION REGARDING THE WORK REQUIREMENT IN THE HOUSING BILL

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the 
gentleman from Florida [Mr. Weldon] is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I rise this evening to talk a 
little bit about some of the preceding debate that occurred today on 
the housing bill. Let me just say, though the debate was frequently 
very heated and sometimes tempers and passions were quite high, I 
believe personally that a lot of this is very good. We need to openly 
debate these issues.
  I rise this evening, Mr. Speaker, because I feel there were a number 
of points being made by the minority which were entirely inaccurate as 
they pertain to my opinion on this issue of a work requirement in the 
housing bill, and as they pertain, I believe, to our party, the 
Republican Party's position on a work requirement in the housing bill.
  I have experience living in government housing, living in a dormitory 
in a State university. It was no bigger than the average walk-in 
closet. I had to work 24 hours a month for the privilege of having that 
small dorm room. I believe it is perfectly reasonable to ask somebody 
who is living in a government-funded apartment to put in 8 hours a 
month of work time.
  Mr. Speaker, in our provision we exempt the elderly, we exempt the 
disabled, we exempt those people who are going to school, even if it is 
part-time, even a vocational school, and we exempt people that have 
full-time jobs and part-time jobs.
  The gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Jackson] had brought forward, I 
think, a reasonable, well-thought-out amendment to exempt virtually 
every single mom. Though I feel there was some merit to that, I felt 
that his amendment was unreasonably broad, but that it would be 
reasonable to give the housing authorities some flexibility to allow 
them to exempt some single moms.
  Many of the people on our side of the aisle felt that they should be 
able to eke out somewhere in their week 2 hours a week to devote to 
community service. Let me just say that I agree with that sentiment. 
There were sentiments expressed by the minority that this is some sort 
of mean-spirited attempt to hurt the poor. On the contrary, my 
motivation in this work requirement is very much one of wanting to help 
the poor.
  I believe by, in exchange for them getting government-funded housing, 
requiring them to go out and work and thus having them work, we will 
instill a work ethic in people. We will instill in them a sense of 
community, and I believe that the children of these people living in 
public housing will benefit from seeing their parent or parents 
actually working.
  This point was driven home to me so vividly when I met a gentleman 
when I was campaigning in 1994 who told me about a program that he had 
taken part in where he went into the housing projects and read to young 
children, because as many people know, the psychologists have shown 
that if you read to small children, you can improve their academic 
performance; that their reading scores will get better when they get 
older and that they will have just higher academic performance at 
school.
  So he was going in and reading to these little kids, most often 
children of single moms that did not have a father in the house. I 
remember him telling something to me one day that just totally broke my 
heart.
  He said that he once asked a group of these kids what they wanted to 
do when they grew up. I have told this story before on the floor of 
this House. They did not say ``I want to be a fireman, I want to be a 
doctor, I want to be a teacher.'' They said, ``I want to collect a 
check.'' I kid you not, Mr. Speaker. These little 4-and 5- and 6-year-
old kids, they knew nothing other than their mom living in the project 
with them collecting a check, and that is the only thing they knew.
  We have what I think is a very reasonable requirement suggested to us 
by Secretary Cuomo, supported by the administration, to require people 
who are able-bodied, people who are not disabled, who are not working, 
who are not going to school, to require them to contribute to the 
community in the form of community service, in the form of working in 
the project. I think it is an excellent idea, and it is unfortunate 
that our intentions are frankly maligned.
  Our intention on this side of the aisle, the Republican majority, is 
to help these people by getting them out into the community and 
working, whether it is cleaning up, whether it is removing graffiti, 
whether it is volunteering for child care. I think any of those things 
is going to help instill a work ethic in people, and it is going to set 
a good example for their children to be able to see their mom or dad 
going out and being a part of the local community. I think it will go a 
long way to helping those communities.

                          ____________________