Melvin Watt: “Mr. Chairman, this is not, I repeat, this is not the amendment that was printed in the Record. The amendment that was…”

“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.”