Jim Leach

Mr. LEACH

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

Mr. LEACH. All I am saying is the gentleman has a philosophical point that is deeply worthy of respect, and all I am trying to say is unfortunately when we work it through, there are counterproductive ramifications, and I tried to lay out precisely what they are.

Mr. LEACH. We are counting two incomes of minimum wage with a family of four.

Mr. LEACH. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, I appreciate what the gentleman is saying, and there is an aspect about targeting the poorest of the poor that has great attractiveness. On the other hand, all I know is that we have asked our very professional staff to go through an assessment and do the statistical analysis, and I have a chart in front of me of, oh, 15 States that at a minimum have 67 percent and up to a maximum of 94 percent of districts in which families of four with two parents working full time at minimum wage will be excluded, and I stress this, excluded from choice-based assistance; yes, it is under the gentleman's amendment.

Mr. LEACH. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, I would respond to the gentleman by saying I think he makes a number of very good arguments and that this is a reasonably close call, but I would come down on the other side because in the final measure there are some ramifications that are imperfect, and let me just go over a couple. One is that all of a sudden we develop a system in which the incentives are not to work, and so this is a disincentive-to-work provision. Let me explain why it works out that way, why if we pass this amendment, we will in effect be locking out the working poor from these programs. For instance, in the State of Iowa, and we have developed charts on a number of States, 83 percent of the districts in which families of four with two parents working full-time at a minimum wage would be excluded from this program under the Kennedy approach. Let me finish and then I will be happy to yield. If we take the State of Massachusetts, 44 percent of the districts in which families of four with two parents working full-time at no more than 55 cents above the minimum wage would be excluded from this program. When we exclude the working poor from the program, what we do--even though the gentleman is partly right that with voucher program we do not segregate the poor quite as dramatically, or the poorest of the poor quite as dramatically as we do in the nonvoucher approach, although there are in practice sometimes a little bit of choice-based movement into concentrated areas that may occur--we give people an incentive to have a program benefit instead of work. Virtually all that we are trying to do in this bill is work in a direction that is a bit different than current policy, and I acknowledge that, and it has some disadvantages, and I would acknowledge that as well. But we are trying to move in the direction of having more mixed approaches involving the poorest of the poor and the working poor being equal beneficiaries of, or if not equal at least being accommodated under Federal programs, and then to say to those that are not working, that there are more incentives to work.

Mr. LEACH. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.

Mr. LEACH. Mr. Chairman, in Brownsville, TX, a family making $15,750 will be excluded from this program. However, the fair market rent there is about $510, which is 39 percent of income. After paying for the year's rent, that family will have only $9,631 to pay all other expenses from food to clothing to medical expenses.

Mr. LEACH. Mr. Chairman, I would also say that in addition to the 16 States, where two-thirds of the districts would be excluded, even in Massachusetts, which is not as affected as some other States, 44 percent of HUD districts would be excluded, of families of four with two parents working full time at no more than 55 cents above the minimum wage. So what this amendment does that is good is it targets the poorest of the poor. What it does that is imperfect is that it gives disincentives to work and it excludes many members of the relatively working poor.

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

Mr. LEACH

Mr. LEACH. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to proceed for an additional 2 minutes.

Mr. LEACH. Mr. Chairman, I recapture my time because the gentleman from Iowa has the time. I would concur with the gentleman that many of these housing projects are very well run. I would like as a Member of Congress to be able to say ``I can double your funds.'' But the fact is we have a totality of constraints placed in this body. Working with the administration may not be an argument in the sense of substance but it is a process circumstance of enormous import to this body that everybody in this body recognizes. Mr. Chairman, what is being displayed on the floor today is an effort by a part of their wonderful political party that is saying we want to on this program increase substantially the resources as they argue on many other programs, and what the majority side is saying, that somehow there have to be limits when we are dealing with a totality of a budget of the nature we are dealing with.

Mr. LEACH. Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my unanimous consent request.

Mr. LEACH. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.

Mr. LEACH. Mr. Chairman, to recapture my time, because it is my time, I would acknowledge to the gentleman that with the gentleman from New York and the gentleman from Massachusetts I had the same vote on the man orbiting laboratory issue. I also object to the B-2 bomber. And so all of us as individual Members have different judgments, but we have to live within the constraints of what the majority determines as well as the constraints of the executive branch.

Mr. LEACH. I yield to the gentlewoman from Texas.

Mr. LEACH. Mr. Chairman, I rise to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I would simply say that sometimes we get involved in rhetorical debates. What the gentlewoman's amendment does is something that is very close to the self-sufficiency efforts that are underway as well, and I think it makes a great deal of common sense, as I think self-sufficiency efforts make a great deal of common sense, but this side does have to recognize that it is a slightly greater burden on the public housing authorities, but it is a burden worth putting on the public housing authorities. That was the same point we were trying to make earlier with the self- sufficiency approaches. This tightens that up. It is complementary. It makes great sense.

Mr. LEACH. Mr. Chairman, let me respond in context, one is the context of restraint, the second is in the context of housing. In the context of restraint, this committee has brought forth the administration's proposal. This side is marching in what might be considered surprising lockstep with the administration; the Democrat side is not. The second point I would like to make that I think is very important, housing is a large issue, public housing is a subset issue. It is the belief philosophically of the Republican side that if we can constrain spending, reduce interest rates, we can expand housing in America. That is occurring. A higher percentage of Americans each year now are coming to own their own homes, putting a lower burden on the public side. Now, we can take every single subset of Federal programs and make a case for increasing them. When we do that, the sum total of effect is an economy that dwindles. We on the Republican side are very conscious of the macroeconomic dimension of the need to restrain. Based on that, of all programs in America where the benefits become most clear-cut, it is housing. Homeownership in this country as a percentage is going up, and we are committed to continue to have that go up.

Mr. LEACH. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman would again yield, there are many analogous programs, but none precisely like this. There are also certain analogous programs at the State level.

Mr. LEACH. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.

Mr. LEACH. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.

Mr. LEACH. Mr. Chairman, this gentleman does not accept the statements of the gentleman from Massachusetts. The fact of the matter is it is the responsibility of this committee to work realistically with the budget constraints that exist. The gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Frank] knows very well, and I do not want to reference names, but in the past, bills were introduced in our committee with gigantic pie-in-the-sky numbers, and they never were credibly received in the appropriations process, and they should not have been. This committee is an authorizing committee, is requesting credibility. It is coming with numbers that we will be defending, numbers that will be accepted, numbers that are supported by the administration, numbers that have realistic relationships with other Federal programs in a budget constraint time, and this committee also is coming with philosophical reform. The combination of realistic numbers and realistic reform I think gives decent hope that public housing in America can be improved.

Mr. LEACH. Mr. Chairman, first, a correction for the gentleman. We are in a world which everyone that has a point wants to identify the Speaker. I have not spoken to the Speaker on this issue. I have spoken to Secretary Cuomo. We have put in the administration-requested numbers. The second point I would like to make, the gentleman is absolutely right. The former chairman of this committee put in higher numbers, but they have not gotten them. We are putting in numbers and we intend to get them. The chairman of the subcommittee and I have fought very vigorously within the Republican caucus to insist that public housing programs not be eliminated, and we have made a major personal time commitment. And I would say particularly the chairman of this subcommittee, and must tell the gentleman from Massachusetts that the implications of his words that the majority leadership and the Committee on Banking and Financial Services refuses to go and support the committee, unlike prior leadership of the Committee on Banking and Financial Services, is invalid. Beyond that, I know of no committee at any time in this body that has not cooperated more with the department of jurisdiction on the area under control, controlled by another political party.

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

Mr. LEACH. First, let me respond to the gentleman. We have worked forthrightly to come up with the maximum approach we believe that could receive the majority's support in this body. Second, I do believe very firmly that there are few areas of Federal programming that have had more glaring mistakes in them than a number of our public housing projects. And I believe that without reform, more money is money down the proverbial difficult hole. All I can say is that from the majority's perspective, we have worked with the administration to come up with a credible number, with credible reform, and as we come to the floor, each amendment calls either for a return to the status quo or for money outside the budget constraints that have been worked out between the executive branch and Congress. It is in that context that I have a difficult time looking at some of these amendments.

Mr. LEACH. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words, and I yield to the gentleman from New York if he so desires, if he has further clarification he would like to make.