[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.
____________________