[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 53 (Wednesday, March 22, 1995)]
[House]
[Page H3538]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]


                          THE DEAL SUBSTITUTE

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the 
gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Deal] is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. DEAL. Mr. Speaker, I agree with my colleague from Tennessee, who 
joins me along the Tennessee-Georgia border, Mr. Wamp, on the 
Republican side. He said that we do not need partisanship in this 
issue. I would come here tonight to suggest that we have a solution 
that breaks the status quo, that changes the existing programs, and we 
do it in a way that we think works.
  We ought to all be seeking solutions that work, rather than political 
rhetoric. I have listened to the debate all day today, and I have come 
to one conclusion. We probably need fewer speech writers and more 
mathematicians. The only trouble is, I am reminded of the saying that 
``figures don't lie but lies sure can figure.'' We seem to be caught up 
in that business of arguing about figures.
  Now, there is something that is true, and I think my colleague made 
the point earlier, and that is this, you cannot have it both ways. In 
your welfare reform package you are either going to make cuts to have 
the savings to offset the tax cuts that are coming or you are not. You 
cannot have it both ways.
  Now, we have talked about various aspects of this plan, and we 
focused just recently on talking about the child nutrition programs. I 
am looking here at a document that came from the majority leader's 
office in which he is talking about the savings from the Republican 
bill. Now, they are either savings or they are not savings. And 
according to this, it says that there are $66.3 billion of savings over 
5 years. I understand that figure may have increased now because of 
some other changes.
  And the one area of title III of the bill of child care and 
nutrition, according to the majority leader's office, saves $11.8 
billion over 5 years. Well, I do not know whether you are talking about 
cuts or whether you are talking about cuts from base line. The point 
is, either you have savings or you do not have savings. They are either 
cuts or they are not cuts. You cannot have it both ways.
  Now, let us talk about a few of the things that I think are 
significant, and I pointed this out today. My chart has had to be 
amended as a result of an en bloc amendment that came on the floor 
today. But this
 is a chart that compares and contrasts the Republican version of 
welfare reform with a substitute that I, along with several of my 
colleagues, will be offering. It talks about the concept of work.

  I think all of us should agree that work is the best solution to 
breaking the welfare cycle. And the question is, how do you get people 
off welfare and into work and how do you achieve that goal of keeping 
them in a work force?
  We both have in our plans percentages of the population that must 
move into the work force at certain levels. As you will notice, the 
Republican plan started off at 4 percent. It is has now been amended up 
to 10 percent. Ours starts in 1997 with 16 percent going to a total of 
52 percent at the final termination in the year 2003 and thereafter.
  As a result of the amendments on the floor today, the work 
percentages of the Republican plan have now been increased 
significantly. In fact, cumulatively those percentages are about 52 
percent, I believe. But the interesting thing to me is that if it costs 
to put people into a work program to move them off of welfare into the 
work force, if it costs money, and it obviously does, if it did not 
cost any money all of us would say 100 percent from the first day must 
be in the work force.
  I would point out, however, that under the Republican plan, they 
allow people to stay on welfare for 2 years and do not require anything 
of them.
  We require within 30 days that they must sign a self-sufficiency plan 
and they must begin the job search process. We also have a 4-year limit 
once they enter a work first program. Two years in work first, at the 
most 2 years in a community service plan, and then a State option if 
they choose to put them with a voucher system for 2 years at the 
maximum.
  Now, if it does not cost any money to move people from welfare to 
work, then we ought to all put our percentages at 100 percent from the 
word go. If it does cost money to up the percentages, we have seen the 
percentages on work under here by an amendment but we have not seen any 
revenue flow to the States to pay for that. It does not work both ways. 
It either costs money to do this or it does not cost money to do this. 
If it costs money to increase your percentages, then we ought to have 
some reflection in the funding proposal to pay for it. We do not see 
that.


                          ____________________