Jesse Jackson

Mr. JACKSON of Illinois

Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I want to rise in support of the Velazquez amendment, which sets a minimum rent of zero to $25 and a waiver for our Nation's most vulnerable who find themselves caught in situations of extreme hardship. I thank the gentlewoman from New York for her strong commitment to those who need our help the most and appreciate her advocacy on behalf of this critical issue. I want to first begin with a point of clarification. Public housing, as the other side has referred to it, is not transitional housing. It is affordable housing, and it is not free housing. It is affordable housing because the private market does not build homes for poor people and that is why the Government is in the housing business. I urge my colleagues to oppose the onerous provision of H.R. 2 which establishes a minimum rent for public housing and choice-based rental assistance recipients and provides only a voluntary waiver for hardship situations. While $25 to $50 does not seem like anything to most of us fortunate enough to have a steady stream of income, a minimum rent above $25 would pose a genuine hardship on families who are earning little or no income. This is especially true in the case of families who have lost or are at risk of losing their welfare benefits, are unemployed, are transitioning from homelessness, or are unexpectedly burdened by unanticipated medical expenses. For families caught in such desperate straits, $50 may just constitute too high a monthly expense. Mr. Chairman, this provision could unduly burden 340,000 families across the Nation if all public housing authorities implemented this rent scheme. Two-thirds of the families affected by this would be families with young children. Last year in the State of Illinois, 4,464 families were adversely impacted by the $25 minimum rent. Doubling this figure would force our neediest constituents to survive under further strain to provide food, medicine, and clothing for their children. Mr. Chairman, these are basic human necessities which we take for granted. In this Nation, which is considered an economic superpower in the world community, how can we demonstrate concern for those struggling to survive under such desperate conditions? Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman from New York for offering this critical amendment and I urge my colleagues to support this measure.

Mr. JACKSON of Illinois

Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. I thank the gentleman for the clarification.

Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Kennedy amendment to make targeting provisions in this bill more humane. We know that we face an affordable housing crisis in this Nation. There are 5.3 million Americans living under worst-case housing scenario needs. That is, they are forced to pay more than 50 percent of their income in rent or live under deplorable conditions. H.R. 2 will exacerbate this crisis by making public housing available to higher income residents who can pay higher rents at the expense of thousands of low-income families. Without a firm commitment to the principle that housing is a right and not a privilege, we will never attain our stated objective of adequately housing our citizens, as demonstrated by our history. In the late 1960's, a White House conference on housing and urban issues called for 26 million new housing starts over the next 10 years in order to meet the housing needs of our Nation. That goal translated into 2.6 million housing starts each year, with 600,000 of those starts to be federally subsidized each year. The Nation has never even approximated that goal, and currently the figure is slightly more than 1.5 million new housing starts annually. As a result our affordable housing crisis has exploded where millions of Americans live paying entirely too much for housing or they live in unsanitary or unsafe conditions. That, Mr. Chairman, is a national disgrace. When we talk about our priorities of enabling mixed income communities, which I believe is a laudable goal under ideal circumstances, we must be sure not to pull the housing safety net out from underneath the poorest and the most vulnerable Americans. Over the course of this debate, we will speak at length about the dangerous targeting provisions in this bill which set aside only 35 percent of public housing units for those earning below 30 percent of area median income, leaving the remainder of units to house people who earn up to 80 percent of area median income. In Chicago that means 65 percent of all public housing units could be set aside for people earning $44,650. Should we be displacing full-time minimum wage workers to make room for professionals who can better afford to find housing in the private market? Even at this point, this is obviously a false debate. Let me be clear. When we target low-income tenants as those with incomes under 30 percent of median income in a large metropolitan area like Chicago, we are talking about those who earn $16,312. This is $5,000 more than a full-time minimum wage worker earns in a year and nearly $10,000 more than a welfare recipient. People who will necessarily be displaced by the proposed income mix equation will include vast numbers of the working poor. As a result, low-wage workers and Americans who are ostensibly encouraged to successfully make the transition from welfare to work will either be forced into homelessness or to forgo basic human necessities like health care, groceries, and clothing in order to find alternative shelter. We must be vigilant, Mr. Chairman, in our efforts to ensure that, just at the time we are requiring the most from the most vulnerable among us, we do not remove the stability and the security of adequate housing, an essential resource as people attempt to move from welfare to work. When we considered this legislation in the last Congress, welfare reform had not yet been enacted. Seventy percent of the residents of the Chicago Housing Authority receive public assistance, and half of the residents are children. If there are not enough jobs to meet the welfare-to-work requirements, the potentially devastating implications of this bill are magnified. Mr. Chairman, without this amendment to the targeting provision of H.R. 2, we are literally pulling the rug out from the poor and the working class Americans. Let us not make such a tragic mistake in the name of reform. I urge my colleagues to support the amendment. Mr. Chairman, I would ask the gentleman from New York, chairman of the subcommittee, to engage me in a brief colloquy. Is it the gentleman's expectation that working class Americans would be willing to move under the targeting provisions of this bill into Cabrini Green or into Robert Taylor Homes in the city of Chicago?

Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. I yield to the gentleman from New York.

Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I have no argument that the Milwaukee model may be a successful model. I am simply suggesting that there may be costs associated with the Milwaukee model, and if there are costs associated with the Milwaukee model, and we multiply that times public housing authorities across the country, and since we are mandating a Federal law that requires public housing authorities to follow this particular model, we are simply suggesting that there should be costs associated or funds appropriated from our Congress in order to make that model possible for all public housing authorities.

Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. I yield to the gentleman from Iowa.

Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. I thank the gentleman for yielding this time. Mr. Chairman, I wanted to ask a question of the chairman, if he would join me in a colloquy for about 30 seconds. I wondered if the gentleman had any idea of the number of residents in the Milwaukee model and/or the costs of implementation of the Milwaukee model in Milwaukee, particularly as it has been applied in the public housing authorities.

Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment offered by the gentleman from Massachusetts, and appreciate the opportunity to join him as a cosponsor of this provision. This amendment guards against the creation of an unfunded mandate in section 105 of this bill by ensuring that public housing authorities retain discretion not to implement self-sufficiency agreements unless sufficient funds are appropriated to cover the costs. The self-sufficiency requirements in section 105 would force public housing authorities to create a new bureaucratic system and take on an enormous paperwork burden. It would require them to take on additional functions of assessing participants, managing case loads, retaining records on all participants and overseeing resident compliance. Housing authorities cannot perform that role without additional staff. Over half the housing authorities in this country have 100 or fewer units, which often means a staff of less than 5 people, with half of the staff being maintenance employees. Mr. Chairman, in its report on the cost of H.R. 2, CBO tells us that community work and self-sufficiency programs will cost $65 million in the first year and $35 million annually after that. The report also estimates that housing authorities will have to hire over 1,100 personnel to staff such programs. In addition, H.R. 2 creates substantial liability costs if residents are harmed while fulfilling work requirements. Yet H.R. 2 authorizes no funding to cover any of these additional costs. Mr. Chairman, where will we find the additional funds in the midst of efforts to balance the budget? Apparently we, as Members of Congress, do not have to worry about that, because this provision would pass the buck to public housing authorities to figure out how they should cover the costs. Will they be forced to raise rents even higher? The subcommittee chairman claims this provision is not an unfunded mandate because public housing authorities can use their operating funds to cover the costs. I must emphasize to all Members of this Chamber, however, that public housing budgets have been cut by 25 percent over the past few years. Housing authorities are currently underfunded, receiving only 88 percent of the operating funds that they actually need. Housing authorities estimate overall operating costs at $3.3 billion but they currently receive only $2.9 billion. In response to budget cuts, they have downsized substantially over the past few years. Since 1995 the CHA alone in Chicago has experienced roughly $80 million in budget cuts. In response to this, it has been forced to cut its staff by 1,300 employees. Mr. Chairman, housing authorities do not have the additional $35 million per year in their thinning budgets to implement this new program. A second problem I have with section 105 is that aside from creating a bureaucracy and increasing costs, it will duplicate the function already being performed by welfare agencies who have trained staff to do such work. One of the goals of H.R. 2 is to increase local flexibility and control, yet section 105 directly contradicts those goals. If housing authorities have been creating successful self- sufficiency programs in the past few years, should we not leave it up to them to determine how many residents they can effectively serve at one time? Should we not allow them to determine whether a program is more successful when it is mandatory or when it is incentive-based? Mr. Chairman, this amendment to H.R. 2 would provide housing authorities with that flexibility. It will ensure that if funds are not appropriated to pay for the cost of the self-sufficiency program, that public housing authorities will have discretion over how to implement locally designed self-sufficiency programs. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment. If we truly care about making public housing more efficient, we must avoid the unnecessary duplication and burdensome unfunded mandates that this provision provides.

Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I grew up in a household where we were encouraged to volunteer. We want to encourage every American to volunteer. It is the right thing to do. At Thanksgiving time, Christmastime, we volunteer in soup kitchens, we volunteer all across the country for people who are less fortunate than ourselves. The American people must be weary. I know my constituents are weary when the Federal Government would pass a law that only mandates that poor people, the people that we should be volunteering for, are being asked to volunteer for us and being made to do that or face an eviction from public housing. That is really the only issue that we are discussing here today. There is nothing wrong with voluntarism. My colleagues on both sides of aisle believe in voluntarism. The problem is the Federal Government mandating a law in exchange for the Federal benefit of the right to live in an affordable house. We will evict them if in fact they do not volunteer. We require and attach that particular condition to no Federal benefits that I am aware of, and certainly since the passage of the 13th amendment have we ever attached such a condition onto an amendment. I want to thank the gentlewoman from Texas for yielding to me. I certainly want to take this opportunity to thank my colleagues, certainly the distinguished chairman of this committee and the distinguished chairman of the subcommittee for their graciousness during the course of this debate.

Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will continue to yield, there are people in public housing who pay taxes. We are talking about subsidized housing, not free housing. We were talking about affordable housing.

Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will continue to yield, and I thank the gentleman for yielding to me, would the gentleman make the same argument for the middle-class tax break or the middle-class help we give in the form of a mortgage deduction?

Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Baker] for yielding and I thank him for his work on the committee. I find him to be a very thoughtful member. Mr. Chairman, maybe part of this has boiled down to semantics. We are not talking about work-for-benefit here, sir; we are talking about benefit for volunteering. We are suggesting that when the Federal Government mandates a law that forces someone to volunteer, that there is some unconstitutionality suggested with that.

Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I am sorry, I did not hear the response.

Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I would like to allow the chairman the opportunity to respond to the question.

Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, is the gentleman aware of any volunteer effort that the government mandates of any American that they volunteer without compensation on the Federal books?

Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, is there any work-for-benefit associated with the mortgage deduction that we provide for people who receive a middle class benefit, the tax break that we provide for them?

Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I would ask the gentleman from Iowa [Mr. Leach], the chairman of the Committee on Banking and Financial Services, is the gentleman aware of any Federal volunteer program that mandates that one American volunteer without compensation of any Federal benefit that we have ever passed in this body?

Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, let me thank the chairman of the full committee, the gentleman from Iowa [Mr. Leach], for his gentleness in our approach to addressing a very substantive section of this bill, and let me say, Mr. Chairman, without equivocation that Members on the Democratic side of the aisle believe in volunteerism. We believe in volunteerism if that definition, if Webster's definition of emanating from self-will, from self-determination, from one's own choice or one's own consent is the definition that we are all functioning from. We do not believe in a Government mandate called community work in section 105 of H.R. 2. If volunteerism means that we are urging and we are persuading people to volunteer, we support the thrust of General Powell's summit on volunteerism. Community service work really is voluntary because it fosters pride and it fosters responsibility. Scout masters and den mothers who genuinely volunteer to lead Boy Scouts and Girl Scouts across our country should be lauded for their efforts, because that is genuine volunteerism. Many PHA, Public Housing Authorities, already volunteer. They have crime watch, resident councils, cleanup efforts. This past Saturday in Chicago, in the public housing authorities, it was called ``clean and green day.'' One year ago on Saturday they removed 319 tons of garbage from public housing. The real issue that we are discussing here today is whether or not the Government should be mandating volunteerism. What is the Government doing anyway mandating a law about volunteerism? It is a contradiction in terms. Forced volunteerism is an oxymoron. I am kind of taken aback today because even Oliver North agrees with my position that the Government should not mandate volunteerism. There is a difference, Mr. Chairman. We have a voluntary army, an all volunteer army, but when one volunteers for the army in the United States one is compensated. If one stays in the army long enough, one receives a pension, one receives points on one's home purchase and mortgage deductions. One receives Veterans' Administration benefits for volunteering into the army. The chairman spoke of medical school scholarships. Yes, we give scholarships to medical students who will come and work in low-income communities, but they are paid for that service. AmeriCorps, they receive a stipend for their efforts. The Peace Corps, a stipend for their efforts. I believe poor people should work. I know the gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. Watt], the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Kennedy], we believe that poor people should work, so why do we not create jobs? Why do we not put poor people to work? Why are we passing a law mandating that they give of their time to volunteer, or if they do not perform this requirement, face eviction from public housing. We are talking about people who pay rent, and that is a common misconception out in the public, that people who live in public housing are getting something free from the middle class; they are receiving something free from those of us who are fortunate enough to be able to pay. That is not true. They pay rent. We are the landlord of people who pay rent in public housing, and the reality is we are also raising their rents. What we should be trying to do, at least in this body, is fix some of these buildings, fix some of these public housing authorities so that the people we presently provide occupancy to, they can live in, first, and volunteer to help better their communities. If work is the issue, why are we not mandating full employment in this bill? The chairman of the subcommittee, the gentleman from New York [Mr. Lazio] he says, listen, what is wrong with 8 hours? Eight hours times 60, 480 minutes, divide that by 30 days. What is 15 minutes? We are talking 15 minutes. No one volunteers in 15-minute segments. Just no one. Fifteen minutes. It takes 15 minutes to get from a public housing authority to the volunteer location where one is going to volunteer. Once they get there, then what? Most people will volunteer the entire 8-hour segment, Mr. Chairman, the entire 8-hour segment. Why 8 hours? Why one full shift of labor? Why not just pay them for their efforts? Why not put them to work? I support the amendment of the gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. Watt]. I think it is an honorable amendment. It says that we should pay them at least the minimum wage for volunteering. Never since 1868, not since the passage of the 13th amendment, can we even make an argument that we as a Government have ever mandated one American volunteer to work without compensation. It has never happened. This is the first time since 1868 we have ever mandated that an American volunteer without providing them compensation. This is wrong, Mr. Chairman, and this is what we are fundamentally fighting against. So, Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask a question to the distinguished chairman of the committee, the gentleman from Iowa [Mr. Leach], if he would engage in a colloquy.

Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for his very kind and gentle remarks. I guess I want to ask the gentleman to yield to a question, and that is: Is the gentleman aware of any Federal benefit that the Federal Government or this legislative body has ever provided where work was in exchange for that Federal benefit from food stamps to Social Security to Medicare to mortgage deductions to mining rights to any form of corporate welfare? Have we ever required of any Federal benefit a work provision or mandatory volunteerism provision?

Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. I yield to the gentleman from Minnesota.

Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, for any Federal benefit, is the chairman aware of any work-for-benefit requirement on the Federal books at all?

Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, might I ask why we are asking of poor people to face eviction for failure to volunteer?

Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?