Jim Leach

Mr. LEACH

Mr. LEACH. I thank the distinguished gentleman for yielding me this time. Mr. Chairman, I would just make several brief points. First, in terms of unfunded mandates, the CBO represents to the committee that this requirement is a condition of receipt of Federal funds rather than an unfunded mandate. Second, I think the minority side has made an absolutely valid point that there is an additional burden for housing authorities implied here. On the other hand, I think it should be clear that there is some return for that burden. For example, if I am a housing authority director an my residents are obligated to help clean up the housing project under the community service requirement, I must say to myself, that is a real plus for my program. If my residents are obligated to participate in things like community watch programs, I must think that is a plus for my program. I would also comment on two aspects of this whole issue of self- sufficiency. One of the things that all of us who have visited with our housing projects have come to understand is that to a greater and greater extent, housing or shelter is just one part of the challenge. Many housing projects, of course, work closely with other community service organizations, such as community action programs. It is the rest of the services to residents that is often as, if not more important than the shelter aspect, although these services may be tied into shelter. Self-sufficiency is a very positive and very important goal. What this Congress is saying with this particular provision is that there should be an obligation to look at these issues in a much more dramatic way, recognizing that many housing projects do a pretty good job in this area at this time. I would like to return just for a moment to the Milwaukee model which has been represented to this Member as one of the most successful public housing projects in the country. I would point out that in the Milwaukee project a contractual relationship is required between tenants and the city of Milwaukee. The first two provisions are rather strenuous, especially the second one, but it is a very interesting model. Provision No. 1 reads that as an occupant of public housing, the occupant will complete an employability assessment; No. 2 reads that the occupant understands and agrees that he or she must abide by the recommendations of the employability plan developed as a result of that assessment. What these two points are in this Milwaukee model that has been represented to be one of the more successful programs in the country is exactly this: self-sufficiency. Based upon this kind of model, based upon discussions with program directors in areas that I am familiar with, I am impressed that it is not enough to look at public housing simply as a shelter program. Self-sufficiency is a very appropriate goal to move toward, recognizing again that the requirement is a modest additional burden.

Mr. LEACH. If I could reclaim the time, I want to thank the gentleman from New York for his very thoughtful representation to this body as well as defense of the U.S. military and the veteran. I would only like to make one comment, because in all of this discussion about programmatic grouping, 601(b), 602(b), whatever it may be, the fact of the matter is, the greater relevance is how did the committee come up with the figure? And the figure in this budget is precisely, dollar for dollar the recommendation of the Clinton administration. This committee has worked vigorously and cooperatively with the administration on this housing budget. I make this point because the figure of the gentleman from Massachusetts is somewhat over 50 percent greater than the majority on the committee has recommended, which means it is 50 percent greater than the administration has requested. There are a lot of things we could do with more money in all sorts of Federal areas. I, personally, think maybe housing has been a little more short- shrifted than I would like, but the fact of the matter is we are dealing with a budget dilemma. This committee has come up precisely with the administration request, and I know it does not fit all on your side of the aisle, but I would think the committee might well get some appreciation for how closely we have worked with the administration, how hard we have worked to defend a particular dollar level that is their request, and instead the amendments come in calling for 50 percent increases. That makes it pretty difficult to deal with, because it is out of the scope of budget constraints, as we all recognize, and not just this discussion between the veterans' programs and the housing programs.

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

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

Mr. LEACH. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me. I would just like to make a couple very brief points first to the gentleman from North Carolina; the principles of community service and work are bedrock American values. There are other values as well. One is the value the gentleman raised, we do not want anything that approaches involuntary servitude. That is something all of us have to keep very carefully in mind. In the background of this discussion is a public housing circumstance in many parts of the country that is, frankly, failed. All Members of Congress understand that. So the committee looked at models around the country. One of the models that came to the attention of the committee was a program in Milwaukee, WI, called the Hillside Terrace development, run by the city of Milwaukee. As a condition of occupancy, this particular housing project required that everyone sign a condition of occupancy statement that had a number of points, about eight. Let me mention three. One was that every resident would enroll and actively participate in the neighborhood block watch program. A second was that every resident would agree to clean and maintain the common areas. A third condition was that every resident complete a given number of hours per month of volunteer service. In the wake of this community participatory circumstance, the residents of this particular public housing project, Hillside Terrace, have managed to effect a dramatic reduction in the rate of crime in their area and they have upgraded the public housing stock. Now, actually the conditions of occupancy required in this Milwaukee project are substantially more strenuous than the condition that is being requested in this bill. In fact, our bill does not go to anyone that has a job, that is in training, that is part of any sort of welfare work project of any nature. This only goes to able-bodied citizens of a given appropriate age. So it goes to a fairly small grouping of people, under the premise that there should be work for benefit and based on the premise that some sort of new community participatory work aspect will not only be helpful to the individual in job skill development but helpful to the project itself and the rest of the community. On our side, with the administration, we think this is very reasonable. I would just stress that in a sense because the administration is of the other party, of the gentleman's party, that this is a bipartisan circumstance. There is also an inner-party dispute, and we recognize that. But this is intended to be brought forth in as reasonable a way as possible.

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

Mr. LEACH. Mr. Chairman, I said we define this as a work-for-benefit program.

Mr. LEACH. Mr. Chairman, I did respond to the last one.

Mr. LEACH. Mr. Chairman, I am not, but again, I would stress, this is work-for-benefit.

Mr. LEACH. Mr. Chairman, I think the gentleman makes a fair point. There is none.

Mr. LEACH. I apologize to the gentleman. I do not have those statistics with me. I will say it has been represented that this Milwaukee model has been very successful. As the gentleman knows, the whole Wisconsin turnaround in the whole area of welfare has been as impressive a turnaround as any in the country.

Mr. LEACH. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman would yield, first let me respond to the gentleman's vocabulary. This is a work-for-benefit program. Democrats describe it as mandatory volunteerism; our side describes it as work-for-benefit, and that is where the rub comes with regard to the circumstance.

Mr. LEACH. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate very much the sensitivity and the candor of the gentleman from North Carolina, but I want it stressed again that this is an issue of work for benefit, it is an issue that has been endorsed by the administration, although not precisely with the tied-down ways that the committee has brought it before this body. It is not in any way intended to imply the truly tortuous circumstance the gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. Watt] sets forth. I think we have to listen carefully and respectfully, but I do not find the argument compelling.

Mr. LEACH. Mr. Chairman, I continue to yield to the gentleman from North Carolina.

Mr. LEACH. Let me continue because the gentleman asked a very precise question. We have National Health Service Corps, medical grants that involve a requirement that people work in given circumstances in order to take advantage of Federal assistance. Obviously, military academies have some implications for work obligations. I would also say there are State examples. I know the State of South Carolina in some public school systems has had a community service requirement for high school graduation that has been upheld by the courts as appropriate. But I think that the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Jackson] is also correct in his implication that there are aspects of this that are somewhat unique as well, and I will acknowledge that. But I would also say that it is the view of this side that this fits the heritage of this country, it fits the pioneer spirit of the 19th century, it fits our great American Presidents of this century, and at the risk of great presumption with the ranking member of the Subcommittee on Housing and Community Opportunity here, I would say that on our side of the aisle there is an assumption that the principle at issue is: ``Ask not what the Federal Government can do for you, but ask what you can do for your community.'' This is leadership of, by, and for the poor, and that is not inappropriate. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from North Carolina.

Mr. LEACH. Mr. Chairman, first let me yield to the distinguished gentleman from Illinois, and I would say to the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Jackson] that I think he has distinguished himself with his first amendment offerings to this body and he has made very cogent arguments that are not without merit. This side does not find them compelling; but a large number of Members do, which says that the gentleman has argued well and capably, and so I will first yield to the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Jackson].

Mr. LEACH. Mr. Chairman, I will in just a minute to the distinguished gentleman. There is another point that I think it is very fair to raise. The gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. Watt] argues that this community service requirement is injurious to self-esteem. I would frankly assert that this body believes, or at least this side of the body believes, that work enhances self-esteem and that the community service provision, which is a work component, involves two precepts that are very American at their roots. Work is not a four-letter word to be considered pejoratively. Community service is something that has hallmarked this country. So the notion here is to instill a work community service provision in return for a benefit, and if one does not want the benefit, obviously one has the option of not participating in the program.

Mr. LEACH. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, first let me address the substance of the amendment. The amendment objects to the notion of work without compensation, and if that was what was at issue here, I think the gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. Watt] would have a valid point. But very carefully this is a proposal--and I would stress again to this body, that was included in the administration's request to the Congress--which from the congressional side was tightened up so that enforcement is enforceable rather than representative of a rhetorical approach. In any regard, the precept at issue is the notion of work for benefit. If you think about economics in general, sometimes one works for pay; sometimes our society has a barter element; that is the same techniques people used before the use of coin--barter--are increasingly used today. And so this is, in effect, a barter arrangement. It is work for benefit, and indeed, it is an untaxed benefit.

Mr. LEACH. Mr. Chairman, there are a number of analogous programs, none precisely like that, but the AmeriCorps program was designed in that direction, Federal work study programs are designed----

Mr. LEACH. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words, and I yield to my distinguished colleague, the gentleman from New York [Mr. Lazio].

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

Mr. LEACH

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

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

Mr. LEACH. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, housing is part of the compensation. It is part of the compensation in the military, it is part of the compensation in other things as well, as well as in certain student environments. And let me also be very clear. The issue of the minimum wage was raised. As someone who supported the recent raise in the minimum wage, let me say anyone that is working for a minimum wage or higher does not come under this requirement. It is not a part of this circumstance. Anyone that is working is not required to participate in this program. Let me also say the issue of paternalism has been raised. And I would like to go back to the issue of the week, where we had three Presidents of the United States meet under Colin Powell in Philadelphia to discuss voluntarism--which was largely well received by the American public. But the criticism, to the degree it is rendered, has been is that it is not a bit paternalistic? So what this is, is not outsiders coming in for community service, it is for insiders to serve their own community in appropriate, thoughtful ways defined at the local level, not by outsiders. That is the reverse of paternalism. It is work for benefit. There is an element of pride, of community service. Finally, there is an issue of reform here. I know of nothing that implies more of the status quo than the current system. We are trying to get the American public to support housing for poor people. This committee has come forth with a bill at precisely the administration's request for dollars and calling for community service reform as advocated by the administration. The minority side in this body is objecting. In my judgment, one of the great questions that we have to ask is, Who is philosophically in step? Is it the administration with the Republicans in Congress or is it the minority in this body? I would say the American people, as I listen to my constituents, as I get phone calls from around the country, as I read my mail, is saying let us put a work requirement to the degree possible in Federal programs. That is what this is.

Mr. LEACH. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.