[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 147 (2001), Part 11]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page 16237]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]


[[Page 16237]]

DEPARTMENTS OF VETERANS AFFAIRS AND HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT, AND 
             INDEPENDENT AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2002

                                 ______
                                 

                               speech of

                          HON. JERROLD NADLER

                              of new york

                    in the house of representatives

                         Monday, July 30, 2001

       The House in Committee of the Whole House on the State of 
     the Union had under consideration the bill (H.R. 2620) making 
     appropriations for the Departments of Veterans Affairs and 
     Housing and Urban Development and for sundry independent 
     agencies, boards, commissions, corporations, and offices for 
     the fiscal year ending September 30, 2002, and for other 
     purposes,

  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Rangel amendment 
to the Fiscal Year 2002 VA-HUD Appropriations bill which would 
eliminate funding used to implement the community service requirement 
for residents of public housing.
  The community service requirement amounts to nothing more than an 
attack on those who are poor. Granted, residents of public housing do 
receive a benefit from the government--a benefit Congress began 
providing almost a century ago, because it understood that despite 
their hard-work, parents could not meet the basic needs of their 
families.
  But instead of proactively addressing the factors that cause people 
to need public housing in the first place--lack of jobs, low wages, 
poor education--and helping them to escape the vicious cycle of 
poverty, we just add to their hardships and label them as undeserving. 
With these community service requirements, we're essentially saying to 
them, ``Earn your keep or else.''
  If we followed this logic and made every American earn their keep, 
then we would demand CEO's of nuclear power companies, who receive 
millions of dollars from the government to subsidize their liability 
insurance--far more than the meager cost of a public housing unit--to 
hand out sandwiches at the church soup kitchen. We would demand heads 
of pharmaceutical companies who, year after year, get billions of 
dollars in tax breaks, to be candy stripers at the local hospital.
  But do we demand those things? Of course not. Because those are the 
people who donate to our campaign war chests.
  If we followed this logic, we would demand the suburban couple, who 
got a tax break when they bought their first home, to scrub graffiti 
off the wall at the subway station. We would demand the farmer, who 
received a subsidy when his crops were damaged in last summer's 
drought, to pick up litter along the highway.
  But do we demand those things? Of course not. Because those people 
aren't poor. And in Congress, we only like to make things difficult for 
those who are poor.
  For the last decade, every time that poverty issues come before the 
House, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, proclaim the 
words, ``personal responsibility.'' I challenge my colleagues to hold 
themselves to that same standard. Take responsibility for your own 
actions. Admit that provisions like this are only intended to demonize 
those who are poor. Don't hide behind the falsehood that this community 
service requirement will somehow alleviate the problems of those living 
in public housing. Acknowledge that your failure to offer serious 
solutions has only exacerbated their problems.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to vote for the Rangel amendment 
and encourage them to support initiatives that will actually improve 
the situation of those struggling to make ends meet.

                          ____________________