[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 82 (Thursday, June 6, 1996)]
[House]
[Pages H5954-H5976]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                  WISCONSIN WORKS WAIVER APPROVAL ACT

  Mr. ARCHER. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 446, I call up 
the bill (H.R. 3562) to authorize the State of Wisconsin to implement 
the demonstration project known as Wisconsin Works, and ask for its 
immediate consideration in the House.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 446, the 
amendment printed in section 2 of the resolution is adopted.
  The text of H.R. 3562, as amended by the amendment printed in section 
2 of House Resolution 446, is as follows:

                               H.R. 3562

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. AUTHORITY TO IMPLEMENT WISCONSIN WORKS 
                   DEMONSTRATION PROJECT.

       (a) In General.--Upon presentation by the State of 
     Wisconsin of the document entitled ``Wisconsin Works'' (as 
     signed into State law by the Governor of Wisconsin on April 
     26, 1996) to the appropriate Federal official with respect to 
     any Federal entitlement program specified in such document--
       (1) such official is deemed to have waived compliance with 
     the requirements of Federal law with respect to such program 
     to the extent and for the period necessary to enable the 
     State of Wisconsin to carry out the demonstration project 
     described in the document; and
       (2) the costs of carrying out the demonstration project 
     which would not otherwise be included as expenditures under 
     such program shall be regarded as expenditures under such 
     program.
       (b) Limitation of Costs.--Subsection (a)(2) shall not apply 
     to the extent that--
       (1) the sum of such costs and the expenditures of the State 
     of Wisconsin under all programs to which subsection (a) 
     applies during any testing period exceeds.
       (2) the total amount that would be expended under such 
     programs during such testing period in the absence of the 
     demonstration project.
       (c) Testing Period.--For purposes of subsection (b), the 
     testing periods are--
       (1) the 5-year period that begins with the date of the 
     commencement of the demonstration project, and

[[Page H5955]]

       (2) the period of the demonstration project.
       (d) Recapture of Excess.--If at the close of any testing 
     period, the Secretary of Health and Human Services determines 
     that the amount described in subsection (b)(1) exceeds the 
     amount described in subsection (b)(2) for such period, such 
     Secretary shall withhold an amount equal to such excess from 
     amounts otherwise payable to the State of Wisconsin under 
     section 403 of the Social Security Act (relating to the 
     program of aid to families with dependent children) for the 
     first fiscal year beginning after the close of such period. 
     The preceding sentence shall not apply to the extent such 
     Secretary is otherwise paid such excess by the State of 
     Wisconsin.

     SEC. 2. NO EFFECT ON CERTAIN OTHER WAIVERS GRANTED TO THE 
                   STATE OF WISCONSIN.

       This Act shall not be construed to affect the terms or 
     conditions of any waiver granted before the date of the 
     enactment of this Act to the State of Wisconsin under section 
     1115 of the Social Security Act, including earned waiver 
     savings and conditions. The current waivers are considered a 
     precondition and can be subsumed as part of the Wisconsin 
     Works demonstration.

     SEC. 3. AUTHORITY TO PARTICIPATE UNDER SUBSEQUENT 
                   LEGISLATION.

       If, after the date of the enactment of this Act, any 
     Federal law is enacted which modifies the terms of, or the 
     amounts of expenditures permitted under, any program to which 
     section 1 applies, the State of Wisconsin may elect to 
     participate in such program as so modified.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Texas [Mr. Archer] and 
the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Kleczka] will each be recognized for 
30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Archer].


                             GENERAL LEAVE

  Mr. ARCHER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may 
have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks 
and to include extraneous material on H.R. 3562, the bill presently 
under consideration.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Texas?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. ARCHER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, it has been 8 days since the President formally received 
the request for Wisconsin waivers from Governor Tommy Thompson. He 
still has not approved it. As Members will recall, the President 
endorsed the Governor's request to implement his innovative welfare 
initiative by waiving the cumbersome and counterproductive Federal 
rules and regulations that govern welfare.
  The American people noted the great speed with which the President 
went on national radio to endorse the Wisconsin waivers, once he had 
learned that Senator Bob Dole would visit Wisconsin to announce his own 
welfare proposal. But as of today, 8 days after the President's ringing 
endorsement, the Clinton administration has yet to sign the Wisconsin 
waivers.
  Under the Social Security Act, the Clinton administration has the 
immediate authority to sign the Wisconsin waivers. Given his radio 
address, there should be no reason for the Clinton administration to 
negotiate, study, or otherwise delay the waivers Wisconsin seeks.
  To help the President refocus his energy on the Wisconsin waivers, 
today we initiate this legislative process of sending the President the 
Wisconsin waivers in legislative form. The President endorsed the 
Wisconsin proposal, and now we are giving him the opportunity to 
personally approve it by signing this bill. We eagerly await his 
signature.
  Mr. Speaker, pursuant to the rule, I designate the gentleman from 
Wisconsin [Mr. Klug] to hereafter control the time for debate.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. KLECZKA. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from 
Wisconsin [Mr. Obey], the dean of the Wisconsin delegation.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, the biggest social failure in this country is 
welfare. I think everybody understands that. It is a mess. It destroys 
work incentives. It is hated by many of the people on it and it is 
hated by the taxpayers. I think the No. 1 priority of the country is to 
see welfare reformed, and I do not believe that the country is going to 
have much confidence in its Government until the Government 
demonstrates that it can distinguish between the truly needy and those 
who take no personal responsibility. The American people deserve to 
have the welfare issue dealt with in a way that puts their needs first.
  Instead, in my view, the issue is being used as a political football 
by politicians to meet the needs of politicians, in order to help them 
gain an edge on each other. This bill is part of that circus. It is not 
real, it will not become law, it is simply part of a political game to 
tweak the President of the United States. The problem is that long 
after President Clinton and would-be President Dole are gone, my 
constituents will have to live with the consequences.
  We have before us today one-half of Governor Thompson's welfare 
reform package. Under the Wisconsin welfare reform package, low-income 
people are going to be taken off welfare in many instances, but the 
second half of the welfare package in Wisconsin is to put the Milwaukee 
Brewers and their owner on welfare, making them biggest welfare queen 
in Wisconsin. I find that interesting.
  What we have before us is the fact that the Wisconsin legislature 
passed a reform bill. The Governor may have had 27 separate changes in 
it through item vetoes. The normal next step is for the Department of 
Health and Social Services to allow a 30-day comment period from the 
public, and then make a decision on the welfare requests. This bill 
cuts the public out. It simply says that 435 people in the Congress of 
the United States, at least in the House, who have never read the 
waiver proposition, who know virtually nothing about it, are going to 
be voting on it, instead of allowing the department to proceed to do 
what it has done on every other occasion, which is to grant waiver 
requests which Wisconsin has made.
  The gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Kleczka] and the rest of the 
Democrats in the Wisconsin delegation are offering a simple substitute. 
Since, after all, this welfare reform proposal does not go into effect 
until September 1997, it simply urges the department to approve 
Wisconsin's request after two conditions are met: Number one, after we 
have a 30-day comment period, so that the public can be cut in on the 
deal, and they can finally have a say-so so our constituents can 
participate, not just the politicians at the State and the Federal 
level; and second, after the department has determined that the 
alternative meets each of the seven tests laid down for it by the 
Governor himself in his document, on page 4.

  Unlike the bill, we do not cut out the public, and we do not have the 
Congress interfering in something it knows nothing about. I want to 
make very clear, Mr. Speaker, that when the President spoke 2 weeks ago 
and endorsed the general thrust of the Wisconsin plan, he said that 
that plan had the makings of a good proposal, and that he wanted to 
work with the State of Wisconsin to see it accomplished.
  That is exactly what ought to happen. We ought to stop inventing 
differences where there are none. We ought to stop the politics. We 
ought to get on with the process and get those waivers approved so 
Wisconsin can proceed with the experiment that the legislature passed, 
which the Governor changed with his vetoes and which they are now 
asking the Federal Government to support. That is the nonpolitical, 
rational way to go about things, and I urge Members to support the 
Kleczka amendment.
  Mr. KLUG. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Let me make a point, in response to my colleague and friend, the 
gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey]. He said that by passing this 
waiver, we will cut the public out. I think anything but the contrary. 
The public, which should be involved in this decision, has already been 
involved in the decision. It is the residents of the State of Wisconsin 
who had 30 hearings and town meetings, 120 hours of debate in the 
Wisconsin State legislature, and 2,000 residents participated in those 
venues.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. KLUG. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I would just like to point out that 
in the hometown of the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey], hometown of 
Wausau, there was a 7-hour public

[[Page H5956]]

hearing on October 17, 1995, where 82 individuals either appeared or 
registered before the committee at the hearing.
  What the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey] apparently wants to do 
is to ignore the input that those 82 individuals gave in his hometown 
to elected legislators, and have bureaucrats in the Department of 
Health and Human Services end up deciding what waivers to approve, what 
waivers to modify, and what waivers to reject, and thus write the final 
welfare reform plan. I have much greater faith in the folks who 
appeared at the hearing in Wausaw than the folks across the street in 
the HHS building.
  Mr. KLUG. Reclaming my time, Mr. Speaker, and we will have plenty of 
time to enter in a dialogue, but I want to follow up on another point 
to say that two-thirds of the Wisconsin State Assembly voted for and 
three-quarters of the Wisconsin State Senate, and in fact, the 
Democratic candidate for Governor who ran against Tommy Thompson last 
time, supported the plan and voted for the plan. It is a plan that 
Republicans and Democrats in Wisconsin support.
  The bottom line in all of this, Mr. Speaker, is whose values do we 
trust: Do we trust the values of the folks back in Wisconsin, sitting 
down at the lunch counter right now, or do we trust the folks stuffing 
the file cabinets right here somewhere in Washington? It is Main Street 
values versus Washington values.

                              {time}  1215

  Do you trust the judgment of the Wisconsin bipartisan legislature or 
do you trust the judgment of the technocrats and the bureaucrats here 
in the Nation's Capital?
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes and 30 seconds to my colleague, the 
gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Neumann], to detail the waiver 
application itself.
  Mr. NEUMANN. Mr. Speaker, I would just like to point out that the 
bill is very, very straightforward. It very simply says that we grant 
Wisconsin the ability to go ahead with the welfare reform plan that has 
been passed through the State legislature.
  I have been looking for a way to best describe the Wisconsin Works 
Program. I would like to read what I found to be one of the better 
descriptions of the program. I quote this now. It says: Under the 
Wisconsin plan, people on welfare who can work must work immediately. 
The State will see to it that the work is there, in the private-sector 
jobs that can be subsidized if necessary, or community-service jobs if 
there are no private jobs available.
  The State says it will also see to it that families have health care 
and child care so that parents can go to work without worrying about 
what will happen to their children, but they must go to work or they 
will not get paid. If they do work, of course, they will have the 
dignity of earning a paycheck, not a welfare check.
  Mr. Speaker, the plan would send a clear message to teen parents as 
well. If you are a minor with a baby, you will receive benefits only if 
you stay in school, live at home and turn your life around. Those words 
adequately and directly describe the Wisconsin plan.
  I have been hearing today that somehow President Clinton did not know 
what was in this plan. Those words describing the Wisconsin plan, 
Governor Tommy Thompson's plan, those words are President Clinton's 
words during his radio address. I would point out that they very 
directly describe the Wisconsin plan. He knew exactly what was in the 
plan when he said, and I quote again, we should get it done, referring 
to granting the Wisconsin waivers.
  I have heard this is about partisan politics today. I have a very 
difficult time understanding how we can call it partisan politics when 
a Republican Congress is saying to a Democrat President, we are 
honoring your wishes, here it is, let us do what you said, let us get 
it done. That is what this is all about.
  Mr. Speaker, I might add on the political front, I find myself in a 
very unique position of being out in Washington, DC, doing the best job 
I can to see to it that legislation voted for by a potential opponent 
of mine in the next election, Judy Robeson from Beloit, she voted for 
this bill, a Democrat on the other side from my own district and 
potentially a candidate against me in the next race. I am here working 
to see to it that her good work in fact gets enacted into law.
  I would like to also address the comment that there have been no 
public hearings on this. There has been 18 months of hearings in the 
State of Wisconsin on this. After 18 months the people in the State of 
Wisconsin did what the American people want all of us to do. They cut 
through the Republican-Democrat gridlock that seems to bring this 
place, Washington DC, to a grinding halt. They cut through that. They 
developed a welfare reform package requiring able-bodied welfare 
recipients to go back into the work force while taking care of health 
care and child care, but they did this with both the votes of the 
Democrats and the Republicans.
  The majority of the Democrats in the State of Wisconsin voted for 
this plan. All of the Republicans voted for it. All in all, the vote 
was 100 to 31 in favor of it.
  Mr. Speaker, this plan is budget neutral. It does not cost the 
taxpayers from Washington, DC, at least an additional nickel. I would 
also like to add to my colleagues on this side of the aisle that, when 
they voted for H.R. 4 approximately a year ago, if that bill had been 
signed into law rather than vetoed by the President of the United 
States, we would not be standing here having this debate today. 
Wisconsin works for Gov. Tommy Thompson and the Republicans and 
Democrats in the State legislature would already be enacted into law 
and would be rapidly moving forward.

  There is one more point that I find extremely ironic in this debate. 
The whole context of this debate is that we somehow need 30 days out 
here for the Washington bureaucrats to rewrite the Wisconsin plan. I 
would like you to think about what exactly that means.
  In Wisconsin, we have a Governor and a State legislature that has 
balanced the budget year after year after year. They have just enacted 
a huge tax cut. That is, they have reduced the tax burden on the people 
in the State of Wisconsin. They have balanced the budget. They have cut 
the taxes. Business is booming in the State of Wisconsin providing job 
opportunities for people to leave the welfare rolls and once again have 
a shot at the American dream. Who are we asking for a 30-day review of 
this process? The Washington bureaucrats, 900 miles from the State of 
Wisconsin.
  Who are we asking to do this review? Who do they want, these 
Washington bureaucrats to review and Washingtonize this Wisconsin plan? 
Well, they are the very same people that have plunged our Nation $5 
trillion in debt. They have not balanced a budget in a generation, for 
goodness sakes. In 1993 they not only did not reduce taxes on the 
American people, they passed the biggest tax increase in the history of 
this Nation.
  How is it that we would think that we should take this Wisconsin plan 
and bring it out here to Washington, DC, and have it reviewed by these 
people who have done exactly the opposite of what we should be doing in 
this Nation, instead of plunging us into debt and not balancing the 
budget, increasing the welfare rolls. That is not what we ought to be 
doing. And I will conclude my remarks. Maybe we should ask the people 
of Wisconsin to review Washington work.
  Mr. KLECZKA. Let me try to bring the debate back to the issue here. I 
yield myself 30 seconds.
  The issue before us is not to rehash or redo the State legislative 
enactment; that is the law of the land in the State of Wisconsin. What 
we are trying to do here, what we are talking about is process. There 
is a process for when States ask for waivers. Like it or not, that is 
the process that has been used.
  So, what the Republican proposal today does is cut out the public's 
input into this process. Do not give me this baloney about the 
bureaucrats and everything else. The 30 days is so the public, and I 
will give you some of the names who have asked for this opportunity 
from Wisconsin and from out of Wisconsin, but they just want an 
opportunity to be heard. Why are we cutting that out? What do we have 
to fear?
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. 
Obey].
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, let me simply say that the gentleman referred 
to the hearing that was held in my hometown. I would simply observe 
that that

[[Page H5957]]

hearing was held before the fact. The citizens of Wisconsin have had no 
opportunity to comment on their view of the Governor's 97 item vetoes 
and the changes that that made in the process.
  My understanding is he made 97 changes on 27 separate items. I would 
bet that no member of the Wisconsin delegation can define those.
  So all we are saying is we ought to leave the process to the same 
people who provided Wisconsin's nine previous waivers. At least they 
know something about what is in the package. Certainly no one on this 
floor does.
  Mr. KLECZKA. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman of 
California [Mr. Stark], formerly from the State of Wisconsin.
  Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished gentleman from the 
south side of Milwaukee.
  I grew up on the west side of Milwaukee. We used to beat Janesville 
in basketball at Wauwatosa High School.
  Mr. NEUMANN. I personally take offense at that. The basketball teams 
in Janesville are dynamically great.
  Mr. STARK. I am sure big guys like you would have whipped short guys 
like me.
  Perhaps the gentleman from Janesville would indulge me for a few 
minutes, because I understand that he understands what they have done 
in Wisconsin; but I cannot quite understand what it is here that he is 
asking us to do today.
  For instance, in his waivers he is asking to waive fair hearing 
rights. Can he explain to me what fair hearing rights he wants to 
waive? What fair hearing rights does the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. 
Neumann] want to waive here?
  Mr. NEUMANN. What we are doing in this bill is we are simply 
expressing our confidence in the State of Wisconsin legislature.
  Mr. STARK. The gentleman lists waivers that he is asking for. One of 
the waivers is fair hearing rights.

  Mr. NEUMANN. No, no, no. What this bill does, very simply, is this 
bill very simply says we have confidence in the people of the State of 
Wisconsin.
  Mr. STARK. I am sorry, I trust the gentleman, but I would like to 
know. This is an area in which I have legislated for some time. What 
fair hearing rights is he waiving, for example? He is waiving, in item 
17 in his bill, in the record, the gentleman is saying he is waiving 
lump sums. I think he meant some lumps, but.
  Mr. NEUMANN. We can gladly spend the rest of the debate time on this. 
If the gentlemen would like me to read a description of that, it is 
item No. 5 in the description. It says: Applicants for and participants 
in W-2 employment positions--trial job, CSJ or W-2 T--may appeal a W-2 
agency's decision related to eligibility or benefits. The appeal 
process provided for is similar to the conciliation process under the 
JOBS Program.
  So we can go through these.
  Mr. STARK. Why is that not in the bill? What is the gentleman reading 
from?
  Mr. NEUMANN. I am reading from the thing that has been referred to in 
the Register. But the point here is this.
  Mr. STARK. Excuse me. That is not in the bill; is it?
  Mr. NEUMANN. The thing is I do not happen to think that we need a 
Washington review of what has already been done.
  Mr. STARK. We do not need a review, but we need a bill that we can 
read. We are spending taxpayers' money to help Wisconsin.
  Mr. NEUMANN. That is money from the taxpayers in the State of 
Wisconsin, and they have already decided how they would like to spend 
that tax money. I for one believe that the people in the State of 
Wisconsin ought to have the right to decide how that tax money has been 
spent. I would like to point out about the cost.
  Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, if I could reclaim my time for a moment, the 
gentleman is asking me to vote for some 88 waivers here which he 
described to me. I do not have any time to review this. The gentleman 
has had the experience of all of these hearings or had the experience 
of reviewing this. If I could just finish.
  Mr. KLUG. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I 
would like to ask a question of the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. 
Sensenbrenner].
  Our colleague from Wisconsin, Mr. Obey made the point saying that, 
since the Governor's veto, nobody has had the opportunity to review 
this. But I would ask the gentleman, is it his experience when he 
served in the Wisconsin State Legislature that obviously the Wisconsin 
State Legislature, which passed this plan two-thirds in the assembly, 
three-quarters in the State Senate, could have overridden the 
Governor's vetoes and changed it; could they not?
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will yield, that is 
correct, and there is a veto session of the Wisconsin Legislature 
scheduled for July 9, 10, and 11. The State legislature can decide to 
override any one of the vetoes that the Governor has chosen to make.
  Mr. KLUG. I thank the gentleman for making that point.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to my colleague, the gentleman from 
Wisconsin [Mr. Sensenbrenner].
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, the other gentleman from Wisconsin 
has claimed that nobody has had a chance to review the bill after the 
Governor has made his line-item veto. The President of the United 
States has had a chance to review it, because the statements that he 
made in support of Wisconsin's W-2 plan were after the Governor vetoed 
parts of the W-2 plan and signed it into law. And he said, all in all, 
Wisconsin has the makings of the solid, bold, welfare reform plan. We 
should get it done.
  Now, what we are hearing from the other side of the aisle is that we 
should cloud the issue more. We should confuse the issue more. And we 
should end up giving the bureaucrats in the Federal Department of 
Health and Human Services the opportunity to modify the waiver request, 
as they usually do when waivers are requested, and thus end up by 
bureaucratic fiat changing the welfare reform plan that the elected 
legislators of Wisconsin and the Governor of this State have decided is 
in the State's interest.
  That philosophy is wrong. The reason this bill is before us today is 
so that Congress can allow Wisconsin to get on with the job of 
reforming its welfare system.
  Now, let me say that what we are doing here is really not 
unprecedented. There have been three instances in the last 10 years 
where Congress has legislatively approved welfare reform waivers 
requested by the Governors of various States. In the Omnibus budget 
Reconciliation Act of 1987, two of them were approved, one from the 
State of Washington on a demonstration project permitting the operation 
of a family independence program as an alternative to AFDC, and the 
other from the State of New York as another demonstration project as an 
alternative to AFDC.
  In the Omnibus Reconciliation Act of 1989, Minnesota was permitted to 
conduct a demonstration project of its family investment plan. Now, to 
my knowledge, there were no hearings conducted by the folks on the 
other side when those three requests for waivers came before Congress 
for approval. We should not do it here.
  Mr. KLECZKA. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Wisconsin [Mr. Obey].
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I want to make one thing clear again. This 
Wisconsin proposal does not go into effect until late 1997. There is 
absolutely no reason for 435 people who do not know their ear from 
second base about what is in this package to actually vote on it rather 
than having the people who have approved the previous nine requests 
Wisconsin has had for waivers making their decision on it.
  I am tired of hearing what the President said misdescribed. The 
President had not seen the submission document that the Governor was 
going to present to him. The President in his radio statement simply 
said, ``I am encouraged by what I have seen so far''. He said, 
Wisconsin ``has the makings'' of a solid, bold, welfare reform plan.
  ``I pledge my administration will work with Wisconsin to make an 
effective transition to a new vision of welfare.''

                              {time}  1230

  Why do we not take him up on it? Instead of having a cheap political 
grandstand for 2 hours on this floor, we ought to be taking the 
President up on that on a bipartisan basis. Quit inventing differences 
where there are none.

[[Page H5958]]

  Mr. KLECZKA. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman 
from Florida [Mrs. Thurman].
  Mrs. THURMAN. Mr. Speaker, I am glad we are having this discussion 
today because I think that we have all agreed that we do want welfare 
reform, and there is a bigger picture here because we will take up and 
have taken up H.R. 4. But today we are talking about and the leadership 
is offering the Wisconsin welfare plan as its model for welfare reform.
  If this is the ideal, then why do we continue in this body to offer a 
welfare plan that cuts the money necessary to achieve the very goals 
contained in the Wisconsin plan? Wisconsin says it want to require 
work, provide job training, child care, and health care. This 
assistance is going to cost money.
  In fact, Wisconsin recognizes that in order to move people from 
welfare to work, it is going to have to spend more money than it 
currently does. How can they possibly achieve their goals under H.R. 4?
  The Congressional Budget Office report said that H.R. 4 did not 
include sufficient funds to meet the work requirements in their welfare 
bill. How can Wisconsin then meet the more ambitious and more costly 
work requirements that are included in their plan? What about child 
care? There certainly is not enough money in H.R. 4 to provide for the 
level of care Wisconsin is proposing. Wisconsin's promises then 
probably simply will be broken.

  So as we have this debate and as we play the politics today on this 
issue, let us remember that it is possible to achieve welfare reform 
that cares about children. This should be our goal. Florida has a 
waiver request to achieve this goal. Wisconsin believes that it has a 
plan to reach it, as well. However, let us not kid ourselves into 
believing that these State initiatives are consistent with the welfare 
plan that has passed this body.
  States do want to be innovative and successful in their efforts to 
move people from welfare to work. President Clinton wants to help them. 
In fact, he has approved waivers in 38 States. Of course, we would 
rather have national welfare reform, but national reform is of no value 
unless it meets the cost of State plans. We have not done this in the 
bills offered on this floor.
  I hope that my colleagues on the other side of the aisle will 
consider the questions I have raised. Then maybe we can find out how 
Wisconsin's waiver is consistent with the Republican welfare agenda, 
and I would not be surprised if the answer is simply no, not the 
welfare agenda, only the political agenda, and I think that is sad.
  Mr. KLUG. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Let me make the point that not only does Wisconsin wait for its 
waiver approval from the White House but also the State of Florida has 
waiver applications pending, as does the State of California, the State 
represented by Mr. Stark who spoke earlier. Again the question is, do 
you trust the States to do it or does it always have to be stamped 
right here in Washington?
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. 
Roth] to explain why we can do it back home, we do not need to do it 
here.
  Mr. ROTH. I thank my friend from Wisconsin [Mr. Klug] for yielding me 
this time. I want to congratulate him and the other Members of the 
Wisconsin delegation for all the work they have done on this 
legislation.
  Mr. Speaker, let me say this. The Wisconsin Legislature has the most 
dedicated and the most intelligent people of any legislature in 
America, and they have made their judgment on this after 18 months of 
debate.
  Today on the floor is what I call the yes butters day. Yes; I am for 
welfare reform, but not today. I am for welfare reform, but not on this 
bill. I am for welfare reform but not under these conditions, you see. 
The yes butters. They know back home the people are for the legislation 
but they do not have the courage to vote that way, so we have got to 
have the yes but.
  I have to chuckle when people come up here and say the President, 
this is what he said, look at what he said here. Do you mean to tell me 
the President of the United States did not know what he was talking 
about when he talked to the Nation?
  President Clinton certainly has some intellectual integrity. He is 
not a man that will just say anything for votes. Certainly the 
President of the United States has some intellectual integrity, that 
when he makes a statement to the Nation, he knows what he is talking 
about. Do you mean to tell me that he just gets up and verbalizes and 
does not think about what he is saying? The President does know.
  The present system is the poverty preservation program and we are 
talking about changing it. Yes; change comes hard, because we are all 
tied to our past. That is what we are asking for, for change.
  This weekend we had a big demonstration here in Washington. A quarter 
of a million people turned out, they said for our children. We in 
Wisconsin are coming to the Nation to say we want you to pass this 
legislation for our children, too. We in Wisconsin are willing to take 
the risk. What are you afraid of?
  We in Wisconsin know that the present system does not work. That is 
No. 1. No. 2, anything is better than what we have today. No. 3, 
Wisconsin, yes; is willing to take the risk. And, No. 4, the Wisconsin 
assembly and legislature after 18 months of debate have passed this 
legislation.
  We are coming to you with a package for change. All we are asking you 
to do is to have some confidence in yourself. Change is difficult, yes; 
but change is needed and that is what this legislation is doing.
  We are moving with this legislation from the liberal welfare state to 
the information society. Seventy-five years ago we were debating moving 
from the agricultural society to the industrial revolution, and the 
Nation listened to Wisconsin and we are thankful for it.
  Today we are again moving, now from the industrial revolution to the 
information society, and we are saying, ``You were right 75 years ago, 
America, to listen to Wisconsin.'' We are asking you to be right again 
and to be with us again today.
  Mr. KLECZKA. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds.
  Mr. Speaker, I enjoyed listening to the comments of my colleague from 
Wisconsin [Mr. Roth]. The problem with his remarks is that they are 
about 2 weeks early because they should be directed at the welfare 
reform bill that will be on this floor in about a 2-week period, once 
the committee I serve on has had a chance to have some public hearings 
and mark it up.
  I should say, on the whole issue of welfare reform, the gentleman 
indicates, ``Yes, I'm for welfare reform but.'' ``I'm for welfare 
reform but.''
  Well, this gentleman is for welfare reform and he put his voting card 
where his mouth is, and the last time we had a vote on the welfare 
reform bill, the conference committee, I did support it. So the issue 
here is not whether or not we should have welfare reform in this 
country. That is a done deal. The question is the process and public 
hearings.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Tennessee [Mr. 
Tanner].
  Mr. TANNER. I thank the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Kleczka] for 
yielding time.
  Mr. Speaker, several days ago a group of Democrats and Republicans 
here in the House introduced a national welfare reform bill called H.R. 
3266. It is unfortunate, I think, that we are wasting the time of the 
U.S. Congress debating what should or should not happen in Wisconsin.
  We have a process in place that works. Most everybody here has 
acknowledged that, to take care of these States that are doing their 
own and requesting waivers and so forth.
  We are a national body. If we are going to spend the time of this 
Congress on the floor on welfare, it seems to me we ought to be 
discussing a national welfare bill. We have introduced, a bipartisan 
group, H.R. 3266, that is consistent in many ways with the provisions 
of the Wisconsin plan. It has bipartisan support. The President has 
indicated he can work with us to resolve a few outstanding issues on 
that.
  It seems to me that if the Republican leadership wanted to help 
Wisconsin and all the other 49 States in this country, we could bring a 
national welfare bill to the floor like H.R. 3266 which gives not only 
Wisconsin but all the other States the ability to make the changes they 
need to make, want to make and vote to make, without all this nonsense 
and windbagging on the

[[Page H5959]]

floor today about who said what or when.
  It is unfortunate that we are spending all this time to talk about 
what should happen in Wisconsin. They are entitled to vote on that. 
Even the Members from Wisconsin cannot agree.
  So I would just ask the leadership that sets the agenda around here, 
let us be a U.S. Congress and talk about a national welfare reform bill 
that will allow all the States to do whatever it is they want to do. We 
have that bipartisan bill in place and I wish we could get it to the 
floor.
  My colleague, Mike Castle, and I have introduced H.R. 3266, a 
bipartisan welfare reform bill which would allow real welfare reform to 
work. I would rather be here debating that bill because such a debate 
would be much more fruitful.
  This situation we are confronted with in this bill is quite unusual. 
There is a procedure in place for approving waivers which has proven 
quite effective in recent months. In fact, many waivers with provisions 
similar to those in the Wisconsin plan have been approved or are 
pending approval. Yet, the leadership has only chosen to bring this 
request for waiver to the floor.
  Furthermore, the other body has already indicated that it has no 
plans to consider this bill. So, this is it. This bill is dead as soon 
as we vote on it.
  Therefore, it is abundantly clear that this is not about welfare 
reform at all but rather Presidential politics. The President has 
indicated he supports the plan as described by Governor Thompson and 
some folks are hoping to embarrass or put the President in a box--so 
this is all much ado about nothing.
  But, since it is on the floor I will take advantage of this 
opportunity to make a few substantive points.
  In terms of the merits of this individual proposal--I agree with the 
basic blueprint or program outlined in the Wisconsin proposal as I 
understand it. The proposal includes a limit on benefits, requires 
work, as well as a guarantee of health care, child care, and whatever 
assistance might be required to move from welfare to work.
  In fact, the blueprint is consistent with the bipartisan reform bill 
Governor Castle and I have introduced. So, on it's face the plan is 
something I can certainly live with.
  But the question we should be looking at today is not whether the 
freestanding Wisconsin plan passes the test. The question we should be 
asking is how does this plan stand up when it is considered in the 
context of the national reform bill which has marked up in 
subcommittee. Once this is done, we see that the Wisconsin waiver no 
longer looks as good. In fact, we find that the plan has a fundamental 
flaw. The flaw lies in the phrase, ``based on reasonable budget 
estimates.''

  Many jobs still do not provide comprehensive health care. Therefore, 
any reform effort must include health care to allow recipients to leave 
welfare for work. In addition, reform must include child care so that 
recipients are free to pursue employment. Last, reform must provide 
access to the resources and activities needed to move from welfare to 
work.
  On first reading it appears Governor Thompson's plan guarantees these 
crucial elements of reform. However, upon closer examination we find 
out that the guarantee is not really a solid guarantee, but a 
conditional guarantee. The guarantee is conditioned on reasonable 
budget estimates. Or, in other words the guarantee is only good as long 
as the money is there. This means that the proposal assumes Wisconsin 
will not have a recession and the Federal Government will provide all 
the money that is needed.
  This causes me great concern. Throughout this debate, I have 
criticized the Republican welfare bills because they did not provide 
sufficient funding. Now, I understand the budget constraints better 
than many people in this House and I have continuously worked to 
balance this budget. But, let's be honest--reform is going to cost more 
money in the short term.
  The facts are that the welfare bill which is moving toward the floor 
does not provide sufficient funding. This is not just my opinion but is 
backed up by a CBO analysis.
  No one can guarantee that there will never be a recession in 
Wisconsin or any other State for that matter. The Castle-Tanner bill 
recognizes this reality and provides contingency funds to give States 
access to extra, emergency funds in the event of a recession. The 
Republican bill would not provide enough protection for States in the 
event of a recession and put programs such as Wisconsin's at risk.
  Under the Republican bill the States will not be able to meet the 
participation requirements because the bill does not include enough 
work funding.
  And, although the Republicans have responded to our concerns in part 
and increased funding for child care, the increases have come at the 
expense of title XX programs and are still insufficient to meet the 
needs.
  Last, the Republican plan terminates Medicaid and transitional 
Medicaid along with AFDC. There was never a mandate for the end of 
Medicaid and it is impossible to have successful welfare reform without 
providing medical care.
  I support the right of the people of Wisconsin to decide their own 
welfare policies and the plan itself is consistent with the bipartisan 
bill I have introduced. And, since this bill is not going anywhere I 
will support this silly bill.
  However, we have the cart before the horse. We should pass the 
national reform bill first and then evaluate this proposal. In my 
opinion, our votes would be a little different then. Why? Not because 
the Wisconsin plan is not worthy of approval but because the plan won't 
work under the bill now moving to the floor.
  I believe that with our bipartisan bill and the Republican bill we 
are close to an agreement on welfare reform and I hope that we have an 
opportunity to address these issues I have outlined before the national 
reform bill comes to the floor.
  Mr. KLECZKA. Would the Speaker kindly indicate to both sides how much 
time is remaining?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Bonilla). The gentleman from Wisconsin 
[Mr. Kleczka] has 15\1/2\ minutes remaining and the gentleman from 
Wisconsin [Mr. Klug] has 16 minutes remaining.
  Mr. KLUG. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  If I may read a quote, please, and this is talking about the 
Wisconsin Legislature:

       The final vote on W-2 presented legislators a choice. We 
     could continue along a seemingly endless path that had 
     fostered impoverished dependency on government aid. Or we 
     could try a new direction in the hope of leading all 
     Wisconsin citizens to a more dignified, more prosperous life 
     of self-reliance based on work. The current welfare system 
     doesn't serve people well. It doesn't help people advance 
     from welfare to work.

  That quote comes from State Senator Chuck Chvala, who my colleagues 
from Wisconsin well know was the candidate who ran last time against 
Tommy Thompson for Governor in the State of Wisconsin who voted, as did 
three-quarters of his colleagues in the State senate, for this piece of 
legislation.
  I understand the frustration of my colleague from Tennessee, Mr. 
Tanner, because Tennessee is one of those States as well as California 
and also a number of other speakers we have heard from today from other 
States that are also waiting for waiver applications.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. KLUG. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. I think it is very important, Mr. Speaker, to know 
that had H.R. 4 become law, we would not be standing here today, 
because there would be no waivers required for Wisconsin to implement 
the W-2 welfare reform bill that the State legislature passed and 
Governor Thompson signed.
  So anybody who voted for H.R. 4 and its conference report should 
really be supporting this piece of legislation enthusiastically because 
we already dealt with the issues then that we are dealing with today. 
Unfortunately, the President of the United States decided to veto H.R. 
4 and that is why we are having this debate today. I thank the 
gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. KLECZKA. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. KLUG. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.
  Mr. KLECZKA. Mr. Speaker, let me further the point that was made by 
the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Sensenbrenner]. If, in fact, the 
majority party continues along the line like it is doing with the 
welfare reform bill, and, that is, moderating it to some degree--the 
one we are going to take up provides for more child care--we will get a 
signature, we will go to the block grants, you and I will support it, 
then naturally this will not be necessary. But as long as you insist on 
always sticking in a poison pill to the bill, you are going to keep 
getting a veto. The poison pill that you are going to stick in this 
time around is some radical Medicaid changes which you know the 
President is not going to buy.
  Mr. KLUG. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Speaker, we will have an 
opportunity to debate a comprehensive welfare package in the next 
several weeks. The argument today and the discussion again is simply, 
and the challenge for

[[Page H5960]]

my colleagues from Wisconsin opposed to this is, are you going to trust 
the State to make decision or does Washington have to say yes? Do we 
have to come back here one more time on bended knee as Tennessee, as 
California, as Florida had to say, please give us a chance to fix it or 
you allow us to fix it ourselves.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. 
Petri].
  Mr. PETRI. I thank my colleague for yielding me time.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this legislation deeming approval 
of the Wisconsin Works waiver request. My colleagues have described 
some of the attributes of the Wisconsin welfare reform effort. Let me 
add another one.
  One of the gravest failings of our current welfare system is the 
tremendous disincentives to work and get ahead forced onto the most 
unfortunate in our society. There's little incentive to get off welfare 
and into a job to begin with. And even when a low-skilled parent is 
working, she has almost no chance to improve her lot. Many of the 
working poor face marginal tax rates at or exceeding 100 percent--
meaning that they lose more in benefits and pay more in taxes than they 
gain in wages when they increase their hours or earn a raise. The rest 
of the working families in the income range just above the poverty 
level tend to have effective marginal tax rates of at least 75 percent.

  Wisconsin's W-2 program begins to address this problem in two ways. 
First, it aims to get everyone into some kind of work by providing the 
jobs where necessary and removing any nonwork alternative. Then it 
allows people to earn more as they rise from totally subsidized work in 
exchange for a grant where they can develop the basic skills necessary 
to function in the working world, to community service jobs, to 
partially subsidized jobs in the private sector, and finally into 
unsubsidized jobs. Rather than treading water, or even losing ground, 
when low income Wisconsinites work their way up the ladder and 
eventually off of government assistance, they should see an improvement 
in their disposable income at each step. The biggest improvement should 
occur as they move from community service work into private sector 
jobs, because the EITC will be added at that step.
  They'll still be affected by food stamp and child care phaseouts and 
eventually the EITC phaseout, income taxes, and a health subsidy 
phaseout but at least the State of Wisconsin is aware of these problems 
and moving in the right direction.
  We need to look at a whole array of Federal programs which all phase 
out over a similar income range, just above the poverty level, and have 
the cumulative effect of punishing people for working harder. These 
programs have been created one at a time in a policy vacuum with the 
combined effects rarely being considered. The fact that jurisdiction 
over them is spread among a half dozen congressional committees just 
makes it that much harder to consider the combined effects.
  I have tried to bring this issue to the attention of my colleagues 
and will continue to do so. However, it is clear that this problem is 
not going to be dealt with at the Federal level in any meaningful way 
in the near future. Therefore, in the meantime we should take the 
shackles off the States and allow them to try to deal with this problem 
as best they can. That is one of the goals of this Wisconsin plan and I 
urge my colleagues to support low wage working Americans and grant 
Wisconsin the necessary waivers to carry out its bold and innovative 
plan.

                              {time}  1245

  Mr. KLECZKA. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to gentlewoman from 
California, Ms. Maxine Waters.
  Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, If I thought this was a serious attempt by 
Speaker Newt Gingrich to improve the welfare reform debate, I would 
seriously try to deal with the waiver issues. However, consideration of 
a waiver for this Wisconsin welfare plan today is but a cynical 
political ploy to do a one-upsmanship on the President.
  I am sick and tired of some Democrats, and some Republicans alike, 
using welfare children and families as pawns in a political squabble to 
try to make voters believe they are reforming welfare. This plan may be 
credible, but who knows. We have had no hearings, and the floor jockeys 
on the bill do not have the faintest notion of what is in this plan.
  We all need to stop the posturing, the game playing and the deceit. 
This bill does not deserve the vote of one serious Member of this body. 
Welfare certainly can be reformed, but this is not the way to deal with 
this issue.
  Neither Speaker Gingrich or Bill Clinton should drive us to do 
political gymnastics on this issue. I am told under the Wisconsin plan 
that families would only get help when parents are participating in 
work activities. But there is no assurance that sufficient placements 
will be available for parents. This plan does not give any details as 
to what happens when that family cannot find work within a specified 
period of time. It appears the whole family, including the children, 
could lose all cash aid.
  Despite their best efforts to find work, children of poor families 
will be even poorer under this bill. All guarantees of health coverage 
for children and families under the Wisconsin plan would be repealed.
  The Wisconsin State statute states that the new program is in lieu of 
Medicaid. Notwithstanding fulfillment of the eligibility requirements 
for any component of the Wisconsin Works, including Medicaid, an 
individual is not entitled to services or benefits under Wisconsin 
Works.
  Let us all try to get real. Poor children and families deserve a lot 
better. Allow the 88 waivers to be reviewed and considered and not put 
on a political fast track.
  Mr. Speaker, I ask the Members of this body to be more serious, to 
give more consideration, to treat families better, and stop playing 
this political game. It does not make any sense that the response to a 
remark by the President about this plan would drive us to overthrow the 
entire review process and come to this floor, without any hearings, 
without any knowledge of what is in the bill, trying to make people 
believe we are doing something to reform welfare and drive it through 
this legislature because Members think those who are running for office 
will be too afraid not to vote against it.
  I am sick and tired of it, the American public is tired of the 
political games being played on serious issues. I ask that this bill be 
voted down.
  Mr. KLUG. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.
  Mr. Speaker, of course politics did not have anything to do with the 
radio address, did it? But this is how it was played back home. We have 
heard a lot of quotes about exactly what it was the President said, but 
look what it said in the headlines in a Wisconsin paper. ``Wisconsin 
Welfare Plan Okayed By Clinton.''
  When the President goes on the radio and says he is for something, 
like my colleague from Wisconsin, Mr. Roth, I assume that means he is 
for something. And the dilemma is essentially saying  we  are  going  
to  give 30 days so that we can review it is because, as we have seen 
in the past, and as the 19 States now know, 5 of them with Democratic 
Governors, Washington will take forever to modify and change plans.
  My colleague from California [Ms. Waters], asked me if I had read the 
Wisconsin waiver and the Wisconsin welfare bill, and the answer is yes. 
Unfortunately, she would not yield to me. The question is, has she read 
California's welfare bill and does she realize that California has 
waivers pending?
  In fact, this is the headline from the San Francisco Chronicle: 
``Welfare Overhaul Stymied in D.C., Critics Complain.''
  Not only is Wisconsin waiting for the bureaucrats to wake up, 
California is waiting and Florida and Texas and 14 other States.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to my colleague, the gentleman 
from Wisconsin [Mr. Neumann].
  Mr. NEUMANN. Mr. Speaker, I am hearing this is about politics. We 
just saw the headline there in the Wisconsin State Journal after the 
President's address: ``Wisconsin Welfare Plan Okayed by Clinton.'' It 
was the next day. It was literally the Monday after this Sunday 
headline that we see in the Washington Times, ``White House Deputy 
Chief of Staff, Harold Ickes, Later Backpedaled, Telling the Washington 
Post the Details of the Wisconsin Plan Will Have To Be Negotiated.''
  It was clear to him that the President had said OK to the Wisconsin 
welfare reform plan. It was clear to the

[[Page H5961]]

Washington papers that he was now backpedaling from what he said.
  What we are doing here today is not about politics, it is about the 
heart and soul of what I am doing here in Washington, DC. It is about 
wrestling this power away from the bureaucracy that exists in this city 
and giving it back to the people so the people can again have a chance 
to make good decisions that influence their lives.
  We talk about welfare. Sometimes we just do not get the right parts 
of this discussion in here. When I was sitting playing cribbage on 
Saturday night, a good friend of mine said to me, she says, if the 
people really need help, we will help them. We are willing to help the 
people that are truly in need.
  But the conversation continued. It is the people that are able to go 
into the work force and have a chance to leave the welfare roll. As 
long as they stay on welfare they are stuck in a situation where they 
are at the mercy of whatever big daddy government decides to give them. 
When they leave the welfare rolls and go into a job, they have a chance 
for promotion. And when they have a chance for promotion and they are 
showing up at work every day, they can again start to dream in this 
great Nation of ours. They can dream about a better life for themselves 
and their families, and we can again start to seeing people living the 
American dream in this country.
  That is what the welfare plan is about. It is about an effort to help 
people off of the welfare rolls and back into the work force. It is 
doing exactly what we should be doing in this country.
  Mr. KLECZKA. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.
  Mr. Speaker, we were just shown a copy of a San Francisco news 
article or some newspaper in California. Let us review where we are in 
the California waivers. Since President Clinton took office, HHS has 
received nine welfare waivers from the State of California. Five have 
been approved, two are inactive, which means they have been withdrawn, 
and the two others that are pending, both have been received as of 
March of this year.
  So I do not think that is a terribly bad track record.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield as much time as he may consume to the gentleman 
from Wisconsin [Mr. Barrett].
  Mr. BARRETT of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from 
Wisconsin [Mr. Kleczka] for yielding time to me and I want to applaud 
the fine work he is doing on this issue.
  If the proponents of this legislation were serious, they would take a 
look at what happened in 1992 when President Bush issued a waiver and 
it was struck down by the court because there was not a public comment 
period. But they are not serious. This is not about welfare reform. 
This is not about helping poor people who should get off welfare, some 
of whom are there because they are trapped, some are there because they 
have trapped themselves, some are there because the system has trapped 
them. This is all about Presidential politics.
  Let us take a look at what the President said. The President said, 
``I am encouraged by what I have seen so far. 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.''
  Now, one would think that my friends on the other side of the aisle 
would say, great, President Clinton has said he will work with us. And 
they have every reason to say great because the track record in 
Wisconsin is one of consistent cooperation between a Democratic 
President of the United States, a Republican Governor, and a Republican 
legislature.
  Nine times the State of Wisconsin has come to President Clinton or 
has come to Washington asking for waivers, and nine times they have 
been granted. My colleague from Madison said that I was incorrect by 
saying that one of those was granted. He indicated that the State 
wanted to have the whole State covered but Washington would not do it. 
As a matter of fact, to correct him, the County of Milwaukee, which I 
represent, begged to be part of that legislation but the Republicans 
would not let them be part of that legislation.
  Why would they not let them be part of that legislation? Because in 
the State of Wisconsin there are problems with welfare in most parts of 
the State, but the most serious part and the most serious problems are 
in the district that I represent in Milwaukee, because we have the 
highest concentration of poor people there.
  I just want to give my colleagues an example of why I think it makes 
sense for us to look at this legislation. In his address last week, 
Governor Thompson said there were speed bumps in the way on this 
legislation. He said, do not worry, we will take care of those speed 
bumps.
  Ladies and gentlemen, some of those speed bumps are people that I 
represent. They are not speed bumps, they are mothers with 4-month-old 
infants. They are mothers who are being told they have to go to work 
and they have to put their child in day care.
  Now, Governor Thompson recognizes there is not enough day care out 
there right now to serve all the new mothers that are going to have to 
go back to work. So what do they do? They lower the standard of care 
for day care. They say we are going to lower the standards. These are 
just poor people we are talking about. We do not have to have the same 
standards we have had for all these working class people. These are 
poor people. We do not have to have training, we do not have to have 
certification. These are poor people.
  It is extremely fashionable, both in Washington and in other parts of 
the country, to kick around poor people. Sometimes I think it is a 
national sport. These are people, and we can never, ever forget that. 
But this is politics. This is not about people. Because if we were 
concerned about the people we would say, yes, we want them to have an 
opportunity to be heard.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. BARRETT of Wisconsin. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I would just like to observe, if we really 
want to measure whether anything real is happening here or not we would 
recognize that right now outside of the Wisconsin delegation on the 
House floor there are exactly two people from other States.
  Virtually everybody in this House, on both sides of the aisle, knows 
this is just one of those demeaning political exercises. We have simply 
got a couple of hours where people are going to get up and bash the 
President or bash Mr. Dole or bash somebody else. It does no credit to 
anyone in this institution.
  I got into politics for the same reason I am sure the gentleman did, 
and our other colleague from Wisconsin, Mr. Kleczka, did, and I hope 
everybody else did, because we thought politicians were supposed to 
solve problems, not use them in order to gain a political edge here or 
gain a political edge there and bamboozle somebody again.
  There is literally nobody on this floor. How on Earth can we ask 
people to vote on this legislation when they have not read it, they 
have not heard the debate, they could care less about the debate? They 
are already getting ready to go to the airport, and we are pretending 
this is a real legislative day. Grow up, fellas. Grow up.
  Mr. BARRETT of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I want to 
talk about how this measure ended up on the floor. Again, nine times 
the State of Wisconsin has come to Washington and gotten waivers. Nine 
times there have been no problems. In fact, if there were problems, we 
would not have the Governor of the State of Wisconsin traveling around 
the country claiming he is the king or the leader in welfare reform. If 
the Clinton administration had stymied them in any of those waiver 
requests, they would be barking, they would be screaming about it.
  But the Clinton administration has not stymied them in a single one, 
and that is one of the reasons it is successful. But the mortal sin, 
the mortal sin that the Clinton administration made in this matter was 
that they said ``We will work together.'' My God, how can we have a 
Democratic President offering to work with a Republican Governor? That 
is the mortal sin. That is where the President went over the line. He 
said I am going to work with them. We will work hand-in-hand to try to 
solve this American problem.
  It is not a Republican problem and it is not a Democratic problem, it 
is an

[[Page H5962]]

American problem, and that is the way we should be addressing it. And, 
frankly, why I am embarrassed as a Representative from Wisconsin is 
that is the way we have done it in Wisconsin. We have worked together.
  When people ask me from the State of Wisconsin what is the biggest 
difference between the State legislature, where I served for 8 years 
before coming to Congress, I tell them it is much more partisan and it 
is much meaner in Washington. It is just a mean place where people are 
out day after day trying to outfox each other politically.
  That never happened on the welfare issue with the State of Wisconsin 
until 2 weeks ago. And what happened? Speaker Gingrich and the 
Representatives from Wisconsin, the Republican Representatives, held a 
press conference and they decided they were going to up the ante. 
Speaker Gingrich suggested, well, maybe we will just introduce a piece 
of legislation. Speaker Gingrich said, maybe we will just pass it in 
Congress.

                              {time}  1300

  Just as the swallows return to Capistrano, just as night follows day, 
the next thing that happens is on the floor of the House of 
Representatives, in defiance of the Wisconsin tradition of working 
together on a bipartisan basis, they are going to stick it to the 
President. They are going to stick it to him. They are going to take 
that olive branch that he has handed them and asked to work together, 
my God, he asked to work together, they are going to take that olive 
branch, break it in half and shove it in his eye because this is not 
about helping people. This is not about reforming the welfare system. 
This is about Presidential politics, pure and simple. That is exactly 
what we are talking about today.
  That is why the gentleman from Wisconsin, Mr. Obey, is correct, that 
is why there are no Members in this Chamber from anywhere but Wisconsin 
because this is not a national issue. This is not an issue that people 
care about in other parts of the country because if it were, this 
legislation would grant those waivers to all those other States. 
Wisconsin's waiver has been sitting in the White House for 8 days, 8 
days.
  There are other States that have a more serious problem, if you 
believe my colleagues on the other side of the aisle. Why are we not 
considering those waivers? Because in those waivers the President did 
not say, I will work, together with you.
  This is an attempt to embarrass the President. If that is what we 
want to do, if that is how we are spending our time under this 
leadership, so be it. But it does not help the process. It abuses the 
process.
  There has not been a single hearing on this measure since Governor 
Thompson exercised his partial veto pen 97 times on 27 different items. 
There has not been a person in this country who has had the opportunity 
to go to their elected officials to talk about that veto, not a single 
time. What are we going to do? No hearings in Congress. We have had one 
Governor, one person out of 260 million people in this country who used 
his line item veto 97 times, and now Congress is going to rubberstamp 
this thing.
  If you are interested in welfare reform, then you should let people 
have an opportunity to be heard. What is the sin of having people be 
heard?
  Let us do it right. Let us adopt the amendment that Congressman 
Kleczka will propose and we will get this done. But let us end the 
political shenanigans. Let us get Presidential politics out of the 
State of Wisconsin.
  Mr. KLUG. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Let me make the point, we have had hearings on this. The question is, 
Where do the hearings have to happen? Do they have to happen here in 
Washington or in Wisconsin? Thirty hearings, town hall meetings, as my 
colleague, Mr. Sensenbrenner, has already cataloged for us, 120 hours 
of debate. Two thousand residents testified in those assorted town hall 
meetings and the legislative hearings themselves.
  Again, if the Governor vetoed it, as my colleagues know who served in 
the Wisconsin State Legislature, the Wisconsin State Legislature has 
the ability to override them.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. KLUG. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, are we waiving the plan as the Governor passed 
it or the plan as the legislature may change it, if they reject his 
vetoes?
  Mr. KLUG. Mr. Speaker, we are acting on the waivers as submitted by 
the Governor.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will continue to yield, what 
happens if the legislature turns some of those down? Does the State 
then amend it? Do we then pass another bill? Why do we not wait until 
the legislature has acted?
  Mr. NEUMANN. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. KLUG. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.
  Mr. NEUMANN. Mr. Speaker, I would like to respond to that. The reason 
for that is because we have a great deal of confidence in people like 
Roger Breske, a Democrat from the gentleman's part of the State, and 
Russell Decker, a Democrat from the gentleman's part of the State, who 
voted for this plan. We have a great deal of confidence that they will 
make good decisions for the people in the State of Wisconsin.
  Mr. OBEY. Quit playing politics and answer the question.
  Mr. NEUMANN. Mr. Speaker, the answer to the question is, we have a 
great deal of confidence in the people of Wisconsin. We do not want 30 
days of bureaucratic input into the Wisconsin plan from Washington, DC.
  Mr. OBEY. What is the legislature going to do? Are they going to 
accept those line item vetoes or not?
  Mr. KLUG. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Michigan [Mr. Hoekstra] who does have interest in the debate in front 
of us.
  Mr. HOEKSTRA. Mr. Speaker, I am from the State of Michigan. I have a 
tremendous interest in this issue.
  Recently, some of my colleagues and I, one of them from Wisconsin, 
completed a document called the Myth of the Magical Bureaucracy, the 
belief that Washington can solve every problem.
  This issue that we are discussing today fits right into that 
document, because this document talks about the Washington myth that 
the future of America rests with bureaucrats in Washington, that the 
future of the people on welfare in Wisconsin is dependent on 
bureaucrats in Washington and not on the State legislature in the State 
of Wisconsin.
  What is going on is we are replacing Washington ideals with 
traditional American ideals. We are replacing a faith in God with a 
faith in Washington. We are replacing the American ideal of parents and 
family with bureaucrats.
  This picture of Washington shows that what we have called 
Independence Avenue really needs to be renamed into Dependence Avenue, 
because every time we build a new bureaucracy, we are moving 
decisionmaking away from the people. We are moving it away from the 
States, and we are putting it into bureaucrats here in Washington. We 
need to move power back to the States, back to the people closest to 
the problem.

  We have had a lot of talk about the welfare process, the waiver chase 
in Washington. Let us talk about what the State of Wisconsin has to do 
to address the problems in their State.
  Congress passes or issues mandates. We develop thousands of pages of 
laws of public health and welfare. It goes into bureaucracy. They 
develop rules and regulations, thousands of pages of regulations. It 
goes to the State of Wisconsin. We have a bureaucrat who interprets 
these thousands of pages of regulations. Finally we get to the people 
of Wisconsin.
  They say, that is interesting what they did in Washington but that 
does not work for our State. Those people do not quite understand what 
goes on here. So they pass overwhelmingly a program that will work for 
their State. You think they would be able to move forward, but, no; 
they have got to submit 300 pages of waiver requests. It comes to 
Washington here. Somebody who maybe has never been in Wisconsin is 
going to evaluate whether they can get these waivers. The bureaucrat 
makes a recommendation and maybe the President will sign it.

[[Page H5963]]

  That is not compassion for the people in Wisconsin that need help. 
The results are that we have waivers that take 292 days to approve, 
448, 153, 322. That is not performance. That is not compassion. That is 
not dealing with the problem.
  Let us recognize that the future of many of our problems, the future 
of America is in the hands and should be in the hands of individuals, 
parents, families, and States and not Washington bureaucrats.
  Mr. KLECZKA. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Wisconsin [Mr. Obey].
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, all I would say is that the substitute we are 
going to offer simply asks two things: make sure there is a 30-day 
comment period because the proposal before us does not go into effect 
for a year and a half, so there is hardly a rush. And, second, we are 
taking the seven standards defined by the Governor and simply asking 
HHS to determine whether or not the bill does in fact meet these seven 
standards defined by the Governor on page 4 of his presentation 
document.
  If these seven statements are true, they waive it. If they are not, 
they work with the State to make certain that they are true.
  This is not a legislative opportunity before us. This is a 2-year 
cooked-up special order, pretending that we are doing something when, 
in fact, nothing real is going to happen.
  In my view this is simply a Gingrich political special. It is another 
exercise in dividing people, in pretending there are divisions when 
there are none. Every Member of the Wisconsin delegation wants the 
Wisconsin welfare program to be tried. Most of my political allies in 
the State legislature voted for it.
  All we want to do is to exercise our responsibility as Federal 
Representatives of Wisconsin to see to it that this package is what we 
are told it is. That is all the resolution asks for. There is 
absolutely nothing wrong with it. If anybody is interested in working 
with each other rather than simply playing political games, they will 
vote for the Kleczka amendment.
  Mr. KLUG. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Wisconsin [Mr. Sensenbrenner].
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I think it is unfortunate that 
whenever you are on the short end of the argument, you end up demeaning 
the other side's arguments, getting involved in name calling. And that 
is not what the legislative process should be, but unfortunately, in 
many instances it is.
  What the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Hoekstra] said is what the 
issue is before this House. The issue is whether the decision on what 
waivers should be approved or not rests with bureaucrats in the 
Department of Health and Human Services, who are not elected, who are 
not responsible to the voters and who are not even responsible to the 
President of the United States, or whether the decision should be made 
by the elected representatives of the people in the Wisconsin State 
Legislature. It is those State senators and those State representatives 
that have determined that this is a good idea for the people of 
Wisconsin.
  If it has been misrepresented, they are the folks that ought to take 
the political hit, because they are responsible for their voting 
record, just as we are responsible for ours. So let us have some faith 
in those elected senators and representatives by approving this bill 
and providing the waivers that are needed to make this work.
  Mr. KLECZKA. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  I think it is important to note, as I said before, and we have to 
keep repeating it, what we are doing here today is not redoing the 
State legislative enactment. A lot has been said about the public 
hearings that have been held before the legislature met on the debate 
on the W-2 program, and that is true. I served in the State legislature 
for years. I happened to have been the chairman of the joint committee 
on finance. So I know the process as well as Mr. Sensenbrenner, who I 
served with in both the house and senate.
  What happens is, you have a public hearing on the idea and possibly 
on the bill draft. And then after the hearings and the public has had a 
chance to speak, the legislature in the house and the senate in 
Wisconsin go back to their respective chambers and they debate the 
legislation.
  Unlike the rules of the House of Representatives, they are free to 
represent their constituents by offering as many amendments as they 
want, and they are also free to use as much time as they want, another 
luxury that we do not have here. And so once the public was heard, the 
bill came before the house. Hours were spent in debate and amending the 
bill. So it has been changed substantially from what was out in Wausau, 
WI.
  So after that process was done, the bill was passed by the 
legislature, sent to the Governor. He waited 5 weeks before he took it 
up. And then when he presented it back to the legislature as approved, 
he issued some 27 vetoes. Again, the legislature will not be heard on 
those vetoes until sometime in July. So the bill could be changed, 
maybe not substantially, but it could be changed in part by legislative 
action that is coming after this debacle that we are going through 
today. That is the legislative process.
  Again, let me remind my colleagues, we are not redoing the bill. We 
are finishing the process. We are providing a finale, if I could say, 
to this process by saying, and now what happens? There are 88 Federal 
waivers requested. Now the public can be heard again. Now the public 
from Janesville and Madison and the constituent who wrote me and the 
groups who wrote me, now they can be heard again.
  My substitute, which we will talk about in a few minutes, does that. 
Your bill, sad to say, rubberstamps the 88. No one knows what is in it. 
It is like potluck, I would guess.
  Mr. KLUG. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Wisconsin [Mr. Gunderson].
  (Mr. GUNDERSON asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)
  Mr. GUNDERSON. Mr. Speaker, I think if I have one reputation around 
here it is a reputation of being a fairly bipartisan sort of guy. But I 
wanted to share with you an experience I had in my early legislative 
days in the 1970's, when I was speaking at a welfare reform meeting 
with all the local welfare reform directors.
  They said, I am convinced you State legislators do not ever want to 
get welfare reform enacted. You want the issue; you do not want a 
solution.
  And as I listen to this discussion today, I think that is exactly 
what is going on here. Nobody is disparaging the Wisconsin plan. It is 
a comprehensive, dynamic, real substantive reform plan. It was passed 
with a strong bipartisan majority in both houses of the Wisconsin State 
legislature. It was signed into law by the Republican Governor. It has 
been endorsed by the Democratic President.
  Now what we are saying is, all right, then let us get it done. What 
do we have here this afternoon? We have this intense partisan battle 
over whether or not we are going to let them get it done. We say the 
State legislature has not resolved the vetoes that the governor has 
had. Do my colleagues know what? A 30-day period, they are not even 
going to meet. So what is the plan here? Is the plan to simply say, we 
will deal with the question of Wisconsin waivers sometime later on? I 
do not think so.

                              {time}  1315

  So the real question we are talking about today is are we going to do 
what we say we are going to do, which is enact real welfare reform, or 
are we going to talk about it and find all kinds of ways in the process 
of talking about it to make sure it never gets done? That is what this 
is all about.
  The reason we are here is accountability. Everyone from the President 
to the Governor, on a bipartisan basis, said this is a good idea. If it 
is such a good, then let us simply get it done; at least let us get it 
implemented so if there are problems, we can come and fix the problems, 
but get the changes put into place.
  Mr. KLUG. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Bonilla). The Chair recognizes the 
gentleman from Wisconsin for 1 minute.
  Mr. KLUG. One more time, if I can, colleagues, let us put this in 
some kind

[[Page H5964]]

of perspective. There is a simple fundamental question in front of this 
body today: ``Do you trust a State legislature and a Governor to run 
their own affairs?'' And I think the answer fundamentally has to be 
``yes.'' And my colleague, the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. 
Gunderson], hit the nail on the head. I mean, sure, these waiver 
applications may get approved, but only if it gets rewritten and gets 
changed and gets modified and it gets capitalized, and at the end of 
the day we do not have Wisconsin's welfare plan, we have Washington's 
welfare plan. But my colleagues could put a Wisconsin sweatshirt on, 
and it does not make them a badger inside.
  The question is: ``If you rewrite a third of these regulations or a 
quarter of the regulations or half of the regulations, at the end of 
the day it's not Wisconsin's plan.'' We have the first comprehensive 
plan passed in the country, two-thirds of the State assembly, three-
quarters of the State senate, the Governor's opponent for Governor the 
last time around, the Senate minority leader, a larger majority of 
Democrats as well as Republicans.
  The fundamental question today is: ``Whose values are you going to 
trust: the people sitting at the lunch counter in Wisconsin or the 
bureaucrats down the road on `Dependence Avenue,' '' as the gentleman 
from Michigan [Mr. Hoekstra] appropriately characterized it?
  That is why Wisconsin needs the green light for once; it does not 
need a yield sign or a stop sign from the Washington bureaucrats.
  Mr. PASTOR. Mr. Speaker, I would like to take a few moments to 
discuss my position on H.R. 3562, the bill to approve the waivers for 
the Wisconsin Welfare Plan.
  I would like nothing more than to support meaningful welfare reform 
legislation. However, I believe the bill before us today circumvents 
the entire legislative process in an attempt to politically embarrass 
the President. Additionally, I cannot vote for a measure that raises 
more questions than it answers. Members of this House have not seen the 
details of the Wisconsin welfare plan and we have no idea what it 
contains. We do not know the details of the waivers Wisconsin has asked 
for, and by bringing this bill to the floor, we are being asked to 
blindly vote and make decisions on something we have not had time to 
study and evaluate. Members from across the country are being asked to 
vote on a plan developed by Wisconsin, without having the opportunity 
to review the plan. This would set a disastrous precedent as the 
American public did not send us to Congress to cast uneducated votes.
  Furthermore, by passing this bill, we would effectively shut out the 
public from their part in this process. The Department of Health and 
Human Services allows a public comment period of 30 days, a comment 
period that allows for concerned citizens to have input on the plan. 
Why are we in such a hurry that we deny the public their right to make 
comments on this matter?
  In the past, Wisconsin has come to the administration seeking various 
waivers, and each time, the requested waiver was granted. The Wisconsin 
plan may prove deserving of the requested waivers, and should that be 
the case, I would fully support the plan. I believe that we should 
allow the administration and Wisconsin to work together to resolve this 
issue, not use this issue to score political points.
  Unfortunately, the Republicans are not allowing us that opportunity. 
It is unfortunate that they have decided to attempt to portray the 
President and Members as opponents to welfare reform when the reality 
is that Congress is being asked to blindly cast votes on a plan that we 
have not had the opportunity to study.
  Mrs. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I support welfare reform and 
I would like to see this body enact a meaningful and effective welfare 
reform bill during this session of Congress.
  The bill we consider today, however, is not a meaningful welfare 
reform plan for the Nation but it is a political action intended to put 
Members and the President on the spot, and to paint them as 
opposing welfare reform. In fact, if this was not an election year, 
this bill would have never been scheduled for consideration.

  H.R. 3562 was never considered by a committee. This bill was rushed 
to the floor without hearings in which the public would have an 
opportunity to express its views and have them considered. This bill 
would eliminate the 30-day public comment period routinely used by the 
Department of Health and Human Services [HHS] when considering waivers.
  The Wisconsin plan may indeed be a plan worthy of study. I am pleased 
that the W-2 plan would provide child care and health care for 
participants, which is essential if we are to move people off of 
welfare and into work. I have spoken with welfare recipients in the 
18th District of Texas and they have told me that they want to work and 
that they view welfare benefits not as a way of life but as a bridge to 
better times. The bill's sponsors, however, have not let the plan's 
merits speak for itself. Instead, they are trying to bypass the normal 
rules HHS has for approving a waiver, without allowing the agency and 
the public to fully examine the plan's components--normal procedures 
entail a 120-day review process.
  The Kleczka substitute, on the other hand, would provide for an 
expedited review process to be completed by July 31, 1996, under the 
normal administrative rule procedures, while allowing for public input. 
The Kleczka substitute would require a 30-day public comment period to 
provide the citizens of Wisconsin and other interested parties with a 
voice in the process. HHS must also certify that the plan contains the 
features the Governor claims that it does.
  The substitute would ensure that this is truly the best plan for 
Wisconsin and that certain individuals will not be left behind. 
Specifically, HHS should certify that the plan will help find the best 
self-sufficiency alternative, and there will be a place for everyone 
regardless of capabilities and that child care and health care will be 
available to all low-income families who need it to work. I also 
believe that job training is an essential component to any welfare 
plan.
  We need comprehensive welfare reform but there are a myriad of 
interests and a diverse population that must be considered in enacting 
such reform. I appreciate the progress that Wisconsin has made on this 
issue but I would caution that the Wisconsin plan cannot be made a 
prototype for the Nation.
  We should applaud the States for acting on their own to reform 
welfare. Congress should not however, waive the rules and regulations 
that a State is required to follow in implementing its plan. The 
Federal Government has a responsibility to ensure that a plan will do 
what it says it will. I urge my colleagues to support the Kleczka 
substitute and allow HHS to consider the Wisconsin plan according to 
the normal administrative review process.
  Ms. MILLENDER-McDONALD. Mr. Speaker, I think that we can all agree 
that the welfare system in this country needs to be reformed. I think 
we can further agree that it is our responsibility to make an attempt 
to reform that system.
  But as we begin our deliberations on reforming welfare, I would 
caution my colleagues to be thoughtful and deliberate. For it is a fool 
who rushes a raging river to beard an angry tiger.
  Presidential politics should not be the driving force behind any 
reform movement. H.R. 3562 is being fast tracked through this body by 
the majority in an attempt to embarrass the President.
  How can we begin to consider waivers for the Wisconsin welfare plan 
when we have less than all the facts. I have not seen a copy of the 
Wisconsin plan, there has been no committee review, no hearings, no 
markup, and there has been no health and human services public comment 
period. What do the citizens of Wisconsin think about the welfare 
reform plan offered by their Governor? Mr. Speaker, the Congressional 
Research Service can't even provide Members with a summary of the bill.
  I caution my colleagues that if we approve these waivers in this 
irresponsible manner, we will give a green light to every Governor who 
seeks waivers for similar reasons. Let's not circumvent the process--
oversight and inquiry are our responsibility and public comment is the 
right of the taxpayer--let's hold hearings on the Wisconsin plan--let's 
hear from the people of Wisconsin--vote no on approving the waivers.
  Mr. REED. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this Republican effort 
to bypass the normal 30 day comment period and approval process for the 
Wisconsin welfare reform plan and eliminate the ability of the people 
of Wisconsin to officially and publicly express their views on the 
plan.
  I am a strong supporter of welfare reform and workfare. I am also a 
strong supporter of a truly bipartisan effort to fix the problems of 
the current welfare system.
  However, I am not a supporter of purely political exercises on the 
House floor when we should be in committee working on a bipartisan 
welfare bill for the Nation, not just Wisconsin.
  The Wisconsin welfare plan, known as Wisconsin Works [W-2], requires 
waivers of 88 provisions of Federal law and regulation in order to be 
implemented. However, the legislation before us does not enumerate or 
provide any information on these waivers. Indeed, I have received no 
letter from Governor Thompson of Wisconsin requesting that I or any 
other Member of Congress should approve these waivers--that letter went 
to the President where it should have gone.
  In fact, this is only a political exercise which will not be 
considered in the Senate. It will,

[[Page H5965]]

however, have real ramifications for the welfare reform effort in my 
State of Rhode Island.
  Rhode Island is currently debating two competing plans, one offered 
by Governor Almond and the other by a coalition of business people and 
antipoverty groups, to reform the State's welfare system. These plans 
have many provisions in common, including requiring work in order to 
receive assistance and providing expanded child care opportunities. 
Both of these plans, however, are miles apart from the Wisconsin plan.
  The goal of welfare reform should be to instill individual 
responsibility and move people from welfare to work. However, a 
reformed system should continue to provide a safety net for those 
individuals who are unable to work, and most important, a reformed 
welfare system should protect children, who have little control over 
their parents' behavior.
  With the information I have been able to find on this proposal, it 
appear that the Wisconsin plan does not meet these goals. Under W-2, no 
family would be entitled to benefits, child care, or other services. 
Families would receive help when parents are participating in work 
activities, but there is no assurance that there will be sufficient job 
placements available for all those in need of assistance. W-2 also 
places children and families at risk by ending the guarantee of health 
coverage through the Medicaid Program.
  Mr. Speaker, I will oppose this legislation because I am concerned it 
moves us away from real bipartisan welfare reform in Rhode Island and 
the Nation. However, I will continue my efforts in support of 
flexibility, work requirements, and protecting children when the 
majority brings a real welfare reform proposal to the floor.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. All time for debate has expired.
  Pursuant to the rule, it is now in order to consider an amendment by 
the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Kleczka].


     amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by mr. kleczka

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Mr. Speaker, I offer an amendment in the 
nature of a substitute. The Clerk will designate the amendment in the 
nature of a substitute.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by Mr. 
     Kleczka: Strike all after the enacting clause and insert:

     SECTION 1. URGING IMPLEMENTATION OF WISCONSIN WORKS 
                   DEMONSTRATION PROJECT.

       Upon presentation by the State of Wisconsin of the document 
     entitled ``Wisconsin Works'' as signed into state law by the 
     Governor of Wisconsin on April 26, 1996, to the appropriate 
     Federal official with respect to any Federal entitlement 
     program specified in such document, such official is urged to 
     waive compliance with the requirements of Federal law with 
     respect to such program to the extent and for the period 
     necessary to enable the State of Wisconsin to carry out the 
     demonstration described in the document upon meeting these 
     requirements:
       (1) Such official shall publish a notice in the Federal 
     Register describing the proposed changes to Federal programs 
     contained in the document scheduled under Wisconsin law to go 
     into effect in October, 1997, and provide for a 30-day 
     comment period to receive public comments from the citizens 
     of Wisconsin and interested parties.
       (2) Such official shall provide for expedited consideration 
     of the demonstration project described in the document under 
     the procedures otherwise required by law, except that such 
     official shall complete such consideration not later than 
     July 31, 1996, compatible with the State schedule established 
     in such document.
       (3) Such official shall certify that the plan does in fact 
     contain the features described by the Governor of Wisconsin 
     on page four of the document entitled Wisconsin Works, March 
     1996 (publication number PES893).

     SEC. 2. PROVIDING FUNDING AUTHORITY FOR IMPLEMENTATION.

       (a) The costs of carrying out the demonstration project 
     which would not otherwise be included as expenditures under 
     such program shall be regarded as expenditures under such 
     program.
       (b) Limitation of Costs.--Subsection (a) shall not apply to 
     the extent that--
       (1) the sum of such costs and the expenditures of the State 
     of Wisconsin under all programs to which Section 1 applies 
     during any testing period exceeds
       (2) the total amount that would be expended under such 
     programs during such testing period in the absence of the 
     demonstration project.
       (c) Testing Period.--For purposes of subsection (b), the 
     testing periods are--
       (1) the 5-year period that begins with the date of the 
     commencement of the demonstration project, and
       (2) the period of the demonstration project.
       (d) Recapture of Excess.--If at the close of any testing 
     period, the Secretary of Health and Human Services determines 
     that the amount described in subsection (b)(1) exceeds the 
     amount in subsection (b)(2) for such period, such Secretary 
     shall withhold an amount equal to such excess from amounts 
     otherwise payable to the State of Wisconsin under section 403 
     of the Social Security Act (relating to the program of aid to 
     families with dependent children) for the first fiscal year 
     beginning after the close of such period. The preceding 
     sentence shall not apply to the extent such Secretary is 
     otherwise paid such excess by the State of Wisconsin.

     SEC. 3. NO EFFECT ON CERTAIN OTHER WAIVERS GRANTED TO THE 
                   STATE OF WISCONSIN.

       This Act shall not be construed to affect the terms or 
     conditions of any waiver granted before the date of the 
     enactment of this Act to the State of Wisconsin under section 
     1115 of the Social Security Act, including earned waiver 
     savings and conditions. The current waivers are considered a 
     precondition and can be subsumed as part of the Wisconsin 
     Works demonstration.

     SEC. 4. AUTHORITY TO PARTICIPATE UNDER SUBSEQUENT 
                   LEGISLATION.

       If, after the date of enactment of this Act, any Federal 
     law is enacted which modifies the terms of, or the amounts of 
     expenditures permitted under, any program to which section 1 
     applies, the State of Wisconsin may elect to participate in 
     such program as so modified.

     SEC. 5. EFFECTIVE DATE.

       Sections 2, 3 and 4 of this Act shall become effective on 
     the date that a waiver is approved pursuant to the conditions 
     stated in Section 1.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from 
Wisconsin [Mr. Kleczka] and a Member opposed, each will control 30 
minutes of debate time.
  Mr. KLUG. Mr. Speaker, I am opposed to this amendment.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Klug] will 
be recognized for 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Kleczka].
  Mr. KLECZKA. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I might 
consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I think it is time to start from the beginning of the 
debate, because I think we have gone off course, and look at what we 
are doing today.
  The bill before us will pass at the end of the day, probably around 3 
o'clock. It will not pass the Senate. So all this rhetoric will be for 
naught.
  So if we think we are doing something to help the American people or 
even help the people of Wisconsin, we are fooling ourselves because as 
soon as this bill leaves this House, it is DOA in the Senate.
  And so my colleague, the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Barrett], says 
this is Presidential politics, let us not kid a kidder, and he is 
exactly correct. I cannot change the fact that it is a Presidential 
political year, but I think this body could probably rise above that 
and act responsibly.
  But that is not in the cards today, my friends. What we are being 
asked to do by the Republicans, what we are being asked to do by the 
majority party product, is to take 88 waivers that the Governor gave to 
this administration and President a week ago, and today, Thursday, at 
about 2 'clock, rubber stamp them all.
  Now, do my colleagues think Members of Congress come to Washington, 
DC, and rubber stamp things and do not read what they are doing? Today 
is a good case in point because today, my friends, we are going to see 
it happen.
  We are told that in the Congressional Record, which is published 
every day, there is a listing of 88 points, 88 waivers. All right; let 
me read one to my colleagues: Elimination of child care disregard. We 
are going to eliminate the child care disregard. What does that mean?
  It is not in here; that is all there is. One phrase. Do my colleagues 
know where it is contained? In here. It is contained in this voluminous 
document, which 5 Members in Congress out of 435 have and possibly 
read.
  So we are going to, about in an hour-and-a-half, do something where 
no Member, or 430 Members of Congress, do not know what they are doing, 
and they are asking us to participate in that, and I for one say 
``no.'' If my folks back home taught that I was casting votes in 
important legislation without reading it, I would be recalled. I would 
be in Milwaukee, WI, today as I speak versus being in this historical 
Chamber. And that is what it is all about.
  Let the Republicans defend how they can ask all their colleagues to 
vote for something they never read. Sad.
  The President indicated in his remarks, and we have the copy of the 
radio address, that he favors the Wisconsin welfare plan. That is fine. 
Did

[[Page H5966]]

he ever say, ``And I will, within 3 days, sign 88 waivers I never 
read''? No. That is not part of it.
  But if we go through the history of this whole process, as I 
indicated before, the legislature in Wisconsin passed it, 5 weeks later 
the Governor signed it. If it was such a rush job, why did the Governor 
not sign it the next day after the Wisconsin legislators passed it? 
Five weeks later he signed it. Then he looked at it, and because we 
have line-item veto, which I support, he vetoed 27 items from the bill. 
And then he came to Washington and said, ``And I need 88 waivers.'' The 
Governor also indicated; he said, ``And I like to get this process 
started, so if you guys and ladies in Washington wouldn't mind, if you 
could get this done by August 1 of this year, that would be nice.'' But 
know for a while this program does not get up and running in the State 
of Wisconsin until October 1, 1997. Why not September 1, 1997, like the 
legislature told the Governor? Because he vetoed that. He vetoed that 
in the bill and moved it back a month. So now we have the program 
coming on line, August 1, 1997, or October 1, 1997, clearly a year and 
5 months from now.

  I have introduced a substitute amendment, which I appreciate is being 
made in order today, and what does it do? Does it talk about 
bureaucrats regressing the legislature, doing all sorts of nasty 
things? No. Does not do any of that. What it does is, very simply, even 
the 430 Members who have never read the waivers will understand this, 
but know for a while, and I am going to ask the folks in the gallery to 
stick around for the vote because at least 50 Members are not going to 
be voting. Do my colleagues know why? Because this is not a big deal to 
California, and it is a long flight home, this is the last day of 
session, and they are gone. They are at Dulles Airport and National 
Airport right now catching their flight home. And so what we have here 
is something akin to a special order, something we do at the end of the 
day and just talk to the cameras and to each other.
  The only good that I see that has come out of this, my friend from 
Wisconsin, Mr. Klug, is that in the last 4 years this is the most time 
the nine of us have talked together that I can recall, and so if there 
is a silver lining behind what is going on today, it has brought the 
nine of us maybe closer together, or at least we got to have some 
conversation. So that is good.
  But the substitute does three major things. It does, No. 1, provide 
that the review and approval of these waivers shall be expedited. That 
is No. 1. No. 2, the substitute amendment we are going to be voting on 
shortly says that there shall be a 30-day public comment period because 
the public, many in Wisconsin and many from other States who have an 
interest in the legislative process, have not seen any of the waivers 
and want a chance to react.
  Why would we close the public out? That would be akin to we are 
taking up the appropriations bills one day on the floor, and we lock 
all the Chamber doors and turn off the C-SPAN cameras because we do not 
want the public to hear and see what we are doing. Boy, would there be 
a riot this country, and there should be.
  But I have letters, not only from constituents, Nancy Ann from 
Greendale, WI, who wants to be heard on this because she did not see 
any of the 88 waivers. Marjorie S. from Milwaukee, who lives on 
Superior Street, she wants to be here on this. Here is a group who has 
some interest in the entire issue of waivers and what is happening: The 
American Association of Women in Community Colleges, very educated 
group, knowledgeable group, they want to be heard on this. The 
Wisconsin Catholic Conference; now, they participated in the public 
hearings, but not all the changes and not the waivers. They want to be 
heard on this. But if we adopt the Republican measure, they are cut out 
of the process, the doors are locked, the lights are dimmed, we do not 
see what is happening. I think that is wrong.
  So my substitute provides for expeditious consideration, 30-day 
public review period, and finally it says by July 31 of this year, by 
July 31 of this year the process shall be complete.
  The Governor asked this Congress to do that by August 1; the 
substitute that I will ask my colleagues to vote on in a short time 
says October or--the substitute that I have introduced provides that 
July 31 the process is done. How fair. And at that point, even though 
430 Members have not read this before they are approved, at least 
someone will, or at least the public will have their say recorded and 
their judgments listened to.
  Mr. HEFNER. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield for a question?
  Mr. KLECZKA. I yield to the gentleman from North Carolina.
  Mr. HEFNER. Mr. Speaker, for my own clarification, under ordinary 
circumstances, something of this magnitude, what would the process be? 
What committee would it go to that we would have hearings where 
everybody could talk about it, we could have witnesses or what have we, 
and the public would know exactly what we are voting on? Because I am 
not familiar with the welfare situation in Wisconsin. I am aware of 
some it in North Carolina. We have had some waivers, and the Governor 
has put in some changes in the welfare program.
  What would be the process that we would go through under ordinary 
circumstances if this was not a dire emergency that we had to get done 
this week? What would be the process?
  Mr. KLECZKA. The gentleman asks a excellent question. A lot of talk 
has been had today about how the State legislature of Wisconsin went 
out, had public hearings, and they debated the bill. This is a bill 
just like the Wisconsin Legislature debated, and the normal operating 
procedures, as the gentleman well knows, is for the Committee on Ways 
and Means, which has control of the issue, it is in our jurisdiction, 
it is the committee I serve on, the bill would be introduced, we would 
have public hearings, members of the public could come before the 
committee and say we like this, we like that, this should be changed, 
and at this point, after the committee heard the public testimony, 
voted on whether or not we should recommend it, it would then be sent 
to the floor for debate like we are having today.
  That process was totally skirted. The Committee on Ways and Means and 
the Members who serve on that committee do not know any more what is in 
this bill or the waivers than the gentleman from North Carolina.
  Mr. HEFNER. Has there been 1 hour of hearings on this particular 
legislation?
  Mr. KLECZKA. There has not been 1 minute of hearings, sir.
  Mr. HEFNER. There have been no meetings on this at all?
  Mr. KLECZKA. No.
  Mr. HEFNER. So today the people that are proposing this legislation, 
I am as well informed as they are, basically?
  Mr. KLECZKA. The gentleman is probably more informed because he is 
one of the few that is here.
  Mr. HEFNER. Well, I have been here for quite awhile. I have never 
seen something of this magnitude, and we single out a State we are 
going to grant how many waivers?
  Mr. KLECZKA. Eighty-eight.
  Mr. HEFNER. Eighty-eight waivers that nobody knows what they are or 
what they do that absolutely affects the lives of millions of people--I 
do not know how many people are in Wisconsin.
  Mr. KLECZKA. Four point eight.
  Mr. HEFNER. Four point eight million people in Wisconsin, and it is 
going to directly or indirectly affect the lives of all the people in 
Wisconsin, and we are going to do it here when a lot of people are 
going to be gone, nobody knows anything about it. To me, this is 
absolutely an abdication of our responsibility, and it laughs in the 
face of a free society and government by the people and for the people.
  This is absolutely totally repugnant to me.
  Mr. KLECZKA. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. KLUG. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.
  I think this is an indication in the dialog we just saw, a very clear 
indication in the fundamental debate here. There were 30 hearings and 
townhall meetings in Wisconsin, and there were 120 hours of debate, 
there were 2,000 residents who participated in those townhall meetings 
and in those hearings as well. That is where the debate should take 
place, and that is where the debate has taken place and that is

[[Page H5967]]

where the vote was. The issue is whether my colleagues trust the 
Wisconsin State Legislature to run its own program or whether they 
think it is necessary for the Federal Government in Washington to 
rewrite it.

                              {time}  1330

  I do not think it is. Again, as for waivers and waiver records, the 
Clinton administration has denied waivers in Illinois, Massachusetts, 
and Wyoming. Waiver requests have been withdrawn because of the 
administration's strings in New Mexico, Ohio, and South Carolina. The 
following States have waivers pending: California, Florida, Georgia, 
Hawaii, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Maine, Maryland, Michigan, 
Minnesota, New Hampshire, Oklahoma, Tennessee, and Utah.
  Mr. Speaker, I think each one of those States is capable of making 
its own decision, and I think that is the fundamental question before 
us today: Do we trust the residents of Wisconsin or do we trust the 
bureaucrats in Washington, DC?
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. 
Kasich], the chairman of the Committee on the Budget, whose home State, 
Ohio, had to withdraw its welfare plan because of Clinton 
administration objections.
  Mr. KASICH. Mr. Speaker, I very much appreciate the gentleman 
yielding time to be because, frankly, Mr. Speaker, everybody who is 
observing this debate ought to recognize that this is the opening 
debate, or not opening, the budget resolution was the opening debate, 
but this is the very first few chapters in the debate about the next 
century, the debate about the future of our country.
  Mr. Speaker, what we are trying to do in Washington as conservatives 
is we are drawing the conclusion that if in fact we can take people's 
power, money, and influence from this city and put it back into their 
hands and their pockets where they live, they will be empowered to 
develop better solutions, more effective solutions than we can develop 
in Washington. This is the perfect debate, to hear the definition of a 
liberal and a conservative at the end of the 20th century, into the 
21st century, and I love the fact that we are going to debate this and 
the American people can decide for themselves.
  The questions that every American citizen has to ask themselves is: 
Am I capable of doing a better job of solving a problem where I live 
than somebody in Washington who has never met me? Frankly, do I have to 
come trudging to Washington to ask permission and to have them evaluate 
my solutions in order for me to be given permission to fix problems in 
my neighborhood?
  I am going to tell the Members, Mr. Speaker, conservatives are going 
to win that fight every single time, because in Washington we have not 
been getting it right. We have been sacrificing the future of our 
children by wasting money, we have been not solving problems.
  When we take a look at this welfare situation, I could take 10 people 
out of the gallery today and sit them in an office, and within 24 hours 
they would design a more effective welfare reform plan than is being 
designed in this city today.
  Mr. Speaker, the real question is, do we have faith in people, do we 
have faith in the American citizen? Because increasingly Americans are 
frustrated that Washington just does not get it. It takes too much of 
their paychecks, does not treat their money with respect, and they 
design programs that do not work.
  Our goal as we enter the 21st century and leave the 20th century is 
to systematically let people have control of their lives, because we 
trust that they will do better than a Washington bureaucrat who, 
frankly, I would say to the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Klug], does 
not even know what time zone it is in Madison, WI, let alone what the 
problems are.

  Mr. Speaker, this is just the beginning, because what is exemplified 
in this debate is not just who should control and determine the quality 
of welfare, but who should determine and write the programs of quality 
education for our children: Should it be Washington bureaucrats or 
mothers and fathers?
  Also, should we as Americans believe that we can handle our disabled 
and our elderly better where we live than relying on the Federal 
Government? This is what we are going to see. In fact, should the 
Government continue to take more and more of what we earn to spend on 
what they think is important in this city, rather than what we think is 
important in our neighborhoods?
  Frankly, Mr. Speaker, the question is real simple: Do we have faith 
that people in the great State of Wisconsin are able to design a 
welfare program that they are happy with, that they believe will solve 
problems more effectively, that they believe is more compassionate, and 
at the end of the day, will get people from welfare to work? Or do 
Members think we ought to keep the program in Washington and impose a 
system on Americans where we come on hands and knees and beg unelected 
Federal bureaucrats for permission to design local solutions to local 
problems?
  This is a perfect debate, and I would suggest that when this rollcall 
vote is put up here, we are going to be amazed at the fact that the 
people of this country will win, because we are going to pass this bill 
because it reflects and represents a confidence in the American people. 
Power to the people.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from North 
Carolina [Mr. Hefner].
  Mr. HEFNER. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the fact that this is an ideal 
debate, but to me it is patently unfair, Mr. speaker, for people to ask 
people from every State in this Union to come in and cast a vote on 
something that they know absolutely nothing about.
  The committee system works here, where we have Democrats and 
Republicans go to committee, they talk, and they have hearings. They 
come and talk to our colleagues and explain what we are voting on. They 
are asking people here that know absolutely nothing about a tremendous 
document that is going to affect 4 million lives in Wisconsin, and the 
chairman of the Committee on the Budget made a very excellent speech 
here, a political speech, but he did not have the courtesy to enter 
into a colloquy. That is where we are. It is a political document. It 
is going nowhere and it is disgraceful. It does not speak well for this 
House.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Wisconsin [Mr. Stenholm].
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Bonilla). Without objection, the 
gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey] now controls the time in support of 
the amendment.
  There was no objection.
  Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, I want to take time today to put in a plug 
for enactment of real welfare reform, something that the House and 
Senate can and will vote for and something the President will sign.
  Let us be totally honest today, Mr. Speaker. This debate on the 
Wisconsin waiver is not about welfare reform, it is about scoring 
partisan points in an election year. We all know this is a terrible 
process, to be considering the Wisconsin proposal. It is not 
unreasonable to expect the Wisconsin plan to be subject to public 
comments and undergo review to determine whether it meets the goals it 
sets forth, whether it will increase Federal spending, which I cannot 
believe my chairman was speaking a moment ago without recognizing the 
potential of doing damage to the budget.
  Regardless of whether we are talking about welfare proposals or 
health care grants or education plans or any other function of the 
Federal Government, I must say that circumventing the processes which 
have served both Democrat and Republican administrations, allowing time 
for public comment and review, is not a wise precedent.
  The State of Texas had to undergo this process in order to implement 
a welfare reform proposal very similar to the Wisconsin plan. While it 
was frustrating at times for those of us who supported the Texas waiver 
to go through the process, we did not ask for special treatment such as 
we are being asked to give Wisconsin today. The Texas plan was approved 
because it was able to stand up to the scrutiny and questions and is 
now being implemented. I support the Kleczka-Obey amendment because it 
requires that the Wisconsin plan undergo the same reasonable scrutiny 
and the same valid questions to be asked that Texas did.

  Instead of wasting our time with political games on waiver for one 
State,

[[Page H5968]]

we should be working on enacting a bipartisan welfare reform bill for 
the entire Nation. I agree that we should not be micromanaging the 
welfare programs of Wisconsin or any other State. There is an agreement 
on a bipartisan welfare reform proposal that can become law, that would 
allow Texas, Wisconsin, and all of the other 48 States to pursue 
innovative welfare reform proposals to move welfare recipients to work. 
It is called the Tanner-Castle Bipartisan Welfare Reform Act. The 
Tanner-Castle bill is an effort to put an end to the partisanship and 
the speech-making and all the rhetoric on this floor, and take 
constructive action on welfare reform.
  The Tanner-Castle bill gives States the flexibility to implement 
welfare reform, initiatives like the Wisconsin plan. There is so much 
about the Wisconsin plan that I like. It is just like the Texas plan. 
The problem is, we do not know what is the rest of the story. What else 
is in this 600 pages? Why not subject it to a reasonable amount of 
scrutiny?
  The more important thing for today's debate is to understand this is 
pure political partisanship. I hope that within the next 2 weeks when 
the welfare reform bill comes to the floor that we will sincerely have 
the discussion and the debate on asking and answering the questions, so 
Wisconsin or any other State does not have to come to the Federal 
Government for a request for waivers. We are that close to doing it, 
but believe me, Mr. Speaker, this bill today moves us in the opposite 
direction. I support the amendment offered by the gentlemen from 
Wisconsin, Mr. Kleczka and Mr. Obey.
  Mr. KLUG. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, let me say that I understand the frustration of my 
colleague in Texas because of Texas' frustration in getting its own 
plan, which was delayed for a while with the Federal bureaucracy. He is 
right, we do need a national plan, but the question again is if we will 
give a green light to one very specific program that is ready to go, 
that the President said he liked, that was, again, passed by two-thirds 
in the House, three-quarters in the State Senate back home.
  The question is can Wisconsin go ahead, in case we get held up in the 
national arena again? Not only is Texas inconvenienced at this point, 
and there is frustration from Georgia, Florida, and a number of other 
places, but California has been caught in this fight as well.
  Mr. SABO. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. KLUG. I yield to the gentleman from Minnesota.
  Mr. SABO. Mr. Speaker, I am just curious; do we have a CBO estimate 
of Federal costs of the Wisconsin plan?
  Mr. KLUG. I will let my colleague, the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. 
Neumann], a member of the Committee on the Budget, respond.
  Mr. NEUMANN. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. KLUG. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.
  Mr. NEUMANN. Mr. Speaker, it is cost-neutral on a 5-year period of 
time. It is on the second page of the bill.
  Mr. SABO. If the gentleman will yield, what does that say?
  Mr. NEUMANN. It say specifically that the cost has to be neutral over 
a 5-year period of time.
  Mr. SABO. If the gentleman will yield further, I would ask, Mr. 
Speaker, is that for State and Federal Government combined?
  Mr. NEUMANN. No, that is for the Federal Government and the impact on 
the Federal.
  Mr. SABO. Is that a CBO estimate that that is achieved?
  Mr. NEUMANN. No, it says very specifically in there that it must be 
budget-neutral over a 5-year period of time.
  Mr. KLUG. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Riggs] to express his frustration with California's 
inability to achieve waivers here in Washington.
  Mr. RIGGS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to 
me, and for his leadership on this very important issue.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to point out to our Democratic colleagues what 
they have described here on this floor in the last few minutes as pure 
political partisanship, opportunism on our part, is not limited to 
Wisconsin. It also, to use their definition, would apply to our 
frustration in California, seeing our welfare waiver requests to the 
Federal Government held back here by the Federal Government bureaucracy 
for months and months and months.
  This article from the May 28, 1996, San Francisco Chronicle pretty 
much says it all. It says ``Welfare Overhaul Stymied in D.C., Critics 
Complain, California Officials Lament,'' I quote from the article: 
``President Clinton,'' and by extension congressional Democrats, 
``argue that he,'' his administration, the Clinton administration, 
``has granted States wide latitude to reform welfare, but California 
State officials maintain that the White House has stymied their 
attempts by delaying, refusing and amending requested changes in 
Federal rules governing Aid to Families with Dependent Children, the 
main welfare program financed half by the Federal Government and half 
by the States.''
  Listen to what Eloise Anderson, the director of the California 
Department of Social Services, has to say: ``Clinton is out there 
publicly saying one thing, but his actions are quite different.'' This 
is a remarkable lady. She is an African-American, she is a former 
welfare recipient, she is very familiar with the Wisconsin plan, 
because she worked as a top welfare aide to Governor Thompson. She has 
patterned the California welfare reform proposals after the Wisconsin 
model.
  She says that President Clinton says one thing and does another. That 
is a real surprise, by now, I am sure, to the American people. Governor 
Wilson says that President Clinton had ``failed to live up to his 
promise of four years ago to `end welfare as we know it.' '' So 
California has been absolutely stymied by the Clinton administration. 
What is the status with respect to their welfare waiver request? What 
is the status of those waiver requests?
  Contrary to the statements of the President, President Clinton has 
thwarted California's efforts to reform welfare through the waiver 
process. On average, California waiver requests have spent over 300 
days languishing in Washington, DC, awaiting approval; 300 days; Mr. 
Speaker, not 30 days.
  On average, the Bush administration approved California's waivers 
within 60 days, and three major California waivers are still pending. 
The maximum family grant, 581 days and counting, 581 days. Did Members 
hear that figure? Not 30. This proposal was enacted by the California 
State Legislature in 1994 with bipartisan support. It would end the 
practice of rewarding irresponsible behavior by denying a grant 
increase for children born to families on welfare. As I mentioned, it 
was submitted in November 1994 and is still pending. Grant reductions, 
91 days and counting; 91 days and counting.
  Studies have found that California's high AFDC grant levels 
discourage work because receiving AFDC is more lucrative than working 
for the minimum wage. That is one reason why I sponsored the minimum 
wage increase amendment on this floor. But Federal law prevents 
California, which provides the fourth highest grants in the country, 
from reducing their grant levels.
  Lastly, the teen pregnancy disincentive, 91 days and counting. This 
reform, approved by the State legislature, again with bipartisan 
support, would require teen parents to live at home, with certain 
exceptions, in order to receive aid. So it is crystal clear what is 
going on here, Mr. Speaker, particularly to the American people, and 
anybody who is wondering why efforts to overhaul welfare have been 
stagnated today need only look as far as this Chamber and how it has 
acted or how it will act on the Wisconsin welfare waiver request, and 
how this administration has handled the California welfare waiver 
request.

                              {time}  1345

  Mr. KLUG. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to my colleague, the 
gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Talent], who is from the St. Louis area 
and who has been a real leader on welfare reform, generally, in this 
House.
  (Mr. TALENT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. TALENT. Mr. Speaker, let us look at this system that Governor 
Thompson and an overwhelming bipartisan majority in Wisconsin is trying 
to change. Let us look at what this system has given us.

[[Page H5969]]

  In the immediate postwar era, Mr. Speaker, welfare in this country 
was taken care of, basically, by localities and private charities 
backed up by State resources. Let us look at how that worked.
  In 1948, the poverty rate was about 30 percent. It declined steadily 
in the postwar era until in 1965, it reached 15 percent. What happened 
in 1965? The Federal Government declared war on poverty.
  Now, the national impulse to help the poor was a good thing, but here 
is how the Federal Government did it. It conditioned assistance on 
people neither working nor getting married, and the two best 
antipoverty programs, the way people typically got out of poverty, is 
by work and by marriage. In effect, what the Government did over a 
period of about 30 years was take away kids' dads and give them 
Government instead.
  We did not get a reduction in poverty. The poverty rate was 15 
percent in 1965, trillions of dollars later, it is still 15 percent. 
What we got was an explosion in the out-of-wedlock birth rate. That is 
the system that Governor Thompson is trying to change.
  What is he trying to do about it? He is trying to replace this failed 
system that nobody will defend, that nobody wants to even be close to 
defending. He is trying to replace that system with a system of 
assistance to people that encourages marriage instead of penalizing it, 
that encourages, and in many cases for able-bodied people requires work 
instead of penalizing it.
  Everybody believes that that is the direction that we ought to go in. 
How much longer are we going to wait until we go in that direction? The 
existing system has produced hundreds and hundreds of thousands of 
instances of human tragedy and usually involving kids. I think of the 
story of Eric Morse who was raised in a Pittsburgh housing project, a 
5-year-old boy. His mom taught him right from wrong, taught him not to 
steal, and there were some older kids in the project. They wanted him 
to steal. When he would not do that for them, they dragged him up to 
the top of that public housing project and they threw him out a window. 
There were no dads in that housing project, nobody to come out of a 
door and say what the heck is going on? Stop this.
  That is the result of this welfare system that people here are trying 
to defend without appearing to defend it. How much longer do we need to 
wait? We hear all kinds of excuses.
  Mr. Speaker, why are people devoting such energy in trying to defend 
or fight this covered retreat in order to prevent change of this 
system. We do not know enough about what Wisconsin is doing. We know 
our system, the federally imposed system is no good. We know that this 
State has been at the forefront of useful welfare reform. We know that 
this plan was approved by the huge bipartisan majority and endorsed by 
the President of the United States.
  What else do we need to know? We do not have a CBO estimate. We do 
not know how much this change is going to cost the Government. We know 
what this system is costing the Government. We know what the existing 
system is costing, not just in money, but in terms of lives. They say 
we need more time to consider this. We have had 30 years of this 
existing system. Let us give some changes an opportunity. We do not 
need more time to know that this system is broken.
  When President Clinton said at the beginning of his term, we need to 
end welfare as we know it, nobody stood up and said, no, let us keep 
welfare as we know it. Why are we preventing this change that everybody 
wants?

  Mr. Speaker, this is a plan that has been endorsed by a huge 
bipartisan majority in the Wisconsin Legislature, endorsed by the 
President of the United States; it is fully consistent with the bill 
that passed this House last year. It is not only what we should do, it 
is the least we should do. It is less than the least we should do.
  We should be having these principles nationally. Let us at least let 
the people of Wisconsin do this for the individuals in their State, the 
most vulnerable among the lower income Wisconsinites, and the children 
there, let us at least let them do this for their own communities.
  Mr. KLECZKA. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Hawaii [Mrs. Mink].
  Mrs. MINK of Hawaii. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding 
me this time.
  I think it is important for us to come to some common ground. I do 
not think that those who oppose this legislation have in any way any 
desire to disturb, denigrate, deny, the people of Wisconsin to offer 
whatever solutions they see best for their State and for their 
community.
  But we have a Federal law, and what they have to do if they have 
desires of participating within the Federal law and to have the 
benefits of 60-percent funding, which is what they received today, then 
they must go through the process, and the process requires that they 
file with the administration waivers that must be approved in order for 
their new plan to go through.
  That is not to say that the Wisconsin people are not genuinely 
interested in change. They have not completed their process because the 
legislature still can act upon their vetoes, but nonetheless, we want 
to certainly accord the people of Wisconsin, California and my State 
the privilege of going to the administration and explaining to what 
extent they could do better with the funds that they are receiving by 
updating waivers.
  Now, the waiver process may be difficult, but it is there because we 
are under a Federal law, which we have to reply to and be responsible 
to, to the rest of the taxpayers of this country. That is what it is 
all about.
  It seems to me that to come to the Congress and to ask for special 
prerogatives, to establish a special precedent when anyone can come 
here and get a hearing with respect to their individual State's waiver 
on the grounds that our State desires to opt out of some Federal 
regulation is a very, very bad precedent to follow.
  The second bad thing about this bill is that it denies open 
government, the open government principle which says, we must at least 
in the waiver process enable people to file comments; at least a 30-day 
comment period must be protected if we believe in open government.
  The third principle which we are destroying today is the separation 
of powers. We have distinct authorities, legislative, executive, and 
judiciary. We have given the executive the prerogatives of waivers. It 
is not for this Congress to sit here and decide sight unseen which 
waivers we want to give to a law that we have enacted. None of us have 
seen the 88 waivers.

  I certainly cannot explain any of them, because I have not read the 
documents, which have not been made available to us. It is really a 
denigration of our responsibility as national legislators to be called 
upon to vote on something that has occurred in another State.
  Mr. Speaker, I do not wish to presume upon the intelligence and the 
judgment and the policies of Wisconsin, but I have a responsibility to 
reflect the integrity of this Chamber and the desires of my State. So 
regretfully, I must stand on principle today, the principles of open 
government, full discussion, and a separation of powers.
  Mr. KLUG. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  First of all, let me say to my colleague from Hawaii, who also has a 
waiver application pending with the Clinton administration.
  Mrs. MINK of Hawaii. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. KLUG. I yield to the gentlewoman from Hawaii.
  Mrs. MINK of Hawaii. Mr. Speaker, in that sense, I hope that it is 
the policy of the majority to grant us this special hearing also 
whenever we see fit, because we too have waiver applications.
  Mr. KLUG. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, again I would encourage 
the gentlewoman as a member of the President's party to issue waivers 
more quickly. However, let me say fundamentally that waivers are not 
welfare reform, waivers are a lifeline for bureaucracies to rewrite and 
to change and negotiate and manipulate and modify documents that are 
written back at the State of Wisconsin.
  Again, in terms of the subject of openness, 30 legislative hearings 
and town meetings, 120 hours of debate, 2,000 residents who 
participated. There was great discussion in Wisconsin, there was a 
recorded vote and majorities in both the assembly and the Senate, two-
thirds in one, three-quarters

[[Page H5970]]

in the other, voted on and passed this piece of legislation and the 
Governor signed it into law.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. 
Neumann], the author of this important piece of legislation.
  Mr. NEUMANN. Mr. Speaker, I rise to make it perfectly clear my 
opposition to the amendment in the form of a substitute, and I would 
like to make it clear exactly what is going on in this amendment in the 
form of a substitute.
  What is happening here is they are trying to say that we need 30 days 
here in Washington to review this. Surely, we are not talking about 
Wisconsin people who want more time to review this, because after 18 
months, my colleague from Wisconsin has gone through the list of how 
many different hearings they have had out there, but surely, after 18 
months of hearings the people in Wisconsin have had their chance to be 
heard.
  This legislation is not legislation designed to reform welfare all 
over the United States of America. This is legislation designed to 
reform welfare in the State of Wisconsin, the people that are going to 
be affected by this legislation, have had 18 months, they have had 18 
months of chances to express themselves.
  What came out of this 18 months of debate in Wisconsin? Why do we not 
need another 30 days of debate out here in Washington, DC? Well, first 
let us make it clear if we give them 30 additional days to debate this 
out here in Washington, DC, what we are really doing is giving the 
Washington bureaucrats the power, the time and the right to rewrite the 
Wisconsin plan and to Washingtonize it.
  We do not want our Wisconsin plan Washingtonized. I do not know if 
the plan is right for every other State in the country, I cannot tell 
you that. But what I can tell you is that after 18 months of debate, 
two-thirds of the people in the assembly and three-quarters of our 
State senators, the majority of the Democrats and all of the 
Republicans in the State legislature voted for it. That is a pretty 
resounding endorsement for this.
  They have made mention of the fact that maybe everybody does not 
understand all of the things in this. Well, our State legislature sure 
does. The Democrats in the State of Wisconsin that voted for it sure 
do, the Republicans in the State of Wisconsin sure do.
  So I would just strongly oppose the amendment in the form of a 
substitute. We do not need 30 days for the Washington bureaucrats to 
pick apart the Wisconsin plan and rewrite the Wisconsin plan to their 
liking. The people in Wisconsin are perfectly capable of writing a plan 
that they know and understand and that serves the best interests of the 
State of Wisconsin.

  There is one another point I would like to make.
  After 18 months of debate, after a two-thirds vote in the assembly 
and a three-quarters vote in the Senate, after the Governor signing the 
bill, what happened? You would think the bill would be enacted into 
law, but instead of enacting the bill into law, the next step was to 
prepare this document. As has been pointed out on the other side, 700 
pages in this document, 700 pages.
  I would like ask people in here just exactly how much they think it 
costs the taxpayers in the State of Wisconsin to hire their own 
Wisconsin bureaucrats to put this document together, to come hat in 
hand to Washington to beg for approval, and just exactly how much do we 
think it is going to cost the taxpayers of this Nation to hire the 
bureaucrats to sit out here in Washington, DC, and now review this 
document one page at a time?
  That is an expense of the taxpayers' money. That money should be 
going to help the truly needy people in this Nation. It should not be 
spent bogged down in a bureaucratic process that just plain does not 
work, and if there is anybody that would like to argue that the welfare 
system in the United States of America today works, I would sure be 
willing to listen.
  Mr. Speaker, I strongly oppose the amendment.
  Mr. KLECZKA. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds.
  Mr. Speaker, the previous speakers indicate that we are giving 30 
days. They know full well the law provides that 30 days shall be given 
to the public for comment, and the Governor by his own words and 
written sentences states to us that if you do this by August 1, that is 
fine with me. So I guess we are playing Governor here by knowing better 
than what Tommy Thompson needs.
  The substitute provides the process will be completed by July 31. The 
Governor says do it by August 1. Everything is fine.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. 
Sabo].
  Mr. SABO. I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time.
  Mr. Speaker, my understanding, there is no CBO cost estimate, and the 
reason we do not have it is because the legislative process is again 
being diverted. If one followed the normal process and had a bill 
reported from committee, then the House rules require a CBO cost 
estimate. If he brings to the floor an unreported bill such as this, 
then the rules do not apply.
  So we do not have a CBO cost estimate, and I must say to my friend 
from Wisconsin, I look at your language, and it does provide some cost 
limitations. But it applies to the totality of State and Federal costs. 
It does not apply if the State is doing things with the system, 
increase Federal costs and decrease State costs.
  Mr. NEUMANN. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SABO. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.

                              {time}  1400

  Mr. NEUMANN. Mr. Speaker, we have had extensive debate on this issue 
over the course of the last week and a half. The language that is found 
in the bill on page 2, subsection (b), was developed in close 
consultation with CBO.
  Mr. SABO. It does not do what the gentleman says.
  Mr. KLUG. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Janesville, WI [Mr. Neumann] to engage in a colloquy with the gentleman 
from Minnesota [Mr. Sabo].
  Mr. NEUMANN. Mr. Speaker, this is a very important concept here, and 
the gentleman understands just how concerned I am with the Federal 
deficit. I know, from serving with the gentleman on the Budget 
Committee, he understands just how strongly I feel about things that 
come to this floor being deficit neutral.
  We spent an extensive amount of time and developed this language in 
consultation with the Committee on Ways and Means and CBO to make sure 
that at the end of the 5-year window, which is the normal window used 
out here, that we would in fact be at least neutral in terms of cost to 
the Federal Government, so that we do not have a bill on the floor that 
would make the deficit worse.
  I think it is very important to understand that as people make the 
move from welfare to work, there are some initial up-front costs in the 
program but that we benefit down the road, as those people accept their 
normal role in society and become productive parts of the society, 
earning a living, paying taxes, doing all the rest of the things. So it 
is clear that there are some costs in the beginning but we do have the 
language in the bill that makes it neutral over the 5-year window.
  Mr. SABO. If the gentleman will yield, I wish what the gentleman said 
was accurate.
  Mr. KLECZKA. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from 
Wisconsin [Mr. Barrett].
  Mr. BARRETT of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I have been listening to the 
debate all day today, and one of the things I find most interesting in 
this debate is we have had a number of speakers from States other than 
the State of Wisconsin who have come up and told about the terrible 
horror stories of how their State has submitted a waiver request and 
the request has been pending for any number of months or any number of 
years. As I listened to those horror stories, I thought, well, why are 
we not dealing with that State's waiver request? Why are we not dealing 
with California's waiver request if it is so terrible? Why are we not 
dealing with Hawaii's waiver request?
  Instead, we are dealing with the waiver request from the State of 
Wisconsin, a State which has had every single waiver request it has 
submitted granted and a State where the most stale waiver request, the 
one that is gathering all that dust here in this terrible city of 
Washington, District of

[[Page H5971]]

Columbia, has been sitting there for 8 days. that is right, 8 days it 
has been sitting there, and this terrible administration has failed to 
act in 8 days on this waive request.
  So I ask myself, what is going on here? Why, rather than dealing with 
Wisconsin's request that is 8  days old, from the State that has had 
the most success in getting waivers, why we are not dealing with 
California's or Hawaii's waiver request?

  I keep going back to that press conference that Speaker Gingrich 
orchestrated where Speaker Gingrich said, ``Well, we're just going to 
come and we're going to pass this waiver request for the State of 
Wisconsin.'' Why do it in the State that has the least amount of 
problems getting waiver requests? Because it is a State that is up for 
grabs in the Presidential campaign.
  It is a State that President Clinton wants to carry and it is a State 
that Senator Dole wants to carry. So rather than going into one of 
these other States, let us inject presidential politics into the State 
of Wisconsin's welfare reform practice.
  Does that make sense? It does not make sense to me, because the State 
of Wisconsin has been successful. It has been successful working on a 
bipartisan basis. It has been successful with a Republican Governor and 
a Democratic President working together.
  I know that that is anathema to my colleagues on the other side, that 
this is an issue where President Clinton agrees that there should be 
welfare reform. But I am also troubled by the fact that what we are 
trying to do here today is frankly circumvent the will of the State 
legislature in the State of Wisconsin and Governor Thompson, because in 
Governor Thompson's waiver request, what does he ask us? He asks us to 
approve these waivers by August 1, 1996. That is what Governor Thompson 
asks us to do in his waiver request.
  Well, Speaker Gingrich and his followers have decided that they know 
more than Governor Thompson and the legislature. Even though Governor 
Thompson and the legislature have asked us to approve these things by 
August 4, they are saying, no, we know more than that elected body in 
the State of Wisconsin. We know more than that elected Governor of the 
State of Wisconsin. What we are going to do is we are going to put our 
judgment--Speaker Gingrich and his followers--are going to put our 
judgment in place of what the legislature and Governor Thompson have 
asked us to do.
  Talk about arrogance, that is arrogance to me. If the Governor of 
Wisconsin in his own submittal asks us to approve this by August 1, 
well, then, let us do it. And that brings me to the substitute that has 
been offered by the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Kleczka] the 
gentleman from Wisconsin [Obey], and myself.

  What does that substitute have us to do? That substitute, believe it 
or not, asks us to do exactly what Governor Thompson has asked us to 
do, and, that is, it urges the Secretary of the Department of Health 
and Human Services to approve the waiver request by August 1, 1996. We 
are doing exactly what the legislature has requested, we are doing 
exactly what the Governor has requested, and we are working with them 
on a bipartisan basis, hand in hand. That is not good enough for the 
Speaker and his followers.
  So where does that leave us now? That leaves us with the amendment 
that has been offered by the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Kleczka]. It 
asks us to do several things. It urges the Secretary to approve the 
waivers, it urges the Secretary to approve those waivers by the exact 
date that is contemplated in the W-2 plan. And it also asks the 
Secretary to make sure that the plan complies with the statements that 
were made by Governor Thompson. Again, wholly consistent with working 
together, not making it a partisan issue, trying to get welfare reform 
done so that it helps people and does not inject Presidential partisan 
politics into the debate.
  I think that the substitute that is being offered is a substitute 
that allows the Republicans to go home and claim victory, because we 
will not have these delays that we are hearing about, these horrible 
delays that are going to say that these delays are going to go beyond 
60 days. It does exactly what they want us to do, and that is get these 
waivers approved quickly. It does so consistent with what Governor 
Thompson said.
  Mr. KLUG. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Wisconsin [Mr. Sensenbrenner], a member of the Committee on the 
Judiciary and ask him to yield for a fundamental question.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.
  Mr. KLUG. In the substitute that has been offered by our colleague 
from Wisconsin [Mr. Kleczka], the language says ``urge.''
  Is it the gentleman's reading that it does not compel the Secretary 
to act by August?
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, that is absolutely correct. This 
substitute is really a cop-out, because what it does is it punts the 
ball right back to the bureaucrats in the office of the Secretary of 
Health and Human Services. It does not compel the Secretary and the 
bureaucrats to approve the submittal that has been made by the Governor 
of Wisconsin. It allows the Secretary to cherry-pick and approve some 
and modify others and disapprove others, which means that the whole W-2 
welfare reform plan that was passed by the State legislature does not 
get approved, and it does not even set up an automatic deadline as I 
read this. It just urges the Secretary to do it by the end of July.
  There is precedent for legislatively approving welfare waivers that 
have been requested by the States and I referred to 3 instances during 
my remarks in general debate: In 1987 Washington State welfare waivers 
were legislatively approved in a budget reconciliation bill as were New 
York waivers. In 1989 Minnesota had some waivers legislatively 
approved. That is exactly the same procedure that we are using here 
today with the waivers that have been requested by the State of 
Wisconsin. So we are not doing something unprecedented, despite what 
the previous speaker has said. We are following the precedents that 
occurred in 1987 and in 1988 with the 3 other States and simply saying 
that this Congress approves the waivers so that the decisions that have 
been made in Madison, WI by the elected representatives of the people 
will proceed rather than getting modified, delayed and confused by 
bureaucrats in the office of the Secretary of Health and Human Services 
across the street.
  Mr. KLECZKA. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
North Carolina [Mrs. Clayton].
  Mrs. CLAYTON. Mr. Speaker, I rise to support strongly the Democratic 
substitute offered by my colleagues from Wisconsin and to say that that 
delegation also knows what is best for Wisconsin as well as my 
colleagues from Wisconsin on the other side of the aisle.
  I also want to comment to the last speaker who said there is great 
precedent because there were some 3 incidents. I would hope that those 
precedents were based on need. There is no demonstrated need, any 
congressional intervention need. Only 8 days have passed. So why is 
there this rush to judgment that we need to engage ourselves in? Only 
for political reasons.
  Why should we support the substitute? Because it allows the will of 
the Wisconsin Governor and the General Assembly to go forward without 
any delay. More importantly, also, it has due process. Due process is 
one of the constitutional provisions that all citizens should have and 
certainly the citizens of Wisconsin should have, and at least those 30 
days to comment. Nothing is delayed in allowing the alternate bill from 
the Democrats to go forward. You are getting the same thing. But you 
also will gain one other important provision, the constitutional 
provision of due process allowing the citizens to comment.
  Mr. KLUG. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire as to the time remaining on both 
sides?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Bonilla). The gentleman from Wisconsin 
[Mr. Klug] has 8 minutes remaining, and the gentleman from Wisconsin 
[Mr. Kleczka] has 5 minutes remaining.
  Mr. KLUG. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from 
Iowa [Mr. Ganske].
  Mr. GANSKE. Mr. Speaker, I rise to urge my colleagues to vote for 
this waiver today. Just recently I had an

[[Page H5972]]

opportunity to talk in some detail with Governor Thompson about the 
Wisconsin plan. It is a bold plan. It is entirely in line with the 
principles that the majority of this Congress have voted on previously 
this year that would allow States to do innovations in the delivery of 
welfare so that we can finally find out a method for solving the 
welfare problem. The current system is not working to help the people 
that it is supposed to. We want to see some experiments around the 
country, and hopefully we can find a method that will work.
  This plan from Wisconsin may not work. But I would like to give it 
the chance to do that. I know that it has been well thought out. I know 
that President Clinton, who has been described by many as something of 
a policy wonk, who looks at a lot of the details of plans, recently 
spoke to the benefits of this plan and the value of this plan and 
basically endorsed it.
  So I think that we ought to go ahead today and give Wisconsin its 
waiver and get it on its way and see whether the Wisconsin plan will 
help us provide welfare better than we are doing now in the State of 
Wisconsin.
  Mr. KLUG. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Florida [Mr. Stearns].
  Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, the legislation we are debating today deals 
with one basic and fundamental issue. Do we want to continue with the 
current welfare system, or do we want to make available to those people 
currently receiving these benefits a more promising and rewarding 
future?
  I, for one, firmly believe that the vast majority of individuals 
currently receiving welfare would prefer cashing a pay check to cashing 
a welfare check. Not only is it counterproductive, it is also wrong. It 
is wrong because it locks people into a cycle of welfare dependency and 
does nothing to improve their quality of life.
  This issue strikes at the very core of what we are trying to 
accomplish in this Congress. We need to turn back to the States the 
programs they must administer.
  Today, we are simply trying to comply with the President's wishes. He 
said he would like to see Wisconsin granted a waiver and that we should 
look to this plan as a model for future national reform.
  My own State of Florida was granted a waiver to conduct two welfare 
demonstration projects. While the Federal waiver was granted in a more 
timely fashion than other States requesting such a waiver; the time 
span was still 5 months long.
  Wisconsin passed its waiver with bipartisan support by receiving a 
two-thirds majority vote. This waiver was agreed to by the State 
legislature after 18 months of public debate. It certainly has had a 
significant review.
  Welfare robs people of their self esteem and leaves them with little 
self respect. Let us put these people to work and give them the dignity 
they want and will receive when they are no longer on the dole.
  My colleagues on the other side should remember that it is the 
President who endorsed this plan. Now we are being accused to playing 
politics. Why don't we pass this legislation and allow the people of 
Wisconsin to make their own decisions about the future of its State in 
terms of the type of welfare program it would like to have.

                             {time}   1415

  Mr. Speaker, I would like to conclude by reciting a passage from 
Genesis in the Old testament which sums up what this debate is really 
all about. It reads, ``If any would not work, neither should he eat.'' 
Welfare represents the antithesis of what this line from Scriptures 
states.
  Mr. KLUG. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleagues who have been listening to 
this debate back in their offices as well as my colleagues on the 
floor. We have a very important fundamental choice before us today. To 
what degree do we trust the citizens of Wisconsin to make their own 
decision about welfare reform and to what degree do we think that 
Wisconsin's plan needs to be modified, changed, stapled, amended, or 
put through a blender by Washington bureaucrats?
  Here is the fundamental point. The plan passed in the Wisconsin 
legislature 73 to 25, an essentially two-thirds majority in the State 
assembly. Republicans and Democrats. All Republicans and a majority of 
Democrats.
  The Wisconsin State Senate? Seventy-five percent of people in the 
Wisconsin State Senate voted for the plan; 27 yes, 6 no. Three-quarters 
Republicans and Democrats were for what President Clinton called 
Wisconsin's bold welfare experiment.
  Supporters? The current senate minority leader, after a special 
election this week, perhaps soon to be the current Democratic majority 
leader in the Wisconsin State Senate, and last time opponent to 
Governor Thompson for Governor, Chuck Chvala, said in support of, and 
voted for W-2, he said, ``The final vote on W-2 presents legislators a 
choice. We can continue along a seemingly endless path that has 
fostered an impoverished dependency on government aid, or we can try a 
new direction in the hope of leading all Wisconsin citizens to a more 
dignified, more prosperous life of self-reliance based upon work, 
because that is the fundamental point in the Wisconsin plan; that it is 
not welfare but it is work.''
  Who else supports the plan; this kind of crazy idea floated up by a 
Republican Governor? The Democratic mayor of Milwaukee, John Norquist. 
In fact, he says he is worried, and has told the Clinton administration 
that he thinks W-2 does not go far enough. ``I want the W-2 waivers to 
be signed quickly, but I want President Clinton to make sure that W-2 
does not become welfare reform-like.''
  The Democratic mayor of the city of Milwaukee wants President Clinton 
to grant the waivers and wants Congress to act quickly to put the plan 
in the President's hands.
  What did the President say again? ``Last week Wisconsin submitted to 
me for approval the outlines of a sweeping welfare reform plan, one of 
the boldest yet attempted in America, and I am encouraged by what I 
have seen so far. I pledge that my administration will work with 
Wisconsin to make an effective transition to a new vision of welfare 
based on work.''
  Now, we have been accused on this side of misreading the President's 
words. All I can tell my colleagues is how the press read that. The 
press said that means that the welfare plan had been okayed by 
President Clinton. And we did not write this. That is the headline of 
the Wisconsin State Journal from Sunday, May 19, based on the 
President's radio address on Saturday that the Wisconsin welfare plan 
is okayed by Clinton.
  Here it is one more time. ``So the States can keep on sending me 
strong welfare reform proposals and I will keep on signing them. I will 
keep doing everything I can as President to reform welfare State by 
State if that is what it takes.''
  And that is what we are asking for here today in this body is to give 
Wisconsin the chance to reform welfare, to give us a chance to create a 
new vision of what welfare should be in this country; that we 
should reward work and not reward dependency. And that is what the 
President said on that Saturday that led to that headline.

  Now, why are we trying to do this today? Because the fact of the 
matter is, despite the President's best intentions, despite speeches on 
both sides of the aisle, for far too long waiver applications come up 
here and they die. Twenty-eight welfare waivers currently pending 
involving 19 States, dating all the way back to September 20, 1993.
  And under the Kleczka substitute what we say is, review it by the 
beginning of August. And then if we do not like it, we can review it 
longer and take our time; and then we will change waiver No. 8 and we 
will amend waiver No. 13; and we do not like waiver No. 16, so that is 
out altogether; and 32, well, we can talk about it and maybe it will 
take us to 1997 to get that done.
  And along the way we will rewrite what Wisconsin wants to do. And 
pretty soon it is not Wisconsin's plan, it is a third Washington or a 
quarter Washington or a half Washington, and it is no longer what a 
bipartisan group in the Wisconsin State Legislature voted for after 
hundreds of hours of testimony and hearings and votes across the State 
of Wisconsin.
  Wisconsin has a proud record, I would suggest to my colleagues, of 
innovation. We were the first place in this

[[Page H5973]]

country to use primary election laws. The Wisconsin Workmen's 
Compensation Act of 1911 was a model for the country, the first 
Unemployment Compensation Act in 1932. Give us a chance to again lead 
this country into a new form of government. I ask Members to give 
Wisconsin's welfare plan their approval.
  Mr. KLECZKA. Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the 
gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey].
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the 
time.
  When the legislature passed the bill that we are now discussing, 
which is, after all, effective come late 1997, when the Governor made 
the 1997 changes he made in that legislative product, the law was 
clear: The Department of Health and Social Services was supposed to 
review that plan after giving every citizen of the State of Wisconsin 
30 days to make a comment on it.
  Now, much has been said about the President and the fact that it has 
been 8 whole days and he has not approved the waiver. The President did 
not say in his radio address I shall be a rubber stamp for Tommy 
Thompson. What he said is I am encouraged by what I have seen so far, 
and then he went on to say, Wisconsin has the makings of a solid, bold 
welfare plan and I pledge that I will work with Wisconsin to make it 
work. That is what he said.
  I would point out that the President, in 3 years, has granted 61 
waivers to 38 States, including Wisconsin on a number of occasions. 
That, by the way, is double the number of welfare waivers approved in 
the entire 12 years that Ronald Reagan and President Bush were 
President; 1,400 Bush, 1,500 Reagan.

  Now, I think what has happened is simply this. Speaker Gingrich 
evidently got irritated because the President indicated, a few days 
before Mr. Dole went to Wisconsin, that he liked what he had seen so 
far about the welfare plan and would work with Wisconsin to get it 
approved. And so, because of the Speaker's irritation, and perhaps we 
could solve that, maybe the way Wisconsin can stop being a ping-pong 
ball in the Presidential campaign is to make an agreement that neither 
party's candidate will come to Wisconsin in the campaign. Maybe that 
will take the politics out of it and we can get serious again.
  But, anyway, the bill before us today says that there will be no 
opportunity for Wisconsin citizens to comment; that the Congress is 
simply going to vote for it sight unseen, with virtually no one in this 
House having any idea what is in the package except perhaps some of us 
from Wisconsin.
  I would ask my colleagues one question. How much do we think people 
have really learned from this debate today about what is in the 
Wisconsin plan as it affects human beings? I would venture to say 
virtually nothing.
  All the substitute does that the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. 
Kleczka] is proposing is to guarantee that no action is taken before 
every Wisconsin citizen has a chance to comment for 30 days. And the 
amendment says that the department shall evaluate the plan not based on 
its own opinions but based on the seven key features which the 
Wisconsin Governor himself has asserted are in that plan. If they are, 
this resolution says approve it.
  That is all we ask. What is wrong with that? What are we trying to 
hide?
  I would also point out that the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. 
Sensenbrenner] is wrong when he says there is not a hard date. The 
language of the Kleczka amendment makes quite clear that the agency 
``shall complete such consideration not later than July 31, 1996.'' 
That is pretty clear to me. And guess what, it is written in English. 
We can even understand it. That is the deadline, folks.
  So all I would ask us to do is forget the politics, forget the 
maneuvering, please do not continue what has become, unfortunately, a 
day-to-day event where the House appears to be nothing more than a 
political extension of the Presidential campaign. This House is better 
than that, at least it ought to be. We have a lot of serious work to 
do, let us do it in a serious way. Let us not demean our processes by 
every day in every way being nothing but ventriloquist dummies for our 
respective Presidential candidates.
  This House has a lot of work to do. Let us get on with it and let us 
stop the political games. This is a political game. Do it the right 
way, support the Kleczka amendment.
  Mrs. COLLINS of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the 
amendment offered by Representatives Barrett, Kleczka, and Obey, all of 
Wisconsin. Since the Gingrich-Armey Republicans have forced us to 
divert from development of a Federal Budget for Fiscal year 1997 so 
that we might have a chance to avoid government shutdowns like the 
Republicans brought about last year, and other priority legislation, 
this amendment seems reasonable.
  This Wisconsin delegation amendment addresses major deficiencies in 
H.R. 3562, the Republican effort to legislate a routine administrative 
procedure. The Barrett, Kleczka, Obey amendment would assure that a 30-
day comment period be observed on the issues contained in the waiver 
request, and that the Department of Health and Human Services conduct 
expedited consideration of the waiver request and certify that the 
Wisconsin plan would, in fact, accomplish what the Wisconsin Governor 
advertises that it will accomplish.
  The Department of Health and Human Services has a responsibility to 
the people of Wisconsin to review the Governor's request to waive the 
Federal protections and services in place and on which they have a 
right to rely. In fact, when the Clinton administration took office, 
one of the first things they did was institute a review of the process 
and procedures to provide for innovation by States to develop reform 
experiments--but also safeguarding people's rights and beneficial 
governmental services or programs. On September 27, 1994, the Clinton 
administration published in the Federal Register new waiver request 
procedures.
  This Wisconsin delegation amendment protects the interests of the 
Wisconsin people while guarding the public interest in (1) not 
providing an automatic welfare check, (2) requiring parents who are 
able and qualified to work as they bring their families to self-
sufficiency, (3) providing child care and health care to qualified 
families, and (4) collecting child support payments and putting them to 
use for the best interest of the children.
  I urge my colleagues to support this amendment to provide for an 
expedited process to be completed by July 31, 1996, using normal 
administrative review procedures which allow for public comments to be 
received and considered. This is our normal and expected process. It's 
part of what Americans expect and deserve in getting due process from 
their government. I support this substitute amendment and urge my 
colleagues to vote for this amendment.
  For the Record, I am submitting the official waiver process for the 
Department of Health and Human Services.

             Department of Health and Human Services  (HHS)


    Office of the Secretary, Health Care Financing Administration, 
          Administration for Children and Families [ORD-069-N]

       Medicaid Program; Demonstration Proposals Pursuant to 
     Section 1115(a) of the Social Security Act; Policies and 
     Procedures
       Agencies. Office of the Secretary, Health Care Financing 
     Administration (HCFA), and Administration for Children and 
     Families (ACF), HHS.
       Action. Public Notice.
       Summary. This public informs interested parties of (1) the 
     principles the Department of Health and Human Services 
     ordinarily will consider when deciding whether to exercise 
     its discretion to approve or disapprove demonstration 
     projects under the authority in Section 1115(a) of the Social 
     Security Act, 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1315(a); (2) the kinds of 
     procedures the Department would expect States to employ in 
     involving the public in the development of proposed 
     demonstration projects under Section 1115; and (3) the 
     procedures the Department ordinarily will follow in reviewing 
     demonstration proposals. The principles and procedures 
     described in this public notice are being provided for the 
     information of interested parties, and are not legally 
     binding on the Department of Health and Human Services. This 
     notice does not create any right or benefit, substantive or 
     procedural, enforceable at law or equity, by any person or 
     entity, against the United States, its agencies or 
     instrumentalities, the States, or any other person.
       For further information contact. Howard Rolston, 
     Administration for Children and Families, Department of 
     Health and Human Services, at (202) 401-9220.
       Thomas Kickham, Health Care Financing Administration, 
     Department of Health and Human Services, at (410) 966-6503.


                       Supplementary information

                            I. Introduction

Demonstration Proposals Pursuant to Section 1115 of the Social Security 
                  Act--General Policies and Procedures

       Under Section 1115, the Department of Health and Human 
     Services is given latitude, subject to the requirements of 
     the Social Security Act, to consider and approve research and 
     demonstration proposals with a broad range of policy 
     objectives. the Department desires to facilitate the testing 
     of new policy approaches to social problems. Such 
     demonstrations can provide valuable knowledge that will help 
     lead to improvements in

[[Page H5974]]

     achieving the purposes of the Act. The Department also is 
     committed to both a thorough and an expeditious review of 
     State requests to conduct such demonstrations.
       In exercising her discretionary authority, the Secretary 
     has developed a number of policies and procedures for 
     reviewing proposals. In order to ensure a sound, expeditious 
     and open decision-making process, the Department will be 
     guided by the policies and procedures described in this 
     statement in accepting and reviewing proposals submitted 
     pursuant to section 1115.

                       II. General Considerations

       To facilitate the testing of new policy approaches to 
     social problems the Department will--
       Work with States to develop research and demonstrations in 
     areas consistent with the Department's policy goals;
       Consider proposals that test alternatives that diverge from 
     that policy direction; and
       Consider, as a criterion for approval, a State's ability to 
     implement the research or demonstration project.
       While the Department expects to review and accept a range 
     of proposals, it may disapprove or limit proposals on policy 
     grounds or because the proposal creates potential 
     constitutional problems or violations of civil rights laws or 
     equal protection requirements. The Department seeks proposals 
     which preserve and enhance beneficiary access to quality 
     services. Within this overall policy framework, the 
     Department is prepared to--
       Grant waivers to test the same or related policy 
     innovations in multiple States, (replication is a valid 
     mechanism by which the effectiveness of policy changes can be 
     assessed);
       Approve demonstration projects ranging in scale from 
     reasonably small to state-wise or multi-state, and
       Consider joint Medicare-Medicaid demonstrations, such as 
     those granted in the Program for All-Incentive Care for the 
     elderly (PACE) and Social health maintenance Organization 
     (SHMO) demonstrations, and Aid to Families with Dependent 
     Children (AFC) Medicaid waivers.

                             III. Duration

       The complex range of policy issues, design methodologies, 
     and unanticipated events inherent in any research or 
     demonstration makes it very difficult to establish single 
     Department of policy on the duration of 1115 waivers. 
     However, the Department is committed, through negotiations 
     with State applicants, to--
       Approve waivers of at least sufficient duration to give new 
     policy approaches a fair text. The duration of waiver 
     approval should be congruent with the magnitude and 
     complexity of the project (for example, large-scale statewide 
     reform program will typically require waivers of five years);
       Provide reasonable time for the preparation of meaningful 
     evaluation results prior to the conclusion of the 
     demonstration; and
       Recognize that new approaches often involve considerable 
     start-up time and allowance for implementation delays.
       The Department is also committed, when successful 
     demonstrations provide an appropriate basis, to working with 
     State governments to seek permanent statutory changes 
     incorporating those results. In such cases, consideration 
     will be given to a reasonable extension of existing waivers.

                             IV. Evaluation

       As with the duration of waivers, the complex range of 
     policy issues, design methodologies, and unanticipated events 
     also makes it very difficult to establish a single Department 
     policy on evaluation. This Department is committed to a 
     policy of meaningful evaluations using a broad range of 
     appropriate evaluation strategies (including true 
     experimental, quasi-experimental, and qualitative designs) 
     and will be flexible and project-specific in the application 
     of evaluation techniques. This policy will be most evident 
     with health care waivers. Within-site randomized design is 
     the preferred approach for most AFDC waivers. The Department 
     will consider alternative evaluation designs when such 
     designs are methodologically comparable. The Department if 
     also eager to ensure that the evaluation process be as 
     unintrusive as possible to the beneficiaries in terms of 
     implementing and operating the policy approach to be 
     demonstrated, while ensuring that critical lessons are 
     learned from the demonstration.

                           V. Cost Neutrality

       The Department's fiduciary obligations in a period of 
     extreme budgetary stringency require maintenance of the 
     principle of cost neutrality, but the Department believes it 
     should be possible to apply that principle flexibly.
       The Department will assess cost neutrality over the life of 
     a demonstration project, not on year-by-year basis, since 
     many demonstrations involve making ``up-front'' investments 
     in order to achieve one-year savings.
       The Department recognizes the difficulty of making 
     appropriate baseline projections of Medicaid expenditures, 
     and is often to development of a new methodology in that 
     regard.
       In assessing budget neutrality, the Department will not 
     rule out consideration of other cost neutral arrangements 
     proposed by States.
       States may be required to conform, within a reasonable 
     period of time, relevant aspects of their demonstrations to 
     the terms of national health care reform legislation, 
     including global budgeting requirements, and to the terms of 
     national welfare reform legislation.

              VI. Timeliness and Administrative Complexity

       The Department is committed to minimizing the 
     administrative burden on the States and to reducing the 
     processing time for waiver requests. In order to accomplish 
     this the Department has adopted a number of procedures, 
     including--
       Expanding pre-application consultation with States;
       Setting, and sharing with applicants, a well-defined 
     schedule for each application, with established target dates 
     for processing and reaching a decision on the application;
       Maintaining, to the extent feasible, a policy of one 
     consolidated request for further information;
       Sharing proposed terms and conditions with applicants 
     before making final decisions;
       Establising concurrent, rather than sequential, review of 
     waivers by all relevant units of the Department and with 
     other relevant Departments and the Office of Management and 
     Budget;
       Exanding technical assistance activities to the States; and
       Developing multi-state waiver solicitations in areas of 
     priority concern, including integrated long-term care system 
     development, services for adolescents, and services in rural 
     areas.
       The Department will continue to follow and development 
     procedures, and commit internal resources to reviewing 
     demonstration proposals, necessary for a sound and 
     expenditures review process.

                      VII. State Notice Procedures

       The Department recognizes that people who may be affected 
     by a demonstration project have a legitimate interest in 
     learning about proposed projects and having input into the 
     decision-making process prior to the time a proposal is 
     submitted to the Department. A process that facilitates 
     public involvement and input promotes sound decision-making.
       There are many ways that States can provide for such input. 
     In order to allow for public input into the proposals, the 
     Department expects States to ordinarily follow one (or more 
     if the State desires) of the processes described in this 
     section.
       1. At any time prior to submitting a section 1115 
     demonstration proposal to the Department of Health and Human 
     Services, a State may provide to the Department a written 
     description of the process the State will use for receipt of 
     public input into the proposal prior to its submission to the 
     Department.
       Within 15 days of receipt of such description, the 
     Department will notify the State whether the described 
     process provides adequate opportunity for public input. The 
     Department will accept any process that--
       Includes the holding of one or more public hearings, at 
     which the most recent working proposal is described and made 
     available to the public, and time is provided during which 
     comments can be received; or
       Uses a commission or other similar process, where meetings 
     are open to members of the public, in the development of the 
     proposal; or
       Results from enactment of a proposal by the State 
     legislature prior to submission of the demonstration 
     proposal, where the outline of such proposal is contained in 
     the legislative enactment; or
       Provides for formal notice and comment in accordance with 
     the State's administrative procedure act; provided that such 
     notice must be given at least 30 days prior to submission; or
       Includes notice of the intent to submit a demonstration 
     proposal in newspapers of general circulation, and provides a 
     mechanism for receiving a copy of the working proposal and an 
     opportunity, which shall not be less than 30 days, to comment 
     on the proposal; or,
       Includes any other similar process for public input that 
     would afford an interested party the opportunity to learn 
     about the contents of the proposal, and to comment on its 
     contents.
       The State shall include in the demonstration proposal it 
     submits to the Department a statement (a narrative of several 
     sentences) briefly describing the process that it followed in 
     implementing the process previously presented to the 
     Department. The Department may find a proposal incomplete if 
     the process has not been followed.
       2. A State that has not followed the procedures described 
     in paragraph 1. must submit a description of the process that 
     was used in the State to obtain public input, at the time it 
     submits its demonstration proposal. The Department will 
     notify the State if the process was adequate within 15 days 
     after the application is submitted, applying the same 
     criteria as in paragraph 1. If the process was not adequate, 
     the State can cure the inadequacy by--
       Posting a notice in the newspaper of widest circulation in 
     each city with a population of 100,000 or more, or in the 
     newspaper of widest circulation in the State if there is no 
     city with a population of 100,000, indicating that a 
     demonstration proposal has been submitted. Such notice shall 
     describe the major elements of the proposed demonstration and 
     any changes in benefits, payments, eligibility, 
     responsibilities, or provider selection requested in the 
     proposal. The notice shall indicate how interested persons 
     can obtain

[[Page H5975]]

     copies of the proposal and shall specify that written 
     comments will be accepted by the State for a period of thirty 
     days. If a State follows such a procedure, the State should 
     respond to requests for copies of the proposal within seven 
     days. The State should maintain a record of all comments 
     received through this process.
       All HHS commitments with respect to times for responding to 
     demonstration proposals shall be tolled until this process is 
     completed.

                          VIII. Federal Notice

       The Department of Health and Human Services intends to 
     publish a monthly notice in the Federal Register of all new 
     and pending proposals submitted pursuant to section 1115. The 
     notice will indicate that the Department accepts written 
     comments regarding all demonstration project proposals.
       The Department will maintain a list of organizations that 
     have requested notice that a demonstration proposal has been 
     received and will notify such organizations when a proposal 
     is received.

                              IX. Comments

       The Department will not approve or disapprove a proposal 
     for at least 30 days after the proposal has been received, in 
     order to receive and consider comments. The Department will 
     attempt, if feasible, to acknowledge receipt of all comments, 
     but the Department will not provide written responses to 
     comments.

                              X. Findings

       The Department will prepare a decision memorandum at the 
     time a demonstration proposal is granted or denied, 
     discussing why the Department granted or denied the proposal 
     and how an approved demonstration meets the criteria 
     established by statute.

                       XI. Administrative Record

       The Department will maintain an administrative record which 
     will generally consist of: the formal demonstration 
     application from the State; issue papers sent to the State 
     and State responses; public and Congressional comments sent 
     to the Department and any Department responses; the 
     Department's decision memorandum regarding the granting or 
     denial of a proposal; and the final terms and conditions, and 
     waivers, sent to the State and the State acceptance of them.

                     XII. Sub-state Demonstrations

       When a demonstration is to be implemented in only part of a 
     State, the State will be required to provide information on 
     the likely demographic composition of populations subject to 
     and not subject to the demonstration in the State. When 
     relevant, the Department will require that the evaluation 
     component of a project address the impact of the project on 
     particular subgroups of the population.

                      XIII. Implementation Reviews

       As part of the terms and conditions of any demonstration 
     proposal that is granted, the Department may require periodic 
     evaluations of how the project is being implemented. The 
     Department will review, and when appropriate investigate, 
     documented complaints that a State is failing to comply with 
     requirements specified in the terms and conditions and 
     implementing waivers of any approved demonstration.

                           XIV. Legal Effect

       This notice is intended to inform the public and the States 
     regarding procedures the Department ordinarily will follow in 
     exercising the Secretary's discretionary authority with 
     respect to State demonstration proposals under section 1115. 
     This notice does not create any right or benefit, substantive 
     or procedural, enforceable at law or equity, by any person or 
     entity, against the United States, its agencies or 
     instrumentalities, the States, or any other person.
       (Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Program, No. 
     93.779; Health Financing Research, Demonstrations and 
     Experiments.)
       Dated: September 16, 1994. Bruce C. Vladeck, Administrator, 
     Health Care Financing Administration.
       Dated: September 16, 1994. Mary Jo Bane, Assistant 
     Secretary for Children and Families.
       Dated: September 19, 1994. Donna E. Shalala, Secretary.

  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the Kleczka-Obey-
Barrett substitute calling for a 30-day comment period and 
administration certification for the Wisconsin welfare plan.
  Mr. Chairman, I am concerned that the Wisconsin Works Welfare Program 
may result in greater poverty for children and families. I am concerned 
that Wisconsin Works eliminates the safety net for the State's working 
poor families. It is possible that it would eliminate child-care 
guarantees and Medicaid coverage. I am concerned that parents who 
cannot find jobs despite sincere efforts will be left destitute.
  These questions remain because this legislation was never considered 
by a committee and was rushed to the floor with little notice.
  The Kleczka-Obey-Barrett substitute would provide a public comment 
period and require the President to certify that this system can work 
and the plan meets the standards defined by the Governor. I urge my 
colleagues to support this substitute.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Bonilla). Pursuant to the rule, the 
previous question is ordered on the amendment in the nature of a 
substitute offered by the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Kleczka] and on 
the bill, as amended.
  The question is on the amendment in the nature of a substitute 
offered by the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Kleczka].
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the noes appeared to have it.
  Mr. KLECZKA. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 194, 
nays 233, not voting 7, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 220]

                               YEAS--194

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Andrews
     Baesler
     Baldacci
     Barcia
     Barrett (WI)
     Becerra
     Beilenson
     Bentsen
     Berman
     Bevill
     Bishop
     Blumenauer
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boucher
     Brewster
     Browder
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Bryant (TX)
     Cardin
     Chapman
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Coleman
     Collins (IL)
     Collins (MI)
     Condit
     Conyers
     Costello
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Cummings
     Danner
     de la Garza
     DeFazio
     DeLauro
     Dellums
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doyle
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fazio
     Fields (LA)
     Filner
     Flake
     Foglietta
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Frost
     Furse
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Geren
     Gibbons
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green (TX)
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hamilton
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Hefner
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Holden
     Hoyer
     Jackson (IL)
     Jacobs
     Jefferson
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnston
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Kleczka
     Klink
     LaFalce
     Lantos
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Luther
     Maloney
     Manton
     Markey
     Martinez
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy
     McDermott
     McHale
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (CA)
     Minge
     Mink
     Moakley
     Montgomery
     Moran
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Neal
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Orton
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pastor
     Payne (NJ)
     Payne (VA)
     Pelosi
     Peterson (FL)
     Peterson (MN)
     Pickett
     Pomeroy
     Poshard
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reed
     Richardson
     Rivers
     Roemer
     Rose
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanders
     Sawyer
     Schroeder
     Schumer
     Scott
     Serrano
     Sisisky
     Skaggs
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stenholm
     Stokes
     Studds
     Stupak
     Tanner
     Taylor (MS)
     Tejeda
     Thompson
     Thornton
     Thurman
     Torres
     Towns
     Traficant
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Volkmer
     Ward
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Williams
     Wilson
     Wise
     Woolsey
     Wynn
     Yates

                               NAYS--233

     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baker (CA)
     Baker (LA)
     Ballenger
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bateman
     Bereuter
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bliley
     Blute
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Brownback
     Bryant (TN)
     Bunn
     Bunning
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Canady
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth
     Christensen
     Chrysler
     Clinger
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins (GA)
     Combest
     Cooley
     Cox
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cremeans
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Davis
     Deal
     DeLay
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Doolittle
     Dornan
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     English
     Ensign
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fawell
     Fields (TX)
     Flanagan
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fowler
     Fox
     Franks (CT)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frisa
     Funderburk
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Goss
     Graham
     Greene (UT)
     Greenwood
     Gunderson
     Gutknecht
     Hancock
     Hansen
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Heineman
     Herger
     Hilleary
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hoke
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Istook
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kim
     King
     Kingston
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaHood
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Laughlin
     Lazio
     Leach
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Lightfoot
     Linder
     Livingston
     LoBiondo
     Longley
     Lucas
     Manzullo
     Martini
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDade
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McKeon
     Menendez
     Metcalf
     Meyers
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Molinari
     Moorhead
     Morella
     Myers
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Neumann

[[Page H5976]]


     Ney
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Oxley
     Packard
     Parker
     Paxon
     Petri
     Pombo
     Porter
     Portman
     Pryce
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Riggs
     Roberts
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roth
     Roukema
     Royce
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaefer
     Seastrand
     Sensenbrenner
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Shuster
     Skeen
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Solomon
     Souder
     Spence
     Stearns
     Stockman
     Stump
     Talent
     Tate
     Tauzin
     Taylor (NC)
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Torkildsen
     Torricelli
     Upton
     Vucanovich
     Walker
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     White
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Zimmer

                             NOT VOTING--7

     Allard
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Lincoln
     Mollohan
     Quillen
     Schiff
     Zeliff

                              {time}  1445

  The Clerk announced the following pair:
  On this vote:

       Ms. Jackson-Lee of Texas for, with Mr. Quillen against.

  Messrs. BERMAN, DOGGETT, TEJEDA, and HILLIARD changed their vote from 
``nay'' to ``yea.''
  So the amendment in the nature of a substitute was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). The question is on the 
engrossment and third reading of the bill.
  The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was 
read the third time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the passage of the bill.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device and there were--yeas 289, 
nays 136, not voting 9, as follows:

                             [Roll No 221]

                               YEAS--289

     Ackerman
     Andrews
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baesler
     Baker (CA)
     Baker (LA)
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bateman
     Bentsen
     Bereuter
     Bevill
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Bliley
     Blute
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Brewster
     Browder
     Brownback
     Bryant (TN)
     Bunn
     Bunning
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Canady
     Cardin
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chapman
     Chenoweth
     Christensen
     Chrysler
     Clement
     Clinger
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins (GA)
     Combest
     Condit
     Cooley
     Costello
     Cox
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cremeans
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Davis
     Deal
     DeLay
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Dicks
     Dooley
     Doolittle
     Dornan
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     English
     Ensign
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fawell
     Fazio
     Fields (TX)
     Flanagan
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fowler
     Fox
     Franks (CT)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frisa
     Funderburk
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Geren
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Gordon
     Goss
     Graham
     Greene (UT)
     Greenwood
     Gunderson
     Gutknecht
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hamilton
     Hancock
     Hansen
     Harman
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Hefner
     Heineman
     Herger
     Hilleary
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hoke
     Holden
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Istook
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kim
     King
     Kingston
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaHood
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Laughlin
     Lazio
     Leach
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Lightfoot
     Linder
     Lipinski
     Livingston
     LoBiondo
     Longley
     Lowey
     Lucas
     Luther
     Manzullo
     Martini
     Mascara
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDade
     McHale
     McHugh
     McIntosh
     McKeon
     Metcalf
     Meyers
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Minge
     Molinari
     Montgomery
     Moorhead
     Moran
     Morella
     Myers
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Neumann
     Ney
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Orton
     Oxley
     Packard
     Parker
     Paxon
     Payne (VA)
     Peterson (MN)
     Petri
     Pickett
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Portman
     Poshard
     Pryce
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Riggs
     Roberts
     Roemer
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roth
     Roukema
     Royce
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Sawyer
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaefer
     Schumer
     Seastrand
     Sensenbrenner
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Shuster
     Sisisky
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Solomon
     Souder
     Spence
     Spratt
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stockman
     Stump
     Talent
     Tanner
     Tate
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Thurman
     Tiahrt
     Torkildsen
     Torricelli
     Traficant
     Upton
     Visclosky
     Vucanovich
     Walker
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     White
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson
     Wolf
     Wynn
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Zimmer

                               NAYS--136

     Abercrombie
     Baldacci
     Barrett (WI)
     Becerra
     Beilenson
     Berman
     Blumenauer
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boucher
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Bryant (TX)
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clyburn
     Coleman
     Collins (IL)
     Collins (MI)
     Conyers
     Coyne
     Cummings
     Danner
     de la Garza
     DeFazio
     DeLauro
     Dellums
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Durbin
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fields (LA)
     Filner
     Flake
     Foglietta
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Frost
     Furse
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Gibbons
     Gonzalez
     Green (TX)
     Gutierrez
     Hastings (FL)
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Jackson (IL)
     Jacobs
     Jefferson
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnston
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Kleczka
     Klink
     LaFalce
     Lantos
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lofgren
     Maloney
     Manton
     Markey
     Martinez
     Matsui
     McCarthy
     McDermott
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek
     Menendez
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (CA)
     Mink
     Moakley
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Neal
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pastor
     Payne (NJ)
     Pelosi
     Peterson (FL)
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reed
     Richardson
     Rivers
     Rose
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanders
     Schroeder
     Scott
     Serrano
     Skaggs
     Slaughter
     Stark
     Stokes
     Studds
     Stupak
     Tejeda
     Thompson
     Thornton
     Torres
     Towns
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Volkmer
     Ward
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Williams
     Wise
     Woolsey
     Yates

                             NOT VOTING--9

     Allard
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Lincoln
     McInnis
     Mollohan
     Pombo
     Quillen
     Schiff
     Zeliff

                              {time}  1507

  The Clerk announced the following pair:
  On this vote:

       Mr. Quillen for, with Ms. Jackson-Lee against.

  So the bill was passed.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________