[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 81 (Wednesday, June 5, 1996)]
[House]
[Pages H5927-H5928]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
WELFARE REFORM
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of May
12, 1995, the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Barrett] is recognized for
10 minutes as the designee of the minority leader.
Mr. BARRETT of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, tomorrow the House of
Representatives will be considering a bill dealing with the W-2
Wisconsin Works Program. I would like to spend a few minutes talking
about that bill tomorrow, because I think it is a bill that is frankly
a bill that should not be before the House of Representatives.
Mr. Speaker, when I am home in my district in Wisconsin, one of the
questions I am asked most often is, Why cannot the Democrats and
Republicans get along better? Why does every issue have to turn into a
partisan issue? I think that this issue is an excellent example of a
time when an issue that should not be a partisan issue has become one,
and it has become a partisan issue unfortunately, and I think
unnecessarily.
Several weeks ago President Clinton in his Saturday weekend radio
address announced that he supported the waiver request that would be
coming from the State of Wisconsin. In essence, he offered an olive
branch to the Republicans. He said, I agree with you. What is happening
tomorrow is that the Republicans are taking this olive branch, they are
breaking it in half, and they are sticking it in the President's eye.
They are trying to embarrass him, they are trying not to work together
at a time where I think Republicans and Democrats can work together.
Again, I think that that is very unfortunate.
I think the people in this body should have a little history of the
W-2 legislation that passed the State of Wisconsin. This is legislation
that passed the State legislature earlier this year and was sent to the
Governor. At that time the Governor of the State of Wisconsin used his
partial veto power 97 times; 97 times he lined out parts of this
legislation that affected 27 different areas of this legislation. He
then took 5 weeks to prepare some waiver requests, and last week he
announced at a press conference that he would be delivering these
waiver requests to the President of the United States. The following
morning, he took the waiver requests to the White House.
That day, I called his office and called the office of the Department
of Health and Social Services in the State of Wisconsin, since I
represent the district that is most affected in this entire country by
the W-2 program. I asked for a copy of the waiver requests. Those came
yesterday. It is interesting that those came yesterday, because we are
going to be voting on this legislation tomorrow.
Let us get to this legislation, because for the first time that I
have been able to discover in the history of this country, we are going
to have a freestanding bill and the Congress of the United States is
going to grant waivers to a State without any prior hearing, without
any public input, without any chance for people who are affected by
this program to have any input, to have any recourse with their elected
officials. The people who are affected by this program are in essence
being told, you are shut out of the process.
Mr. Speaker, this is arrogance at its worst. This is an arrogant
misuse of power and it is an arrogant misuse of the process of this
institution.
Now, what should happen? Mr. Speaker, tomorrow there is going to be a
substitute amendment that is going to be offered by the gentleman from
Wisconsin [Mr. Kleczka]. That amendment is going to do several things.
First, it is going to encourage the Secretary of the Department of
Health and Social Services to grant these waivers, but it is going to
encourage the Secretary to do so after the public has been given an
opportunity to have their input. That is what normally happens.
What is ironic about this is that this is a situation where the last
time a waiver request was granted by a President without this due
process, without the 30-day public hearing period, the courts struck it
down. They said, you have to have the public hearing. What is happening
here is we are trying to circumvent that process. We do not want the
people of this country to have the ability to hear and have the
legislators hear what they have to say.
The legislation that is offered by the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr.
Kleczka] is also going to say that this waiver should be granted if the
W-2 waiver requests that have been submitted to the President of the
United States are consistent with the public representations that the
Governor of the State of Wisconsin has made. That is all we are asking.
We are asking two things: First, that the public have an opportunity
to have their concerns mentioned; and second, we are asking that the
Governor of the State of Wisconsin, who has made representations on
this issue, that the waivers are consistent with those representations.
I do not see where that is any great disservice to the people who are
pushing this waiver.
I would also like, Mr. Speaker, to talk a little bit about the merits
of the plan. Welfare reform is something that everyone in this body is
interested in. People from both sides of the aisle recognize that the
current welfare system is not working. But as we seek to improve this
welfare system, we cannot ignore the fact that real people are involved
in this system, that real people are the ones that may be hurt if we
act cavalierly.
The Governor of the State of Wisconsin said, oh, yes, there are going
to be speed bumps in this process. Mr. Speaker, our job as legislators
is to make sure that real people are not those speed bumps, and I
represent the district in this country that is going to be most
affected by this plan.
I would like to point out just a couple of things about this plan.
This plan requires women who have given birth to return to work after
12 weeks. I am not going to debate the merits of that. There are people
here who think that is a good idea; there are people here who think
that is a bad idea. But what it does not recognize is that by pouring
literally thousands more children into the child care system in
Milwaukee County, it is going to overload the system. The system is not
equipped at this time to deal with that.
What is going to happen? These women are going to be given a choice.
They are either going to put their children in substandard care, or
they are going to stay home and lose their benefits. We are talking
about 4-month old babies here who are going to be put in substandard
care or their mothers are going to lose their benefits.
Now, that is under the merits. But I do not want to spend all my time
on
[[Page H5928]]
the merits, because what we are seeing tomorrow is one of the worst
abuses of the legislative process that I have seen since I have been in
this body. The first time in the Nation's history we are going to have
a stand-alone waiver request. And are the committees of jurisdiction
going to be asked to consider this? Absolutely not. Are we going to
have any public hearings on this? Absolutely not. Is a single public
American going to be able to have their concerns addressed? Absolutely
not.
This morning, Mr. Speaker, I was on a radio program in my district
and the question came, well, what happens to the Indians in the State
of Wisconsin who are affected by this? What if this violates one of the
treaties? Have you looked at that? I explained to them that there is
not a single legislator outside of the State of Wisconsin who has ever
looked at these waiver requests. There are 600 pages of waiver requests
that are going to be approved by this body tomorrow, and no one had
looked at them and there has been no public hearing on them.
All we are doing is denying the people of the State of Wisconsin and
the people of every other State in this country the ability to have
their voice be heard. That is not the way this institution should
operate, Mr. Speaker. That is not the way this Government should
operate.
Now, when this piece of legislation passed the State of Wisconsin's
legislature, it did so on a bipartisan basis. But the Governor changed
it in some significant ways, but at the time that he signed it, the law
of this land was that this body, or this Government more correctly, the
Federal Government, would examine those waivers to make sure that they
were consistent with the U.S. Constitution, that they were consistent
with Federal law.
Now the majority is saying, forget about it, it does not matter to us
whether they are consistent with the U.S. Constitution. It does not
matter to us whether they are consistent with Federal law.
But perhaps the most galling part of this entire process, Mr.
Speaker, is that this is a situation where the State of Wisconsin has
come to this administration numerous times asking for waivers, and each
and every time it has come to this administration asking for waivers,
what has happened? President Clinton has granted the waivers.
We are not dealing with a situation where President Clinton has been
unresponsive. We are not dealing with a situation where he has denied
the request for flexibility or the chance for States to act as
laboratories of democracy. No. He has worked together on a partnership.
He has worked together to allow the State of Wisconsin to experiment.
But that is not enough, because now we are dealing with Presidential
politics.
So instead of the State and the President working together in a
partnership to try to improve the lives of the people of Wisconsin, we
have the President of the United States who has offered an olive
branch.
Some of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle probably did not
like the fact that he agreed that he should have the waiver request
approved. They did not like it because they felt that he was stealing
their issue, that welfare reform is somehow a Republican issue and
President Clinton has decided that he agrees with this experiment in
the State of Wisconsin. They feel like he pulled one over on them.
But there is not what the American people want. The American people
do not care if it is a Republican issue or a Democratic issue; they
care if we are making progress.
{time} 2330
So it was wrong, Mr. President. When President Clinton offered an
olive branch, the Republicans should not have taken that olive branch,
broken it, and stuck it in his eye. That is not the way this body
should operate.
____________________