Jesse Jackson

Mr. JACKSON of Illinois

Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I thank the distinguished gentlewoman for yielding. The distinguished chairman of the committee indicated that this was against Colin Powell's summit on voluntarism. Forced, mandated voluntarism is not what was discussed in Philadelphia this past week. I believe in voluntarism, Democrats believe in voluntarism, and I genuinely believe that Republicans also believe in voluntarism, if that definition means emanating from self-will, from self-definition, one's own choice and consent, and not a Government mandate. And I want to ask a question of the chairman if he would be so willing. Is the chairman willing to evict people who live in public housing for failure to volunteer 8 hours a month?

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

Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I thank the distinguished chairman for yielding. When one volunteers for the military, one receives compensation for that service. When one receives a medical scholarship and then subsequently works in a low-income community, one receives compensation for that. Why are we requiring of poor people in public housing the only compensation that they volunteer?

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

Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, does this mean that only public housing residents are being singled out for this voluntary work requirement?

Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, are we prepared to put human beings and their families on the street if they fail to satisfy this requirement?

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

Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I would like clarification on just one section of the bill. Page 26, line 1, it appears that this bill makes the 8 hours of work a condition of occupancy. Does this mean that a person can be evicted if they fail to perform the work?

Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I have some serious concerns with section 105 of the bill which mandates uncompensated community work in return for housing assistance. Evicting residents from their homes if they fail to volunteer is not voluntarism. We cannot mandate voluntarism. The concept is obviously a contradiction in terms. My amendment would keep section 105 basically intact by requiring public housing residents to fulfill community work requirements. The only change that it will make will be to protect residents from eviction for failure to perform volunteer work in exactly the same way the majority did in the manager's amendment with regard to the target date provision. Let us be absolutely clear about what we are debating with respect to the work requirements in section 105. I believe we should encourage voluntary community service, because it provides an invaluable benefit to the community and to the persons volunteering their time. I believe public housing residents have a responsibility to maintain their communities in proper condition. I believe poor people should work, want to work in living wage jobs. Section 105 is not about jobs or voluntarism, however. It, in fact, undermines those objectives and undermines the majority's stated goal of fostering personal responsibility. Community service, when it is voluntary, allows residents to take pride and personal responsibility in their efforts. Forced community work, however, brings to mind the type of punishment imposed by a judge for a crime. It is inappropriate to treat residents of housing assistance as if they have committed a crime simply by being poor. Forced voluntarism, under penalty of eviction, demeans residents by saying they are lazy. It tells them that we do not trust them to take part in their own communities, so we must force them to do so. There is no pride in community service when it is mandated as if residents have done something wrong. There are many examples of community service which already exist in our public housing communities today. Many committed residents take part in neighborhood watches, in resident councils, and cleanup efforts. In the Chicago Housing Authority, about 800 residents take part in tenant patrols. No one has tried to force them into these efforts until now. We must not take away their sense of pride by telling them that they are merely fulfilling a mandatory work requirement. Section 105 also undermines job creation for the very people we are trying to empower, and displaces low wage workers. If we want to encourage self-sufficiency, we should assist residents in finding jobs, not force uncompensated labor. If we create a steady flow of millions of hours of free labor, why would PHA's, nursing homes, or other organizations need to hire employees for housekeeping, for groundswork, for maintenance or other low-wage jobs? Labor groups are strongly opposed to this provision because it will displace low-wage labor with thousands of unpaid servants. It is no accident that this provision requires 8 hours of work, the number of hours in a regular workday. The most disturbing aspect of section 105 is its disparate treatment of the Nation's poor. In this country we hold adequate housing to be a matter of such fundamental dignity that we provide Federal home ownership subsidies to middle and upper class income Americans in the amount of $86.6 billion per year. By contrast all Federal low income housing assistance equals roughly only $29 billion per year. We do not mandate community work in return for homeownership deductions. Why do we mandate uncompensated labor upon those hit hardest by our Nation's affordable housing crisis? The message is that you are middle or upper class and can afford a downpayment, then housing is a right. But if you are poor, then adequate shelter is a privilege that you must repay. One very important thing that the majority seems to forget is that public housing residents do not receive housing assistance for free. They pay rent. On a full-time minimum wage salary earning less than $11,000 per year, residents may not be able to pay as much for rent as others, but they pay what they can. Section 105 would threaten them with eviction if they do not perform community work in addition to the rent that they already pay. If we begin mandating community work in return for housing assistance, what is next? Will we require community work in return for farm subsidies, for LIHEAP assistance, for Medicare, for Federal insurance for banks and savings and loans, food stamps or corporate welfare? The 13th amendment to the U.S. Constitution prohibits involuntary servitude, except as punishment for crime. This amendment was enacted so that no person in this country would be forced to work without compensation unless convicted of a crime. Being poor and receiving housing assistance, Mr. Chairman, is not a crime. On the contrary, the Housing Act of 1937 established that access to adequate shelter should be a basic human right. H.R. 2 would strip this basic dignity from all Americans and abandon our Nation's commitment to ensuring that poor and working class Americans have shelter.

Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I offer amendment No. 8.

Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. No, my amendment specifically states that a single parent, a grandparent or a spouse of an otherwise already exempt individual who is the primary caretaker of a child under 6, an elderly person or person with disability, that they be exempted from the community work requirement. The gentleman then subsequently proposed an amendment that allows a public housing authority an amendment to my amendment which simply suggests that only 20 percent of people living in public housing should meet this requirement, and that is the specific amendment that we are addressing, and therefore I raise the question about the additional 80 percent that would not be exempted under the gentleman's amendment. That is specifically what we are talking about. His amendment says that 80 percent of women in public housing who have newborn children must volunteer, leave their child at home or face eviction. That is what his amendment says.

Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. I would think that is exactly what my amendment speaks to.

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

Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, my amendment specifically calls for the exemption of a mother who has a single child to keep her from being evicted for failure to do 8 hours a month of community service work. If the gentleman would speak to that particular part, we may reach some agreement on this.

Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will continue to yield, I thank the gentleman for supporting our efforts.

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

Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I want to try and work this out. I would like to call for a vote very soon on the Weldon amendment, but I want to make it clear that if the Weldon amendment passes, that I want Members to vote against my amendment, because 20 percent does not cover the number of housing residents who will be single mothers with children who will be affected by the Weldon amendment to my amendment, which is very basic, very family-value oriented, and it is very clear and very well worded.

Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I just want to make sure that it is clear, because I get the impression we are getting ready for a vote shortly, this is the amendment that says that 80 percent of mothers in public housing with newborns can be evicted for failure to volunteer.

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

Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, what does the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Weldon] propose should happen to the other 80 percent under his amendment who do not meet the gentleman's threshold?

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

Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Cummings] be allowed to proceed for 1 additional minute.

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

Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Minnesota for yielding to me. I am of the opinion that there is no such thing as 20 percent of a person. There is no such thing as 20 percent of a child. My amendment is a very common sense amendment. It simply says that single parents, grandparents, or spouses or otherwise exempt individuals who are the primary caretaker of a child under the age of 6, 6 or under, elderly persons or persons with disabilities should be exempt from 8 hours of monthly mandatory service. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Weldon] is amending my amendment by saying that only 20 percent of those who meet my qualifications are entitled to be exempt, and I think that is clearly wrong. I yield back to the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. VEnto].