Richard Baker

Mr. BAKER

Mr. BAKER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, this legislation has a very noncontroversial purpose, which intends to update our currency to include tactile markings. This is a change which I believe will be certainly of value to all Americans. It is important to recognize the efforts of the Secretary of the Treasury and the Bureau of Engraving and Printing in this general area of improvement. As our currency is constantly updated for security purposes, a new low-vision feature has been added in the form of a high-contrast, large numeral denoting the denomination of the bill. This change is already helping many Americans with vision difficulty. House Resolution 122 takes these efforts one step further by initiating the incorporation of tactile marking in our currency. This relatively minor change will have significant impact not only on individuals who have vision problems, but on all Americans that are visually impaired. Mr. Speaker, I want to express my appreciation to Chairman Leach and subcommittee chairman, the gentleman from Delaware [Mr. Castle] for their support and assistance with the resolution; also, the ranking member, the gentlemen from New York, Mr. LaFalce and Mr. Flake for their support and courtesy in facilitating this. I also want to express my appreciation to the American Academy of Ophthalmology and the National Federation of the Blind for their technical assistance in drafting this proposal. I want to mention in connection with this resolution that I am particularly pleased to have worked with the Federation. They have been a leading force in our country in helping all of us acquire a more rational understanding of blindness. That has certainly been the case as we worked together on this particular matter. The Federation notes that although the visually impaired are currently able to use and handle their money, this additional step will facilitate safer and more secure transactions. It is important, Mr. Speaker, that we examine and move forward in designing different forms of currency for use in the decades ahead. In that process, it will be important to consult with experts who have relevant knowledge, such as those in the Federation. This will ensure that the conversion of our currency occurs in a manner that is both cost-conscious and beneficial to everyone. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BAKER

Mr. BAKER. Mr. Speaker, I wish to express my serious concern with Mexico's unfair and illegal imposition of antidumping duties to protect its domestic producers from United States exports. Such protectionism is contrary to the WTO Antidumping Code, and negates the benefits granted U.S. exporters under the North American Free Trade Agreement. Despite the fact that Mexico is a contracting party to the Antidumping Code, recent cases involving United States exports demonstrate that Mexico is not always following the legal requirements for imposing antidumping duties. For example, although the Antidumping Code has been in force for more than 2 years, Mexico still has not revised its law and regulations to reflect the code's provisions. A basic precept of the Antidumping Code is that duties must be based on an apples-to-apples comparison of prices. To that end, the code requires that certain adjustments be made to ensure that prices are compared under the same conditions of sale and levels of trade. The Mexican authorities have not given our exporters adequate guidance on how to qualify for such adjustment. Under these circumstances, the provisions of the Antidumping Code afford U.S. exporters no real protection from the improper imposition of antidumping duties. Mexico also is not granting United States exporters all of the procedural rights provided under the Antidumping Code--rights that are routinely provided Mexican exporters subject to similar proceedings in the United States. For example, in the investigation of United States apple exports, Mexico simply ignored the information submitted by the United States exporters and assigned the exporters a preliminary dumping rate of more than 100 percent. Mexico claimed that it was justified in doing so because it had minor questions regarding the accuracy of certain sales data. That is, Mexico presumed that the United States exporters were dumping, rather than requesting clarification of the information, or waiting until visiting the exporters to determine whether the reported information was correct. We in the U.S. Congress will be watching closely Mexican Government deliberation on the apples case, the most recently initiated investigation of U.S. paper exports, and other investigations. We will be vigilant in monitoring Mexico's abuse of its antidumping law in these investigations, and take swift action to address all abuses. Otherwise, the rights and benefits that U.S. exporters were granted under the WTO agreements and the NAFTA would be worthless.

Mr. BAKER

Mr. BAKER. Mr. Speaker, today I rise to introduce legislation to reform the Fair Housing Act in order to restore local control of neighborhoods across America. Adopted in 1968 as the last major piece of civil rights legislation in that decade, the Fair Housing Act protects the rights of individuals to purchase property and live in a neighborhood anywhere they could afford. In principle, the Fair Housing Act--the act--is a good law. In practice, however the act has been often heavy-handed. In too many instances, the act has superseded local control. In short, the Fair Housing Act has frequently served as a ``Washington knows best'' prescription for neighborhood planning. I intend to change that. The legislation I am introducing today makes two important reforms: First, it allows a community to exercise reasonable zoning and other land use regulations to determine the number of unrelated occupants in a home and the location of residential care facilities in the community; and Second, it allows neighborhood residents to express legitimate concerns about land use in their neighborhoods, without threat of retaliation by the Federal Government. This bill is an effort to restore balance to the Fair Housing Act. To fight vigorously against housing discrimination, the Federal Government must partner with local communities. Moreover, we must acknowledge the principle that local communities are in the best place both to fight discrimination and to judge how land is used in its neighborhoods. The Fair Housing Act should reflect this principle. I urge all my colleagues to endorse this critical legislation to restore local control of America's neighborhoods.

Mr. BAKER

Mr. BAKER. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, let me give one further example, if I might. Under the Federal Home Loan Bank Community Investment Program, if the employees working in a business make less than 80 percent of the median income in that community, meaning lower income salaried employees, that business owner can go to the Federal Home Loan Bank member bank institution and refinance their entire business debt at a federally subsidized, low interest rate. Now I can tell my colleagues that is a pretty distinctive advantage for low-income families. The fact is it may not be utilized everywhere. I do not understand, but it is currently being done.

Mr. BAKER. I yield to the gentleman from New York.

Mr. BAKER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. The question before us really is one of propriety, and I regret to say that I am very disturbed by the developments that I have read concerning the handling of the funds in this matter. But let me speak first to the issue of whether the Congress is or is not being responsive to the needs of those in low-income communities, particularly in light of the debate as to whether this is an effective program or not. The CDFI Program was a joint effort of the gentleman from New York [Mr. Flake] and Mr. Ridge several years ago, and at the time of its outset I was a supporter and felt confident it was a direction in which we should move. I pointed out then, however, and I point out to Members tonight, that the community investment program of the Federal Home Loan Bank, a program that exists today, as of the close of business in 1995, in 1 year, extended loans to low-income communities totaling $9 billion. Nine billion dollars. So to say that programs of this Congress intended to help low-income individuals are not available is simply not accurate. Matter of fact, I would strongly support an expansion of the applicability of the CIP Program because I know how those funds are awarded and that deserving people get real opportunities. The problem for us here with this debate is that with the CDFI Program, upon further examination, we cannot defend how the awards were made. There was no objective scoring criteria. There was no way to go back and say tonight that the $50 million that has been authorized and allocated, we know how it was given out. Apparently the documents that have been the subject of controversy were inserted into the public record after the determinations were made. That is troubling. All I am suggesting to my colleagues is that we should move very carefully. And the gentleman from Alabama [Mr. Bachus] is suggesting with the adoption of his amendment that we say, wait a minute, let us keep it at last year's level 1 more year. And what are we talking about? The difference between $50 million, last year's appropriation, and the 125 previously agreed to. And I would point out to the gentleman that perhaps $25 million of the previously authorized 50 was actually spent. So what is the rush? Why do we not take the proper steps? Because of one simple point. When I get off the plane and go back to Baton Rouge over the weekend, I will find it hard to say that $150 million is insignificant money to people in my district. Not that we are abjectly opposed nor in any way resistant to helping those in communities who have financial need, that we do in fact want to help, that we would like to see programs like the CIP Program properly managed and properly operated, and be fully funded. I can be supportive of that. But we should not at this point take this step without making careful review of the circumstance surrounding this program.

Mr. BAKER. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I agree with the gentleman that we ought to have more innovative ways. The only thing I am suggesting here this evening is that we need to make sure they work before we put more money in them and there is question as to how this one works.

Mr. BAKER. I yield to the gentleman from New York.

Mr. BAKER. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time briefly on that point only, and then I will be happy to yield further, the community investment program of the Federal Home Loan Bank funds firehouses, multifamily apartment houses, restaurants, anything a community needs, and $9 billion of it was done in 1995. So this is not a limited purpose program that I am referencing.

Mr. BAKER

Mr. BAKER. I thank the gentleman from New York for yielding this time to me. Mr. Chairman, this is indeed a pivotal moment for us. With the consideration of the Kennedy substitute, Members can vote to support it and fight to cling onto what simply has not worked. There are, in fact, public housing authorities around the country who have used appropriate management skills, and there are public housing units which are well kept, but unfortunately for the vast numbers of people who must live in the very large urban-centered housing authorities of this country, conditions are terrible, and the Kennedy substitute in my opinion will do nothing, if anything at all, to rectify that problem. Mr. Chairman, if we are able to defeat the Kennedy substitute and move then to final passage in the adoption of the proposal as put forward by the chairman of the subcommittee, amended by 27 amendments from the Democrat side, we will make a significant new approach to public housing in this country. We will say to individuals who do not choose to be there most of the time: ``We're going to help you, but we're going to help you for a while, and we're going to ask you in return for that help to improve your own circumstance in life, get out and try to find work in the community, volunteer as it may be, to learn job skills, people skills. You may even find a job that pays you money while you are out doing this volunteer work''; because taxpayers in this country are saying, ``We don't object to helping people who truly are in need. We will extend a hand to someone who is injured, who is unemployed, who has found difficult times with his wife and family, who wants to help themselves. But we are saying that public housing in this Nation should not become a retirement community for people who will not try for themselves or their own families.'' This is a pivotal change. It is an important change. We cannot continue to pour billions of dollars into programs with 40 years of experience which have proven to fail and, more importantly, take more than decent living conditions away from people. They take their hope, their vision, their opportunity for a future because all they see is poverty. They do not see working dads or moms at home with kids or even businesses at their front door. They see drug dealers, broken-down apartment buildings and no hope, where the police are scared to come. This is a pivotal decision. It is critical to our Nation's future to give back to the working poor and the poor of this country the belief that if they try, we will help them, and that there is a price to pay if they do not make the effort for their own family. This is an integral part of our overall social services reform, where last year a majority of the Democrats in an almost unanimous Republican vote voted to impose work requirements of 20 hours a week for those who receive social services, soon to go to 80 hours a month, then to 100 hours a month and to increase thereafter. Mr. Chairman, it is not a new concept, it is not difficult, we know it works, and today we will make the change.

Mr. BAKER

Mr. BAKER. Mr. Chairman, I just wanted to return briefly for a moment to the issue of permanent versus temporary housing. The gentleman raised the issue in his remarks that it is difficult to justify to the hundreds of people who may be waiting, who are willing and anxious to occupy the housing and pay $25, where an individual who may be fully competent of paying is paying nothing; that this bill then sets in motion a minimum requirement that just like a homeowner, they must make some contribution toward their shelter. It is not that we are going to be callous. We are going to look at their individual situation, and if they have a problem, tell us about it. Sure, we might waive the rent requirement for a month or two while they get back on their feet, but again, this is not a permanent situation. The gentleman earlier said that public housing should be permanent. There could be no more significant philosophic difference on this issue than that single point. Taxpayers will agree to help a person who is having a bad day and say to them, ``We will help you with social programs, with shelter, whatever it takes to get you back on your feet, but we are not going to pay for a retirement community where you refuse to take actions to improve your own circumstance.'' Tolerance is fine, help is fine, but saying to someone that they make no contribution toward their housing at all, forever, there is a limit to which taxpayers will not go, and I think we are finding it. I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. BAKER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. BAKER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman for yielding this time to me. This of course is another important amendment aimed at limiting the important reforms that Chairman Lazio and the Republicans are proposing with regard to the utilization of public housing. What has been previously agreed to is that if an individual leaves public housing and gets employment, that the person who makes more money will be able to keep it under the provisions of this bill. Under the old system, which the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Frank] was attempting to adopt earlier with an amendment rejected by the House, as the person's income would go up, so concurrently would the amount of rent paid, which is certainly not an incentive for a family struggling to go out and try to find additional work for the family to make additional income when the rent increase takes away the extra benefit of that effort. This amendment would then reach inside the housing authority's discretion and say that the maximum rent someone could be required to pay in a hardship circumstance would be $25 down to zero, so that we are attempting to train individuals in homeownership skills, the idea that one should work, take care of their family, and make some contribution toward one's own shelter. The Velazquez amendment would say that any individual who has access to public housing could pay zero. If you homeowners in America have that luxury and that the proposal as put together by the chairman, ranging to $25 to $50 minimum rent, to be determined by the housing authority, would also put in the hands of the authority the ability to look at that individual and say, yes, you have an unusual circumstance and temporarily we will grant you access to housing at a minimal level. But understand, public housing is not intended to be a retirement home. This is transitional housing, and while you are here we expect you to learn what skills are required to be an effective homeowner, and making a contribution toward your own housing is certainly an important part of that lesson.

Mr. BAKER

Mr. BAKER. Mr. Chairman, does the gentleman ask, for instance, if they have job skills, and if they do not, does he suggest where they might go to get job training? Is that sort of part of this process?

Mr. BAKER. I yield to the gentleman from New York.

Mr. BAKER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from New York [Mr. Lazio] for yielding this time to me and would like to observe that the requirements we are talking about, the so-called self-sufficiency requirements, Mr. Chairman, are several in nature, and I would perhaps ask that the gentleman might respond to a question to make it more clear to me. One of the requirements is to supervise the work that would be engaged in under the work for benefit plan as has been outlined earlier. I am also understanding there is a separate part of the sufficiency requirement which would require that authority to visit with housing tenants to develop a plan. Is this a plan similar to, say, in the event a family gets in trouble with a credit card debt and they go to family debt counselors and they sit down with an individual and say here is what I owe, here is what I make, help me out; is it that kind of counseling process we are going through where an individual sits down and says I am in public housing, and here are my skills, and here is where I intended to be, or what is it that the gentleman is trying to require because it has been referred to as a kind of a Rube Goldberg thing? Mr. Chairman, I think we are owed an explanation as to where we go on this. What does this do?

Mr. BAKER. So if I am understanding, the bill in its present form would save us some money, help occupants of public housing ultimately get a job, perhaps leave public housing, and that is what is being objected to?

Mr. BAKER. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, I would say to the gentleman, they would pay taxes only on the wages they receive for the work, not on the value of subsidy they receive from taxpayers.

Mr. BAKER. I have it right here. It is very well written.

Mr. BAKER. I yield to the gentleman from North Carolina.

Mr. BAKER. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, the money belongs to the Government. My view is that individuals work and corporations, as individuals, and individuals on farms, and then they have to pay those taxes. That is not something voluntary on their part. That is my problem.

Mr. BAKER. If I can reclaim my time, there are a lot of things I would like to ask Mr. Donaldson. I could put that on the list.

Mr. BAKER. Mr. Chairman, I certainly agree with the gentleman, but the original question was dealing with mortgage interest deduction, which goes to whether a homeowner has to pay more taxes on his home or less. I am suggesting that they pay too much already.

Mr. BAKER. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, I would point out to the gentleman that in many cases there is work ongoing. An individual pays taxes; for example, with the home mortgage interest deduction, they are already paying taxes. They have to work, earn a salary, to become taxable. Once they become taxable, then they get benefits in the Tax Code. One might well argue that a person living in his own home who has paid for it for 30 years with after-tax dollars, maybe that is unreasonable to say that the Government ought to give him a tax break. But I think taxes are too high in the country already, not too low, and I think that most people do not object to paying taxes as long as the programs that they are funding----

Mr. BAKER. Mr. Chairman, if I may reclaim my time, I will explain the reason for calling it voluntarism. As the gentleman categorizes it in some other fashion, we call it work for benefit. Although individuals do pay, and as the gentleman rightly pointed out, many suffer under the misconception that public housing residents do not pay for their opportunity to live there, they in fact do. But they live there with a subsidized rate. That means other taxpayers contribute to the public housing, enabling the family to live decently at a lower rate. What we are saying is because of that help, we are therefore asking you to take steps to help yourself and your own family, not unreasonable at all.