Jim Leach

Mr. LEACH

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

Mr. LEACH. I think the gentleman makes decent points and they ought to be respected.

Mr. LEACH. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, the Democratic version is what the gentleman is offering to this bill. The Democratic administration is what I referred to. I will be very precise. This administration submitted a bill to the Committee on Banking and Financial Services which was introduced by request of the gentleman from New York [Mr. Lazio] and the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Kennedy]. That bill contained 8 hours of community service as a requirement. That approach was endorsed in the last Congress by Secretary Cisneros. What we have here is an approach that has been suggested that there are no parallels. The fact of the matter is the AmeriCorps Program might be defined as paid voluntarism. It is a parallel. It is not like this. This is work for benefit. We have a number of education loan programs where when teachers work, for example, in the math area, their loans are considered written off. The work study programs is a similar analogy. There is a Perkins Loan Program where medical students are required to work in low-income environments. If an individual graduates from a military academy, that person must serve their country. Americans have a long tradition of wanting people that receive benefits to do something in return for those benefits.

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

Mr. LEACH. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words and rise in opposition to the amendment. First, I think we have to be very careful about semantics. It has been suggested that this is a voluntary mandate. It is not. This is work for benefit. It is a traditional, old-fashioned American precept. There is a suggestion here that this is a Republican effort; that poverty equals immorality. Extraordinary. An extraordinary observation. And yet, so that we understand what is happening here, this is proposed by the Democratic administration.

Mr. LEACH. Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask how much time the two sides have remaining.

Mr. LEACH. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Let me just stress, the gentleman from Massachusetts referenced my interpretation. My interpretation is the interpretation of the CBO, which is the overseer. What the law states is that an exception to the unfunded mandates law are provisions imposing duties as a condition of receiving Federal aid or arising from participation in a Federal program. What the gentleman from North Carolina is raising is a question of law in terms of a point of order. That point of order clearly, without any equivocation, does not rise. Now, on the substance of the issue there are differences of judgment, and I am simply making the point that the majority side supports the precept of work for benefit. The President supports the precept of work for benefit. The gentleman may disagree with that precept, that is his philosophical prerogative, but he should not confuse a point of order argument with a substantive argument. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. LEACH. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I want to be very categorical first of all. The CBO, which is the overseer of this program, states that the public housing requirement in terms of the work program is not an unfunded mandate, period. There are other parts of the bill that involve small aspects of or that touch the unfunded mandates act, but they do not reach the threshold. But the requirement the gentleman is referencing in section 105, which is his principal point, is not an unfunded mandate. With regard to section 106, which the gentleman wants to knock out, I would also point out that this section is largely maintained in the alternative to be offered by the gentleman from Massachusetts. So the gentleman is attempting to knock out a provision that will be in the alternative of the gentleman from Massachusetts, which is supported by the administration, and which is crafted in large measure with the input of his side in the committee. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. LEACH. Mr. Chairman, I would say to the gentleman, as he knows, in the Committee on Banking and Financial Services on which he sits, 65 amendments from the minority side were considered and 29 were passed. So this bill has the strong fingerprints of the minority.

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

Mr. LEACH. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman yielding. Let me just say what is occurring here is an effort to say the Democratic Party does not favor the work requirement, the Republican Party does, and therefore, to somehow socially divide the two political parties in these inner city environments. The facts are, the administration has supported a work requirement and does, and to be very precise, let me read from the bill that was sent up by Secretary Cuomo, under a section called community service requirements for the public housing and section 8 programs. The Secretary's bill states: ``Notwithstanding any other provision of law, each adult member of each family residing in a public housing or assisted under section 8 shall, without compensation, participate for not less than 8 hours per month in community services activities, not to include any political activity, within the community in which that adult resides.'' In other words, the Republican Party has taken great care to work with the administration in producing an approach that is a common sense reform initiative. At this time on the floor of the House, the congressional Democratic Party is objecting.

Mr. LEACH. First, Mr. Chairman, let me say to the gentleman I made reference to the weekend's work on voluntarism. I did not say this was part of voluntarism. This is work for benefit.

Mr. LEACH. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. First, let me say what the distinguished gentleman from North Carolina is doing is using a process technique to underscore a political point. I understand the gentleman did not receive enough time to discuss this issue yesterday. I would like to simply stress on the time score that we were operating under the rules of the House and we granted, at the request of the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Kennedy], extra time on each side. I am sorry if the gentleman did not get enough time to discuss this issue but we made every effort to be accommodating to the minority. On the process point, it should be stressed that it is a norm, when Federal funds are extended, to put conditions and requirements into programs. That is what is being done in this bill, and that is why in the supplemental report filed by the committee we include a CBO estimate. And the CBO, as this body knows, is the general overseer of this circumstance. The CBO states, and I quote directly, ``The bill would impose several new requirements on PHA's. These requirements, which are conditions of receiving assistance from HUD and, thus, are not mandates under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995, include establishing and enforcing work requirements and self-sufficiency agreements with residents of public housing.'' In further clarification, CBO has informed me today that while H.R. 2 does contain several intergovernmental mandates as defined by the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act, in other parts of the bill, CBO has determined that the cost of those mandates is insignificant and would not exceed the threshold established under the law. The bill contains other provisions that would have significant budgetary impacts on public housing agencies, such as the one the gentleman from North Carolina is concerned about, but these provisions are conditions of receiving Federal financial assistance and, therefore, would not be considered mandates under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995. On the substantive issue, I think care has to be taken how the community service requirement is described. Like the President's AmeriCorps program, this is a work-for-benefit approach. It is supported by Secretary Cuomo and his predecessor, Secretary Cisneros. The model bills that were submitted to Congress by the administration-- one of which was introduced by request with the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Kennedy] as a cosponsor--included this work requirement. In terms of section 106 that the gentleman is referring to, this section was also included in Secretary Cuomo's presentation and recommendation to the House Committee on Banking and Financial Services. It was further modified with amendments from the minority side. For example, the requirement that PHA's look at the population base in their areas with a particular eye to the poorest of the poor was a significant minority amendment. And what the gentleman from North Carolina is attempting to do in this point of order, which I believe does not lie, on a substantive basis, is to knock out a provision recommended by the administration, further modified by the Democratic, not the Republican side, on the House Committee on Banking and Financial Services. So on process grounds, I would suggest to the gentleman that as indicated by the CBO this amendment does not breach the requirements of the law. On substantive grounds, the gentleman from North Carolina is going against his administration and his party's amendments as adopted in the House Committee on Banking and Financial Services. So as the chairman of the committee, I am befuddled by the approach that is being presented. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. LEACH. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time. What the gentleman from North Carolina is engaging in is captious argumentation. Let me explain this as carefully as I can. We have a long tradition in the House of Representatives, in the Congress of the United States, when we expend Federal funds to put requirements on them. Those in most instances are not unfunded mandates. Let me be as precise as possible. We have rules about money going to States form time to time, and we require that civil rights be enforced. That is not an unfunded mandate. That is a requirement for receipt of Federal funds. The gentleman from North Carolina objects to the work requirement in this bill. He is free at any point in the debate to offer an amendment to strike it, and your side will attempt to do that. But I would simply stress that under the definitions of law provided by the CBO, which is the overseer of this program, this is a requirement for receipt of Federal funds. It is not an unfunded mandate, section 105, which is what the gentleman is principally getting at. On the substantive side, let me say this. I was very intrigued the other evening. All of us looked at this issue of voluntarism where the President and the former Presidents met in Philadelphia, and I though it made a great deal of sense. Some of the criticism that came out, to the degree there was criticism, related to the fact that it may be a little bit presumptuous for people from the outside to volunteer in internal problems of other people. There was a degree of legitimacy to this argument. What this bill is saying is that people in poverty should have a work component to also take care of themselves and assist in their community. It is a community service requirement, it is a work-for- benefit program. All of the gentlemen on the other side may object. I would only again stress in this regard two points. First, Secretary Cisneros, Secretary Cuomo, and the majority of the Committee on Banking and Financial Services have brought this to the floor. Second, this country and many people in it believe that reform in these programs is vital, and that people are looking at people getting benefits and not giving anything in return. This is an effort of stressing community service, work for benefit. With regard to the gentleman's point or order, it is one that is clearly, and I say clearly, without merit. I would urge my colleagues to uphold the committee on a straightforward point of law. We will deal with the substance of the gentleman's issue at later points in time when debate on amendments come forth. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. LEACH. I did not hear those words. I will look for them in the Record.

Mr. LEACH. Mr. Chairman, if I could reclaim my time, I say to the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Kennedy], nobody on this side of the aisle said poverty is equated with immorality. That is language that comes from your side and it is a debate technique attempting to put an idea on our side. The second point, I just think it very important to say, the words mean spirited has been introduced. No one to my knowledge has approached this from a mean-spirited direction. To the degree that any appellation applies, it has to also apply to the administration who submitted this precept. And so if there is either a positive or a pejorative, it has to be considered collective, I am sure shared by some on the gentleman's side of the aisle as it is shared by the administration.

Mr. LEACH. I think the gentleman makes a fair inquiry. Whether it is exactly apples and oranges, I will put aside. But I would say the effort of the majority side at this time is to enhance and increase the incentive for work and to enhance social obligation. The gentleman's uncle was a great believer in community service, in public service. That is what this bill is designed to enhance at the local level. I do not mean to say I presume that I speak more for the gentleman's uncle than he can.

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

Mr. LEACH. Mr. Chairman, in responding, let me just put this in a little broader background: 2\1/2\ years ago, there was a major effort and consideration by this administration to eliminate HUD. That effort received widespread consideration in this body. Our committee, of which the gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. Watt] and the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Frank] are members, made a collective kind of decision to try to not eliminate public housing but to reform it. The dollars that we have put on the table are precisely the dollars requested by the President of the United States, Mr. Clinton. The reforms are in large measure consistent with the proposals of the Department of Housing and Urban Development. I acknowledge on this issue, and also with regard to this amendment, there are some differentiations. This amendment, for example, addresses a point where the committee may have gone further than the bill that HUD supplied, but we think we are largely consistent. But having said that, the big picture is that we have made a decision to try to reform rather than to allow continued stultification and decay. We believe we are in tune with the American people on the view that when one receives a benefit, to the maximum extent possible, there ought to be something provided back in a public kind of way. That is what we have on the table and what you have every right to individually differentiate yourself with. But in large measure, the approach the Committee on Banking and Financial Services has brought forth is one in which we have worked very closely with HUD. HUD has worked very closely with us, and by HUD, I do not mean it in broad terms, I mean the administration and the Presidency.

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

Mr. LEACH. Let me recapture my time. The gentleman makes a very good point, with this exception. It has been your side of the aisle that is trying to define a partisan differentiation, not simply an issue of judgment. Repeatedly on your side of the aisle, there has been an effort directed at given constituencies in America to try to say the miserable Republicans, or implying the Republicans are attempting to do this to you. All I am suggesting is that this is a judgment that I think the majority of Republicans probably support, a number on your side of the aisle will probably support, and the Executive Branch supports in broad precept. I make this point because it is very important in terms of public policy, if Congress passes a law of this nature, that people in public housing should not then come to think that this is a Republican ax held over their head. It is the judgment of the Congress, a bipartisan kind of judgment of which there are individuals that will differ. But I refuse to hear the suggestion and implication that you as individual Members stand for the complete Democratic Party. You may stand for the majority of the Congressional Democrats, but on this particular issue in broad measure, the Executive Branch differentiates itself from you and is closer to our side.

Mr. LEACH. I yield to the gentleman from North Carolina.

Mr. LEACH. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, I will respond directly to the gentleman. The majority would like to acknowledge that there are certain tightening up circumstances that have occurred in this bill under the committee markup process. But I would like to read to the gentleman precisely the bill submitted by Secretary Cuomo, under section 111, community service requirements for the public housing in section 8 programs. And it reads, and I quote directly, this is the position of the Department of Housing and Urban Development, which is a part of the Clinton administration: ``Notwithstanding any other provision of law, each adult member of each family residing in public housing or assisted under section 8, shall, without compensation, participate for not less than 8 hours per month in community service activities not to include any political activity within the community in which that adult resides.'' The reason I stress this, I think it is absolutely fair for any individual Member on either side of this body to disagree with the administration. I think it is absolutely fair to disagree with any provision in this bill. I happen to believe that virtually all American Presidents are more than half right more than half the time, and so I have been criticized for being inconsistent in sometimes supporting a President and sometimes not. That is a matter of individual judgment at a time, and I think the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Kennedy] and the gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. Watt] are thoroughly within their rights to disagree, even though they are disagreeing with a provision of a bill that they themselves introduced by request, and when you introduce by request, it does not mean that you agree with all subtle points.

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