[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 82 (Thursday, June 6, 1996)]
[House]
[Pages H5941-H5949]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




   PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 3562, WISCONSIN WORKS WAIVER 
                              APPROVAL ACT

  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I 
call up House Resolution 446 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 446

       Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it 
     shall be in order to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 
     3562) to authorize the State of Wisconsin to implement the 
     demonstration project known as ``Wisconsin Works''. The 
     amendment printed in section 2 of this resolution shall be 
     considered as adopted. The previous question shall be 
     considered as ordered on the bill, as amended, and on any 
     further amendment thereto final passage without intervening 
     motion except: (1) one hour of debate on the bill, as 
     amended, which shall be equally divided and controlled by the 
     chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Ways 
     and Means or their respective designees; (2) one motion to 
     amend by Representative Kleczka of Wisconsin or his designee, 
     which shall be considered as read and shall be separately 
     debatable for one hour equally divided and controlled by the 
     proponent and an opponent; and (3) one motion to recommit 
     with or without instructions.
       Sec. 2. The amendment to the bill considered as adopted 
     pursuant to the first section of this resolution is as 
     follows:
       In section 1(d) of the bill, strike ``subsection (b)(2) 
     exceeds the amount described in subsection (b)(1)'' and 
     insert in lieu thereof ``subsection (b)(1) exceeds the amount 
     described in subsection (b)(2)''.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon] is 
recognized for 1 hour.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, for purposes of debate only, I yield 30 
minutes to my good friend, the gentleman from Boston, MA [Mr. Moakley], 
pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During 
consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for purposes of 
debate only.
  (Mr. SOLOMON asked and was given permission to include extraneous 
material.)
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 446 is a modified closed 
rule providing for consideration of H.R. 3562, the Wisconsin Works 
Waiver Approval Act. The rule provides 1 hour of debate, equally 
divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking member of the 
Committee on Ways and Means or their respective designees. The rule 
allows one amendment to be offered by the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. 
Kleczka] and provides 1 hour of debate on the amendment, to be equally 
divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent. The rule 
provides that an amendment contained in section 2 of the resolution 
shall be considered as adopted. This change to the bill is necessary to 
correct a technical drafting error which has been cleared with the 
minority.
  Finally, this rule provides one motion to recommit, with or without 
instructions. The rule before the House is abundantly fair. It makes in 
order a minority substitute and provides adequate debate time. It was 
reported by the Committee on Rules yesterday by a voice vote, 
noncontroversial.
  Mr. Speaker, the legislation before the House this morning is 
proceeding on an admittedly hurried timetable, out of sincere desire to 
accommodate the President of the United States. On May 19, 1996, 
President Clinton announced his support for Wisconsin's landmark 
welfare reform plan and suggested it be implemented immediately. He 
said, ``The plan has the makings of a solid, bold welfare reform 
plan.'' He intoned that to his radio listeners. He said further, ``We 
should get it done now.''

  Mr. Speaker, if someone who had not followed this issue had heard the 
President's radio address, they might easily come away with the 
impression that this is a man who supports real welfare reform. As with 
all things, he sounded perfectly convincing. The record, Mr. Speaker, 
is quite another story. The President has vetoed genuine and 
compassionate welfare reform on two separate occasions, once in the 
context of a bill to balance the budget in 7 years, a terribly 
important bill; another, the stand-alone welfare bill, he vetoed in the 
middle of the night, during a huge snowstorm here in Washington.
  Mr. Speaker, the Wisconsin Works plan ironically contains many of the 
features of the two welfare reform bills that President Clinton has 
already vetoed. It requires, and this is so, so important, it requires 
work, contains a time limit on benefits, and it ends the auto pilot 
spending that has busted Federal and State budgets for the past two 
decades, and even more.
  Mr. Speaker, over the next few hours, we will hear Members on the 
other side of the aisle suggest that we should let the waiver process 
work and allow for adequate time for Federal officials to study this. 
They are going to say that in just a few minutes. This is essentially, 
Mr. Speaker, a defense of the status quo, and that is not good enough. 
It is essentially a defense of the convoluted and failed national 
welfare system. We all know what that has done.
  Mr. Speaker, the present waiver process, in which innovative 
Governors trudge to Washington to receive a blessing to implement new 
welfare reforms, is an absolute sham. Mr. Speaker, if the States 
received block grants of the sort envisioned in our welfare reform 
bills, rejected by the President, Governors would not need to make this 
embarrassing pilgrimage here to Washington.
  Under the present system, after a State legislature and a Governor 
have approved a measure which requires Federal waivers, Federal 
bureaucrats then are free to change those requests, to stall them, to 
deny them completely, and they often do. These bureaucrats view the 
requests for waivers from Federal rules as a negotiation in which 
details could be changed.
  Mr. Speaker, this is how the White House Deputy Chief of Staff, 
Harold Ickes, described the process just 3 days after the President 
endorsed the Wisconsin Works plan. Evidently, they were not working 
together or seeing eye to eye or something.
  Members of the House yesterday in the Committee on Rules, we heard 
testimony that several States, including California, including the 
State of the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Goss], have waivers pending 
for welfare reform before this President.
  If Congress takes no action this year in the direction of welfare 
reform, my State of New York will be forced to present a lengthy list 
of waivers necessary in order to implement proposed welfare changes 
from Governor Pataki's budget, which is already busted and has to be 
fixed.
  Mr. Speaker, the way to ensure that this is not necessary is to pass 
yet another comprehensive welfare reform bill, which we will do in just 
a few weeks, and for President Clinton to courageously sign it, not to 
veto it and talk different each time.
  This waiver process for Wisconsin and the debate it has engendered is 
in itself an argument for our larger welfare reform bill. We have to 
get it out here and get it passed as soon as possible. If the President 
sees fit to approve these necessary and very compassionate policy 
decisions for one State in the country, why not sign a comprehensive 
national program of welfare reform?

[[Page H5942]]

  The debate today will range to classic issues of federalism: How much 
control should the Federal Government have over local and State 
policies to assist the underprivileged in America? That is what this 
debate is going to be all about here today. The Congress has committed 
on two occasions to a policy of block grants for the States, to allow 
them to utilize their resources as they see fit to grapple with the 
problem of poverty, but the argument that we should reject this fast 
track approval of Wisconsin's welfare plan because we need more time 
for Federal officials to study this program which has been going on for 
40 years reflects a lack of compassion toward the families who are 
trapped in the current welfare system and its cycles of dependency. We 
have to stop that.
  The way to do it is to test this pilot program in Wisconsin, which 
has already reduced under the first plan by Governor Tommy Thompson, 
has already reduced the caseload by 39 percent. If we can do that in 
New York State, my goodness, what that would mean to the taxpayers that 
have to support county and local taxes by their property taxes? Let us 
get on with it. Let us pass this rule and pass this bill.
  Mr. Speaker, I include for the Record a document entitled ``The 
Amendment Process Under Special Rules Reported by the Rules Committee, 
103rd Congress versus 104th Congress.''
  The information referred to is as follows:

  THE AMENDMENT PROCESS UNDER SPECIAL RULES REPORTED BY THE RULES COMMITTEE,\1\ 103D CONGRESS V. 104TH CONGRESS 
                                              [As of June 5, 1996]                                              
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                  103d Congress                        104th Congress           
              Rule type              ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                       Number of rules    Percent of total   Number of rules    Percent of total
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Open/Modified-open \2\..............                 46                 44                 71                 59
Structured/Modified Closed \3\......                 49                 47                 32                 27
Closed \4\..........................                  9                  9                 17                 14
                                     ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
      *COM003*Total.................                104                100                120                100
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ This table applies only to rules which provide for the original consideration of bills, joint resolutions or
  budget resolutions and which provide for an amendment process. It does not apply to special rules which only  
  waive points of order against appropriations bills which are already privileged and are considered under an   
  open amendment process under House rules.                                                                     
\2\ An open rule is one under which any Member may offer a germane amendment under the five-minute rule. A      
  modified open rule is one under which any Member may offer a germane amendment under the five-minute rule     
  subject only to an overall time limit on the amendment process and/or a requirement that the amendment be     
  preprinted in the Congressional Record.                                                                       
\3\ A modified closed rule is one under which the Rules Committee limits the amendments that may be offered only
  to those amendments designated in the special rule or the Rules Committee report to accompany it, or which    
  preclude amendments to a particular portion of a bill, even though the rest of the bill may be completely open
  to amendment.                                                                                                 
\4\ A closed rule is one under which no amendments may be offered (other than amendments recommended by the     
  committee in reporting the bill).                                                                             


                          SPECIAL RULES REPORTED BY THE RULES COMMITTEE, 104TH CONGRESS                         
                                              [As of June 5, 1996]                                              
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                 Disposition of 
    H. Res. No. (Date rept.)         Rule type           Bill No.              Subject                rule      
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
H. Res. 38 (1/18/95)...........  O................  H.R. 5...........  Unfunded Mandate        A: 350-71 (1/19/ 
                                                                        Reform.                 95).            
H. Res. 44 (1/24/95)...........  MC...............  H. Con. Res. 17..  Social Security.......  A: 255-172 (1/25/
                                                    H.J. Res. 1......  Balanced Budget Amdt..   95).            
H. Res. 51 (1/31/95)...........  O................  H.R. 101.........  Land Transfer, Taos     A: voice vote (2/
                                                                        Pueblo Indians.         1/95).          
H. Res. 52 (1/31/95)...........  O................  H.R. 400.........  Land Exchange, Arctic   A: voice vote (2/
                                                                        Nat'l. Park and         1/95).          
                                                                        Preserve.                               
H. Res. 53 (1/31/95)...........  O................  H.R. 440.........  Land Conveyance, Butte  A: voice vote (2/
                                                                        County, Calif.          1/95).          
H. Res. 55 (2/1/95)............  O................  H.R. 2...........  Line Item Veto........  A: voice vote (2/
                                                                                                2/95).          
H. Res. 60 (2/6/95)............  O................  H.R. 665.........  Victim Restitution....  A: voice vote (2/
                                                                                                7/95).          
H. Res. 61 (2/6/95)............  O................  H.R. 666.........  Exclusionary Rule       A: voice vote (2/
                                                                        Reform.                 7/95).          
H. Res. 63 (2/8/95)............  MO...............  H.R. 667.........  Violent Criminal        A: voice vote (2/
                                                                        Incarceration.          9/95).          
H. Res. 69 (2/9/95)............  O................  H.R. 668.........  Criminal Alien          A: voice vote (2/
                                                                        Deportation.            10/95).         
H. Res. 79 (2/10/95)...........  MO...............  H.R. 728.........  Law Enforcement Block   A: voice vote (2/
                                                                        Grants.                 13/95).         
H. Res. 83 (2/13/95)...........  MO...............  H.R. 7...........  National Security       PQ: 229-100; A:  
                                                                        Revitalization.         227-127 (2/15/  
                                                                                                95).            
H. Res. 88 (2/16/95)...........  MC...............  H.R. 831.........  Health Insurance        PQ: 230-191; A:  
                                                                        Deductibility.          229-188 (2/21/  
                                                                                                95).            
H. Res. 91 (2/21/95)...........  O................  H.R. 830.........  Paperwork Reduction     A: voice vote (2/
                                                                        Act.                    22/95).         
H. Res. 92 (2/21/95)...........  MC...............  H.R. 889.........  Defense Supplemental..  A: 282-144 (2/22/
                                                                                                95).            
H. Res. 93 (2/22/95)...........  MO...............  H.R. 450.........  Regulatory Transition   A: 252-175 (2/23/
                                                                        Act.                    95).            
H. Res. 96 (2/24/95)...........  MO...............  H.R. 1022........  Risk Assessment.......  A: 253-165 (2/27/
                                                                                                95).            
H. Res. 100 (2/27/95)..........  O................  H.R. 926.........  Regulatory Reform and   A: voice vote (2/
                                                                        Relief Act.             28/95).         
H. Res. 101 (2/28/95)..........  MO...............  H.R. 925.........  Private Property        A: 271-151 (3/2/ 
                                                                        Protection Act.         95).            
H. Res. 103 (3/3/95)...........  MO...............  H.R. 1058........  Securities Litigation   .................
                                                                        Reform.                                 
H. Res. 104 (3/3/95)...........  MO...............  H.R. 988.........  Attorney                A: voice vote (3/
                                                                        Accountability Act.     6/95).          
H. Res. 105 (3/6/95)...........  MO...............  .................  ......................  A: 257-155 (3/7/ 
                                                                                                95).            
H. Res. 108 (3/7/95)...........  Debate...........  H.R. 956.........  Product Liability       A: voice vote (3/
                                                                        Reform.                 8/95).          
H. Res. 109 (3/8/95)...........  MC...............  .................  ......................  PQ: 234-191 A:   
                                                                                                247-181 (3/9/   
                                                                                                95).            
H. Res. 115 (3/14/95)..........  MO...............  H.R. 1159........  Making Emergency Supp.  A: 242-190 (3/15/
                                                                        Approps.                95).            
H. Res. 116 (3/15/95)..........  MC...............  H.J. Res. 73.....  Term Limits Const.      A: voice vote (3/
                                                                        Amdt.                   28/95).         
H. Res. 117 (3/16/95)..........  Debate...........  H.R. 4...........  Personal                A: voice vote (3/
                                                                        Responsibility Act of   21/95).         
                                                                        1995.                                   
H. Res. 119 (3/21/95)..........  MC...............  .................  ......................  A: 217-211 (3/22/
                                                                                                95).            
H. Res. 125 (4/3/95)...........  O................  H.R. 1271........  Family Privacy          A: 423-1 (4/4/   
                                                                        Protection Act.         95).            
H. Res. 126 (4/3/95)...........  O................  H.R. 660.........  Older Persons Housing   A: voice vote (4/
                                                                        Act.                    6/95).          
H. Res. 128 (4/4/95)...........  MC...............  H.R. 1215........  Contract With America   A: 228-204 (4/5/ 
                                                                        Tax Relief Act of       95).            
                                                                        1995.                                   
H. Res. 130 (4/5/95)...........  MC...............  H.R. 483.........  Medicare Select          A: 253-172 (4/6/
                                                                        Expansion.              95).            
H. Res. 136 (5/1/95)...........  O................  H.R. 655.........  Hydrogen Future Act of  A: voice vote (5/
                                                                        1995.                   2/95).          
H. Res. 139 (5/3/95)...........  O................  H.R. 1361........  Coast Guard Auth. FY    A: voice vote (5/
                                                                        1996.                   9/95).          
H. Res. 140 (5/9/95)...........  O................  H.R. 961.........  Clean Water Amendments  A: 414-4 (5/10/  
                                                                                                95).            
H. Res. 144 (5/11/95)..........  O................  H.R. 535.........  Fish Hatchery--         A: voice vote (5/
                                                                        Arkansas.               15/95).         
H. Res. 145 (5/11/95)..........  O................  H.R. 584.........  Fish Hatchery--Iowa...  A: voice vote (5/
                                                                                                15/95).         
H. Res. 146 (5/11/95)..........  O................  H.R. 614.........  Fish Hatchery--         A: voice vote (5/
                                                                        Minnesota.              15/95).         
H. Res. 149 (5/16/95)..........  MC...............  H. Con. Res. 67..  Budget Resolution FY    PQ: 252-170 A:   
                                                                        1996.                   255-168 (5/17/  
                                                                                                95).            
H. Res. 155 (5/22/95)..........  MO...............  H.R. 1561........  American Overseas       A: 233-176 (5/23/
                                                                        Interests Act.          95).            
H. Res. 164 (6/8/95)...........  MC...............  H.R. 1530........  Nat. Defense Auth. FY   PQ: 225-191 A:   
                                                                        1996.                   233-183 (6/13/  
                                                                                                95).            
H. Res. 167 (6/15/95)..........  O................  H.R. 1817........  MilCon Appropriations   PQ: 223-180 A:   
                                                                        FY 1996.                245-155 (6/16/  
                                                                                                95).            
H. Res. 169 (6/19/95)..........  MC...............  H.R. 1854........  Leg. Branch Approps.    PQ: 232-196 A:   
                                                                        FY 1996.                236-191 (6/20/  
                                                                                                95).            
H. Res. 170 (6/20/95)..........  O................  H.R. 1868........  For. Ops. Approps. FY   PQ: 221-178 A:   
                                                                        1996.                   217-175 (6/22/  
                                                                                                95).            
H. Res. 171 (6/22/95)..........  O................  H.R. 1905........  Energy & Water          A: voice vote (7/
                                                                        Approps. FY 1996.       12/95).         
H. Res. 173 (6/27/95)..........  C................  H.J. Res. 79.....  Flag Constitutional     PQ: 258-170 A:   
                                                                        Amendment.              271-152 (6/28/  
                                                                                                95).            
H. Res. 176 (6/28/95)..........  MC...............  H.R. 1944........  Emer. Supp. Approps...  PQ: 236-194 A:   
                                                                                                234-192 (6/29/  
                                                                                                95).            
H. Res. 185 (7/11/95)..........  O................  H.R. 1977........  Interior Approps. FY    PQ: 235-193 D:   
                                                                        1996.                   192-238 (7/12/  
                                                                                                95).            
H. Res. 187 (7/12/95)..........  O................  H.R. 1977........  Interior Approps. FY    PQ: 230-194 A:   
                                                                        1996 #2.                229-195 (7/13/  
                                                                                                95).            
H. Res. 188 (7/12/95)..........  O................  H.R. 1976........  Agriculture Approps.    PQ: 242-185 A:   
                                                                        FY 1996.                voice vote (7/18/
                                                                                                95).            
H. Res. 190 (7/17/95)..........  O................  H.R. 2020........  Treasury/Postal         PQ: 232-192 A:   
                                                                        Approps. FY 1996.       voice vote (7/18/
                                                                                                95).            
H. Res. 193 (7/19/95)..........  C................  H.J. Res. 96.....  Disapproval of MFN to   A: voice vote (7/
                                                                        China.                  20/95).         
H. Res. 194 (7/19/95)..........  O................  H.R. 2002........  Transportation          PQ: 217-202 (7/21/
                                                                        Approps. FY 1996.       95).            
H. Res. 197 (7/21/95)..........  O................  H.R. 70..........  Exports of Alaskan      A: voice vote (7/
                                                                        Crude Oil.              24/95).         
H. Res. 198 (7/21/95)..........  O................  H.R. 2076........  Commerce, State         A: voice vote (7/
                                                                        Approps. FY 1996.       25/95).         
H. Res. 201 (7/25/95)..........  O................  H.R. 2099........  VA/HUD Approps. FY      A: 230-189 (7/25/
                                                                        1996.                   95).            
H. Res. 204 (7/28/95)..........  MC...............  S. 21............  Terminating U.S. Arms   A: voice vote (8/
                                                                        Embargo on Bosnia.      1/95).          
H. Res. 205 (7/28/95)..........  O................  H.R. 2126........  Defense Approps. FY     A: 409-1 (7/31/  
                                                                        1996.                   95).            
H. Res. 207 (8/1/95)...........  MC...............  H.R. 1555........  Communications Act of   A: 255-156 (8/2/ 
                                                                        1995.                   95).            
H. Res. 208 (8/1/95)...........  O................  H.R. 2127........  Labor, HHS Approps. FY  A: 323-104 (8/2/ 
                                                                        1996.                   95).            
H. Res. 215 (9/7/95)...........  O................  H.R. 1594........  Economically Targeted   A: voice vote (9/
                                                                        Investments.            12/95).         
H. Res. 216 (9/7/95)...........  MO...............  H.R. 1655........  Intelligence            A: voice vote (9/
                                                                        Authorization FY 1996.  12/95).         
H. Res. 218 (9/12/95)..........  O................  H.R. 1162........  Deficit Reduction       A: voice vote (9/
                                                                        Lockbox.                13/95).         
H. Res. 219 (9/12/95)..........  O................  H.R. 1670........  Federal Acquisition     A: 414-0 (9/13/  
                                                                        Reform Act.             95).            
H. Res. 222 (9/18/95)..........  O................  H.R. 1617........  CAREERS Act...........  A: 388-2 (9/19/  
                                                                                                95).            

[[Page H5943]]

                                                                                                                
H. Res. 224 (9/19/95)..........  O................  H.R. 2274........  Natl. Highway System..  PQ: 241-173 A:   
                                                                                                375-39-1 (9/20/ 
                                                                                                95).            
H. Res. 225 (9/19/95)..........  MC...............  H.R. 927.........  Cuban Liberty & Dem.    A: 304-118 (9/20/
                                                                        Solidarity.             95).            
H. Res. 226 (9/21/95)..........  O................  H.R. 743.........  Team Act..............  A: 344-66-1 (9/27/
                                                                                                95).            
H. Res. 227 (9/21/95)..........  O................  H.R. 1170........  3-Judge Court.........  A: voice vote (9/
                                                                                                28/95).         
H. Res. 228 (9/21/95)..........  O................  H.R. 1601........  Internatl. Space        A: voice vote (9/
                                                                        Station.                27/95).         
H. Res. 230 (9/27/95)..........  C................  H.J. Res. 108....  Continuing Resolution   A: voice vote (9/
                                                                        FY 1996.                28/95).         
H. Res. 234 (9/29/95)..........  O................  H.R. 2405........  Omnibus Science Auth..  A: voice vote (10/
                                                                                                11/95).         
H. Res. 237 (10/17/95).........  MC...............  H.R. 2259........  Disapprove Sentencing   A: voice vote (10/
                                                                        Guidelines.             18/95).         
H. Res. 238 (10/18/95).........  MC...............  H.R. 2425........  Medicare Preservation   PQ: 231-194 A:   
                                                                        Act.                    227-192 (10/19/ 
                                                                                                95).            
H. Res. 239 (10/19/95).........  C................  H.R. 2492........  Leg. Branch Approps...  PQ: 235-184 A:   
                                                                                                voice vote (10/ 
                                                                                                31/95).         
H. Res. 245 (10/25/95).........  MC...............  H. Con. Res. 109.  Social Security         PQ: 228-191 A:   
                                                    H.R. 2491........   Earnings Reform.        235-185 (10/26/ 
                                                                       Seven-Year Balanced      95).            
                                                                        Budget.                                 
H. Res. 251 (10/31/95).........  C................  H.R. 1833........  Partial Birth Abortion  A: 237-190 (11/1/
                                                                        Ban.                    95).            
H. Res. 252 (10/31/95).........  MO...............  H.R. 2546........  D.C. Approps..........  A: 241-181 (11/1/
                                                                                                95).            
H. Res. 257 (11/7/95)..........  C................  H.J. Res. 115....  Cont. Res. FY 1996....  A: 216-210 (11/8/
                                                                                                95).            
H. Res. 258 (11/8/95)..........  MC...............  H.R. 2586........  Debt Limit............  A: 220-200 (11/10/
                                                                                                95).            
H. Res. 259 (11/9/95)..........  O................  H.R. 2539........  ICC Termination Act...  A: voice vote (11/
                                                                                                14/95).         
H. Res. 261 (11/9/95)..........  C................  H.J. Res. 115....  Cont. Resolution......  A: 223-182 (11/10/
                                                                                                95).            
H. Res. 262 (11/9/95)..........  C................  H.R. 2586........  Increase Debt Limit...  A: 220-185 (11/10/
                                                                                                95).            
H. Res. 269 (11/15/95).........  O................  H.R. 2564........  Lobbying Reform.......  A: voice vote (11/
                                                                                                16/95).         
H. Res. 270 (11/15/95).........  C................  H.J. Res. 122....  Further Cont.           A: 229-176 (11/15/
                                                                        Resolution.             95).            
H. Res. 273 (11/16/95).........  MC...............  H.R. 2606........  Prohibition on Funds    A: 239-181 (11/17/
                                                                        for Bosnia.             95).            
H. Res. 284 (11/29/95).........  O................  H.R. 1788........  Amtrak Reform.........  A: voice vote (11/
                                                                                                30/95).         
H. Res. 287 (11/30/95).........  O................  H.R. 1350........  Maritime Security Act.  A: voice vote (12/
                                                                                                6/95).          
H. Res. 293 (12/7/95)..........  C................  H.R. 2621........  Protect Federal Trust   PQ: 223-183 A:   
                                                                        Funds.                  228-184 (12/14/ 
                                                                                                95).            
H. Res. 303 (12/13/95).........  O................  H.R. 1745........  Utah Public Lands.....                   
H. Res. 309 (12/18/95).........  C................  H.Con. Res. 122..  Budget Res. W/          PQ: 230-188 A:   
                                                                        President.              229-189 (12/19/ 
                                                                                                95).            
H. Res. 313 (12/19/95).........  O................  H.R. 558.........  Texas Low-Level         A: voice vote (12/
                                                                        Radioactive.            20/95).         
H. Res. 323 (12/21/95).........  C................  H.R. 2677........  Natl. Parks & Wildlife  Tabled (2/28/96).
                                                                        Refuge.                                 
H. Res. 366 (2/27/96)..........  MC...............  H.R. 2854........  Farm Bill.............  PQ: 228-182 A:   
                                                                                                244-168 (2/28/  
                                                                                                96).            
H. Res. 368 (2/28/96)..........  O................  H.R. 994.........  Small Business Growth.  .................
H. Res. 371 (3/6/96)...........  C................  H.R. 3021........  Debt Limit Increase...  A: voice vote (3/
                                                                                                7/96).          
H. Res. 372 (3/6/96)...........  MC...............  H.R. 3019........  Cont. Approps. FY 1996  PQ: voice vote A:
                                                                                                235-175 (3/7/   
                                                                                                96).            
H. Res. 380 (3/12/96)..........  MC...............  H.R. 2703........  Effective Death         A: 251-157 (3/13/
                                                                        Penalty.                96).            
H. Res. 384 (3/14/96)..........  MC...............  H.R. 2202........  Immigration...........  PQ: 233-152 A:   
                                                                                                voice vote (3/21/
                                                                                                96).            
H. Res. 386 (3/20/96)..........  C................  H.J. Res. 165....  Further Cont. Approps.  PQ: 234-187 A:   
                                                                                                237-183 (3/21/  
                                                                                                96).            
H. Res. 388 (3/20/96)..........  C................  H.R. 125.........  Gun Crime Enforcement.  A: 244-166 (3/22/
                                                                                                96).            
H. Res. 391 (3/27/96)..........  C................  H.R. 3136........  Contract w/America      PQ: 232-180 A:   
                                                                        Advancement.            232-177, (3/28/ 
                                                                                                96).            
H. Res. 392 (3/27/96)..........  MC...............  H.R. 3103........  Health Coverage         PQ: 229-186 A:   
                                                                        Affordability.          Voice Vote (3/29/
                                                                                                96).            
H. Res. 395 (3/29/96)..........  MC...............  H.J. Res. 159....  Tax Limitation Const.   PQ: 232-168 A:   
                                                                        Amdmt..                 234-162 (4/15/  
                                                                                                96).            
H. Res. 396 (3/29/96)..........  O................  H.R. 842.........  Truth in Budgeting Act  A: voice vote (4/
                                                                                                17/96).         
H. Res. 409 (4/23/96)..........  O................  H.R. 2715........  Paperwork Elimination   A: voice vote (4/
                                                                        Act.                    24/96).         
H. Res. 410 (4/23/96)..........  O................  H.R. 1675........  Natl. Wildlife Refuge.  A: voice vote (4/
                                                                                                24/96).         
H. Res. 411 (4/23/96)..........  O................  H.J. Res. 175....  Further Cont. Approps.  A: voice vote (4/
                                                                        FY 1996.                24/96).         
H. Res. 418 (4/30/96)..........  O................  H.R. 2641........  U.S. Marshals Service.  PQ: 219-203 A:   
                                                                                                voice vote (5/1/
                                                                                                96).            
H. Res. 419 (4/30/96)..........  O................  H.R. 2149........  Ocean Shipping Reform.  A: 422-0 (5/1/   
                                                                                                96).            
H. Res. 421 (5/2/96)...........  O................  H.R. 2974........  Crimes Against          A: voice vote (5/
                                                                        Children & Elderly.     7/96).          
H. Res. 422 (5/2/96)...........  O................  H.R. 3120........  Witness & Jury          A: voice vote (5/
                                                                        Tampering.              7/96).          
H. Res. 426 (5/7/96)...........  O................  H.R. 2406........  U.S. Housing Act of     PQ: 218-208 A:   
                                                                        1996.                   voice vote (5/8/
                                                                                                96).            
H. Res. 427 (5/7/96)...........  O................  H.R. 3322........  Omnibus Civilian        A: voice vote (5/
                                                                        Science Auth.           9/96).          
H. Res. 428 (5/7/96)...........  MC...............  H.R. 3286........  Adoption Promotion &    A: voice vote (5/
                                                                        Stability.              9/96).          
H. Res. 430 (5/9/96)...........  S H.R. 3230......  DoD Auth. FY 1997  A: 235-149 (5/10/96)..                   
H. Res. 435 (5/15/96)..........  MC...............  H. Con. Res. 178.  Con. Res. on the        PQ: 227-196 A:   
                                                                        Budget, 1997.           voice vote (5/16/
                                                                                                96).            
H. Res. 436 (5/16/96)..........  C................  H.R. 3415........  Repeal $43 cent fuel    PQ: 221-181 A:   
                                                                        tax.                    voice vote (5/21/
                                                                                                96).            
H. Res. 437 (5/16/96)..........  MO...............  H.R. 3259........  Intell. Auth. FY 1997.  A: voice vote (5/
                                                                                                21/96).         
H. Res. 438 (5/16/96)..........  MC...............  H.R. 3144........  Defend America Act....  .................
H. Res. 440 (5/21/96)..........  MC...............  H.R. 3448........  Small Bus. Job          A: 219-211 (5/22/
                                                                        Protection.             96).            
                                   ...............  H.R. 1227........  Employee Commuting                       
                                                                        Flexibility.                            
H. Res. 442 (5/29/96)..........  O................  H.R. 3517........  Mil. Const. Approps.    A: voice vote (5/
                                                                        FY 1997.                30/96).         
H. Res. 445 (5/30/96)..........  O................  H.R. 3540........  For. Ops. Approps. FY   A: voice vote (6/
                                                                        1997.                   5/96).          
H. Res. 446 (6/5/96)...........  MC...............  H.R. 3562........  WI Works Waiver         .................
                                                                        Approval.                               
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Codes: O-open rule; MO-modified open rule; MC-modified closed rule; C-closed rule; A-adoption vote; D-defeated; 
  PQ-previous question vote. Source: Notices of Action Taken, Committee on Rules, 104th Congress.               


  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, as four members of the Wisconsin delegation said 
yesterday in the Committee on Rules, these waivers have absolutely no 
business in the House of Representatives. Although I will not oppose 
this rule, I urge my colleagues to support the Obey substitute, which 
will allow the people of Wisconsin 30 days to comment on the waivers.
  The substitute of the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey] says quite 
simply that if the Wisconsin welfare bill does what Governor Thompson 
says it will, then grant the waivers and let them get on with the 
business of helping people get off welfare and into jobs. If the bill 
does not do what the Governor says it will, then change it until it 
does.
  Mr. Speaker, unfortunately, it is really not that simple. 
Unfortunately for the entire country, this issue, the issue of how the 
State of Wisconsin reforms its welfare system, has reached the level of 
Presidential politics, and heaven help Wisconsin. Now that the 
Presidential race has been swept up in the issue of Wisconsin welfare, 
we will not hear the end of it for a while.
  It is not enough, Mr. Speaker, that this welfare bill overwhelmingly 
passed the Wisconsin State legislature. It is not enough, Mr. Speaker, 
that Democrats and Republicans have supported it. It is not enough, Mr. 
Speaker, that President Clinton supported the goals of the plan in his 
radio address, despite its being offered by a Republican Governor. Now 
my Republican colleagues are smarting politically and they want 
revenge.
  Mr. Speaker, the entire House of Representatives, all 434 or 435 
Members who represent 50 States, have to vote on a 600-page waiver 
request for a bill which will affect only one State, and not, and I 
want to make this very clear, and not until October 1997. As far as I 
am concerned, Mr. Speaker, since 60 percent of this money to fund this 
program will come from the Federal taxpayers, it should have to go 
through the same approval system that all other waivers do; 
incidentally, the same approval system that has never denied a waiver 
from the State of Wisconsin, the same approval system that has already 
approved waivers from 40 States.
  As far as I am concerned, Mr. Speaker, it is politics. It should be 
reviewed and approved by the staff people at the Department of Health 
and Human Services, whose only job is to make sure that the Federal tax 
dollars are not spent in violation of Federal law. This department has 
already approved, as I said, waivers for 40 States. I expect there will 
be no problem with the Wisconsin waivers, especially since President 
Clinton says he supports the goals of the plan.
  The Wisconsin plan, and I would like people to listen to this, this 
Wisconsin plan that we have before us today was submitted to the White 
House on May 29, 1996, 2 weeks ago. The Governor of Wisconsin at that 
time asked that the waivers be granted by August 1, 1996, which gives 
us plenty of time. We do not need legislation. The waivers will not go 
into effect again until October 1997.
  I have no idea what this plan is doing here, Mr. Speaker, unless it 
is pure partisan politics. It should not be before the Congress when 
the White House as yet does not even have it for 3 weeks.

[[Page H5944]]

But my Republican colleagues, in order to help the Dole Presidential 
campaign, are going to shove these waivers down the throat of Congress, 
even when the Governor of Wisconsin himself has said he does not need 
them until October 1, 1996.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues, I am not going to oppose the rule, 
but I urge my colleagues to support the Obey substitute. Let us make 
sure that this plan does what it is supposed to do. Let us make sure 
that the American people are given their promised 30-day comment 
period. Let us not blindly waive 88 Federal laws just to help the Dole 
Presidential campaign.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, let me assure the members, we are not doing this to help 
the Dole campaign. I wish it were New York State applying for these 
waivers. We need it desperately in our State. Let us do it.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman 
from Florida, Mr. Porter Goss, a very valuable member of the Committee 
on Rules.
  (Mr. GOSS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I commend my good friend, the gentleman from 
Glens Falls, NY [Mr. Solomon], the distinguished chairman of the 
Committee on Rules, for his very diligent work in seeking cooperation 
and receiving it from the minority in crafting this rule. In fact, Mr. 
Speaker, this is an extremely fair rule, providing the minority with a 
substitute, as was requested, along with a traditional motion to 
recommit, in effect giving those opposed to this measure two 
opportunities to propose changes. I think anybody would agree that is 
exceedingly fair.
  Mr. Speaker, welfare reform is one of the most challenging and 
overdue matters pending before this Congress and this country. The 
welfare state, for all the social engineering and the trillions, in 
excess of $5 trillion of taxpayers' dollars over the past 40 years, has 
failed to bring people out of poverty or to break the cycle of 
dependency that we all see and are upset about.
  On the contrary, the policies of Big Brother government have 
indisputably contributed to the very problems they were originally 
built to solve. Even our President recognizes the need to fix this 
failure of big government. He made it a celebrated campaign issue 4 
years ago.

                              {time}  1045

  But unfortunately, his campaign rhetoric has yet to translate into 
concrete action at the White House, even though Congress has twice 
passed real welfare reform.
  I say again, President Clinton, the man who, while in search of the 
White House 4 years ago, promised to end welfare as we know it, has 
rebuffed workable welfare reform that we have passed. Now States such 
as my home State of Florida are anxiously left hanging, awaiting reform 
at the national level. The wages program in Florida that passed through 
both the Florida House and Senate without a single ``no'' vote is 
predicated on action by President Clinton, action that was promised and 
action that has never happened.
  Florida's approach was designed to fit the unanimously passed 
National Governors' Association plan, which closely resembles our H.R. 
4, which is the true reform plan that President Clinton vetoed.
  The bill before us today focuses on the State of Wisconsin's 
Wisconsin Works Program, which has taken tremendous steps toward 
restoring the work ethic and emphasizing the American values of 
responsibility and opportunity.
  What the people of Wisconsin have done by an overwhelming vote, and I 
congratulate them, is create a system that reinforces the importance of 
a job. A remarkable thing about the Wisconsin plan is that it will 
eliminate the cycle of dependency that our current system regrettably 
fosters.
  By requiring recipients to work, whether in a transitional job, a 
community service job, or a minimum- or low-wage job, the system will 
help individuals become productive members of our society. This is a 
bipartisan program that has the endorsement of the President of the 
United States by his own publicly spoken words. Yet, despite this 
extraordinary accomplishment, Wisconsin finds itself stymied by the old 
entrenched Federal regulation and redtape that have bound so much in 
Washington, and that is why we are here today. This bill will cut away 
the Federal shackles and let Wisconsin Works work.
  Wisconsin's experience and Florida's experience and those of many 
other States raise the question of why this process is necessary in the 
first place.
  My Republican colleagues and I favor ending the centralized, 
Washington-knows-best system that requires States to get Federal 
blessing when they attempt to solve the real problems in their State or 
to end the status quo that is killing them. That is what our 
comprehensive welfare reform proposals are all about, sending 
decisionmaking power back home to the States, closer to home, closer to 
the people.
  In the next few weeks, we will be sending President Clinton another 
welfare reform bill. This time America will be watching ever more 
closely to see if he honors his campaign promises and actually signs 
the bill. In the meantime, I urge support for this rule and this bill 
because at least it allows one of our great 50 States to get on with 
the job of reform.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. GOSS. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman alluded to the bureaucratic 
redtape. Will the gentleman yield that this proposal has only been 
before the White House less than 2 weeks?
  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I take the gentleman at 
his word. We are trying to expedite a good idea, and I have seen 2 
weeks stretch into many years at the White House. Let us hope that we 
can preclude that.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will yield further, would 
the gentleman also agree that every waiver that Wisconsin asked for has 
been granted in the past?
  Mr. GOSS. I have no idea about that. I am sure we will hear it in the 
debate.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Barrett], who testified very well before 
the Committee on Rules.
  Mr. BARRETT of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, welcome to Presidential 
politics, 1996, Wisconsin style. We are fortunate today to have the 
Presidential campaign brought to my home State and most particularly 
the district that I represent, because I represent the most people in 
this country that are going to be affected by this legislation. But I 
think it will be interesting just to give you a little history about 
how this came about, why this issue is here before us.
  Wisconsin has been working on welfare reform for some time. They held 
many hearings, they passed a bill, and they asked the presumptive 
nominee, Senator Dole, if he would attend the signing of this bill. 
They thought it would be a good opportunity to get his name in front of 
the American people on welfare reform.
  Well, he did not show up, and they were frustrated, because he did 
not come to our State, the Governor asked him to come, and he was not 
there when they signed this bill into law.
  A couple of weeks later, President Clinton announced that he was 
going to be attending a summit with Chancellor Kohl in the city of 
Milwaukee. It was going to happen on a Thursday. No doubt, the Dole 
campaign heard about this and thought, How can we upstage the President 
in Wisconsin? They said, I know what we will do, we will go to 
Wisconsin 2 days before the President is going to be there and we will 
blast him on welfare reform.
  So they set up the entourage, and they were all set to blast the 
President on welfare reform. Well, the President, of course, got wind 
of this and thought, Why should I let him get in front of me on this 
issue when I support the welfare program and the welfare changes in 
Wisconsin as well? So in his Saturday evening address, he told the 
American people that he supports the aims and the goals of the 
Wisconsin welfare program.
  Once again, the Dole campaign was just sputtering, they were so 
frustrated that the President of the United States supports an issue 
that they support,

[[Page H5945]]

that he is actually attempting to take an issue that they consider to 
be a Republican issue and take it as his issue. They just, their 
frustration, you could almost see it in their eyes, because now here is 
the President of the United States, the leader of the entire country, 
saying that he favors welfare reform.
  Well, now, this is not an issue that came out of the blue, especially 
as it relates to President Clinton, and especially as it relates to the 
State of Wisconsin, because nine times the State of Wisconsin has come 
to President Clinton and asked him for a waiver. Has he turned them 
down? Not a single time. Every single time the State of Wisconsin has 
come to President Clinton and asked him for a waiver, he has granted 
it.
  Never before have we had to have this expedited process on the floor 
of the House of Representatives to grant the waiver by Congress. Why 
have we not? Because we were not in the middle of a Presidential 
campaign then. Now, we are in the middle of a Presidential campaign. 
Now, the Republicans have to take this issue, which is essentially a 
bipartisan issue, and they go back to their room and they sit down and 
they say, all right, darn it, he has got us on this one. He is in favor 
of this plan in Wisconsin. How can we take this bipartisan issue and 
make it a partisan issue? How can we try to drive a wedge in this 
process? So the solution is, let us not let the American public comment 
on this waiver request at all. Let us shut them out entirely.
  Now, you will hear from my colleagues on the other side that there 
were 18 months of hearings that the legislature acted on this, they 
acted on it on a bipartisan basis, and every one of those statements is 
true, that is exactly what happened.
  But what happened next? Next, Governor Thompson took out his partial-
veto pen. He has the largest partial-veto power of any Governor in this 
Nation, and 97 times he went through this document and used his 
partial-veto pen; 97 times he crossed out words or phrases or sections 
that affected 27 different topics. Since that date, since Governor 
Thompson exercised his item veto power 97 times, we have not had a 
single opportunity for public input on this measure.
  So the measure that is before us is not exactly the measure that was 
before the Wisconsin Legislature where you had all of those hearings, 
no. What we have before us is a product that was molded by one person 
in this country, one person, the Governor of the State of Wisconsin.
  So what do the Republicans decide to do? They say well, let us go and 
let us try to embarrass the President. Let us take the olive branch 
that he has extended to us, let us break it in half and shove it in his 
eye. Let us try to make this bipartisan issue a partisan issue.
  How do they do it? For the first time in our Nation's history, this 
House of Representatives is considering a stand-alone bill that will 
grant a waiver.
  Now, you would think if this is the first time in our Nation's 
history that we are going to do this, that at least you would have some 
public hearings, at least it would be referred to a committee, but no, 
not on your life. This is the plan that Governor Thompson says is going 
to be a model for the Nation. You would think that they would want to 
have a lot of sunshine placed on this plan, that a lot of people would 
want to see what is in this great waiver request. Exactly the opposite 
of what is happening here.
  Instead, Governor Thompson delivers it to the White House last 
Thursday, 1 week ago today. My office received its copy from the State 
of Wisconsin 2 days ago, 48 hours ago. I would bet there is not a 
single Member of this body who has read this waiver request, yet the 
House of Representatives today is going to be asked to approve this, 
600 pages of waivers, without a single bit of public input.
  Mr. Speaker, that is not the way we should be doing business in this 
Congress, that is not the way we should do doing business for the 
American people. The American people have a right to be heard.
  At his press conference, Governor Thompson said, yes, there are going 
to be speed bumps along the way in this program. Well, Mr. Speaker, 
those speed bumps just happen to be real people in some instances, real 
people. Women with infants 4 months old. I do not refer to women with 
infants 4 months old as speed bumps, and I think that we have an 
obligation here to try to listen to the concerns that we hear from the 
American people and the people of the State of Wisconsin.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. BARRETT of Wisconsin. I yield to the gentleman from 
Massachusetts.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, is it true that Governor Thompson just 
asked that this be acted on by August 1, 1996, to take effect in 
October 1997?
  Mr. BARRETT of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, that is correct. In his waiver 
request, Governor Thompson asks that the administration act on this by 
August 1.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. All right. To take effect in October of 1997.
  Mr. BARRETT of Wisconsin. To take effect in October of 1997, that is 
correct.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. So there is no reason for expedited procedures at this 
time?
  Mr. BARRETT of Wisconsin. Oh, no. There is a reason. Presidential 
politics, that is the only reason.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. That is what it is. I am sorry. I overlooked that.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from 
Wisconsin [Mr. Neumann], who will be carrying this legislation.
  Mr. NEUMANN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman, and I certainly would 
like to commend the chairman on developing a rule here that recognizes 
the right of minority and respects the rights of the minority so all 
may be heard on this issue.
  I am a new Member of this Congress, this is my first term, and one 
thing I have learned since coming to Washington is that once I get out 
in the city, things that seem so logical back home in Wisconsin get 
tipped right upside down. I thought partisan politics is when one side 
of the aisle develops something and, because they were in the majority, 
forced it on the other side.
  Here we have a situation where a Democrat President came into the 
State of Wisconsin and said, I support this plan, let us get it done. 
You have a freshman Republican here on the floor of the House of 
Representatives presenting a bill that literally gives the President, 
that Democrat President, exactly what he asked for. This is not 
partisan politics; this is bipartisan politics.
  In Wisconsin, when the Democrats and the Republicans work together to 
craft legislation and to get a job done, such as they have done in the 
Wisconsin Works Program under Gov. Tommy Thompson, when the Democrats 
and the Republicans get together for the same purpose to get a job 
done, we call that bipartisan, not partisan, and that is in fact what 
is going on here.

  But this bill is not about Presidential politics. This bill is about 
giving the people in the State of Wisconsin the right to implement the 
program that they have debated for 18 months. Somebody out here just 
said that there was no debate on this. It has been debated for 18 
months, by public input by the very people who are going to be affected 
by this program; 18 months of debate in the State of Wisconsin.
  What came out of that 18 months of debate in the State of Wisconsin? 
Well, they passed it. They did not pass it with Republicans all voting 
one way and the Democrats all voting another way. They passed it with a 
two-thirds vote in their assembly and a three-quarter vote in their 
Senate. As a matter of fact, even the majority of the Democrats voted 
for this bill in the State of Wisconsin.
  I do not see what we are all out here debating. We have a bill that 
has been debated for 18 months in the State of Wisconsin, received a 
two-thirds vote, more than a two-thirds vote in both Houses of the 
State. The President of the United States, who supports the bill, I do 
not see why in the world we would not just say to Wisconsin, go ahead 
and do it. That is what this is all about, it is about common sense.
  Mr. KLUG. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. NEUMANN. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.
  Mr. KLUG. Mr. Speaker, let me make a fundamental point in all of 
this, and that is the fact that even though Washington occasionally 
promises us that they are going to get waivers, they

[[Page H5946]]

wait. This is an indication that right now there are 28 welfare waivers 
involving 19 States, 5 of them involving Democratic Governors, where we 
are waiting for Washington to act.
  That is why it is necessary to come to the floor today. And the sense 
that somehow this is a ginned-up Republican operation, the fact is that 
the President said he was in favor of the Wisconsin plan, and we are 
trying to expedite the process. In fact, we have some applications 
pending back to September 20, 1993, and that is the Democratic 
Governors of Maryland and Florida and Hawaii, who are simply waiting 
for Washington to act.
  My colleague from Wisconsin is absolutely right, that we want to get 
these waivers done and we want to get them done as quickly as possible. 
If the promise is just turn them over to Labor-HHS and we will get them 
done, well, fine, we will be back here in 1998 asking where they are.
  Mr. NEUMANN. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I would just like to 
point out that this is about more than that too. It is about the people 
in Wisconsin being asked to pass this legislation and then coming hat 
in hand and asking the bureaucrats in Washington, DC, 900 miles from 
the State of Wisconsin. I have to tell my colleagues, I have a lot of 
faith in the people of Wisconsin.
  My colleague who just spoke in opposition to this from Wisconsin, I 
have to ask the gentleman, do you not have confidence in Representative 
Tim Carpenter, a Democrat from your district who voted for this bill, 
and Representative Dave Cullen, Democrat in your district who voted for 
this bill, Representative Jeanette Bell in your district, another 
Democrat?

                              {time}  1100

  The point here is that both the Democrats and the Republicans in the 
State of Wisconsin want this to happen. I see absolutely nothing that 
would lead me to believe that the people here in Washington, DC can 
Washingtonize this Wisconsin plan and make it better than the people in 
the State of Wisconsin. I believe the people in the State of Wisconsin 
have the knowledge, the wisdom, and the compassion to pass a good 
welfare reform plan for the State of Wisconsin.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from 
Wisconsin [Mr. Barrett].
  Mr. BARRETT of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, in response to the gentleman 
who asked me a question but did not give me time to respond, I have 
tremendous confidence in them. I have tremendous confidence in every 
elected official in the State of Wisconsin. That does not mean I have 
tremendous confidence in every elected official in the State.
  Here we see this horrible chart about 28 waiver requests currently 
pending back to September 1993. There is not a single Wisconsin waiver 
request that is more than a week old. So if this is your concern, then 
we should have a bill before us dealing with all those waiver requests. 
But, no, this is not about waiver requests. This is 100 percent about 
Presidential politics and sticking it to the President.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, much has been said about the President's statement here, 
how he is in favor of the Wisconsin plan, he is in favor of the makings 
of this plan, but let me read what he actually said. He says, ``All in 
all, Wisconsin has the makings of a solid, bold welfare reform plan. We 
should get it done. I pledge that my administration will work with 
Wisconsin to make an effective transition to a new vision of welfare 
based on work that protects children and does right by working people 
and their families.''
  So he did not say he is going to rubber stamp anything that Wisconsin 
comes in with. That is why it is so important that HHS have this, to go 
over it and make sure that it is the proper thing.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from California 
[Ms. Woolsey].
  (Ms. WOOLSEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend her 
remarks.)
  Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, the goal of welfare reform is to move 
recipients into permanent jobs and make their families stronger. Will 
the Wisconsin plan do that? How can we know?
  The Republicans are rushing through these waiver requests without 
giving the administration or Members of Congress time for review. Even 
worse, they are not giving the citizens of Wisconsin time to comment on 
the plan.
  In the 1 week since the Governor of Wisconsin delivered the request 
for these waivers to the White House, the administration has received 
more than 300 letters commenting on the effects of the waivers, letters 
that will not be considered. I received a letter from the Wisconsin 
Conference of Churches. Their letter expressed strong opposition to any 
bill which bypasses the normal 30-day comment period.
  Could it be that the Governor of Wisconsin and some of my colleagues 
on the other side of the aisle do not feel the Wisconsin plan will hold 
up under normal scrutiny? Do they share the concern of the Children's 
Defense Fund, the Wisconsin Conference of Churches and others that a 
timely review of the Wisconsin welfare plan will reveal that this plan 
will weaken the safety net for poor children?
  I do not know the answer to this question. The truth is that no one 
does. There has not been enough time to review the waiver requests, to 
fully understand their effect on poor children in Wisconsin.
  Mr. KLECZKA. Mr. Speaker, will the gentlewoman yield?
  Ms. WOOLSEY. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.
  Mr. KLECZKA. Mr. Speaker, shortly the gentlewoman will be asked and 
434 other Members of Congress will be asked to vote for and to approve 
88 waivers for this welfare plan. Has she had an opportunity or has her 
office received a copy of these waivers?
  Ms. WOOLSEY. No; we have not.
  Mr. KLECZKA. Does the gentlewoman mean to tell me that she is going 
to be asked to vote on a major, major piece of legislation today and 
she has never read what she is voting on?
  Ms. WOOLSEY. That is the case. That is not fair to the children of 
Wisconsin. Let us vote against this bill. Let us take time to shed 
light on the Wisconsin plan. Let us be sure that the children of 
Wisconsin have a chance to grow into healthy, responsible adults. 
Therefore, I urge my colleagues to support the Obey substitute.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, would you inform the gentleman from New 
York [Mr. Solomon] and myself about the remaining time?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Inglis of South Carolina). The gentleman 
from Massachusetts [Mr. Moakley] has 14 minutes remaining and the 
gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon] has 13\1/2\ minutes remaining.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 11 minutes to the gentleman from 
Wisconsin [Mr. Kleczka] who presented a great case at the Rules 
Committee yesterday.
  Mr. KLECZKA. I thank the ranking member of the Rules Committee for 
yielding me the time.
  Mr. Speaker, what I would like to do is first of all talk about the 
rule, since we are on the rule, for a brief time, and then we will talk 
about some other things.
  We were not accused, but it was noted at the Rules Committee 
yesterday that the Democrats who were there asking for a substitute 
amendment were very animated and there was pounding and clapping, and 
one of the Republican senior Members made note of that. My response was 
that for the Democrats to get an opportunity to offer a substitute 
amendment comes so infrequently and is so rare that we thought if we 
did a lot of animation, we would have a rule that would provide for a 
substitute amendment. I want to thank the gentleman because it worked.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. KLECZKA. I yield to the gentleman from New York.
  Mr. SOLOMON. The gentleman knows that the minority, whether it be 
Republican in the past, Democrat now, they always get their substitute. 
We do everything we can to bend over backwards 90 percent of the time, 
and the gentleman knows that.
  Mr. KLECZKA. Let me reclaim my time and indicate to the membership, 
who know better than I do, that substitute amendments to legislation 
coming before the House are rare this

[[Page H5947]]

session under Republican control. The best we can do is a motion to 
recommit, and there are not 3 people sitting out there watching C-Span 
who know what the heck that is, but it is good cover.
  But as far as the rule goes, I do want to thank my good friend from 
New York, Mr. Solomon, for permitting a substitute amendment which we 
will offer in a short time before this body. But let us review and try 
to set straight what is at issue here. What are we doing?
  Well, the Governor of the State of Wisconsin has asked the President 
and the administration to approve 88 separate and distinct waivers so 
Wisconsin can implement a welfare change, a change which I should add 
that I support for the most part. But the issue today, Mr. Speaker, is 
not welfare reform, and it is not welfare reform because we are going 
to have that debate within a couple of weeks on this floor.
  There is a product being developed as I speak in the Committee on 
Ways and Means, where I serve, that will provide for a radical change 
in the welfare laws of this country. It is a redo of a product that has 
been vetoed, and as far as I am concerned, and as my Republican 
colleagues know, I supported the last welfare reform bill and I will 
probably be supporting this one.
  So the issue before us is not whether or not we should reform 
welfare. That is not the issue today. Let us not make it the issue 
today. The issue today is nothing other than process.
  The Governor a week ago has asked the administration to approve 88 
distinct waivers. Normal process would be that there is a 30-day 
comment period. For what reason? So the public, who is paying the tab, 
can come forward and have their opinions noted.
  If in fact we pass what the Republican majority has put before us 
today, what is going to happen is Congress, or the House of 
Representatives, will rubber stamp all 88 waivers. As I asked the 
gentlewoman from California a few minutes ago, has she read the 
waivers? She said no. The simple fact, Mr. Speaker, is there is not 
anyone in here except maybe four or five from Wisconsin who have read 
the waivers.
  Let me show what has been passed out for today's debate. Here is a 
copy of the rule, a short one-paragraph. That provides for the 
consideration of the rule. Then here is the actual resolution, which is 
2\1/2\ pages, which indicates that Congress knows all, we are going to 
rubberstamp this, we are going to deem this done, the rubber stamp 
this, we are going to deem this done, the public be damned. Then here 
is a resolution that accompanies the rule report, and that is it.
  So for the Members from California, the one Member from Alaska, the 
good Members who represent the State of Florida, they do not know what 
we are doing. Oh, a copy has just been handed out right now to the 
gentleman from Wisconsin, but it is not made available to the Members 
with the documentation that is available in the back room for all of us 
to decipher.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. KLECZKA. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Does the gentleman know of any waiver from Wisconsin 
that was sent to the administration on welfare that was ever denied?
  Mr. KLECZKA. No. In fact there have been, I believe, nine submitted 
for approval and all nine have been expedited. So the question before 
us is not whether or not these waivers are going to be granted or 
whether or not they are going to be expedited. The main issue before us 
today is to cut off any public comment like a letter I received from 
the Catholic bishops, who asked that they be heard on this issue. They 
will not be heard.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. KLECZKA. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. For the gentleman's edification, a listing of the 
waivers that were requested by Governor Thompson appeared in the 
Congressional Record of June 4, 1996, at page E992. So every Member of 
the House of Representatives, and for that matter the public at large, 
by 9 a.m. yesterday morning had the list of the waivers that were 
requested. I am sorry that many of the Members, including the 
gentlewoman from California, decided not to look at them before making 
her speech.
  Mr. KLECZKA. Reclaiming my time, let me indicate that usually the 
calendars are in the back of the hall here. I did not see any there. 
But to contend that the general public have all received a copy of the 
Congressional Record of yesterday is totally ludicrous.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield further?
  Mr. KLECZKA. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. In referring to the gentleman from Wisconsin who just 
took a seat, I think if he looks, and unless I am mistaken, the matter 
that appeared in the Congressional Record of June 4, was just listing 
the title of the waivers. There was no explanation of what they were. 
So that really informs people a lot, so they can just look at the title 
of 88 waivers but does not say one thing about what those waivers are.
  Mr. NEUMANN. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. KLECZKA. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.
  Mr. NEUMANN. Mr. Speaker, we seem to be radically off track in this 
debate. Those waivers were developed and debated. The program was 
developed in Wisconsin for 18 months and was debated for 18 months in 
the State of Wisconsin.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. I am just talking about statements made here that are 
not completely true. To say that the waivers are listed in the 
Congressional Record and all you find when you look are titles of 
waivers and no explanation, I just think that is not debating this 
matter the way it should be debated.
  Mr. KLECZKA. Mr. Speaker, if I might continue, when we get into 
general debate on the bill, I will read through a whole bunch of these 
waivers and then I will see if any Member of the House can explain it 
to me, or since a contention has been made that the general public is 
totally knowledgeable on this, let me maybe call some of my 
constituents, or better yet maybe I will call some from Racine and see 
if they can inform me and the other Members what some of these one-
liners mean. But nevertheless, the whole issue today is not welfare 
reform. It is one of process, whether or not we are going to have the 
public come forward and make their views known on 88 specific waivers. 
The contention has been made, ``Well, the legislature passed the 
bill.'' They sure did. But also there were 27 vetoes that were made to 
the bill by the Governor. It took him 5 or 6 weeks after the 
legislature passed the legislation to sign it, if we are talking about 
rush, but as far as the legislature, they do not know to this day what 
any of the 88 waivers are.
  I served in the legislature. I know a little bit about State 
legislative enactments. My colleague, Tom Barrett, served in the 
legislature, as well as Jim Sensenbrenner.
  Mr. Speaker, in the legislation which is now chapter, law, something 
or other, State of Wisconsin, there was no listing of the waiver. The 
legislators who voted for this do not know what waivers are being 
requested. So let us clean up the nonsense that we are trying to redo 
the legislation. That is totally not the case.
  Let me talk about a couple of other things. The President does 
support the initiative by the State of the Wisconsin. But never in his 
radio comments did he say, ``And I will sign without reading all 88 
waivers.'' It was not said. I think he should have an opportunity to 
digest them, also.
  Let me talk about the rush here. The rush is that this program does 
not go into effect in the State of Wisconsin until October 1, 1997, a 
year and a half from now. And to show how ludicrous the rush job is 
that we are being told to engage in, that was one of the vetoes. The 
legislature said to the Governor, ``We want this on line and running 
September 1, 1977.'' The Governor vetoed that September 1 date, making 
it September 30, so he delayed it by his own pen some 30 days.

                              {time}  1115

  We have to do this within 3 days, without reading it, with no Member 
knowing what is in the waivers.
  Why is this before the Federal Government? That was asked and we 
talked about that at the Committee on

[[Page H5948]]

Rules. Welfare in this program, Mr. Speaker, is a national program. If 
the State of Wisconsin was putting 100 percent of their dollars, raised 
from the taxpayers, into the program, they should have complete say, 
and no one would disagree with that on this floor. But the taxpayers of 
this country pay 60 percent of this program, and so I think that the 
taxpayers from Georgia and Arizona and New Mexico have a say in this, 
and that is why we have this public process, so if, in fact, they are 
so moved they will have a say in it.
  This is not a rewriting of the State legislative enactment. That is 
the law in Wisconsin. This is the next step, because 60 percent of it 
is paid for by the national taxpayers. And if we are going to advantage 
the State of Wisconsin or give them more money, I think the other 
States should have a say in it, and that is why these waivers do come 
here for approval.
  Again, is someone dragging their feet? Clearly not. The Governor 
indicates he wants this approved August 1 of this year. The substitute 
amendment which I will be producing with my colleagues, the gentlemen 
from Wisconsin, Mr. Obey and Mr. Barrett, will do exactly that. The 
substitute amendment is, instead of rubber stamping it sight unseen, 
like the Republicans want to do, the substitute is very common-
sensical. What it says is we sill print the waivers in the Federal 
Register, and not just one line, the whole thing; and then we will give 
the public, the people of the country who pay the tab, 30 days to be 
heard.
  I ask my Republican colleagues, why do they fear the public coming 
out and saying something on this? They are paying for it. They have a 
right. And then the resolution that expedites consideration and 
provides July 31, it will be done.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume 
so that, for the record, I can inform my friend, the gentleman from 
Wisconsin [Mr. Kleczka], that we have had 120 bills brought to the 
floor under rules in this Congress; 85 percent of them were given 
substitutes for the minority. And when we subtract the continued 
resolutions that do not have substitutes, it runs over 90 percent. That 
is very fair, and I appreciate the gentleman for commending us for it.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. 
Neumann].
  Mr. NEUMANN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time. I want to bring the debate back to where it belongs. This debate 
is about whether we want Washington interference in the Wisconsin plan. 
The Wisconsin plan was debated for 18 months, it was passed by a two-
thirds majority, and the question is do we really want the Washington 
bureaucrats, 900 miles from the State of Wisconsin, to now 
Washingtonize the Wisconsin plan? That is what this debate is about.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from 
Menomonee Falls, WI [Mr. Sensenbrenner], a gentleman that came here 
with me back in 1978. He is one of the most respected Members of this 
body.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Glens 
Falls, NY, for yielding me this time, and I rise in support of the rule 
and also the legislation.
  The previous speaker, the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Kleczka], I 
think has put a lot of red herrings into this debate. There are some 
very fundamental and core issues here. First is where should the real 
decisions be made on what type of welfare reform we have in the State 
of Wisconsin. Should they be made by Washington bureaucrats in dealing 
with these waivers or should they be made by the people of the State of 
Wisconsin and their elected legislators dealing with this issue in 
Wisconsin?
  This issue has probably gotten more public debate in the State of 
Wisconsin than any other issue in the history of the State. From the 
time the legislation was first formulated, the State legislature had 30 
public hearings or town hall meetings in Wisconsin on the issue of W-2. 
There were 120 hours of public debate in sites all throughout the State 
on the legislation and over 2,000 residents of Wisconsin participated 
in these hearings.
  Now, what the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Klecza] says is let us 
forget all about that, that does not count at all. Let us end up having 
some public hearings out here in Washington and then let us have the 
Secretary of Health and Human Services or the bureaucrats under her 
control rewrite these waivers and pick and choose which waivers we want 
to grant and in what form. And the fact is that very few of the waivers 
that have been submitted by Wisconsin or other States have been 
approved in the form in which the Governors have submitted them.
  It is an extensive process of negotiation between the State and the 
Department of Health and Human Services, and we do not want that to 
happen here.
  I do not see why we ought to ask the 2,000 people who participated in 
the public debate on W-2 to have to figure out a way to make their 
voice heard in Washington, DC, 900 miles away, when they were able to 
give their input in places like Madison and Milwaukee, Oshkosh, 
Appleton, Beloit, Wausau, and LaCrosse.
  The second red herring that the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Klecza] 
decided to throw into this debate is about the cost of the program. We 
all know that the Federal Government spends about 60 percent of AFDC 
costs. Granting these waivers is not going to cost the Federal 
taxpayers one additional dime, because there is a provision in this 
bill, for anybody that decides to read it, that says very plainly that 
the total grant of the State of Wisconsin shall not exceed the amount 
of the grant that Wisconsin would have gotten had these waivers not 
been approved at all.

  Now, the President has come on board in saying that he is in favor of 
W-2. In his radio address, which was after Governor Thompson issued his 
line vetoes and signed the bill, he said in conclusion, ``In all, 
Wisconsin has the makings of a solid, bold welfare reform bill. We 
should get it done.''
  Today, we are getting it done here, and I would hope that this issue 
would not be obfuscated and not be clouded. Wisconsin is leading the 
way in welfare reform, Washington should not stand in the way, and that 
is why this bill should be enacted.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from Wisconsin, Mr. Toby Roth. I mentioned that the other gentleman 
from Wisconsin [Mr. Sensenbrenner], had come to this Congress with me 
back in 1978. This is another Member from Wisconsin who came here at 
the same time, and he has been really one of the most dynamic Members 
of this body. He is going to be retiring this year at a very young age, 
of his own volition, and we just commend him for it. He is a great man.
  Mr. ROTH. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend for yielding me this time, 
and may I say this, the gentleman from New York has done a super job as 
chairman of the Committee on Rules and we appreciate his dedication and 
service. In fact, he was working on this legislation way into the night 
last night and we want him to know we appreciate it.
  I think it is important to focus in on the issues rather than to draw 
off to one tangent or another. Basically, the reason we are here, as 
has been said so many times, is that the President has said in his 
radio address to the American people that he is in favor of the 
Wisconsin plan. And I think when the President says that in a 
nationwide address, I think we should be able to take the President of 
the United States at his word, that he is not just making these 
Saturday pronouncements as a political campaign speech, that he is 
talking to the American people and he is talking to them about vital 
issues that face our country.
  Now, when we called the White House this morning, we asked what was 
their position. They have no position. Now, we have to have some 
intellectual integrity in this place. And if the President of the 
United States is not going to supply the intellectual integrity, then 
we, as the board of directors of this country, have to supply that 
integrity.

  Our answer to the White House basically is this: Lead, follow, or get 
out of the way. We have a job to do and we are going to do that job.
  Everyone here on this side of the aisle and on that side of the aisle 
always says we have to give more power

[[Page H5949]]

back to the States. We are living in a transition. We are living in 
change. We have to have the States have more responsibility. My 
friends, that is exactly what we are doing here, is we are giving the 
people of the State of Wisconsin that power, and rightly so, not only 
because of the issue but historically.
  Seventy-five years ago the great debate on the floor of this House 
was what is Wisconsin doing? Because Wisconsin was and is one of the 
great laboratories for historical change in legislation in this body 
and in this country.
  We moved from the agricultural society into the industrial society. 
Today, we are moving from the industrial society to the information 
age. And what Bob LaFollette and other progressives had said at that 
time, Tommy Thompson and the Republicans are doing today. So we are 
again in our historic mode of doing what is necessary, not only for the 
State of Wisconsin but for this country.
  What we are doing basically is saying that the welfare office is 
going to become an employment office. By the year 2000 we will not have 
welfare offices in the State of Wisconsin. We want to restore some 
dignity back to the people again. And all of our futurists are saying 
this: That the individual is more empowered today than he or she has 
ever been. And we are funneling that information, that power back into 
the individual again.
  The people of this country have a right to have some dignity. Welfare 
has destroyed the family, has destroyed the dignity of the individual, 
and what we are saying is we want to restore that esteem again.
  The big issue here, and the reason it is being fought so much, is not 
because of Wisconsin or is not because of all the reasons that have 
been mentioned; the big issue here is are we seeing the death knell of 
the liberal welfare state. Because when we destroy welfare as we know 
it in America today, we are changing the Government of America.
  So this is a very basic issue. It goes beyond what is said of the 
rules or process. What we are saying here today is we are changing the 
way we are governing. We are changing the way the people of America are 
living. That is why this is such a deep issue.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the very fine 
gentleman from Williamsville, NY [Mr. Paxon], one of my colleagues.
  Mr. PAXON. Mr. Speaker, it was just 3 weeks ago that President 
Clinton said he supported giving States the opportunity to reform their 
poverty programs, and he said that if the States sent in waivers that 
he would sign them. Unfortunately, when we take a look at the record, 
it seems that politics is driving the administration ration than the 
needs of poor people in our States.
  Take a look at the Medicaid waiver requests made by our Nation's 
Governors. This chart reveals politics and party determine whether or 
not these reforms will be approved. Eight of the 11 Medicaid waivers 
approved by the administration went to States with Democrat Governors. 
Seven Republican Governors are still waiting for their waivers to be 
approved.
  In fact, two of the Republican Governors have been waiting 20 months, 
Mr. Speaker. My own State of New York has been waiting 14 months for 
the administration to act. No Democrat Governor ever had to wait longer 
than 11 months to get their waivers approved.
  Now, the President says he is for reform, but, in fact, he is 
blocking it and making it harder for our States to serve low-income 
families. I urge the President to stop playing politics and approve 
these reforms.
  We should pass this rule and pass this bill, and send a message, a 
loud, and clear message, to the White House.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from 
Wisconsin [Mr. Barrett].
  Mr. BARRETT of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I just have to point out that 
it is amazing to me that we have speaker after speaker who talk about 
these waiver requests that have been denied. Why are we not dealing 
with them now? Why are we dealing with the waiver requests from a State 
that has had every single waiver granted? It does not make any sense.
  The reason is they want to embarrass the President. They want to make 
a bipartisan issue a partisan issue. That is the only explanation. 
Otherwise, they would be coming in with a waiver request from the State 
of Michigan or from the State of New York. But here we have a 
Republican Governor in the State of Wisconsin, who has had every waiver 
that he has asked for granted.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from Wisconsin [Mr. Klug], and I can think of no one better to rebut 
that last statement than this gentleman.
  Mr. KLUG. Mr. Speaker, unfortunately in this case, my colleague from 
Wisconsin, Mr. Barrett, is wrong. Actually, in one fairly significant 
fight with the Clinton administration, Wisconsin originally asked, 
under the work not welfare waiver request, that every county in the 
State be covered. By the time Washington got done with it, only two 
counties in the entire State were covered.

                              {time}  1130

  That is typical, because every time we find ourselves in a waiver 
application situation, Washington wants to rewrite the rules.
  My sense is, what this debate comes down to is, whose judgment do you 
trust, the people of Wisconsin, two-thirds of the State assembly, 
three-quarters of the State senate voted for this measure. As you heard 
from my colleague, the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Sensenbrenner], 
countless hours of hearings all across the State.
  Here is the bottom line, again, the track record of the Clinton 
administration on waivers, of the three waivers, Illinois, 
Massachusetts, Wyoming denied; three States, New Mexico, Ohio, South 
Carolina, all pulled back their waiver applications because the Clinton 
administration wanted to rewrite it.
  The following States currently have waivers they are waiting for: 
California, of course, the interesting question, when the gentlewoman 
from California [Ms. Woolsey] was up here criticizing the Wisconsin 
plan, has she done anything to help California's waiver application 
which is now pending; Florida; Georgia, Democratic Governor; Hawaii, 
Democratic Governor; Illinois; Indiana, Democratic Governor; Iowa; 
Kansas; Maine; Maryland, Democratic governor; Michigan; Minnesota; New 
Hampshire, waiting since 1993; Oklahoma; Pennsylvania; South Carolina; 
Tennessee; and Utah.
  The fact of the matter is, the administration says, we will grant you 
these waivers, and we wait 6 months and 1 year and 1\1/2\ years and 2 
years and 2\1/2\ and 3 years.
  Mr. MOAKLEY, Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Wisconsin [Mr. Kleczka].
  Mr. KLECZKA. Mr. Speaker, in response to the gentleman from Madison, 
WI, Scott Klug. Scott, you seem to indicate that in a work not welfare 
program that the State was asking to have all 72 counties in the State 
covered. My recollection is the legislature only provided for 2 
counties, 2 small counties. When the legislature was debating the 
issue, many wanted Milwaukee County, the largest county in the State, 
included in this trial test. The Republican legislature said no. So 
going for waivers was only the 2 counties that were finally tested. 
There never was a request from the State legislature for the whole 
State.

                          ____________________