Jesse Jackson

Mr. JACKSON of Illinois

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

Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I want to make it clear because I was also a participant in the conversation with Secretary Cuomo on that particular occasion. Secretary Cuomo also made it clear that failure to volunteer was not a binding lease term and he would not support the eviction of an individual for failing to volunteer. And we made a distinction on that occasion between public service in terms of voluntarism; i.e., Boy Scouts and Girl Scouts, a form of volition, and another form punitive in nature, which this bill and this particular section that the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Weldon] has recommended speaks to, and that is that right now 80 percent of mothers in public housing, under Mr. Weldon's amendment, 80 percent of women in public housing who have newborns will subsequently be evicted if, in fact, they do not volunteer, and that is what we are talking about.

Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Chairman, all of the information that we have from Time this week, the cover of Newsweek, all of the indications are that children between zero and 6, that is when their personalities are formed, it is who they will be. Are we saying that single parents can no longer----

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

Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Chairman, I just want to make one clear observation. My amendment says that a mother with a newborn can be exempted from this particular requirement for caring for her newborn. His amendment specifically says that only 20 percent of those residing in a public housing authority can be exempted for having a newborn. That is the difference between my amendment and his amendment. I say 100 percent of women with newborns under the age of 6 or caring for their children, caring for senior citizens, caring for those that are physically disabled should be exempted. His amendment calls for only 20 percent and no provision whatsoever for how that 20 percent should be determined in a given public housing authority. That, sir, from my position and my perspective, and I say this respectfully, is quite mean spirited.

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

Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the gentleman's amendment for reasons I have already stated but I want to reiterate. This last-minute amendment strikes and allows before ``single parents'' that a public housing authority can only exempt 20 percent of the total number of families assisted by that public housing agency for a particular amendment that my amendment offers. We simply provide an exemption for a single parent, a grandparent or a spouse of an otherwise already exempt individual who is the primary caretaker of one or more of the following: children who are 6 years of age or under, elderly persons who obviously cannot care for themselves, and persons with disabilities. This is a common-sense, family-values amendment; and why the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Weldon] is opposed to this particular amendment as it is stated and written is just unfortunate, Mr. Chairman. I think it speaks to the mean-spiritedness that is certainly surrounding some elements of this bill.

Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, why should not 100 percent of people who are primary care givers for children under the age of 6 or elderly persons or persons with disability meet that criteria?

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

Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. The gentleman from Florida's specific amendment states before ``single parent,'' the gentleman wants to insert ``for not more than 20 percent of the total number of families assisted by a housing agency.'' My specific question is, what becomes of the 80 percent in any given public housing agency who meet the threshold, who meet the criteria that we speak of in the amendment but do not meet the gentleman's threshold, which is precisely what the gentleman's amendment proposes to do?

Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. If the gentleman will continue to yield, Mr. Chairman, I just want to make it clear that we are talking about a single parent, a grandparent, or a spouse.

Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. If the gentleman will continue to yield, Mr. Chairman, this is really a common-sense amendment. The purpose of this amendment, it is really the family values amendment. It says that if we have a single mother at home who has children under the age of 6, or we have a person at home who is responsible for taking care of someone who is physically disabled, that we provide an exemption for it.

Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding. Are we now saying that we do not trust the primary caregivers of senior citizens, or a woman who may be heading a household where there are children under 6 years old?

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

Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, continuing, the assumption underlying the goal of self-sufficiency is full employment, but there are currently not enough jobs for a living wage for everyone. If we create the jobs, I believe the people will come. One of the unintended consequences of section 105 about which I am particularly concerned is that it will effectively displace thousands of low-wage workers who are currently employed by housing authorities. If we mandate millions of hours of uncompensated free labor by housing residents, PHA's, nursing homes, and other facilities can replace paid employees with public housing residents who are performing their 8-hour shifts; that is, 1 full day of uncompensated labor per month to perform maintenance grounds work and other low-wage jobs.

Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I do not understand what the gentleman means by a particular percentage. Either they are a caregiver or someone providing for a 6-year-old-or-under child, or not. The gentleman needs to clarify.

Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. It is my understanding we may have the opportunity to work something out with respect to my amendment.

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

Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I am joined by the gentleman from Wisconsin in offering this amendment, which addresses what I view to be a glaring oversight by the majority in the crafting of the community work provision of section 105. While I am firmly opposed to the community work requirement because, as I have stated, I believe it demeans voluntarism and vilifies the poor, I am pleased that H.R. 2 at a minimum exempts the elderly, the disabled, and those individuals who are working, attending school, or receiving vocational training. I would like to express my appreciation to the majority for their support of my amendment in committee, which clarified that these exemptions occur automatically and do not saddle another burden of proof on individuals who fall into one of these categories. These exemptions, however, do not go far enough. Under this bill single parents who are not otherwise exempted will be forced to either leave their young children home alone, or pay costly child care or home care fees for fragile seniors or disabled family members. This amendment will exempt from mandatory community work requirement residents who are single parents with children under the age of 6 and grandparents or spouses who are the primary caregivers of dependent children or senior citizens. Mr. Chairman, it is no wonder that the American public thinks this body is out of touch with reality. How can we not acknowledge that the care of the elderly, the disabled, or young children is a full-time job worthy of respect and appreciation? Who will care for their dependents while these primary caregivers are forced to do community work? Just yesterday during general debate, a speaker in defense of the bill pointed to the tragic instance in Chicago where a 5-year-old boy was thrown to his death from Ida B. Welles House housing complex by two other children. If we require that single parents who are responsible for supervising young children are forced to leave their homes to perform mandated work hours or face possible eviction, will we not be creating the potential for more of these tragic incidents to occur? We know that public housing residents will be hard-pressed to pay for costly child care or nursing assistance, and that the waiting list for affordable care may be a couple of years long. Will we expand upon the unfunded mandate that we already have imposed upon public housing authorities by putting them in a position to have to also provide child care? I believe in voluntarism, but let us not confuse its meaning or its use. We have an all-volunteer armed services. Our young men and women volunteer to join. They are not subscripted into the military. But once they volunteer to serve, they are paid for their service. In fact, they receive a variety of forms of financial compensation, even after they leave the military, such as veterans and educational benefits, points in securing employment, and if their service is long enough, pensions. Proponents of mandated community work insist that other Federal benefits are tied to community service. Yesterday, the gentleman from New York referred to particular medical school scholarships in exchange for which graduates agree to work in a low-income community for a certain period of time. The difference is that they likewise are paid for their medical work in the community. I believe poor people should work. They want to work and will work if there are enough jobs paying adequate wages. Poor people do not have to be whipped to work. About 4 years ago, Mr. Chairman, in Chicago, the new Sheraton Hotel advertised the availability of 1,000 jobs. In the middle of a Chicago snowstorm, 10,000 people showed up.

Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote, and pending that I make a point of order that a quorum is not present.

Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. The gentleman should be very well aware that my next amendment to the bill would include that definition which is presently not in section 105, and I would certainly hope that the gentleman would support that.

Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. Is the gentleman aware that the bill does not exempt those persons who are providing for an elderly person or providing for children in public housing? Is the gentleman aware of that?

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

Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. I thank the gentleman for yielding. I appreciate the spirit of his critique. I would like to make the argument, however, that my amendment specifically addresses condition of occupancy. Are we prepared to put people who live in public housing, to evict them for failure to volunteer 8 hours a month? I would appreciate the gentleman's answer to that.

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