THIS SEARCH THIS DOCUMENT THIS CR ISSUE GO TO
Next Hit Forward Next Document New CR Search
Prev Hit Back Prev Document HomePage
Hit List Best Sections Daily Digest Help
Contents Display
This amendment seeks to reverse an important initiative that was part of
[Page: H4845] GPO's PDF
The initiative was crafted to have no real limits to what can be considered community service so that it can be satisfied by planting and maintaining a garden, voter registration efforts, or can be work with the big brothers or big sisters programs. Under the language of the provision we give the individual Housing Authorities full authority to make the determination for what is an allowable activity.
This initiative enjoys bipartisan support and was not only supported by the Clinton administration, it was included in former President Clinton's own public housing reform proposal which he sent to the Hill prior to our consideration of the Quality Housing and Work Responsibility Act of 1998.
Who is required to comply with this initiative? Residents of public housing who have the time. The language of the law clearly exempts the elderly, the disabled, the employed, those who are in school, and/or are receiving training, those in a family receiving assistance under a State program, and those who are involved in the welfare reform program. With all of those exceptions, who is left? Individuals who are unemployed, those who have dropped out of school, those who are fully capable and have the time to give something back to the communities in which they live.
What happens if these individuals choose not to comply with this community service provision? They are not immediately tossed out on the street. However, noncompliance can be grounds for nonrenewal of the public housing lease at the end of the 12-month lease term, which can lead to eviction.
This issue comes down to one of personal responsibility. This was a major theme of the welfare reform laws we successfully changed. President Clinton signed those laws; they were good laws. This is one of them. The language from the Senate committee report seems to best sum up, and I am quoting: they say, ``The provision is not intended to be perceived as punitive, but rather considered as a rewarding activity that will assist residents in improving their own and their neighbors' economic and social well-being and give residents a greater stake in their communities.''
In recent years we have made great progress in an effort to reform welfare and reform public housing. This initiative has a strong link in this effort. Recently, I saw residents of the Housing Authority of New Orleans buildings outside cleaning up yards after the weekend. They were patrolling areas that might not otherwise have been clean. They would have been filled with trash. They told me, the residents who were cleaning them up, that they had been cleaning a lot of trash up. Now the yards are clean on a Monday morning, the children are outside playing in the grassy areas, grandmas are walking their grandchildren around, helping them learn to ride their bikes.
Mr. Chairman, this initiative works. I think we have to preserve the community service provisions of the 1998 Quality Housing and Work Responsibility Act. I ask my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to please consider this opposition to the Rangel amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, I think the gentlewoman from New York is right in dealing with the exceptions that are under this law. After we get finished with all of that, the only people that are left are the elderly, working families, and the disabled, and those who are in school.
This is not a part of welfare reform. We have legislation that deals with welfare reform. We have legislation that deals with communities and States that require working for those people who are able to work. This is the only type of allowing the indignity of putting this type of burden on poor folks in public housing when there is no such requirement for any other type of Federal assistance, including Section 8.
Now, HUD knew how difficult it would be for them to superimpose their standards on the welfare standards. This is a housing bill; this is not a welfare reform bill. That is the reason that they took so long in getting these regulations that are almost unenforceable, and that is the reason why they do not object to having this stricken from the record.
Mr. Chairman, we have cut a lot of good services out of the HUD programs to be able to give assistance to kids to get education and recreation and to avoid drug addiction. But this is also an unfunded mandate that forces the public housing people to take a look at this and to put this burden on people when we have the cities departments of welfare, the State departments of welfare to do it. The Housing Authority is no place to enforce the welfare laws.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, I had a conversation with the gentleman prior to this debate. I had no knowledge that anyone on our side would oppose him and based on the conversation we had and right at this very moment, I still feel that this is an amendment that I can support. The agency from New York, in conversation with the gentleman, has agreed with him on this. So I continue to support the gentleman's amendment and I would be prepared to accept it.
Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Rangel amendment.
This is an amendment that respects the dignity of public housing residents.
In 1998 the Congress passed legislation that essentially says that public housing residents aren't as good as other Americans.
It requires residents to fulfill community service because they receive the benefit of public housing.
Mr. Chairman, this provision was mean spirited when it was passed and we should overturn it today.
Residents of public housing do receive a government benefit. In that way they are similarly situated to hundreds of millions of other Americans.
They receive a benefit just as home owners are allowed to deduct mortgage interest from their taxes.
They receive a benefit just as FHA and VA home loans receive a benefit.
They certainly do not receive a benefit as great as those that huge multinational corporations are granted on taxes from federal, state , and local governments.
I could stand on the floor of this House and name thousands of special interests that receive some sort of special government benefit because they have been determined to be worthy of such treatment by Congress.
Just as many of these residents are moving from welfare to work we have singled out public housing residents has having to justify themselves by completing community service.
We should be ashamed of such shoddy treatment of people with lower incomes.
How will we administer this mess of a requirement?
In New York City, NYCHA administers housing for 426,000 residents--30 percent of whom are elderly.
This community service requirement, even with exemptions for the elderly, will require a huge amount of resources to monitor compliance.
In the context of a housing bill that already under funds housing--administration will simply take additional much needed resources away from where they are needed.
This is truly meddling by the federal government in the affairs of local citizens.
I urge my colleagues to support this amendment and repeal this belittling requirement of public housing residents.
Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Chairman, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from New York (Mr. RANGEL).
The amendment was agreed to.
AMENDMENT NO. 40 OFFERED BY MR. TRAFICANT
Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment No. 40 offered by Mr. TRAFICANT:
At the end of the bill (preceding the short title) insert the following new section:
SEC. __. No funds appropriated or otherwise made available under this Act shall be made available to any person or entity that has been convicted of violating the Buy American Act (41 U.S.C. 10a-10c).
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of Friday, July 27, 2001, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. TRAFICANT) and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. TRAFICANT).
Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
The trade deficit in America has risen to $30 billion a month. It now approaches close to $360 billion a year. That is unbelievable. I think the least that we can do is wherever possible in expending Federal dollars, and certainly there are quite a few dollars being expended in this bill, would be to look for the probability and the possibility of spending those funds on American-made goods.
This amendment not only does that, but it would disallow and prohibit anyone who is violating the Buy American law from being eligible for grant money under the bill.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim the time in opposition, although I am not opposed to the amendment. We are very much prepared to accept the gentleman's amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. TRAFICANT).
The amendment was agreed to.
[Time: 21:30]
Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to enter into a colloquy with my colleague, the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. TAUSCHER).
Mrs. TAUSCHER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. WALSH. I yield to the gentlewoman from California.
Mrs. TAUSCHER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me.
I want to commend the gentleman from New York (Mr. WALSH) and the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. MOLLOHAN) for their hard work in putting this bill together.
I rise for the purpose of engaging the distinguished chairman of the subcommittee in a colloquy.
Given the subcommittee's overall funding allocation, the task of the chairman and the ranking member was a daunting one, to say the least. This bill funds many of our Nation's priorities: veterans, housing, the environment, FEMA, NASA, and science.
Unfortunately, the subcommittee's overall allocation was too low to meet all of these priorities. One of those underfunded priorities in this bill is clean water .
I was prepared to offer an amendment tonight to restore funding for the Clean Water State Revolving Fund back to its current-year level. Our country's water infrastructure and environmental needs are not diminishing. In fact, EPA's own estimates show that our local communities are facing a $330 billion gap in water infrastructure investments over the next 20 years. Now is not the time to reduce the Federal commitment to these communities.
Mr. Chairman, the State Revolving Funds are an important financing tool that helps them meet their growing clean water needs. I want to commend NUCA, the American Oceans Campaign, the Sierra Club, NRDC, the League of Conservation Voters, and others for helping to highlight our country's environmental and infrastructure needs.
Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the chairman and his staff for agreeing to work to increase the overall funding for the Clean Water SRF as this bill goes to conference with the other body.
Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for raising this important issue, and I remain committed to work to increase the allocation for the Clean Water SRF as we go to conference with the Senate. I agree that our communities face growing environmental and infrastructure challenges, and we must maintain our Federal commitment to them. It is the right thing to do for our environment as well as the economic development of these communities.
Mrs. TAUSCHER. I thank the chairman and the ranking member for their leadership.
Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. WALSH. I yield to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. BLUMENAUER) for a colloquy.
Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me.
I just wanted to continue along the venue the gentleman had with the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. TAUSCHER). I just wanted to commend the chairman for his personal interest and leadership in helping us zero in on these issues dealing with water and infrastructure .
I am particularly interested in the gentleman's willingness to work with us on the State Revolving Fund, because this is an area that, from my perspective, ought to be able to bring together a wide variety of opinions because of the fact that it is a revolving fund that deals with loans rather than grants; that requires more of an investment from local communities; the fact that for some instances where people do not have the start-up money, it actually is better than a grant, and that it has money over time.
I want to express my appreciation for the gentleman's focus on this and offer any help that I can give to help reinforce this as it works its way through the legislative process, because it means so much to the livability of our communities.
Mr. WALSH. I thank the gentleman for his thoughts on this issue, Mr. Chairman. I spoke earlier on the Barcia amendment. I know he feels very strongly, as do I. There is a tremendous, tremendous void out there in our ability to deal with combined sewer overflows, with clean water issues throughout the country.
Clearly, the Congress needs to step up and take this issue on head on. We are looking for direction from the authorizing committee. I would be more than happy to work with the gentleman to help to reorder some of the priorities, because this is something that I certainly rely on in my community, and I know the gentleman does. There is broad interest throughout the Congress on this. I thank the gentleman for his interest.
Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. KELLY) for a colloquy.
Mrs. KELLY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me.
I join my colleague in supporting the increased funding for the Clean Water State Revolving Fund. Investment in wastewater infrastructure may not be a glamorous issue, but it is a fundamental component of efforts across the country to create and maintain livable communities.
The Clean Water State Revolving Fund has been the Federal Government's primary and most effective tool in helping communities meet wastewater and infrastructure needs. The needs are enormous. Even under the most conservative estimates, we are still not investing enough in wastewater infrastructure . We wonder how our water gets dirty. We need to fix our wastewater problems.
The EPA estimates that we face over $300 billion of wastewater infrastructure needs over the next 20 years. New figures have been coming out showing significantly higher figures. The longer we wait to address these needs, the worse the problem will become. It is imperative that we do everything we can now to assist our communities in building environmental infrastructure .
I commend the chairman for putting in funding for the State Revolving Fund which is significantly higher than the level proposed by the administration, but I do believe that an even higher funding level will be necessary in the coming years.
I offered, with my colleague, the gentlewoman from California, a bill, H.R. 668, which calls for $3 billion in funding for the State Revolving Fund. I do understand the constraints faced by the chairman in funding the many programs in this bill; but I hope, at the very minimum, that we will be able to reach the fiscal year 2001 level of $1.35 billion in this bill.
I look forward to working with the chairman and trying to achieve a funding level in this bill that more accurately represents the tremendous needs of our communities across the Nation.
[Page: H4847] GPO's PDF
Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for her strong support for this program and for her leadership in helping to make the Hudson River fishable, swimmable, and even more beautiful than we found it.
AMENDMENT NO. 5 OFFERED BY MR. ROEMER
Mr. ROEMER. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment No. 5 offered by Mr. ROEMER:
At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the following:
SEC. __. None of the funds made available in this Act may be used by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration--
(1) to obligate amounts for the International Space Station in contravention of the cost limitations established by section 202 of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration Authorization Act of 2000 (Pub. L. 106-391; 42 U.S.C. 2451 note); or
(2) to defer or cancel construction of the Habitation Module, Crew Return Vehicle, or Propulsion Module elements of the International Space Station.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of Friday, July 27, 2001, the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. ROEMER) and a Member opposed each will control 15 minutes.
| <<< | >>> |
THIS SEARCH THIS DOCUMENT THIS CR ISSUE GO TO
Next Hit Forward Next Document New CR Search
Prev Hit Back Prev Document HomePage
Hit List Best Sections Daily Digest Help
Contents Display