Mel Watt

Mr. WATT of North Carolina

Mr. WATT of North Carolina. I appreciate the gentleman yielding to me, Mr. Chairman. I just wanted to make sure the gentleman has read my amendment.

Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, many of the arguments that I have heard, the bartering argument, the whole range of arguments, are very, very similar to the arguments that were used to justify a system that existed in our country years ago that many of us would like to put behind us and never ever think about again, and it may well be that it is because of that that there is such a difference in perception on this issue. And I want to say that with the utmost of respect for the gentleman, and I have been very careful about how I said it. I tried to be at least.

Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, let me just say to the chairman of our Committee on Banking and Financial Services and for whom I have the utmost respect that every single one of the programs that he described has compensation associated with it, every single one of them, National Service, AmeriCorps, the whole range of things that the gentleman has described. That is the first point I would make. The second point I would make is that there is not a President in this country for mandating bartering. If people choose to barter, if people choose to barter, that is a choice that they make, and let me say this last thing that I want to say in response, with the utmost respect and gentleness because I do not want it to be misunderstood, and I have the utmost respect for the gentleman.

Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Will be required.

Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Read that again because the gentleman from New York will see that that is something that has been proposed in the future. This is from a proposal, it is not from an implemented program, and the gentleman, he is just wrong. There is nothing in the self-sufficiency program at Earl Village in Charlotte, NC, that requires people to work without pay.

Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I just want to make sure that the gentleman heard my explanation. If we are trying to build self-esteem, give the people the money. Even if we turn around and say we are going to take the money back from them as rent, which gets them to exactly the same place that the gentleman has just articulated he wants to be, he wants them to pay for their housing. Give them the money. Pay them and then charge them rent if that is what he wants to do, but do not take away people's self-esteem.

Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman is aware that under the provisions of section 105 as currently written, under section 2 on page 26 which deals with employment status and liability, the last section of that contemplates that some of the volunteer work might be done directly for the public housing authority, because it says, unless the work is done for the public housing authority, there is no liability on the part. So if there is direct work for the public housing authority, the public housing authority would have to pay for it. If they got the work from a nursing home or someplace external, then they would have to ensure that the external source paid. This does not address, and we are not imposing, additional monetary burdens on public housing authorities.

Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. WATT of North Carolina. I thank the gentleman. I apologize to the chairman, I thought he had a copy of the amendment. I had given it to the Clerk, and I thought she had given it to the other side. I was not trying to pull a fast one. Mr. Chairman, this is not, I repeat, this is not the amendment that was printed in the Record. The amendment that was printed in the Record would have tried to amend the bill by striking out in its entirety the mandatory volunteer requirement. This amendment does not seek to strike out the mandatory volunteer requirement. What this amendment does is acknowledge the value of work but understand that work has associated with it the assumption that people will be paid, compensated for that work. I do not now, have not ever opposed people working. In the context of welfare reform last year, my objections to the work requirement had to do with whether there were sufficient jobs available that people had the skills to work at. I did not oppose the work requirement, have not ever, will not ever. What I do oppose is requiring people to work without compensation. This amendment simply says that the public housing authorities will ensure that any individual who is required to work under section 105 of this bill, the so-called mandatory voluntarism requirement, would be assured of being compensated for that work, at a minimum, at the minimum wage that prevails in this country. If we want people to be responsible, I do, also, all of us should, this should meet all of the criteria, all of the standards, all of the expectations that my friends on the other side have said this provision in the bill is intended to meet. In addition, it would provide some income for people that they could use, then, even if they wanted to require them to turn around and use the income that they got under this amendment to pay rent. I would not object to that. But let me tell my friends, work for pay is honorable. Forcing people to work without paying them is an abomination, it is against the law, it is against the public policy of this country, and everybody in America understands that it is unfair and it is a way of simply singling out the poor. If we want to do something good for poor people, if we want to do something good for public housing residents, if we want to raise their esteem, pay them for the work that we are requiring them to do.

Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, it is quite obvious the gentleman was not paying attention to what I was saying because I started my comments by saying this was not the amendment that was printed in the Record.

Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, let me first say that I had preprinted in the Record an amendment which would have sought to strike the entire mandatory voluntarism requirement that this bill has contained in it. We had extensive debate about the mandatory voluntarism requirement last week, and it seemed to me that what people were saying was we want these people to work. I want to make it clear that I also want everybody in America who is able-bodied and capable of working to work. I have never opposed in the context of welfare reform a work requirement. During the debate on welfare reform last year, I expressed serious reservations about forcing people to work without also making sure that jobs were available to them that they could work at. But I have never opposed having people work. Points of Order

Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment which has not been preprinted.

Mr. WATT of North Carolina. And there is no place for them to go but either public housing or to the street; what is the answer? There is nothing in this bill that is addressing that.

Mr. WATT of North Carolina. If the gentleman will continue to yield, the second point I want to make is I understand that we try things. I have children and I tell them, hey, do not do this, you are making a mistake. Sometimes they have to go out and learn for themselves. But if you know that you have all these people on the waiting list with no housing for them----

Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, let me make two quick points. No. 1, I want to tell the gentleman how much I respect the fact that he acknowledged he does not have the perfect solution.

Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my reservation of objection.

Mr. WATT of North Carolina. As long as I am assured that it does not include the amendment offered by the gentleman from Florida [Mr. McCollum].

Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Continuing my reservation of objection, Mr. Chairman, I would ask the gentleman, everything in this en bloc amendment is in title I?

Mr. WATT of North Carolina. I yield to the gentleman from New York.