Richard Baker

Mr. BAKER

Mr. BAKER. I yield to the gentlewoman from California.

Mr. BAKER. I have not heard one, either.

Mr. BAKER. Mr. Chairman, if I could reclaim my time, I do believe the chairman did agree to amendments tonight, without objection, that were enhancements, so we are getting there.

Mr. BAKER. That is today.

Mr. BAKER. Reclaiming my time, I would simply like to address the point that the question of more money has been demonstrated not necessarily always to be the answer, whether it is defense or whether it is any other appropriations measure. I think that is what the balanced budget deal is all about.

Mr. BAKER. If I could reclaim my time, what the gentleman is suggesting, that we have people waiting today who cannot get access to housing, that is a tragedy, I agree. What I am saying is let us create a better environment where we do have public housing by enhancing the conditions for those who must live there. Certainly we have an unmet need, but let us do both.

Mr. BAKER. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.

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

Mr. BAKER. I yield to the gentleman from Illinois.

Mr. BAKER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Obviously, there is much misunderstanding and confusion on the subject of work-for-benefit. Much has been questioned about what has this Congress done in the past with regard to requiring an individual to work in order to receive a benefit. I brought it up on prior occasions, but I think it is so important to restate. Just last year this Congress, by majority vote by both parties, adopted a workfare requirement under the welfare reform act. It does not require 8 hours a month or 2 hours a week. In consideration for AFDC payments or food stamps or other programs of that sort, the individual must work 20 hours a week, 80 hours a month, in order to be eligible to maintain those benefits. Under the provisions of the act, that requirement goes up by the year 2000 to 30 hours per week. The reasoning behind that and the reason why most Members of this Congress supported it is because many people who receive public assistance are in housing projects, not because they are not worthy but because they do not necessarily always have the skills to move from dependency to independence. The gentleman from New York [Mr. Lazio], chairman of the subcommittee, has rightfully described this new requirement as an opportunity, not as the other side would describe it as some sort of new slavery. In fact, what we are doing is giving people an opportunity by volunteering, getting into the community, seeing what job opportunities may be available, to develop job skills, to actually learn a skill perhaps while they are volunteering. It would leave them with the ability to ultimately get employment and walk away from public housing. Now, when we look at the workfare requirement adopted by this Congress by majority vote by both parties just last Congress, we find that the 20-hour-per-week requirement is essential in order to get people to move to independence rather than dependency. I had an interesting call last week as a result of our debate on the floor here about work-for-benefit. It was a working man from a family. He says, Do you know how many hours a week I work to pay for public housing? I work 40 hours a week. I pay my taxes, and it supports individuals in public housing. Now, I really do not mind that, but I would like to think that public housing is a temporary haven while a person gets back on his feet, gets those job skills and moves on and becomes a taxpaying citizen just like me. It should not be viewed as a retirement community where one gives up and does not try for himself or his family. Unfortunately, that, in too many cases, has been the way public housing has been viewed. This is going to continue to give valuable housing, decent public housing, to those individuals who otherwise could not find it, but give it on a temporary basis, simply saying, ``We will help you if you take the first step, that first step being independence on your own.''

Mr. BAKER. Mr. Chairman, I would just simply point out that the point I was making earlier is that we have miserable conditions today in two places. We have a waiting line. And we have terrible housing. What we are suggesting is let us try to improve the environment within the resources we have in those housing units. We certainly have a backlog with which we have to deal but that is there today. My point is, are we going to simply ignore, as some perhaps think is appropriate, the conditions that people must live in now? The answer is no. Let us do something to improve the quality of life there. That is my point.

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

Mr. BAKER. I end where I began. Money is not always the answer.

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

Mr. BAKER. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.

Mr. BAKER. Reclaiming my time just for a moment, I would simply make the point the gentleman's view is that more money is the answer. My view is more money has not been the answer. I think that is one of the issues.

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

Mr. BAKER. I will respond to the gentleman on the housing information.

Mr. BAKER. If I may reclaim my time, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. BAKER. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.

Mr. BAKER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I think it is very important to say that we do not believe we have all of the answers. All we have is the belief that what we have today simply does not work. We may well come back here, despite the chairman's best effort, next Congress and say, ``Hey, guys, this did not do it. We're going to have to make some changes in the way we've tried it.'' It was President Roosevelt who said, ``We owe it to the American people to do bold things and try it, and and if they fail to work, come back, acknowledge it, and try again.'' But to stand here together tonight after quadrupling the budget for housing four times over since 1980, I understand that the deal made in the budget, which I was not part of, of the $70 billion in discretionary spending, some $37 million is allocated to section 8 certificates over the next 5 years, with the effort made, honestly and frankly, to pour money into programs. I will give the Members one that I do know, the section 235 program some years ago, an interest rate buydown program that allowed families to move in with interest rate subsidies, into homes. It was a good idea on paper. It did not work. People were taken from a poor public housing environment and placed into home ownership responsibilities. It was a disaster. The program was canceled because we did not do anything but provide for money. This is more than just providing money. These are human beings. I listened to a Member earlier talk about the conditions in public housing. She is right: Dirty halls, doors off apartments where single women with children live. There was a suit at Desire Street housing project; a kid fell out of a window from a second story, was permanently disabled, and the window did not even have glass, did not have a frame, there was a hole in the wall. It had been reported to the housing authority for years. Money spent on fire and smoke detectors; they were put in a warehouse, kept locked up for years, and a family died, the whole family. They have a lawsuit filed claiming damages against the housing authority. They still have not been paid. It is an outrage. It is an absolute outrage. I share the frustrations some Members have on this side with our belief that by requiring people to work, by mixing families together of a different background and income level, that by counseling people with these silly schemes, that all this stuff is just simply going to make it worse. I do not believe that. I simply do not believe that. What I know is what we have. It does not work. We need to take people who cannot read and give them an opportunity to learn, people who do not have job skills, and teach them how to work; people who have job skills, we need to get them into the community and do something where they live. There is nothing wrong with that. But to say that we are going to allow more working poor into a public housing unit and bring their meager paycheck, despite the fact many call them rich, I cannot imagine raising a family of four in a city of New York on $30,000. I am sure people do it, but it has to be tough. We are going to say to those people, no, you cannot come in and bring your families; and dads who go to work in the morning, and moms who stay home and try to take care of the kids, and kids, by the way, who go to school? You can run into individuals in public housing today, little kids, they have given up. That is why 13-year-olds shoot other 13-year-olds for tennis shoes, my friends, because they do not believe tomorrow will be any better than today. It is a terrible circumstance. What I am suggesting is that taking the bold steps we take here tonight may not be the answer, but it has got to be better than what we have been doing for the last decade. Let us give it a try.

Mr. BAKER. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.

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

Mr. BAKER. Mr. Chairman, if I could reclaim my time, the gentleman is saying out of the $2.9 billion we are appropriating to housing authorities for operations, he is going to spend, I think the gentleman said, $35 million of this to actually help the occupants find a family plan and get on with life and perhaps get a job and then maybe even leave public housing. That is what this is about?

Mr. BAKER. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, where people sat down with and where we could discuss what needs were needed to be met, how we got there and how we dealt with the inherent problems that people face and challenges they face that have led to them being in public housing to begin with?