Cleo Fields

Mr. FIELDS of Louisiana

Mr. FIELDS of Louisiana. Mr. Chairman, this amendment is a very simple amendment. It should be a noncontroversial amendment because it does not deal with the preamble, it deals with the substance of the bill. This amendment will, quite frankly speaking, simply provide that the boards that will be in place across this country that will regulate public housing must be composed of at least 25 percent of those individuals who live in public housing. This is at a time, Mr. Chairman, when we want to give local tenants more input into the decisionmaking process, and this amendment is right along those lines. Twenty-five percent of those individuals who are in public housing being on a board, that means that about 75 percent will not be in public housing. Although that is not a mandate in this amendment, it can very possibly be that way. If you have a 4-member board, Mr. Chairman, only 1 member under this amendment will be from the public housing; 8 members, 2 members; a 12- member board, only 3 members; 16, 4 members. So 25 percent of whatever board we have will consist of people from the public housing who live there every day. Second, Mr. Chairman, if there is any question about training those individuals who live in public housing, whether or not they are able to make managerial decisions, whether or not they are able to conduct themselves in a manner that is conducive to finances and things of that nature, each of these people, each of these individuals will be trained. The amendment does not deviate from the present language in the bill. It provides for training among those members who will come from the public housing to serve on those particular boards. Last, Mr. Chairman, I would like to state that many public housing boards across this country now include members from public housing. As a matter of fact, it makes it much more conducive for implementing programs because the tenants are in a better position to know what in fact takes place on a day-to-day basis in those public housing facilities all across this country. So this is an amendment that simply allows tenants to participate in the decisionmaking process in this country, and I do not think there is any opposition from the other side of the aisle.

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

Mr. FIELDS of Louisiana. This is the same. After the manager's amendment was adopted, I had to make a few minor modifications, but the language is the same.

Mr. FIELDS of Louisiana. Mr. Chairman, I would be happy to share it with the gentleman. It is the exact amendment that I prefiled and was printed in the Record. The only change in this amendment versus the printed amendment is to the different language in the different parts of the bill because of the manager's amendment. So this amendment was to comply with the manager's amendment that was adopted by this House.

Mr. FIELDS of Louisiana. Mr. Chairman, in the manager's amendment, as the gentleman from New York is aware, the section that deals with the board of directors, the manager's amendment calls for an election of one tenant on each board. This amendment simply went, as a result of the manager's amendment, my amendment was changed to deal with that same language, to change the number from 1 to 25 percent.

Mr. FIELDS of Louisiana. Mr. Chairman, it is the same language. The only difference is the difference in sections.

Mr. FIELDS of Louisiana. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.

Mr. FIELDS of Louisiana. Mr. Chairman, I continue to yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.

Mr. FIELDS of Louisiana. Would the gentleman have any objections to withdrawing this amendment and going back to the original amendment, since the gentleman is quite aware of the original amendment, because it is not my intent to try to sneak an amendment on the gentleman. As the gentleman knows, this amendment is the identical amendment as the original amendment that was introduced by the gentleman, and that was printed in the Record.

Mr. FIELDS of Louisiana. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw the amendment that I introduced today and be allowed to speak to the original amendment that was printed in the Record.

Mr. FIELDS of Louisiana. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. FIELDS of Louisiana. I appreciate the gentleman's comment, but I am having a hard time understanding how a board that consists of 15 Members is OK to have one tenant from the public housing but a board that consists of five or four is not acceptable. I thought the gentleman's philosophy, and that is one of the reasons why I introduced the amendment, was to give tenants an opportunity to participate. I see that the gentleman is not adverse to tenant participation because the gentleman has spoken to that point, and I cannot understand why just because there is a small housing facility versus a large, that those tenants should be denied the opportunity to participate.

Mr. FIELDS of Louisiana. Mr. Chairman, this amendment simply provides that 25 percent of all the boards of directors across the country will consist of 25 percent of tenants. Twenty-five percent of those individuals who sit around the table and make decisions on how public housing works in America will be tenants. It is a very straightforward amendment. There is nothing complicated about it. If there is a board of four, then one member will according to this amendment come from public housing. Second, this amendment will also provide, as I stated earlier, for training. So anyone who has any question about individuals being able to make major decisions, each individual who is elected to the board will be provided adequate training. In terms of who will elect these members, these members will be elected by bona fide housing residents. The housing residents will meet and elect their representatives to the board, and those individuals will serve based on a time that is enumerated by the rules and the regulations of that particular board. If there are no objections to this amendment, I suggest its adoption.

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

Mr. FIELDS of Louisiana. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. FIELDS of Louisiana. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I really do not understand why the gentleman on the other side of the aisle will not accept the gentlewoman's amendment to allow an elderly woman to have a pet in a home. Just because a person living in public housing, for crying out loud, does not mean they ought not have the quality of life of everybody else. Even the President of the United States of America has a pet in his home. But I want to yield to the gentleman, I would like to if the gentleman would respond, and that is on public housing, I loud like to yield to the gentleman from New York, because I have a particular problem about some of the things even in the manager's amendment, because reading the manager's amendment, for example, the gentleman's amendment from New York, it says, ``A tenant who is elected to the housing authority or to that housing board, cannot serve as a representative of the board if he or she was convicted of a misdemeanor in a 5-year period.'' I am trying to find out what is the rationale of telling a person who lives in public housing, for crying out loud, they cannot serve on a board if they were convicted of a traffic ticket? If they were convicted of a parking ticket? If they go a ticket for jaywalking? The gentleman continues to talk about how he wants to give the people in this country the opportunity to participate in their decisions and take it away from Washington and take it away from all these bureaucracies across America, but yet he tells the poor citizens who lives in a public housing facility that he or she cannot serve if they have been convicted of a misdemeanor. Not a felony, but a misdemeanor, for the past 5 years. I would like to yield to the gentleman because I would like to know why the gentleman would put such strict requirements on members elected to the board who serve in housing facilities.

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

Mr. FIELDS of Louisiana. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, the last time I checked, there is nothing wrong with a person looking for an apartment and filing out an application who has been convicted of a parking violation. I do not understand the rationale. I can understand felonies, but I do not understand the rationale of a misdemeanor.

Mr. FIELDS of Louisiana. Why is it so difficult for a person to serve on a board if they have been convicted of a misdemeanor?

Mr. FIELDS of Louisiana. If I got a parking ticket yesterday, I am a convicted criminal? If I got a ticket in Washington, DC., I cannot serve on a board. Yes or no, is that not correct?

Mr. FIELDS of Louisiana. A parking ticket is a misdemeanor. What about if I got a traffic ticket? What about jaywalking? Then you take a 5-year period. Second, why do we not impose this same requirement on the Members of Congress? Why do we not say to America you cannot run for the U.S. Congress if you have been convicted of a misdemeanor in the past 5 years? I would ask the question to the Members of this Congress, how many of us would be able to qualify to run for office if we could not run if we were convicted of a traffic ticket in a 5-year period?

Mr. FIELDS of Louisiana. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, in my State you can go to jail for not paying a traffic ticket. In my State a traffic ticket is a misdemeanor. In the State I come from a traffic ticket, a moving violation, is a misdemeanor and you can in fact go to jail for it. What I am trying to understand, and I would hope the gentleman would think about this overnight, because tomorrow I am going to try to take this out of this bill and I would hope the gentleman would agree with me, it makes no sense whatsoever to penalize a person who lives in public housing to the extent they cannot serve on a board simply because they got a ticket for jaywalking or parking.

Mr. FIELDS of Louisiana. I thank the gentlewoman for yielding and for her support of the amendment. I would like to make the Members of the House aware of the fact that this very amendment is in the Senate bill, S. 1260, which contains the very language that this amendment contains and I am hopeful if this amendment is not adopted by this House tonight that in conference this amendment will in fact have an opportunity to be adopted so that it can in fact be the law of the land. But I truly believe that the more input we get from people who live in public housing in term of how we shape their living conditions, who knows best than them. I just think this is a step in the right direction. I would like to commend many of those local areas across the country who are now implementing local advisory boards today, like the city of New Orleans from my own State. They have an advisory board that consists of residents. I think that is a step in the right direction.

Mr. FIELDS of Louisiana. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. FIELDS of Louisiana. Mr. Chairman, this amendment is a very simple and straightforward amendment. I talked about this amendment earlier. In the manager's amendment, it simply goes in and strikes out the portion that deals with the 5-year misdemeanor. That is not a requirement of anyone else who serves on a board. It should not be a requirement of a person, simply because they live in public housing, who serves on a board. Mr. Chairman, I suggest that we take that portion and that portion only out of the manager's amendment, which will simply provide for all the other rules and regulations, or election requirements, rather, under the amendment, but it would take out the portion that when the tenants have an election, one will not be subject to the provision that says that if you have been convicted of a misdemeanor, not a felony but a misdemeanor in the past 5 years, you cannot run for a seat on the board. I do not know if there are any objections to that amendment.