[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.

                          ____________________