Congressional Record, Volume 142 Issue 77 (Thursday, May 30, 1996)

[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 77 (Thursday, May 30, 1996)]
[House]
[Pages H5732-H5735]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

LEGISLATIVE PROGRAM

(Mr. BONIOR asked and was given permission to address the House for 1
minute.)
Mr. BONIOR. Mr. Speaker, I would inquire of the distinguished
majority leader regarding the schedule for the rest of the evening and
week and the following week.
Mr. ARMEY. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman would yield, I am pleased to
announce that the House has completed legislative business for the
week. On Tuesday next, the House will meet at 12:30 p.m. for morning
hour and 2 p.m. for legislative business.
We will consider the number of bills under suspension of the rules. I
will not read through that list now, but a complete schedule will be
distributed to all Members' offices.
Members should note, however, that if any recorded votes are ordered
on the suspensions, they will be postponed until 12 o'clock noon on
Wednesday, June 5.
On Wednesday, June 5, and Thursday, June 6, we will consider the
Foreign Operations Appropriations bill which, of course, will be
subject to a rule.
Mr. Speaker, we should finish legislative business by 6 p.m. on
Thursday, June 6.
Mr. BONIOR. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I have just two quick
questions to the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Armey]. Does he expect to
have the conference report on the budget resolution next week?
Mr. ARMEY. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman would yield, it is our hope
that we would be able to do this possibly even by Thursday. Obviously,
we have to see what we can accomplish when the Senate is back in town,
but we are hopeful.
Mr. BONIOR. Mr. Speaker, the other inquiry I would make to my friend
from Texas is that we on this side of the aisle have heard rumors that
the gentleman may be considering adding a suspension concerning welfare
reform. We are obviously concerned, since it is not on the gentleman's
list, at least the list that we are aware of, and we have not seen this
legislation.
So, my query to my friend from Texas is, will we be considering a
welfare bill on Tuesday, a day which I might add, that Members will not
even be in town?
Mr. ARMEY. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will yield, that bill has
not yet been written, but the gentleman should expect that it will be
added to the Suspension Calendar for Tuesday.
Mr. BONIOR. For Tuesday?
Mr. ARMEY. For Tuesday.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. BONIOR. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I am confused about that response from the
majority leader, because when our staff met with the gentleman from
Wisconsin [Mr. Neumann] today, he indicated that neither he nor anyone
involved in putting that bill together had read the waiver request
submitted yesterday and he said he was simply operating on trust.
Since my understanding is that the governor himself exercised some 70
item vetoes on the legislation that was passed by the legislature
covering some 27 different subjects, whether or not the Congress is
going to be allowed to at least fully understand what is in that
package, and how those item vetoes have changed the package as it was
originally passed by the Wisconsin legislature. Are we going to have
adequate understanding of that before we asked to vote?
I mean, if this is going to be debated on a day when Members are not
even here, and then voted on a subsequent day, I would venture to say
that there will not be three Members of the Congress who know what is
in the bill which they are passing on to the Senate.
Mr. ARMEY. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman would continue to yield, in
light of the President's ringing endorsement just given recently of the
Wisconsin welfare plan, we have the relevant committees in discussions
with the State and they are preparing a resolution which, frankly, will
not be that lengthy or complex or difficult to understand.
I am confident that Members who find themselves keenly interested in
this subject will be able to make their way back to the floor in time
to participate in the discussion on Tuesday next.
Mr. BONIOR. Mr. Speaker, is the gentleman suggesting that this is
going to go through the appropriate committee before it is brought to
the floor of the House?
Mr. ARMEY. No, if the gentleman would continue to yield, it is being
prepared by the appropriate committee

[[Page H5733]]

and it will be on the agenda next Tuesday.
Mr. BONIOR. But, Mr. Speaker, I gather from the gentleman's answer
that, in fact, there will be no markup in the committee. So this is an
example of a welfare bill not yet written brought directly to the floor
of the House of Representatives without adequate attendance on Tuesday,
when there are no votes scheduled, and to be debated. That seems to be
a pretty, if I may say so to my friend from Texas, a pretty outrageous
thing for the majority to do next week.

Mr. ARMEY. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman would continue to yield, I
reiterate we are acting in response to the President's enthusiastic
endorsement of the Wisconsin welfare plan and we want to give the
President every opportunity to act in accordance with the very, very
public position he has taken demonstrating the enthusiastic support,
and it will be on the schedule next Tuesday.
Mr. BONIOR. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr.
Obey].
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I would simply like to observe that this seems
to me to be nothing but a blatantly political act. The question is not
what the President has said he will or will not do. I hope he will
provide ample opportunity for Wisconsin to get what it is asking for,
after he has met his responsibilities and we have met ours, to
understand what it is we are helping to support.
But as I understand it, the legislation to be brought before the
Congress has nothing to do with the President. It simply provides a
congressional waiver without, at this point to my knowledge, a single
Member of the House having read what it is that is supposed to be
waived.
Mr. ARMEY. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman would continued to yield,
clearly a single Member of the House will have read it if a single
Member of the House will have written it. That being an academic point,
it will be on the floor and the gentleman will have ample opportunity
to debate it on Tuesday.
Mr. BONIOR. Mr. Speaker, it seems to me, I would say to my friend
from Texas, that 20 minutes of debate is hardly ample time to debate
one of the most important issued that this country is facing, and that
is welfare.
And it just, if the gentleman will pardon my vehemence, I say to my
friend from Texas, to bring this out to the floor without the committee
having marked it up, without attendance here, to debate it for 20
minutes, is not the proper way to conduct the business of this House.

{time} 2130

While the President may have endorsed it and while many of us on the
other side of the aisle agree with many of the features of it, we have
a responsibility as Members of this institution to look at it, look at
it carefully to make sure that it meets the standards that we think are
appropriate for the American people.
Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Doggett].
Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, do I understand then that we will be taking
up on Tuesday, a day when many Members will not be here, I certainly
plan to be here personally, that a piece of legislation that has not
yet been written and that we will have only 20 minutes per side to
debate that piece of legislation? Are those the circumstances that we
will face on Tuesday?
Mr. ARMEY. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will continue to yield, I do
appreciate the fact the gentleman from Texas will be here because then
the 40 minutes of debate, which is so much more than is usually given
by Congress to a presidential waiver, will be that much more
enlightening and I do appreciate it.
Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, is the gentleman's interest in confining
this debate to 40 minutes on a bill that has not yet been written that
will be presented on a day when most people will not be here an
indication of his disinterest in getting a welfare reform bill passed
or just his wry sense of humor?
Mr. ARMEY. Mr. Speaker, this is an endorsement of the President's
stated public intention to give a waiver to the State of Wisconsin due
to his enthusiastic support for what it is the State has done. I do not
understand why those on the gentleman's side of the aisle are so
reluctant to stand by their man. That being what it is, they will have
their opportunity to do so on Tuesday next.
Mr. BONIOR. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Kleczka].
Mr. KLECZKA. Mr. Speaker, would the majority leader give the Members
of the body some feel as to what these waivers include? I am told that
there are 75 separate waivers. Could the majority leader possible share
with the Members what some of them might be?
Mr. BONIOR. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr.
Neumann].
Mr. NEUMANN. Mr. Speaker, I would just point out on a radio address
Saturday about a week ago, the President said that he had received what
he needed in that radio address. He said to the American public that he
supported the Wisconsin plan, and I can quote directly several of his
words. He said we should get this done in terms of approving the
waivers.
Mr. KLECZKA. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will continue to yield,
since the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Neumann] is going to be the
author of the bill, maybe he could relate to and enlighten some of the
Members here as to maybe 3 or 4 or maybe 5 of the 75 waivers. Could he
share that with us?
Mr. NEUMANN. I can share what is in the bill we are drafting. I would
certainly be happy to do that, and I would also like to say we have
been working for the last 48 hours or more getting that bill prepared.
There has been a lot of discussion back and forth on the preparation of
the bill.
Mr. KLECZKA. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will continue to yield,
let us talk about for a moment what we are doing here. The legislature
passed a bill called W-2 in the Wisconsin legislature some 6, 8 weeks
ago. About 5 weeks ago, the Governor signed the bill, and it has taken
him 6 weeks, 5 weeks to come to Washington, DC to request the waivers
to implement this piece of legislation.

When the Republicans in the House talk about a waiver, know full well
it is not a single waiver. It is 75 separate waivers doing everything
from eliminating the fair hearing, which is currently provided for
under the law, to making provisions for those working in Wisconsin to
work at a subminimum wage.
I happen to do a radio show with my colleague, the gentleman from
Wisconsin [Mr. Petri], and we discussed this very same issue last
Friday. At that point in time, I had before me a list of 42 of those
waivers, and they are from soup to nuts. They are lengthy and some are
complicated, but they are 42. Now our Governor comes to town, has a
press conference at the Press Club and all of a sudden enlightens this
person from Wisconsin that magically there are now 75 waivers.
So what we are going to be asked to do on Tuesday is to grant carte
blanche all 75 waivers. I as one Member from Wisconsin, which does have
some interest in this subject matter, do not even know what the 30 have
to do, do not know anything about the 30. But I should also state that
I have received numerous letters in my office from very, very
interested Wisconsinites who do not know what the 75 waivers are,
either, and have requested the Secretary of Health and Social Services
and those in charge around here to provide for a 30-day public comment
period.
They want to be heard. Something very unheard of in this new
Congress, the public wants to be heard. I think the people from
Wisconsin who this will directly affect have a right to approach this
government and say I do not like number 75, I like 68.
Why are we rushing this through on a day when Congress is not going
to be here? I will say there is not a Member, there is not one of nine
of us, there is not any of the nine of us from Wisconsin who knows
anything about these waivers, including the author of the bill. I asked
him to give me a feel for one, two, three, four, five. He does not
know. He has not seen them. At least I saw 42 of them and raised
questions on 2 of those items.
Mr. Speaker, my colleagues are going to be asked to rubber stamp 75
major waivers for welfare in the State of Wisconsin. There are not any
of my colleagues, including ourselves, who will know what we are doing.
Is that how to run a Congress, Mr. Minority Whip?

[[Page H5734]]

Mr. BONIOR. Mr. Speaker, I yield for a response from the
distinguished majority leader, the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Armey].
Mr. ARMEY. Mr. Speaker, first of all let me say we have already had
more debate in these past few minutes announcing the schedule on a
Presidential waiver than Congress usually has on such things.
Second, I might say, clearly I am sure the gentleman from Wisconsin
must acknowledge that the President must have known very well what
these waivers would be before he so publicly promised that he wanted to
give them. Even though the gentleman from Wisconsin may not have known,
I am sure the President did. In any event, the debate that the
gentleman so richly wants to engage in is scheduled for Tuesday next
week. That is the time to have that debate. This is a discussion of the
schedule.
Mr. KLECZKA. I cannot speak for the President, but I as a Member of
this body have a right to know and the gentleman is not affording that
right.
Smile, very funny.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will continue to yield, I
would simply like to make one additional point. The issue is not what
the President knows, because the legislation that is being brought
before us asks for a congressional waiver, not a Presidential waiver.
So the issue is not what somebody on the other end of the avenue knows.
The issue is what the gentleman knows. The issue is what the gentleman
knows. The issue is what I know.
The fact is right now, nobody in this room knows diddly about the
details of what is being asked to be waived.
The other point I would simply make is that the public has a right by
law to comment. What we are asking the Congress to do is to make a
summary judgment before the public has a right to comment about any of
those waivers being proposed.
Mr. NEUMANN. Mr. Speaker, I would like to point out some of us in
this room do have a pretty good handle on what is being proposed.
Mr. OBEY. That is not what the gentleman said in a meeting today.
Mr. BONIOR. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr.
Neumann].
Mr. NEUMANN. Mr. Speaker, I would like to point out that a lot of us
in this room do have a pretty good handle. Even if we did not have a
pretty good handle on it, I personally do. Even if we did not, I would
like to point out that our State legislature did pass this. I for one
have more faith in the great people in the State of Wisconsin, and I
think they know better for the people in the State of Wisconsin than
anybody in this city does. I for one trust their judgment.

Mr. BONIOR. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Barrett].
Mr. BARRETT of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I think we need a little
history on this measure if we are going to talk about the legislature
in Wisconsin. The legislature in Wisconsin did pass this measure. This
was a measure that Governor Thompson publicly embraced long before the
Wisconsin legislature passed it. But once the Wisconsin legislature
passed it, he exercised his line item veto 97 times; 97 times he used
his partial veto on this piece of legislation affecting 27 areas. And
he did it consistent with his statement earlier that he embraced this
legislation.
Now he comes to Washington, DC. He presents it to the President of
the United States. He does not give it to us. I called the Governor's
office yesterday looking for a copy of this waiver request. I still
have not received one from the Governor's office. Yet the gentleman is
coming before the Congress of the United States asking us to vote on
something.
I certainly think that the President has every right to embrace this
proposal, but that does not mean we take away the 30-day period for the
public to comment. All the politicians in this body will have a chance
to comment on this, but what is wrong with letting the American people
have an opportunity to have their say on this issue? Why are we
squelching them? If this is such a good proposal, let us give it a
little sunshine. Let us the American people look at it.
Let us just not ram it through here because all this is an attempt to
embarrass the President. Let us debate it. Let us talk about it. The
gentleman says he knows what all the details are. I bet he does not
know what the details are. There are 250 pages.
There is one last statement I just want to point out because this
piece of legislation affects my district more than any other district
in this entire country. It requires mothers who have given birth to a
child to go back to work within 12 weeks. Now, that might be something
that people support here. But I represent those areas, and I have
talked to the child care providers. They say they do not exist. We are
telling women to go back to work after 12 weeks. Where are they
supposed to put their children? That is what I want to know.
We have all these pro-life legislators here but, once that child is
born, you are on your own. I want to know what is going to happen to
those children? Those are real people. They are alive now, and I want
to know what happens to them.
Mr. Speaker, I think just to come in here for political purposes to
say we are going to try to ram it to the President, that is good
Presidential politics. But there are people involved in this action,
and this body should not abdicate its responsibilities to the people
who live in my community.
Mr. BONIOR. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Nuemann].
Mr. NEUMANN. Mr. Speaker, I would just like to point out to the
gentleman from Wisconsin, to my colleague, my neighbor to the north, I
would just like to point out that this welfare reform bill is not about
a welfare reform bill for the United States of America. It is about a
welfare reform bill for the State of Wisconsin. I am not quite sure
what all the people here are so afraid of. The great people in
Wisconsin have figured out a way that people that have been on welfare
all of their lives are going to go back into the work force once again,
instead of looking forward to welfare for the rest of their lives. They
are going to look forward to again living the American dream. They are
going to look forward to the opportunity to return to the work force
and improve their lives and improve the lives of their families.
I do not know what this body is so afraid of. This is not a welfare
reform plan for the United States of America. This is a welfare reform
plan for the State of Wisconsin that the President has said he will
grant the waivers for. All we are doing, all we are asking for here is
to go ahead and grant those waivers so the people in the State of
Wisconsin can do what the people in the State of Wisconsin believe is
best for their own people in Wisconsin, not for the whole country, just
for the people in Wisconsin.
Mr. BONIOR. I yield to my friend, the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr.
Obey].
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I would simply take note of the fact that we
have had a great many claims made about W-2 by the Governor and by
various members of the legislature. I think the test that ought to be
followed is that, before this Congress votes on this legislation, that
it knows that the legislation measures up to each and every claim made
for it by the Governor of the State of Wisconsin. That is the test by
which we ought to determine whether the Congress, rather than the
executive branch, ought to exercise its responsibility and provide this
waiver.
If the Congress does not meet that test, then this is nothing but a
cynical, crass, political maneuver aimed at going after the President
of the United States without any intent to provide a constructive
movement forward on the complicated, important issue of welfare reform.
Mr. ARMEY. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will continue to yield, I
guess I am stunned. I just cannot believe the President of the United
States did not give consideration to all of these ailments described
here on the floor. I cannot believe the President of the United States
would have taken such callous disregard when he went to Wisconsin just
a few days ago and so enthusiastically endorsed this Wisconsin plan and
pledged that he would grant these waivers.
It strikes me the gentleman's complaint might be with the President.
In any event, we will further air this out on Tuesday.
Mr. BONIOR. Mr. Speaker, I would say to my friend that the President
of

[[Page H5735]]

the United States will not be voting next week on this floor, but 435
Members will. They have an obligation and a duty and a responsibility
to understand what is brought before them. Hopefully it will be done
through the system which we have established here through the
committees and with adequate time for Members on both sides of the
aisle to debate this.
I think the gentleman understands from the debate we have had here
tonight how serious we view this, not so much on substance but the
procedures that are being laid out here to consider this important
issue. I would hope that the distinguished majority leader and the
leadership on his side of the aisle would reconsider the time, the time
of debate, and the whole manner in which they hope to carry this out
next week. We consider it a very serious matter.
I would say to my friend from Texas, we will act accordingly with
respect to how this is performed in the days ahead of us.

____________________