Richard Baker

Mr. BAKER

Mr. BAKER. Mr. Chairman, so the short statement would be we are going to require housing authorities to spend some money to help the occupants finally get a plan for themselves, perhaps their family, to get out of public housing?

Mr. BAKER

Mr. BAKER. If I may reclaim my time just to respond briefly.

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. BAKER. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.

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. BAKER

Mr. BAKER. Mr. Chairman, this really goes back to the debate of 1937 when under the leadership of President Roosevelt, the Housing Act was adopted. But even beyond that vision that the President had, there was the Civilian Conservation Corps which was enacted during a very difficult and economic period of our country. The act set up a $30-a- month stipend for young men. Interestingly enough, no women could go to work for the CCC. And if they had a family, of the $30, $25 automatically went back to the family, while $5 stayed with the worker who lived in tents while they labored in national forests to preserve our great heritage. No one viewed that program as degradation or that it created shame or that it demeaned the esteem of man, and yet we look back with great pride at the days of CCC as an innovative and bold program. Today we find our current housing circumstance in much the same as our Nation in 1937. We indeed face a crisis, not as a result of a cataclysmic event, but erosion-like, slow process of erosion where our building inventory has gradually deteriorated. Unfortunately it has ruined a great deal more than just structures. It has taken the character and spirit of our people. How so? Through the best of intentions we set out to help people, to give them food and shelter and what was necessary to survive. But children grow up. Where there is no dad, mom cannot read, she does not go to school, there is no job for dad if he were there, and the only free enterprise in the neighborhood one can see is the drug dealer trying to protect his market share. Some might call that slavery today, because when one goes in they simply do not come out. But today we hear the same voices, the voices fighting to preserve this system, the dehumanizing system that manufactures kids who know nothing of the world's opportunities and even have disdain for everything that would make them successful. These same voices defend the warehousing of people like used tires and care little about their avenue to escape. Maybe I do not understand, but as a father I know placing in the hands of my own children the things that they need is the most satisfying thing in life. There is much to achieve in life, but no goal is more worthy than caring for one's own. So what is our plan to cure the problems of our fellow man? Simply not to build a retirement community where the Government assures one has a place to stay for life, but to build an opportunity. Few Americans resent helping one another, but we do expect those individuals who receive that bounty to do something for themselves. The Welfare Reform Act, which a majority of my friends on the other side of the aisle voted for last year, requires 20 hours of work a week. This act simply proposes to require 2 hours of work per week. This proposal exempts those who are disabled and those who are elderly, those who happen to be subject to the Welfare Reform Act, and interestingly enough those who have a job. But it then is only 2 hours per week. Why is this important? Because this is a process to enable a person to gather the skills they need to go out and work in the workplace with the strange idea that money is the cure to poverty. We are not going to guarantee the world will change if this is passed, but let me read the words of President Roosevelt. The country needs, and unless I mistake its temper, the country demands bold persistent experimentation. It is common sense to take a method and try. If it fails, admit it frankly and try another, but above all try something. No doubt Roosevelt had a grand vision when the 1937 act was passed, but if he stood here today, he would no doubt be deeply troubled by what he sees. He would not stand for despair, degradation and poverty, and he would not stand for it today, and neither will I.

Mr. BAKER

Mr. BAKER. Mr. Speaker, today I am introducing legislation that encourages the Bureau of Engraving and Printing to consider making Federal Reserve Notes tactually identifiable by the blind and visually impaired. This legislation enjoys considerable bipartisan support from my colleagues on the House Committee on Banking as well as other Members who share the same interests in assisting visually impaired individuals exert their independence. In March 1994, the Bureau of Engraving and Printing commissioned the National Academy of Science to executive a study entitled ``Currency Features for Visually Impaired People.'' This study explores methods of making currency more accessible for all Americans. The report concluded that the needs of the blind could be better served if further study on specific changes such as size, color, and tactile marks be initiated. Currently, the Department of Treasury is engaged in efforts to redesign the Federal Reserve note to prevent counterfeiting. Indeed, the new $100 bill already been issued nationwide. With this window of opportunity upon us, I believe Congress has the change to assist the millions of visually impaired Americans who strive to live independently by making their money more accessible to them. My bill simply endorses the efforts of the Bureau of Engraving and Printing to study cost-effective tactile changes in Federal Reserve notes and encourages the incorporation of those changes in the national currency. My bill does not cost the Federal Government any money, nor does it impose and undue, unfair mandates. Such a minor change in currency will have a significant impact on the independence of visually impaired Americans. Further, a tactual mark can serve other purposes, such as being an additional counterfeit deterrent. Visually impaired individuals are capable, independent people whose valuable contributions touch all of our lives. It is important that all Americans are afforded equal opportunities to perform at the best of their abilities. My bill stresses that importance. I hope all Members will join me to pass this legislation.

Mr. BAKER

Mr. BAKER. Mr. Speaker, today I am introducing the Depository Institution Affiliation Act of 1997, which is legislation designed to enhance the competitiveness of our financial services sector in preparation for the 21st century. This legislation is similar to H.R. 814 which I introduced in the 104th Congress. I am pleased to introduce this legislation again in the 105th Congress. It is my hope that our efforts this year will be successful in framing the debate on financial services modernization. Senator Alfonse D'Amato, chairman of the Senate Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs Committee, is also joining me in introducing similar legislation in the Senate today. Senator D'Amato and I share both a belief in the merits of this approach, and a commitment to pass financial modernization during this Congress. I want to make it clear that I am totally committed to passage of the most far-reaching financial modernization package possible in the 105th Congress. The introduction of the Depository Institution Affiliations Act of 1997 signals that I am committed to an approach that allows for the broadest possible reforms and recognizes the reality of the current marketplace. This reality is that today's dynamic financial marketplace is being ill-served by the artificial and arbitrary market segmentation that is at best anachronistic, and at worst anticompetitive and economically harmful. If financial modernization indeed is broad in scope, then American consumers will benefit by improved competition, more available services, and more rapid technological innovation in the marketplace. This modernization must be crafted in a manner that gives consumers the certainty that their financial services are provided within a safe and sound framework. At this unique point in time, we have an historic opportunity to achieve fundamental reforms in our Nation's financial services structure. That opportunity must not be squandered by leaving in place significant barriers in the market that will undoubtedly prove to be shortsighted. The restructuring of the financial services sector should recognize the market's evolution to date, and provide for market innovations to continue well into the future in a safe and sound manner. The legislation I offer today is virtually identical to that legislation I sponsored last Congress with significant bipartisan support. As we move ahead toward the goal of modernization, I fully anticipate garnering wide bipartisan support for my approach. In the coming months, as the administration grows more engaged on this issue, it will be essential to develop a bipartisan approach to financial services modernization. I believe this legislation is a good starting point for developing just such a bipartisan consensus in this modernization debate. The Depository Institution Affiliation Act also serves as my personal starting point on this issue in the 105th Congress, as I plan to hold hearings and introduce additional legislation in the coming months. The House Banking Committee should have before it all the available options in addressing the difficult issues posed by financial services modernization. I want to commend my colleague, chairman of the House Banking Committee, Jim Leach for his commitment and leadership in pushing for early action on financial modernization in the 105th Congress. I look forward to participating in all hearings the House Banking Committee will hold on this important issue. As chairman of the Subcommittee on Capital Markets, GSE's, and Securities, I plan to hold hearings that deal with two issues I believe are very important in this debate: the issue of allowing banking and commerce to mix; and the proper scope of holding company regulation. I believe that putting together an effective consensus on these two issues will be the key to successful passage of a financial modernization package. Mr. Speaker, I look forward to working with you and all Members of the House in order to bring real reforms to our Nation's financial marketplace.

Mr. BAKER

Mr. BAKER. Mr. Speaker, recent allegations involving fraud in the Single Family Homes for Homeless Initiative and the mismanagement of the program by the Department of Housing and Urban Development [HUD] in New Orleans--in particular, the division of Community Planning and Development--have fueled concern over abuse of taxpayer assets. After significant investigation, I introduced H.R. 4085 in the 104th Congress, a bill to eliminate the program. Two other Subcommittee Chairmen of the House Banking Committee--Spencer Bachus of the Subcommittee on General Oversight and Rick Lazio of the Subcommittee on Housing and Community Opportunity--cosponsored the legislation with me. The bill effectively shuts the program down and returns the homes to taxpayers. We introduce the same bill today to continue our efforts in the 105th Congress to overhaul the program for those most in need of hosing and to eliminate fraud and mismanagement in the Federal Government. Earlier this year, I contacted the Inspector General of HUD, an independent office designed to oversee the department, and requested a comprehensive investigation of Safety Net, Inc., and its participation in the homeless program. In addition, I requested a full investigation of the HUD Office in New Orleans, particularly Community Planning and Development. The program is more accurately described as the Homes for Homeless Initiative of the Single-Family Property Disposition Program. Here is how the program works: If a person defaults on the mortgage payments of his/her home and the home has an insured mortgage by the Federal Housing Administration [FHA], then the Federal Government becomes the owner of the home. In other words, in case of default, HUD pays the mortgage to the bank, acquires the property, and is required to dispose of it. For most of these acquired properties, HUD leases the properties to nonprofits to serve homeless persons. An acquired property is leased to a nonprofit for $1 a year for up to 5 years. The home is to be provided for those persons who are homeless. One major restriction is that the tenant must have an income that is 50 percent of the median income (in Baton Rouge $19,146 for a family of four). The nonprofit can purchase the home at any time for 10 percent below the appraised fair market value, as established at the time the $1 lease is signed. It is possible to sell the home well below present market value 5 years after the initial appraisal. A nonprofit is restricted from reselling to anyone other than a low income homebuyer (defined at $31,450 for a family of four). The Sunday Advocate alleges that Safety Net, Inc., violated many of the rules of the homeless disposition program. In addition, it may have broken some of the laws required to participate in the program. I have requested that the investigation answer these allegations. It is also alleged that the HUD Office in New Orleans failed miserably to monitor the program and the participation by Safety Net, Inc., for 5 years. I have asked the Inspector General to investigate the HUD Office as well. Moreover, the U.S. Attorney's Office in Baton Rouge has responded to the case by opening an investigation to determine whether a criminal prosecution is warranted. The U.S. Attorney's Office is working in concert with the Inspector General's Office. As a senior member of the Subcommittee on Housing and Community Opportunity, I have long been an advocate of reform of the HUD acquired Single-Family Property Disposition Program. In 1992, I sponsored an amendment and passed into law a requirement that HUD must try first to sell the property in the private market to the highest bidder. I believe that our first priority is to recover as much taxpayer money for the acquired home. If we cannot sell the property to maximize taxpayer return, we should use our acquired properties in the most effective manner possible to house our most disadvantaged citizens without a home. To continue rigorous oversight of this program, I requested that the Banking and Financial Services Committee conduct a hearing on this case and other abuses of this program to guarantee that we do not waste taxpayer monies and to insure we provide for our most needy citizens. Chairman Bachus has travelled down to Baton Rouge and together, we conducted an oversight hearing in Louisiana on August 24. I am committed to prosecuting fraud and reforming our Federal Government. Moreover, I believe we can provide a safe, decent home for our most underprivileged citizens while maintaining accountability for taxpayers.

Mr. BAKER

Mr. BAKER. Mr. Speaker, today I am introducing legislation, with my distinguished colleague, the Minority Leader of the Capital Markets Subcommittee, Rep. Paul Kanjorski (D-PA), to reform the Federal Home Loan Bank System (FHLB). Throughout the 104th Congress, Mr. Kanjorski and I have worked diligently to craft a bi-partisan reform bill. This legislation reflects the product of our subcommittee from April of last year. While this bill reflects general consensus among members of the subcommittee, we are committed to working with other members of the full committee as well as the Administration to craft a bill that reflects most concerns. Greater attention will be given to the regulation and governance of the Bank System, the proper capital structure, the membership profile, and the mission of the system. The Federal Home Loan Bank System was established in 1932 primarily to provide a source of intermediate- and long-term credit for savings institutions to finance long-term residential mortgages and to provide a source for liquidity loans for such institutions, neither of which was readily available for savings institutions at that time the Federal Home Loan Bank system was created. In recent years, the System's membership has expanded to include other depository institutions that are significant housing lenders. The segment of savings institutions and other depository institutions that are specialized mortgage lenders has decreased in size and market share and may continue to decrease. The establishment of the Federal National Mortgage Association (Fannie Mae), the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation (Freddie Mac), and the Government National Mortgage Association (Ginnie Mae) and the subsequent development of an extensive private secondary market for residential mortgages has challenged the Federal Home Loan Bank System as a source of intermediate- and long-term credit to support primary residential mortgages lenders. For most depository institutions, residential mortgage lending has been incorporated into the product mix of community banking that typically provides a range of mortgage, consumer, and commercial loans in their communities. Community banks, particularly those in rural markets, have a difficult time funding their intermediate- and long-term assets held in portfolio and accessing capital markets. For example, rural nonfarm businesses tend to rely heavily on community banks as their primary lender. Like the savings associations in the 1930's, these rural community banks draw most of their funds from local deposits. Longer- term credit for many borrowers in rural areas may therefore be difficult to obtain. In short, the economy of rural America may benefit from increased competition if rural community banks are provided enhanced access to capital markets. Access to liquidity through the FHLB System benefits well-managed, adequately-capitalized community banks. For these banks, term advances reduce interest rate risk. In addition, the ability of a community bank to obtain advances to offset deposit decreases or to temporarily fund portfolios during an increase in loan demand reduces the bank's overall cost of operation and allows the institution to better serve their market and community. Used prudently, the FHLB System is an integral tool to assist properly regulated, well-capitalized community banks, particularly those who lend in rural areas and underserved neighborhoods, a more stable funding resource for intermediate- and long-term assets. With that in mind, I have introduced this legislation today to enhance the utility of the Federal Home Loan Bank System. I want the mission of the system to remain strong in the ability to help Americans realize the dream of home ownership, but equally as important: I want the System to enrich the communities in which Americans build their dreams. America is the world capital of free enterprise. Free enterprise is the foundation on which the ``American Dream'' is built, and it is the engine by which ``American ingenuity'' is driven. My legislation will help nurture American free enterprise. That is why I call this bill the ``Enterprise Resource Bank Act.'' The Enterprise Resource Bank Act will strengthen the System's mission to promote residential mortgage lending (including mortgages on housing for low- and moderate-income families. Enterprise Resource Banks will facilitate community and economic development lending, including rural economic development lending. And Enterprise Resource Banks will facilitate this lending safely and soundly, through a program of collateralized advances and other financial services that provide long- term funding, liquidity, and interest-rate risk management to its stockholders and certain non-member mortgages. Since 1932, the Bank System has served as a link between the capital markets and local housing lenders, quietly making more money available for housing loans at better rates for Americans. Today the Federal Home Loan Banks' 5,700 member financial institutions provide for one out of every four mortgage loans outstanding in this country, including many loans that would not qualify for funding under secondary market criteria. The Bank System accomplishes this without a penny of taxpayer money through an exemplary partnership between private capital and public purpose. More than 3,500 of the Bank System's current members are commercial banks, credit unions and insurance companies that became eligible for Bank membership in 1989. They demonstrate the market's value of the Bank System by investing in the capital stock of the regional home loan banks. These institutions have recognized the advantages of access to the Bank System's credit programs and have responded to their local communities' needs for mortgage lending. As the financial marketplace grows larger and more complex, I envision the Bank System as a necessary vehicle for serving community lending needs especially in rural and inner-city credit areas. The Federal Home Loan Bank System serves an active and successful role in financing community lending and affordable housing through the Affordable Housing Program (AHP) and the Community Investment Program (CIP). The AHP program provides low-cost funds for member institutions to finance affordable housing, and the CIP program supports loans made by members to community-based organizations involved in commercial and economic development activities to benefit low-income areas. The Federal Home Loan Banks' loans (advances) to their members have increased steadily since 1992 to the current level of more than $122 billion. Since 1990, the Banks have made $7.1 billion in targeted Community Investment Program advances to finance housing units for low- and moderate-income families and economic development projects. In addition, the Banks have contributed more than $350 million through their Affordable Housing Programs to projects that facilitate housing for low- and moderate-income families. While these figures are impressive, the Federal Home Loan Bank System needs some fine tuning to enable it to continue to meet the needs of all its members in a rapidly changing financial marketplace. The Enterprise Resource Bank Act of 1996 recognizes the changes that have occurred in home lending markets in recent years, which is reflected in the present composition of the Bank System's membership. Enacting this legislation will enhance the attractiveness of the Banks as a source of funds for housing and related community development lending, and will encourage the Banks to maintain their well-recognized financial strength. Specifically, my legislation: targets the Bank System's mission in statute to emphasize the System's important role of supporting our nation's housing finance system and its potential role of supporting economic development by providing long term credit and liquidity to housing lenders; establishes voluntary membership and equal terms of access to the System for all institutions eligible to become Bank System members, and eliminates artificial restrictions on the Banks' lending to member institutions based on their Qualified Thrift Lender status; equalizes and rationalizes Bank members' capital stock purchase requirements, preserving the cooperative structure that has served the System well since its creation in 1932; separates regulation and corporate governance of the Banks that reflect their low level of risk ensuring the Banks can meet their obligations; and modifies the methodology for allocating the Bank System's annual $300 million REFCORP obligation so that the individual Banks, economic incentives are consistent with their statutory mission to support primary lenders in their communities. Taken together, these interrelated provisions address the major issues identified in a recent series of studies of the Bank System that Congress required from the Federal Housing Finance Board (FHFB), the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), the General Accounting Office (GAO), the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) and a Stockholder Study Committee comprised of 24 representatives of Federal Home Loan Bank shareholder institutions from across the country. The Enterprise Resource Banks Act will make the Banks more profitable by enabling them to serve a larger universe of depository institution lenders more efficiently, and it will return control of the Banks to their regional boards of director who are in the best position to determine the needs of their local markets. At the same time, it will provide for the safety and soundness oversight necessary to ensure that this large, sophisticated financial enterprise maintains its financial integrity and continues to meet its obligations. I first offered comprehensive legislation to modernize the Bank System in 1992. The legislation is the culmination of efforts over the last three years to address in a balanced way the concerns of the Banks' member institutions, community and housing groups, and various government agencies. Together with my respected colleague, Rep. Paul Kanjorski, I look forward to passage of this important legislation to modernize an institution that works to improve the availability of housing finance and the opportunity of credit for all Americans, particularly those who are underserved.

Mr. BAKER

Mr. BAKER. Mr. Speaker, today, I have introduced the Forest Foundation Conservation Act. The Forest Foundation Conservation Act will amend the National Forest Foundation Act to extend and increase the matching funds authorized for the National Forest Foundation and to permit the National Forest Foundation to license the use of trademarks, tradenames, and other such devices to identify that a person is an official sponsor or supporter of the U.S. Forest Service or the National Forest System. Our Nation has been blessed with a national treasure--America's national forest lands. A growing population, increasing demands on forests and related resources, and more competition for uses and benefits are placing great stress on our forest lands and the U.S. Forest Service. Now, more than ever, America's forest lands and the individuals who work so diligently to manage these forest lands need support from people who care. The National Forest Foundation, a citizen-directed, nonprofit organization, was created to coordinate the needed support. The Forest Foundation Conservation Act will allow the National Forest Foundation to develop innovative public-private partnerships so that America's pristine forest land and its resources will be conserved for future generations. I believe that it is the responsibility of each citizen to help conserve our Nation's resources and provide organizations like the National Forest Foundation with the resources it needs to help maintain America's forest lands for generations to come. I hope that my colleagues will join me in supporting this legislation which will help us improve the quality and infrastructure of our National Forests.

Mr. BAKER of Louisiana

Mr. BAKER of Louisiana. Mr. Speaker, today, I have introduced the Forest Foundation Conservation Act. The Forest Foundation Conservation Act will amend the National Forest Foundation Act to extend and increase the matching funds authorized for the National Forest Foundation and to permit the National Forest Foundation to license the use of trademarks, tradenames, and other such devices to identify that a person is an official sponsor or supporter of the U.S. Forest Service or the National Forest System. Our Nation has been blessed with a national treasure--America's national forest lands. A growing population, increasing demands on forests and related resources, and more competition for uses and benefits are placing great stress on our forest lands and the U.S. Forest Service. Now more than ever, America's forest lands and the individuals who work so diligently to manage these forest lands need support from people who care. The National Forest Foundation, a citizen-directed, non-profit organization, was created to coordinate the needed support. The National Forest Foundation Amendment Act of 1996 will allow the National Forest Foundation to develop innovative public/private partnerships so that America's pristine forest land and its resources will be conserved for future generations. I believe that it is the responsibility of each citizen to help conserve our Nation's resources and provide organizations like the National Forest Foundation with the resources it needs to help maintain America's forest lands for generations to come. I hope that my colleagues will join me in supporting this legislation which will help us improve the quality and infrastructure of our national forests.

Mr. BAKER of Louisiana

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

Mr. BAKER of Louisiana. Mr. Chairman, my concern, beyond the procedural elements that have been referred to here just a moment ago, is the perceived effect of the amendment as I have read it. Although I understand the author's intention is to only limit the appropriation of funds from a particular area by Treasury to the Comptroller with regard to prohibition of new activities in insurance, the construction of the amendment, as I view it today, is to prohibit any new product, regardless of insurance or other wise, if it were not otherwise permitted by July 16 of this year. That was the reason for the unanimous consent request to modify.

Mr. BAKER of Louisiana

Mr. BAKER of Louisiana. Mr. Speaker, we are quickly approaching the sesquicentennial anniversary of the Civil War and in preparation of this, I, along with several colleagues, would like to designate Louisiana State University [L.S.U.] in conjunction with Gettysburg College as flagship institutions which will plan this commemoration. The centers' goals will include cataloging Civil War archives nationwide and studying the war from the perspective of every conceivable discipline, profession, and occupation. All of this will enable L.S.U. and Gettysburg College to plan a sesquicentennial commemoration that will celebrate Civil War heritage in the North and South, while engaging all citizens in a study of the ways in which both problems and prospects of today evolved out of many facets of the Civil War and its legacy. Through these centers, we can educate the people about the Civil War. To quote Abraham Lincoln, ``We will hope to reach the old and the young, the rich and the poor, the grave and the gay, of all sexes and tongues, and colors and conditions.'' These two centers will, as students and guardians of the American past, have done the most important public duty of our lives, and, with the grace of God, will have served the peoples of the United States and the world.

Mr. BAKER of Louisiana

Mr. BAKER of Louisiana. The people who are going to decide how much rent an individual is going to pay?

Mr. BAKER of Louisiana. Mr. Chairman, I just want to point out, it has again been missed, that housing director after housing director after public housing authority board member has contacted Members of this Congress and said, ``Please, give us some relief from the Brooke amendment.'' I think the chairman is in receipt of a letter from the National Housing Officials Association. Would the chairman inform the Members as to what this group's opinion is with regard to the effects of the Brooke amendment?

Mr. BAKER of Louisiana. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Chairman, anybody can make charts and draw diagrams. Certainly they can make their own, rather than use ours. The point is, we should turn to those people who administer public housing at the local level and who do a good job.

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

Mr. BAKER of Louisiana. Mr. Chairman, I am trying to understand. Apparently all the discussion has been unable to make our case quite clearly. Is it the circumstance, in the gentleman's opinion, if a working family is in public housing today and mom is at home, and they somehow make arrangements to get child care, and mom leaves and takes on a new job, so the income of the family may go up to $1,200 or $1,500 a month, they have to pay for day care, but that does not matter when we look at the 30-percent rule, that that then applies to both new incomes; so rather than mom go out and work and pay for day care, mom just stays home. Is that what the gentleman is saying?

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

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

Mr. BAKER of Louisiana. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, only one among many. But this is the answer to how can this be. When one drives just a short distance from my home, in a bus, goes down to the Desire Street Housing Project, built in the 1950's, now on a Superfund site, surrounded on all sides, with one way in and out over a railroad track, 1,800 units now occupied by 400 individuals, not aggregated one locale, but spread out throughout 1,8000 units, unprotected. The employees do not have two-way communication. If something happens, as it did one week before I went when a 15-year-old child was killed on the doorstep of his unit over rival drugs wars, over sales territory, I went upstairs and talked to the 80-year-old lady who lived in that building by herself and said, ``Ma'am, is there anything I can do to help you?'' She did not know who I was, nor did she care. She said, ``Come with me a minute.'' Her unit was well kept. It was the only one in 16 units in that building. It was not just rundown, depreciated, and worn out. There were no walls, there were no floors. There were dogs and cats running through the bottom area. She walked up those steps every night by herself, locked herself in the room, and she said, ``There is one thing I would like you to do for me, if you might.'' And she took me into the restroom and showed me the large gap in the wall above the shower stall. She said, ``At night when I try to take a bath, the roaches come down the wall. It bothers me just a bit.'' How would you feel if that was your grandmother? Now, here is the real problem. If that were just the only issue, if it was just the fact there was not a sufficient amount of money in the bank to solve this problem. Desire has, the Housing Authority of New Orleans, this morning has $200 million in their account to spend for renovation. I called the GAO. I said, ``Look, guys, tell me what is going on. I am really worried about this, because not only is it a waste of taxpayer money, look at the conditions in which these people have to exist.'' I got this back, dated May 1996. I know it is a little old, but we will use it anyway. When I flipped through the pages, there is a summary of the history. Secretary Cisneros wrote Leon Panetta a letter 2 years ago saying, ``Mr. Panetta, we have to do something about this circumstance. It is dismal. It is not fit for human habitation.'' This report dated May 1996 says the circumstances today are unfit for human habitation. I have a letter from employees. I have a letter from occupants, saying ``Please, get us out of these circumstances. It has got to come to an end.'' What effect does the Brooke amendment have on this circumstance? What effect does one-for-one have on this circumstance? Concentration issues. The Desire Street Housing Project is an example. Ninety percent of the occupants are single, poor, women with children, without education. Now, if we are going to do something about the problems, we have got to turn that around. We have got to have those kids in an environment where they see dads going to work and where there are children playing in the yard. We have to turn this around. It is not just a question of the poorly run disasters like Desire in New Orleans. And, by the way, I intend to ask the Secretary of HUD to seize control and take it away from the city and given those people a chance for real hope and opportunity, because we can do it. There is more vacant housing in New Orleans than there are people on the waiting lists if you bulldozed Desire. That is incredible to me. By the way, when I first got involved in this they were going to spend $71,000 per unit to renovate on this Superfund site. The most recent plan, after I objected, calls for them to spend $130,000 per unit. I am really doing a good job. Mr. Chairman, we have got to get a grip. What about the well-run public housing. I called Baton Rouge. I said, ``Guys, what is going on?'' We had a big debate about the number of people on the boards that govern public housing. I said, ``Tell me how you run it.'' They have seven members, two are residents. Tell me who the other bad guys are that are making the terrible public policy. Well, we have a realtor. I am sure that is the problem. We have a doctor from Southern University. A former Secretary of Health and Human Resources is on the board. We have a volunteer coordinator at a public hospital. We have a Methodist minister. He has got to be the one that is driving these poor people into these poor conditions. I said, ``How much do they make to serve on the public housing boards and do all of this damage to the poor people of America?'' Nothing. No reimbursement, no per diem, no travel. It is 100 percent volunteer. These people are performing a public service to try to help the poor of Baton Rouge. Mr. Chairman, these people have asked for the ability to govern their housing authorities. Take off the Brooke amendment. Help us govern and help people who want to help themselves. Let us get a population mix in public housing that reflects what is going on in America. Let us give these people something more than decent housing. Let us give them some hope; the belief that they can be a part of America and not be locked up in a multistory, 1,800-unit complex on top of a Superfund site with nothing but drug dealers at their front door. It is ridiculous. It has got to change.

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

Mr. BAKER of Louisiana. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time, and certainly want to commend him for leadership in this most difficult issue and all issues relating to reform of housing in America. But this is not just a debate about the Brooke amendment. It is not just a debate about the necessity to repeal the one-for-one requirement or to do something with the admissions or eviction processes, or just about education and job skills, necessities in public housing, or even just public housing. It It extends to what is known as the section 8 based project assistance. It is all of this, and more, regrettably. We must look not just at the specific issue before us this morning in the Brooke amendment. We must look at the effects, the consequences, of the aggregate of these legislative remedies, which although well- intentioned, have led us down a long, dark road. It is unfortunate, but all we can conclude when we look at the inventory of housing provided by our Nation today to the working poor of America, you can only reach one conclusion. It is sad, but the U.S. Government is the world's largest slum landlord. We must change that. How can this be?