Jim Leach

Mr. LEACH

Mr. LEACH. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my good friends, the gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. Burr] and the gentleman from Arkansas [Mr. Dickey], for their wonderful accolades and the minority leader for agreeing to let the three of us without request speak in order. Mr. Speaker, if ever an individual personified the ideal that the human condition can overcome any handicap, it was Tom Rogers. Tom was everybody's all-American boy. An active athlete and budding scholar, Tom left Moline in 1952 to attend Cornell University. At the end of his freshman year at the age of 19, just before the widespread introduction of the Salk vaccine, he was struck so severely with polio that he was paralyzed from the neck down. He came to be able to breathe only through the laborious technique of swallowing air. In a circumstance which would have led most of us to give up, to turn inward in bitterness, to be prone to shriveling up and spiritually dying, Tom took the opposite course. He determined that even though he could not move a finger, he would widen his horizons and become a functioning member of society. Tom studied to become a stock analyst and broker and soon had as dedicated a following as anyone in his profession in the country. Using methods and machines he designed, he came to be able to read stacks of material and spreadsheets placed on a bookstand or reflected in magnification off the ceiling. Tom's two principal avocations were bridge and travel. One of the most competitive bridge players I have ever known, he would call on his unsorted cards to be played from a specially made wooden tray placed on the table in front of his wheelchair. My mother, who was a life master many times over, used to tell me Tom was her favorite partner. Now and again during high school summers, I was privileged to be able to play against the two of them. To watch Tom successfully defeat three no trump doubled was to watch the joyful triumph of an engaged mind. Despite his physical paralysis, he could precipitate action and when he won a hand, his eyes would impishly twinkle, causing his opponents to redouble their effort yet never begrudge being thumped by this remarkable soul. The one Christmas card friends in the Quad cities waited for every year would be one Tom would send showing a cartoon of himself, his wheelchair and generally a reindeer or two boating the Mississippi, playing bridge, or standing against a vista or symbol of whatever State or city he had visited that year. One of my favorite memories was the trip Tom made to Washington in the van he had converted to indulge his love of travel. I toured the Capitol with him and then we had lunch together in the Members dining room. Everyone who encountered Tom soon forgot the chair and brace, the interruptions in this conversation as he gulped to breathe, and saw and heard only the image and voice of a vibrant and captivating human being. Amelia Earhart once wrote, courage is the price that life exacts for granting peace. The soul that knows it not, knows no release from little things. The little things we take for granted, even being able to breathe unaided, were very big things to Tom Rogers. But no one handled the big or small challenges of life with greater joy. I recently spoke with a former colleague and one of Tom's boyhood chums, Tom Railsback, and his dear friend and dedicated doctor, Lou Sears. Each could only describe in awe the emancipating cheerfulness of an individual who addressed each new day with such boundless optimism. I am convinced that God gave us Tom Rogers because he wanted to provide a lesson in the preciousness of life and the need for perspective. There is no single person whoever came into contact with Tom who did not walk away murmuring, my troubles are vastly smaller but I pray to God I can learn to handle them with one hundredth of the courage and good nature as this man from Moline. Tom's peace has finally been granted. His friends honor him this weekend with a groundbreaking of a nature center to be built in his honor on a beautiful island in the Mississippi. No friend could be more missed than Tom Rogers. He remains an inspiration to us all.

Mr. LEACH

Mr. LEACH. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to read excerpts from the attached article from the June 3, 1997, edition of the New York Times. The article recounts a recent speech given by British Prime Minister Tony Blair regarding what he describes as a culture of dependency on government. In the speech, given outside a notoriously neglected housing project in South London, Prime Minister Blair called for an ``ethic of mutual responsibility,'' where government institutions are re-fashioned. During the House's consideration of H.R. 2, the Housing Opportunity and Responsibility Act of 1997, I urged my colleagues from the other side of the aisle to abandon the policies of extreme liberalism and consider the recent electoral success of the new, pragmatic Labor Party in Britain. Many of the concepts expressed by Prime Minister Blair in his speech are surprisingly similar to the ideals contained in the House's public housing reform bill. Much like Prime Minister Blair's ``New Labor'' philosophies, H.R. 2 creates a mutuality of obligation between public housing residents and the Federal Government. The approach contained in the House bill is intended to help end the cycle of property, where generation follows generation in an environment devoid of hope and opportunity, and instead encourage self-sufficiency and the process of moving people from welfare to work. In anticipation of House consideration of the conference report on the House and Senate housing bills later this year, I commend the attached article to Members' attention. [From the New York Times, June 3, 1997] Blair Scolds British ``Workless Class'' in Outline of Welfare Plan (By Sarah Lyall) London.--Appearing at a notoriously neglected housing project in South London, Prime Minister Tony Blair today denounced the culture of dependency on government that he said had created a ``workless class'' of people who live off the state and have no motivation to find jobs. Mr. Blair, who has resolutely moved his party away from its old working-class roots and remodeled it as a centrist movement that he calls ``New Labor,'' said one of the cornerstones of his Government would be getting people off welfare and putting them back to work. In doing so, he called for a ``radical shift in our values and attitudes'' and said that the welfare state, long associated with the old Labor Party, had to change along with the times. ``Earlier this century, leaders faced the challenge of creating a welfare state that could provide security for the new working class,'' he said. ``Today the greatest challenge for any democratic government is to refashion our institutions to bring this new workless class back into society and into useful work.'' * * * The Prime Minister's speech came as his Labor Government, which swept into power with an overwhelming majority a month ago, prepares a major overhaul of the country's welfare system. In its review, Mr. Blair said, the Government would ask a simple question about all of Britain's benefits: ``Do they give people a chance to work? Or do they trap them on benefits for the most productive years of their lives?'' * * * But Mr. Blair warned that young people would have responsibilities of their own. ``There will be and should be no option of an inactive life on benefit,'' he said. ``Where opportunities are given, for example, to young people, for real jobs and skills, there should be a reciprocal duty to take them up.'' Mr. Blair called for an ``ethic of mutual responsibility'' in Britain. ``It is something for something,'' he said. ``A society where we play by the rules. You only take out if you put in. That's the bargain.'' * * * Mr. Blair said: ``In the 1960's, people thought Government was always the solution. In the 1980's people said Government was the problem. In the 1990's, we know that we cannot solve the problems of the workless class without Government, but that Government itself must change if it is to be part of the solution.''

Mr. LEACH

Mr. LEACH. Mr. Speaker, there is probably no bilateral relationship more important than that between China and the United States. The evolution of Sino-American relations over the next decade will be of profound import not only for stability in the Asia-Pacific region, but for the world. In this regard it must be understood that most favored nation [MFN] trade status--that is, normal trade relations--is the linchpin of Sino- American economic relations. it is also a natural extension of the open door policy that hallmarked American involvement in China at the end of the 19th century. By contrast, revocation of MFN would effectively drive a stake through the heart of our economic ties with China and place in grave jeopardy our future relationship with one-fifth of the world's population. Hence it is crucial that the issue of extending MFN be delinked from the aberrational issue of the moment, in this case ongoing campaign finance investigations. These issues--MFN which is fundamentally about relations between two peoples, and campaign finance abuses which likely involve the foolish actions of a few--are distinct. While Congress has a profound obligation to review the allegations of illegal involvement by foreigners and perhaps their governments in the American political process, perspective must be maintained. Campaign indiscretions are about deal-making conflicts of interest; MFN is about the future of the planet. In the context of the recent Presidential campaign, it must be understood that the most appropriate antidote to campaign finance violations is for the Justice Department to uphold vigorously current law and the Congress to work forthrightly on campaign finance reform. As for the Chinese, Beijing would be well advised to conduct its own inquiry into this affair, encourage openness and full disclosure and not shield any potential witnesses from the accountability required by United States law enforcement and congressional oversight. By way of background, this Member has long believed that when confronted with the choice of high walls versus open doors in Sino- American relations, open doors are preferable. Hence my historically strong support for maintaining MFN. Though I favor unconditional MFN for China at this time, I do not favor MFN unconditionally for all countries at all times. MFN is all about reciprocity. The best way for countries to have good sustainable economic relations is to have reciprocal open markets, and the best way to achieve reciprocity in trade is to get politics out of economics into the market. With this in mind, Congress should not hesitate to renew China's MFN status, preferably on a multiyear basis in conjunction with China's entrance into the World Trade Organization [WTO] on commercially acceptable terms. In this regard, it is my view that in the next century relations between states will relate more to the capacity of the business community to advance mutuality of interest than to the efforts of public officials to advance a civil dialog. Public policy is nonetheless crucial, for what is at stake is the advancement of the rule of law--whether it relates to U.N. Charter ideals, arms control, or rules of trade. With regard to the latter issue, the obvious deserves repetition: Common rules of trade are in the vested interest of all countries which want to be part of the modern world. Those nations which want privileged status to protect their own industries, usually on grounds of the old infant industries argumentation, generally hurt themselves. As recently pointed out by perhaps the most erudite 20th century head of state, Vaclav Havel, there is little more counterproductive for developing economies than protectionism. Financial services is a classic example. While China has become dramatically more integrated into the international financial system over the last decade and a half, it has only taken modest steps to open up its banking, insurance, and financial service industries to foreign competition. Yet in my view China and its economy would be far better off to welcome United States and other foreign financial institutions and their panoply of low-cost commercial and investment banking products. As for Hong Kong's return to China, this is clearly one of the seminal events of our time. For the West, it marks the end of a transition from colonial rule that began at the end of the Second World War and the end of an imperial presence in Asia. For China, in conjunction with the return of the Portuguese colony in Macao in 1999, Hong Kong's transfer marks the end of its traumatic colonial experience. In the short run, China has made its intentions clear. It intends to hold the reigns of freedom in Hong Kong rather more tightly than Gov. Chris Patten. In the long run, one's confidence in the future of Hong Kong depends on one's confidence in China and its ability to learn both from its own experience and the experience of others. Clearly, it's in China's interest to see the one country, two systems, concept successfully implemented. After all, Hong Kong's financial and managerial expertise is crucial to China's modernization drive and Hong Kong companies have accounted for over half of all outside investment in China, while Chinese concerns have invested over $60 billion in Hong Kong. Will China honor its agreements with the British and allow a two- systems approach to internal government? We cannot know the answer to this question. But this Congress can certainly point out to Beijing the enormously destabilizing consequences of any substantial mishandling of the Hong Kong transition. Clearly, the United States has important and financial as well as philosophical interests at stake in Hong Kong's smooth and successful transition to Chinese sovereignty on July 1. It is certainly the hope and expectation of the Congress that Hong Kong will remain one of the world's most vibrant and productive societies, that it will enjoy the substantial autonomy promised to it by the People's Republic of China, and that fundamental freedoms of its people will be fully protected and respected after 1997. In addition, it is self-evident that China's handling of the Hong Kong transition will powerfully affect attitudes toward the mainland in Taiwan. In this regard, it is interesting to note that perhaps the only revolutionary leader held in high esteem by China, as well as Hong Kong and Taiwan, is Sun Yat-sen, whose principal contribution to Chinese political theory, beyond nationalism, is the precept of a three stage, guided evaluation to political democracy. Perhaps because it has a manageable population base, perhaps because it is located in the currents of trade and sits as a cultural and commercial island-bridge between China, Japan, and the Americas, Taiwan has led the way with political and economic democracy and the least divisions of wealth of any industrializing society. A generation ago its leading party, the Kuomintang, while rightist, resembled in organization the Communist Party of China. Today it looks more like Margaret Thatcher's Conservative Party. Tomorrow, who knows? The only thing that is certain is that the future of Hong Kong will have a bearing. Deng Xiaoping underscored the new Chinese pragmatism with his cat and mice metaphor, and by promoting ``socialism with Chinese characteristics.'' That pragmatism has led to unprecedented social and economic change in China. Indeed, despite continued political repression, China may be changing more rapidly that any other country in the world. Not only is it looking outward to trade and establishing a market-oriented internal economy, but in terms of private discussion there is much more freedom of expression than existed two decades ago. Privately, one can criticize the Government without repercussion; it is public criticism that remains shackled. This latter circumstance is indefensible, but the looseness of controls on the farmer is not without significance. Nonetheless, China's social and economic transformation can't proceed in the long run without effecting political change. At some point Beijing's new leaders must recognize the incompatibility of free enterprise and an authoritarian political system, and must recognize as well that instability can be unleashed in society when governments fail to provide safeguards for individual rights and fail to erect political institutions adaptable to change and accountable to the people. Whether the 21st century is peaceful and whether it is prosperous will most of all depend on whether the world's most populous country can live with itself and become open to the world in a fair and respectful manner. How the United States, its allies, and the international system responds to the complexities and challenges of modern China is also one of the central foreign policy challenges of our time. Revocation of MFN would not be responsive to that challenge. It would not effectively address our legitimate concerns on human rights, nonproliferation, Taiwan, or trade. On the contrary, it would constitute a supremely self-destructive act. The United States would be far better to develop a bipartisan and biinstitutional approach that maintains the open door to China and with it a relationship that could be key to peace, stability, and prosperity in the 21st century than to annually threaten this political brinksmanship on the House floor. I urge the defeat of this self- defeating legislation.

Mr. LEACH

Mr. LEACH. Mr. Speaker, on June 30, 1997, James C. Hardy, Ph.D., professor of pediatrics and speech pathology and audiology at the University of Iowa, in Iowa City, IA, will conclude a distinguished 41- year career of research, teaching, clinical service, and the pioneering of innovative and far-reaching programs for people with disabilities. In the early 1950's, Dr. Hardy made the decision to enter the field than called speech correction, and discovered that he enjoyed and had a unique gift for working with children with development speech disorders. After doing so in public schools in Missouri for a few years, he came to the University of Iowa for graduate study. While working on his master's degree, he accepted the position of graduate assistant at University Hospital School [UHS] in 1956. Beginning in 1960, as supervisor of the UHS Speech and Hearing Department, Dr. Hardy directed a 13 year federally funded research program in speech physiology and disorders thereof due to neuromotor dysfunction. One of his publications, ``Suggestions for Physiological Research in Dysarthria,`` published in Cortex in 1967, continues to be cited as a guide for research dealing with speech disorders resulting for neuromotor dysfunction of the speech producing musculatures. Dr. Hardy has also been recognized as an early leader in what was, in the 1960's, the relatively new field of assistive technology. Under his leadership, UHS speech-language pathologists were among the first to advocate for the development of strategies to teach nonoral communications for children whose severe neuromotor dysfunction made oral communication impossible. UHS staff went on to develop the Nation's first specialized clinical service for nonspeaking children in use of augmentative communications devices. In 1972, Dr. Hardy became director of the University of Iowa's Department of Speech Pathology and Audiology's Wendell Johnson Speech and Hearing Clinic. James Hardy has continued his clinical work throughout his career, and, in 1970, he and Dr. William LaVelle of Iowa's Department of Otolaryngology-Face and Neck Surgery began expanding on early work in the use of intraoral devices called palatal lifts. These devices are made for persons who have speech disorders, at least in part, due to dysfunctional soft palates that cannot be resolved by surgery. Hardy and LaVelle have continued to provide patients, from young children to elders who have a variety of diagnoses, with palatal lifts since that time, and this work has been designated as a model of contemporary standards of care in prosthodontia. In 1979, James Hardy was appointed director of professional services at University Hospital School, and for more than 15 years he directed the clinical activities of one of the few programs in the country that provides comprehensive interdisciplinary services for people with disabilities. He continued his research interests in communication disorders, and, beginning in 1983, he codirected with Dr. Herman A. Hein, professor of pediatrics, a 7 year statewide study, funded by a national private foundation, of early identification of communication disorders in infants and toddlers. With the increasing recognition of the advantages of assistive technology for people with disabilities to improve their quality of life, Dr. Hardy has become involved in the enhancement of assistive technology services. Since 1988, he has directed the federally funded Iowa Program for Assistive Technology [IPAT], a program that has resulted in significant increases in assistive technology services in Iowa for persons of all ages who have all types of disabilities. During the four decades of his career, Dr. Hardy has seen what he calls the astronomical development of services for people with disabilities and their families. ``I have been privileged to work with people who have disabilities, in programs that provide assistance to them, and with students who also will do so,'' reflects Dr. Hardy. ``And I have also seen our society's all too slow but nevertheless increasing recognition that people with disabilities do indeed have abilities. It would be difficult to ask for more from one's career.'' It would also be difficult to find anyone who has given more of himself and his gifts for others than Dr. James Hardy. I know my colleagues join me in expressing profound appreciation for his over 41 years of service as teacher, researcher, clinician and healer.

Mr. LEACH

Mr. LEACH. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, let me say that I consider the gentleman who has offered the amendment one of the Congress's most distinguished young leaders. My concern, and I would like to extend a little bit beyond, although in full agreement with the last speaker, Mr. Berman, as well as the previous speaker, the gentleman from Arizona, Mr. Kolbe, relates to the nature of the world. There are two things that I think this body has to relevantly consider. As the cold war has come to an end certain international issues are more complicated. It is not just an ``us versus them'' circumstance. A lot more sophistication is needed. We are also seeing a number of new countries develop. Some of these new countries are former States of the former Soviet Union. Some are former states of a split country, the former Yugoslavia. Some are in other parts of the world. But the point I would make is that if you want to give legitimacy to these states, you have to recognize them in appropriate ways. That means establish embassies in these countries; that means make it clear that the United States of America legitimizes the state structure that has come into being, which is in our enormous national interest. Second, if in a very broad sense one can characterize the last half century as being principally one of geopolitics, we all hope and there is certain potential in the making that the next half century will be largely about geoeconomics. In this contest I think an enormous case can be made that to help American business we are going to have to have not less representation abroad but significantly more, particularly in the area of commercial activities and decentralized consulates. When you have significant countries with regions that are the equivalent manyfold of the average nation-state, it is very important that the United States business community have an anchor in those regions, whether it be the Shanghais or other cities within the new China or whether they be part of the older countries of western Europe. My sense is that we shortchange the Department of State at great risk to the national security of the United States and also in a very significant way to the future of American commerce. The State Department has done a very poor job in contract with the last century in projecting commerce as a signal mission. But I think in the coming decades on this commercial component of American representation abroad and the need to have structures to support the commercial component are going to be increasingly important. So as easy as this amendment seems to be to vote for, I think the membership ought to take great caution and support the budget agreement, support the President, who is, after all, all of our President when it comes to foreign policy, and support the leadership of the committee.

Mr. LEACH

Mr. LEACH. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding this time to me, and I will be very brief, and I just would like to thank her very much for her fine work in shepherding this bill through her subcommittee and would stress that, A, it has the strong support of the committee, it is procompetitive, it enhances competition between State and national banks and therefore is very proconsumer because it will give consumers more options and more places to do business. It makes prudential sense; it makes competitive sense. It is a modest bill, but nonetheless a significant bill, and because the timing in which certain other laws go into place, it is brought in a very timely basis to this floor, and I urge its adoption.

Mr. LEACH

Mr. LEACH. I thank the distinguished gentleman for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, I would just like to stress that this is a bill made for commendation. The leadership of the gentleman from California [Mr. Lewis], the gentleman from New York [Mr. Lazio], the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia [Ms. Norton], the gentleman from New York [Mr. Flake], the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Stokes], the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Kennedy], and, of course, President Carter has been very significant. Habitat for Humanity is a wonderful program. It is not a substitute for all public programs. This side understands that very well. In fact, with all the rancor of the debate the last 3 or 4 weeks in housing programs, it should be stressed that this House last week passed 100 percent of the President's recommended budget for public housing. Indeed, in the budget agreement, fully one-half of the new nondefense discretionary funding will go for housing programs, about $35 billion out of $70 billion over the next 5 years. This Congress has committed this year and in subsequent years in effect to increase support for public housing. This should be very well understood. Just because the issue was raised, I would stress that the bill last year that was critiqued a minute ago by one of the speakers had been endorsed by Secretary Cisneros and pushed strongly by President Carter. I am sorry that there was apprehension on the other side about prior Habitat programs. But the main point I would like to make is not to defend public housing programs, which have many problems and also important opportunities, but today to emphasize certain private sector efforts. Most, it should be stressed, are not extended by political figures but by committed people in many communities around the country, at the community level. Here, though, I think it is important that we also express our thanks to institutions that we have respect for in the private sector, particularly in this case Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, the National Reinvestment Corporation, and the National Association of Homebuilders for their support. In any regard, I think this is a time for thanks to be extended on all sides and to set a sense of perspective that this is a program that is very important, that is very symbolic. It does not replace other kinds of programs but is certainly a wonderful additional complement to them.

Mr. LEACH

Mr. LEACH. Mr. Chairman, I would only respond briefly. I think perspective has to be applied. The gentleman is correct that a year ago the budget came in less than the prior year. But this budget is precisely the same as the prior year, precisely the same as the administration has requested.

Mr. LEACH. I will not yield at this point to the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Kennedy]. I have been very patient, and the gentleman has interrupted every statement I have made in the last 2 weeks. I would ask for the gentleman's consideration. At the end of a debate it is often considered etiquette to let both sides express their perspective uninterrupted. I would ask the Chair to be allowed to continue and not to have this time counted against me. The CHAIRMAN pro tempore [Mr. Riggs]. The gentleman may proceed.

Mr. LEACH. I have a limited amount of time. I would like to ask to proceed at my own pace. Mr. Chairman, we also would stress that the committee's numbers are precisely the same numbers as the Department of Housing and Urban Development, whose secretary is Mr. Cuomo, the gentleman's brother-in- law. The other point I would like to make here is that it has been my impression as a Member who has been here almost two decades that one of the reasons the total budget has to be out of whack in virtually every area of Federal spending, including housing, is the terrific pressure from each constituency group's perspective that has been brought to bear. When Members establish reputations for always increasing a program, they come to be known as the person that most defends that particular constituency and, therefore, there is a particular appreciation from that constituency that is extended. But when numbers get out of whack, the fact of the matter is that the sum budget totals can be at times counterproductive. So from a constituency's point of view, there might well be a desire for more numbers, despite the fact that the general public is often disadvantaged. That is why we have these huge deficits and that is one of the reasons why the growth in the economy has been less impressive than otherwise. I would stress to the Members of this body that when the Republican Party came into power in 1994, there was an effort to constrain the budget, including housing. When that effort came to pass, and it usually takes about a year for effects to spin out in the economy, it is impressive that American economic growth has increased. Based on increased American economic growth, there are now more revenues coming into the treasury that have made possible the recent budget agreement between the executive and legislative branches that has just come to pass, based on new projections of more revenue coming in. If we have budgets that are increasingly out of whack, we are not only being unfair to young people in particular, who will be paying Federal debt obligations back for the next 30 years, but we will have less economic growth and thus fewer jobs in the economy.

Mr. LEACH. There is no effort to raise or decrease in the gentleman's amendment. I just make this clear to the committee.

Mr. LEACH. I would recapture my time. I would only stress to the committee and to the Members that these are the same numbers as the committee product.

Mr. LEACH. I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Mr. Chairman, let me go first to the principle of this bill under the Kennedy amendment that I think is very important. While the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Kennedy] earlier in the debate in prior days had offered an amendment to increase the funding by 50 percent, his amendment on the floor today, as I understand it, has no increase in funding. So what we are dealing with is the same dollar levels as the committee bill, is that correct?

Mr. LEACH. Mr. Speaker, in considering this motion to recommit I would hope Members on the other side would recognize that the party of liberalism that is doing well in the world is the party of Tony Blair, not parties of extremism that object to free market, to change of programs that fail, to restrained budgets. Before the House this afternoon is landmark legislation which attempts to balance the need for reform with the needs of the poor. While the authorization number is consistent with the administration's recommendation, some have implied the legislation is skinflinted. Our side would suggest it is an attempt to reform rather than eviscerate public housing; to change a partially failed system without walking away from the needy. Mr. Kennedy's approach would knock out of public housing programs most families of four with two parents holding minimum wage jobs. It would make it exceedingly difficult for two single parents in public housing with jobs to consider marriage because they would lose their housing benefits. In the last century two English political philosophers, Jeremy Bentham and James Mill--the son of John Stuart Mill--advanced a doctrine of utilitarianism--the guide of which was the precept, ``the greatest good of the greatest number.'' Modern day liberals have abandoned 19th century progressive philosophy and replaced it with the notion of constituency politics, of targeting programs to groups without reference to their effect on society as a whole. The effect has been the development of a dependency cycle, which the new majority in Congress is attempting to break, and this bill is part of that effort.

Mr. LEACH. I would also like to address the issue of compassion. Sometimes it is argued that to have more numbers is extremely compassionate. This side has been accused in this debate earlier of being steely. The fact of the matter is it can be more compassionate to have more economic growth. There can be philosophical differences that can be meted out on various issues at various points in time. But this side is proceeding under the obligation to be more constrained, to operate within budget agreements, to operate in coordination with the administration under a belief that to increase spending would be uncompassionate, not compassionate. Finally, let me just say that in my view the gentleman from New York [Mr. Lazio] has brought to this floor a signally reform-oriented bill that will establish him as one of the great architects of a new housing approach, and I think this entire House should give the gentleman from New York [Mr. Lazio] a great deal of credit. In this regard, I would also commend the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Kennedy] for bringing out an amendment that from the other side's perspective I think is quite credible. I would hope our side would not be persuaded by it. In this regard, though, I would ask the other side to recognize that this committee has brought out a number 100 percent identical with the administration's request, general precepts largely in symmetry with the administration's request. In that process I would hope that on final passage the other side would give this committee the benefit of the doubt in working with the administration, in coming out with the precise budget numbers. If the committee works with the administration and then is voted against, it is very awkward for Congress to proceed on a reasonable basis.

Mr. LEACH

Mr. LEACH. Yes, Mr. Chairman, and the President of the United States signed it.

Mr. LEACH. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will continue to yield, I would be happy to look carefully at language that comes before the committee. We will seriously review it. That will become a conferenceable issue. This chairman of this committee would have an open mind.

Mr. LEACH. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will continue to yield, I would also stress again, what this bill does, as it is currently constituted, is target to the poorest of the poor, but then it does not say that the near-poor are excluded. What the Kennedy amendment does is exclude the near-poor. In this regard, we are also saying that it is local discretion. There is no binding exclusion which the Kennedy amendment implies. But under the committee approach, 100 percent would go to the poorest of the poor.

Mr. LEACH. Mr. Chairman, first I want to be very precise on several points. The gentleman has referred to a reduction in spending for several programs as part of a 95 supplemental which was not passed out of our committee. This was not a committee that passed that out. So the gentleman is making a point in attempting to assert a degree of personal responsibility for which I think he should be very cautious.

Mr. LEACH. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. LEACH. Mr. Chairman, there are two statistics that I think one has to be very careful of. The gentleman has used 25 percent and with the time frame, but it must be placed in the Record that this bill that we have before us is 100 percent of the administration's request this year.

Mr. LEACH. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. LEACH. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will continue to yield, I would just stress that this program as currently drafted in the statute applies to the poorest of the poor, and it also applies to the working poor. The amendment of the gentleman from Massachusetts will exclude in many instances the working poor. The second gentleman from Massachusetts notes, quite properly, that there are other programs that also deal with the working poor. But just so that there is no misunderstanding, because the gentleman cited some inner city circumstances that this amendment would not be exclusive of, in 16 States, 67 percent or more of HUD districts, families of four with two parents working full time at the minimum wage, would be excluded from this program.

Mr. LEACH. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will continue to yield, what the amendment of the gentleman from Massachusetts does and one of the reasons I think this is such a close call is suggest that only the poorest of the poor would be targeted.

Mr. LEACH. Mr. Chairman, I would like to explain to the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Frank] who the Kennedy amendment would exclude, and this is staff analysis.