Mel Watt

Mr. WATT of North Carolina

Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Reserving the right to object, Mr. Chairman, and I hope I am not planning to object, I just wanted to be clear. I missed the description of what was included. The specific thing that I want to find out whether it is included is whether the gentleman has included the amendment offered by the gentleman from Florida [Mr. McCollum] on the occupancy standard.

Mr. WATT of North Carolina. We are all interested in finding a better solution. I think one of the things we have been hearing over and over again is this bill is so perfect we cannot do anything to it to amend it and make it better. That is a bad, bad attitude about it.

Mr. WATT of North Carolina

Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, pursuant to section 425 of the Congressional Budget Act and Impoundment Control Act of 1974, I make a point of order against consideration of the committee amendment to the bill, H.R. 2. Section 425 states that a point of order lies against legislation which either imposes an unfunded mandate in excess of $50 million annually against State or local governments, or does not publish prior to floor consideration a CBO estimate of any unfunded mandates in excess of $50 million annually for State and local entities or in excess of $100 million annually for the private sector. Sections 105 and 106, on pages 25 through 49 of H.R. 2, contain violations of section 425 of the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act. Therefore, I make a point of order that this measure may not be considered pursuant to section 425.

Mr. WATT of North Carolina. And that there are Members who still desire to debate the underlying Jackson amendment. When we vote on the Weldon amendment, if we do that today, will that foreclose the possibility of continuing debate on the Jackson underlying amendment?

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

Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Further parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Chairman. If we call for a vote on the Weldon amendment to the Jackson amendment, and that vote is taken, we would still have ongoing debate on the underlying Jackson amendment if there were people who wished to be heard?

Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, my colleagues, especially those on the Republican side, have made a significant point that many of us agree on a bipartisan basis is a valid point; that we should not continuously pass along to State and local governments and entities of State and local governments mandates which mandate that they take certain action without passing along to them the funds to pay for those mandates. This bill, sections 105 and 106, in combination, pass such a mandate along. Sections 105 and 106, in combination, according to the Congressional Budget Office, impose an unfunded mandate of approximately $65 million. Section 105, according to the Congressional Budget Office, would require local governments to expend an additional $35 million annually. Section 106 would require local governments and public housing agencies to expend an additional $35 million annually. These provisions, in combination, should not be passed along to our local housing authorities because we are not funding them. And if we are going to be in compliance with the spirit and letter of the resolutions and rules that we set up to govern ourselves, this bill should not be considered without these provisions being stricken out of the bill. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, it is my understanding that we have been debating the Weldon amendment to the Jackson amendment.

Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I have a parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. WATT of North Carolina. What would be magic about that?

Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield for a parliamentary inquiry?

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

Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I hope the gentleman was here when we debated the mandate, the unfunded mandate amendment, and understands that to implement the plan that is in the bill, it is going to cost $65 million a year. The gentleman is aware of that.

Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, my point is that it will vary from housing community to housing community. It is not going to be 20 percent all across the Nation.

Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, the administration, I believe, would support the gentleman's amendment to this bill. Has anybody called the administration? I guess we are going to call the President every time we pass some legislation in this body. We have never done that before and I do not want to start now.

Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. I made no bones about it, I thought it was cavalier, paternalistic, and demeaning to even have a provision that mandates volunteerism, which, in itself, to me, are two internally inconsistent concepts: mandates and volunteerism. Those two things do not even go together. We are demeaning this institution now, and we have gone from the sublime to the ridiculous. The gentleman comes forward with a completely reasonable amendment that says let us exempt people from this volunteer requirement if they are taking care of a disabled relative or if they are taking care of a child at home, both provisions that are not made in the underlying bill. It is a very, very reasonable amendment that the gentleman from Illinois has raised. My colleague from Florida comes and says, oh no, we cannot accept that, but we will give the gentleman a 20 percent requirement. This takes us back to yesterday when in the general debate the notion was that anybody who disagreed with anything in this bill was bad. We have got a perfect bill here, according to my colleagues, and anybody who disagrees with anything in it, regardless of how ridiculous it is, we are going to stand up and defend it at all costs. We will be here all afternoon defending this ridiculous provision in the bill.

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

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

Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, let me say to the chairman that we have never, ever passed a perfect bill out of this House. Never. I do not care who wrote it, who amended it, regardless of the circumstance, we have never passed a perfect bill out of this House. And the notion that somehow somebody who comes forward, just because they happen to be on the Democratic side, with a good idea and amends this bill is somehow protecting the status quo or is disingenuous or not being reasonable, is just ridiculous to me. We have never had a perfect bill out of this institution. We never will. And this one is not perfect. Now, if I accept the chairman's argument, we got to a perfect bill in the Committee on Banking and Financial Services and, therefore, we ought not do anything else on the floor to improve that bill. This is an improvement to the bill. It is something that the Republicans told us in committee that they thought would be covered anyway. If a person went out to work at a rest home or a nursing home where there are disabled people, then they would qualify as a volunteer. Why can they not do it in the confines of their own house and have it. If they go out and work at a child care center and volunteer, it qualifies. Why could it not qualify if they are volunteering in the confines of their own home? This is ridiculous, to stand up and try to defend against this reasonable amendment. And now my chairman comes back and says, oh, well, reasonable housing authorities at the local level will let people go outside their door and sweep and they can satisfy their volunteer requirement that way. That is ridiculous. And when the local housing authorities, who they will not give any discretion under the provisions of this bill, when they go and say, OK, we will let them sweep right outside their door.

Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Then they will come back and cite the local housing authorities for not complying with the law, because they will say, oh no, we wrote a perfect bill, and how dare they tell the Federal Government that they will not comply with the spirit and the letter of the law. My colleagues, we have reached a point of ridiculousness here. It is ridiculous partisanship. If this amendment were offered by a Republican on the floor of this House, it would have passed just like that. And the only thing we are defending against is pride here. Partisan pride. That is all we are defending against and we ought to be ashamed of ourselves.

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

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

Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I will say it should not matter who offered the amendment. It is a good amendment. We should support it. The gentleman from Iowa should consent to it.

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

Mr. WATT of North Carolina. I appreciate the gentleman yielding. My question to the gentleman is, what difference does it make? If the gentleman thinks this is a good idea, and I think everybody does, what difference does it make whether the President sent a bill over that said something different? What difference does it make if you passed a bill out of the committee? If you think it is a good idea, support it.