Carolyn Kilpatrick

Ms. KILPATRICK

Ms. KILPATRICK. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, we live in an age that is sometimes easy to dismiss as selfish, self-absorbed, cynical, and cruel. Mother Teresa and her selfless dedication to the world's least fortunate serve as a powerful reminder of our age which still includes shining symbols, as Mother Teresa is, for goodness and compassion. At our schools, wherever she takes us, she is always rededicating herself to the least of these. Permitting the use of the rotunda of the Capitol of the United States for a congressional ceremony to honor Mother Teresa and her life's work is something that I am proud to stand here today and be in full support of. We will be focusing the attention of all Americans, whatever their faiths, on a symbol that can serve them well in our everyday lives. As we know, Mother Teresa was born in 1910 in Albania. She received the Nobel Peace Prize in 1979. She is known as the Saint of the Gutter, where she spent tireless hours giving of herself, educating, providing people with hope who have no hope. I had occasion to meet Mother Teresa when she visited the city of Detroit a few years back. The aura that is instilled in her is there for anyone to see. She is a saint. And she is a person whom we all can take a look at and honor because she has given much of her life so that people have the hope that God has intended each of us to have. Mr. Speaker, the Missionaries of Charity has branches in 50 Indian cities and about 30 other countries around the world. It numbers more than 3,000 members who have decided to follow Mother Teresa's example and dedicate their lives by serving the world's poor. Mother Teresa is special to me personally. I am happy this Congress is going to have a dedication ceremony for her. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. KILPATRICK. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. KILPATRICK

Ms. KILPATRICK. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Kennedy], our ranking member, for yielding to me as we continue our debate on H.R. 2. I rise in support of the Kennedy substitute. As was mentioned earlier, in 1937, then Franklin Delano Roosevelt, the President of this great country, signed into law the Public Housing Act. This bill, H.R. 2 before us, will be a total repeal of that act. What is needed then and is needed today: housing for the least of these. The Kennedy substitute will allow more people to have homes, more children to live in homes. H.R. 2, in its original version, will increase the homeless population in America. There are 650 laws that are affected by this H.R. 2 implementation, if it passes on this floor today. Someone mentioned earlier two minimum wage jobs. Is that what we want in America, two minimum wage jobs for working families? One cannot live on minimum wage. What people want to do is work in good-paying jobs and to take care of their families. There are over 16 million people who qualify to live in public housing because they are in that poverty scene and want to get out. We have only 4 million public housing units. So let us not stand here and say how great it is to live in public housing. Most people, including all of us, want better housing than that. The Kennedy substitute addresses those concerns. It does allow for people who find themselves in poverty. Decent, adequate housing will not increase the homeless population and will allow people to look for work. We need to be talking about work in this legislature. How do you find good-paying jobs for people so that they can work and take care of their families? The Kennedy substitute best meets that. As was said earlier, this is not a panacea. There is still much work to be done in America, much work to be done in this Congress. Good- paying jobs are what we need, and quality education so people can rise to the level to take care of themselves and live in fine housing. I urge my colleagues to support the Kennedy substitute.

Ms. KILPATRICK

Ms. KILPATRICK. Let me thank my good friend from Michigan for yielding me this time and also for his leadership. Mr. Chairman, let us be clear. America's greatest problem today is what we will do with our young people as we move to the new millennium, how we will educate them, how we will treat them and how we will offer them the opportunity they need to become productive citizens in this world. Let us be clear. H.R. 3, $1.5 billion, only addresses 12 States. Thirty-eight States cannot even get in the front door of H.R. 3 in its present form. Let us talk about what our children need. They need opportunity. They need hope. Over 300,000 of them find themselves in the juvenile system. They need hope. They want us to work with them. We want to put the toughest in prison. We think violent offenders must be incarcerated. Over 98 percent of the bill before us, H.R. 3, only talks about enforcement. Nothing about hope. All studies show that children need to be educated, disciplined, counseled and loved. H.R. 3 in its present form does not do that. The Democratic substitute does offer hope. I want to talk a bit about HIDTA, high intensity drug trafficking areas, that is now part of the Federal budget and goes out to many communities across America. Again, enforcement dollars. It is okay to have enforcement, as the previous speaker mentioned. We want the most violent juvenile offenders to be locked up. Judges. We elect judges. Local communities ought to be able to decide what to do with their juvenile offenders. We should not be dictating in Washington. $1.5 billion. Do we want to build 25 new prisons with that money? Or do we want to put it into alternatives to incarceration, save our children and give hope to America's future? This bill will not solve the problem of juveniles and crime. As a matter of fact, only 6 percent of juvenile arrests in 1992 were for violent crimes. With one exception, the level of juvenile crime has declined over the past 20 years. There are only 197 juveniles currently serving Federal sentences. Juvenile crime is almost exclusively a State and local issue. This bill is a waste of taxpayers dollars. In the Wall Street Journal of March 21, 1996 high risk youths who are kept out of trouble through intervention programs could save society as much as $2 million per youth over a lifetime. This bill puts more money into police and prisons, tactics that simply do not work without adequate prevention programs. The $1.5 billion in funding in the bill is conditioned on the willingness of States to try youths as adults. Even at that caveat, only 12 States would be eligible for this funding. Most police chiefs believe that prevention programs are the most effective crime reduction strategy versus hiring additional police officers. H.R. 3 takes an extreme approach to juvenile justice, without any evidence that these approaches actually work. Under H.R. 3, 13-year-old children could be tried as adults; provides no funding for prevention programs, and is not supported by a single major social service organization. Who opposes H.R. 3? Among other organizations, the YMCA, the American Psychological Society, the National Recreation and Park Association, the National League of Cities, the National Association of Child Advocates, the Chief Welfare League of America, among many others. We need to put our scarce resources into programs and projects that work. The Democratic alternative to H.R. 3 gives us that chance. It is a balanced approach to fighting juvenile crime that includes enforcement, intervention, and prevention. These funds go directly to local communities to implement a variety of comprehensive prevention initiatives--initiatives that work.

Ms. KILPATRICK

Ms. KILPATRICK. I yield to the gentleman from Colorado. (Mr. DAN SCHAEFER of Colorado asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Ms. KILPATRICK. Mr. Speaker, with that explanation from Chairman Thomas, as well as the gentleman from Colorado [Mr. Dan Schaefer], I withdraw my reservation of objection.

Ms. KILPATRICK. Mr. Speaker, I thank Chairman Thomas for that explanation.

Ms. KILPATRICK. Mr. Speaker, reserving the right to object, will the gentleman from California kindly state the purpose of the concurrent resolution?

Ms. KILPATRICK. I yield to the gentleman from California.

Ms. KILPATRICK

Ms. KILPATRICK. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Ms. KILPATRICK. Mr. Chairman, I am happy to cosponsor this amendment with our esteemed colleague from California, Ms. Waters, who has provided leadership in this Congress for several years. We are in a very intense debate on H.R. 2. We spent a couple days last week really talking about the issues, understanding that America has a very large poor, homeless population, many of whom have no homes and are homeless, others who will be homeless if H.R. 2 passes in its current form. As the gentlewoman from California just stated, the grievance procedure, which is now a part of housing law, allows those with minor infractions, and I might highlight minor infractions, an avenue where they can discuss their concerns. As H.R. 2 allows HUD now to move much of the responsibility to local housing authorities, I believe it is imperative that we keep those grievance procedures intact. The law also says that major infractions, that would include a breach of law or harm to health, those automatically would be evicted. But without a grievance procedure, public housing residents would have to go directly to court. Our courts are already overburdened. The public defender's office has been cut drastically. The lawyers are overworked. And the people will be evicted. There is no avenue for those in public housing if H.R. 2 passes in its current form. So I support the Waters-Kilpatrick amendment. I would hope the rest here in the House support it. We had a lot of debate last week about the work requirement, the 8 hours of volunteer work over the 25 hours that are already required for many people who live in public housing. Without this grievance procedure, I predict, and I hope it will not become law, that we will have more people who now have an avenue for minor infractions, such as noise, misplaced garbage, unruly children, to go to a tenants' council, a jury of their peers and decide what type of penalty short of eviction should be administered. So I hope my colleagues support H.R. 2, the amendment that both the gentlewoman from California and myself are offering.

Ms. KILPATRICK. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?

Ms. KILPATRICK. Mr. Chairman, as was stated earlier, we had agreed to come back with a redraft of the amendment, the Waters-Kilpatrick amendment that spoke to the grievance procedure. We have reworked it and we would like to offer it. Point of Order

Ms. KILPATRICK. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Ms. KILPATRICK. I thank the gentleman from Massachusetts for yielding. That is the crux of the amendment, exactly as the gentleman from New York [Mr. Lazio] suggests. That when there is a minor dispute, when there is a minor disturbance, when there is some small infraction, that there is an avenue for the tenants to resolve it. If the current law which allows that is taken out, then there is no way to resolve it but to go to court, but to find an attorney. That is the very reason why we want to keep the grievance procedures, for those minor situations, so the parties can talk them out. As we move from HUD to the housing authorities the administration's ability and the ability to watch over, to keep the property safe and clean, that has to be there. It has to be there.

Ms. KILPATRICK. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. It is important that as we continue our debate on H.R. 2 that we think of the least in America. We all want changes in the public housing statutes, but what we do not want is to move people from their homes, move their children in the street and increase the homeless population. The gentlewoman from California and I have thought this out thoroughly. It is a part of current law, the grievance procedure. As HUD moves to give more authority to local housing authorities, if we ask around the country, they want the procedure, they want to be able to deal with minor infractions so that their people can remain in public housing, become good citizens, and serve the public well. So again, Mr. Chairman, we ask that our colleagues support the Waters-Kilpatrick amendment. Keep the grievance procedure and move to accept our amendment. Mr. Chairman, my colleague from California, Maxine Waters, and I offered this amendment during committee consideration of H.R. 2. The amendment is very simple. The Waters/Kilpatrick amendment to H.R. 2 will reinstate current law. Residents of public housing agencies who have minor infractions would not be subject to a court hearing or immediate eviction. Residents who are guilty of activities that involve criminal activity, a threat to public health or safety, or the right to peaceful enjoyment would still be subject to eviction and a court procedure under the Waters/Kilpatrick amendment. Currently, housing authorities administer grievance hearings in order to expeditiously and fairly resolve landlord/tenant disputes except those that involve evictions resulting from criminal activity or activity that threatens other tenant's health, safety, or right to peaceful enjoyment. The grievance process is presided over by an independent arbitrator and is similar to the popular alternative dispute resolution processes that precede or replace judicial action in many jurisdictions today. H.R. 2 amends current law by terminating a tenant's right to a grievance hearing if the hearing might result in an eviction and the tenant would have the right to pursue the issue in a court of law. For example: ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Under Waters/ Infraction Under H.R. 2 Kilpatrick ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Didn't put the trash in the bin. Go to court/ Grievance hearing. eviction. Kept a cow in your apartment.... Go to court/ Go to court/ eviction. eviction. Children playing in the grass... Go to court/ Grievance hearing. eviction. Selling drugs................... Go to court/ Go to court/ eviction. eviction. Painted the walls the wrong Go to court/ Grievance hearing. color. eviction. Disturbing the peace............ Go to court/ Go to court/ eviction. eviction. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ H.R. 2 does away with grievance processes for non-criminal eviction in almost every State. Public housing tenants would be forced into court to resolve minor lease infractions. Grievance procedures protect tenants from homelessness. Finally, the grievance process is informal, non-intimidating, and saves taxpayers money. In the interest of fairness, equality, and efficiency, I urge the adoption of my amendment.

Ms. KILPATRICK

Ms. KILPATRICK. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Connecticut for yielding me this time to address our committee resolution. I do want to thank the gentleman from California [Mr. Thomas], the chairman, and our ranking member for the experiences I have enjoyed as we worked through the committee resolution. I am very hopeful that as we move to our implementing of the resolution that the minority in fact will get the one-third that is necessary for us to carry out our business. It is important as I serve in this 105th Congress that we are all able to participate, that we are all able to represent those who have sent us here, and I am really anxious that the committees can get off and get into doing their work. We have got a lot of work ahead of us. I wish this bill were before us that would solve the problems of campaign finance, but the fact of the matter is it does nothing, it absolutely does nothing to change what we do need, which is a major overhaul in campaign financing. What it will do is provide committees the monetary assistance they need to carry on the business of their committees. I am hopeful that as we move into the Congress, we will again address the families first agenda. That will include good housing, adequate education, clean environment, water, air, all those kinds of things, good-paying jobs. I am anxious that this 105th Congress get into those. Today we will be debating H.R. 2, which is the new housing comprehensive legislation. It has a lot of problems. I hope that as we go into this debate, as we give the committees the moneys they need to do their work, that we remember, the American people want action from this Congress. They want us to provide the leadership that this country needs so that our children can be educated, our seniors can be safe, good jobs return to this country and that the environment is safe. Again I want to thank the gentleman from California [Mr. Thomas] for his leadership and the gentleman from Connecticut [Mr. Gejdenson], our ranking member, for providing us the opportunity. Let us move on with the work of the Congress and do what the people require it to do.

Ms. KILPATRICK

Ms. KILPATRICK. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, if I might, as lively a debate as we are having today, and I know we will go on and on, let us not forget that poor people want to work. Poor people do volunteer. Let us support the Jackson amendment.

Ms. KILPATRICK. I yield to the gentleman from Iowa.

Ms. KILPATRICK. I yield to the gentleman from Illinois.

Ms. KILPATRICK. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. This debate has been very fruitful and enlightening, but I want to go back to 1937 when Franklin Delano Roosevelt instituted the legislation that put forth public housing in America. At that time and certainly some 60 years later some Americans are in need of public housing. Some Americans find themselves in need, as they did in 1937, to have the Federal Government assist them in safe, decent housing. As we debate H.R. 2, and we began this yesterday, I stand here supporting the Jackson amendment. I think the issue is not whether they ought to volunteer. Public housing residents volunteer all the time, as many of us do, in large proportion. Many public housing residents volunteer their time at their site to do wonderful things with their site, with the buildings, with their family. It is happening already. The objection which the Jackson amendment supports is the mandate. We do not have to mandate poor people to volunteer; they do that. Actually, public assistance people are already required by the welfare bill just passed to volunteer 25 hours. This 8 hours will be on top of that. What poor people want is a job. They do not want a handout, in spite of what you might think. This is an unfunded mandate. It would be a monster administratively for the public housing authorities even to administer this provision. But I think this Congress does ourselves, America, and poor people a disservice when we assume that they do not want to work, because they do; when we assume that they do not want to volunteer, because they do. A high percentage of people in public housing are on welfare. They are required, by a law that was passed by this Congress in the 104th and signed by the President, to work, to volunteer 25-plus hours. So the Jackson amendment should be considered. It should be passed. It should be included as it is not now in H.R. 2. One thing that this Jackson amendment does do is not mandate but continue the voluntarism that public recipients are already doing. What H.R. 2 does not have in it is a grievance procedure, so that when these people who already have to do the 25 hours, who already now will have to do 8 additional hours, do not have an avenue to even speak to. The grievance procedure has been moved out of H.R. 2. Those people now volunteering 32 hours of their life a month will have to go straight to court or be evicted. Our homeless population will increase. Mr. Chairman, I support the Jackson amendment.

Ms. KILPATRICK

Ms. KILPATRICK. Mr. Chairman, first let me say that we are in change and want change on both sides of the aisle in public housing. We all agree that something needs to happen and that there needs to be changes made. I have to point out that prior to 1992 there was very little investment on the Federal side in public housing around our country, and that is why much of the decay that we see today exists. H.R. 2 in its present form does not address those needs. There is not a single line in this legislation that provides more funding for the building of more housing, affordable housing, for poor people. There is not a single line in this legislation that provides the demolition of unsafe and unsanitary housing. There is no requirement to serve the poor in public housing or beyond. This legislation, Mr. Chairman, is not in the interests of our country, and it is certainly not in the interests of poor people. As has been mentioned, the homeless population will grow. Currently there exists a grievance procedure, for those who are in public housing for minor infractions, to go before a committee of their peers to address those concerns as has been eliminated in H.R. 2, and now these people must go right to court with little resources, with the public defenders office overburdened. H.R. 2 in its present form will not create what we want in America. It will not allow for the poorest of the poor to have decent housing, for those children of those poor people to have adequate housing and a decent education. It should not be called and is called the Housing Opportunities and Responsibility Act. If it were that in fact, we would be addressing some of the evils, some of the concerns of this American society that we live in. Unfortunately, H.R. 2 does not do that. We have got to go to the drawing board. We offered several amendments in full committee to try to address some of these needs to make a way so these poor people could have safe and decent housing. We, too, want complexes, and this is a picture that has now been moved. Decent housing complexes all over America, all of them are not infested. Some of them are, and we need to weed them out. This legislation in its current form does not address much of that. We want good public housing, we want to take care of the people in America who are the poor and the poorest and have the least effect, but this legislation does not do it. Mr. Chairman, I ask my colleagues to vote down H.R. 2 in its present form.

Ms. KILPATRICK

Ms. KILPATRICK. Mr. Speaker, because I was unavoidably detained in the 15th Congressional District of Michigan, I was not present at rollcall vote No. 76 and rollcall vote No. 77. Had I been present for these votes, I would have voted ``yea'' for rollcall vote No. 76 and ``yea'' for rollcall vote No. 77.

Ms. KILPATRICK

Ms. KILPATRICK. Ms. WATERS, Mr. MILLER of California, and Mr. NADLER changed their vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.'' Mr. OLVER changed his vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.'' So (two-thirds having voted in favor thereof) the rules were suspended, and the bill, as amended, was passed. The result of the vote was announced as above recorded. A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

Ms. KILPATRICK

Ms. KILPATRICK. Mr. Speaker, because I was unavoidably detained in the 15th Congressional District of Michigan, I was not present at rollcall vote No. 72 and rollcall vote No. 73. Had I been present for these votes, I would have voted ``aye'' for rollcall vote No. 72 and ``aye'' for rollcall vote No. 73.