Nathan Deal

Mr. DEAL of Georgia

Mr. DEAL of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Gene Green. (Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. DEAL

Mr. DEAL. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Chairman, I said at the outset that we are the Cinderella team here. We are just pleased to be invited to the ball. We had to come as we were. One of our stepsisters got invited. They were supposed to be the one that wore the shipper. We have taken 2 days and 31 visits to the beauty shop to try to improve their dress, to improve their hair style and to give them a facial makeover. But we are glad to be invited to the ball. We thank all of you for that opportunity. Let me address some of the issues that you have stated previously. First of all, we think that unfortunately, if you are going to break welfare, you have to get people to work. You saw the charts that were displayed on this side. The one glaring error is that on the Republican bill you can count somebody in your work requirements just by simply kicking them off the rolls whether they ever to go work or not. We do not allow that. Let us look at the percentages here. You will see the percentages. As you notice, one of the makeovers did increase the percentages, but it did not give the States any additional revenue to achieve these goals. If it costs money to get people to work, where is the extra revenue to get them to work? We believe it is one of the largest unfunded mandates that States and communities will ever see. We have a letter from the Conference of Mayors, indicating they think that it is a shift, made reference to the fact that the Governors, Republican Governors Association endorsed a letter against us. I notice that only eight of them signed it. I thought you had significantly more than that. Maybe they will get around to signing it later. Let me talk to you about the issue of flexibility. We talk about flexibility, and we talk about funding. This is the funding mechanism. you are not going to be able to get people off of work by cutting child care benefits. You are not going to get people off of work without giving them the incentive for additional transitional Medicaid so that a working mother does not lose the health care for her children. And that costs the money. You have got to have incentives for people to go to work. We do it and we save money. How much is it going to cost? I want to talk to you about how much it is going to cost. The CBO scores these things. That is what they are there for, and they are now under the Republicans' control. And we have talked about how much things are going to cost. CBO has scored both bills, and they have looked at it from the standpoint of are you achieving the goal of getting people off of welfare and into work. What do they say? They say that we can meet our work requirements under the bill and probably not use all of the resources. What do they say about the Republican version? They simply say that none of the 50 States, including the territories, will be able to reach the goals of work that they schedule. You can talk about us being able to allow people to look for jobs and job search. Yes, we do require that within 30 days from the time we began. But, gentleman and ladies on the other side, you allow people to sit at home for 2 years and never have to go to work. They do not even have to look in the yellow pages or in the work section of the newspaper. I would urge Members to look at this bill on the merits. We think it is a substantial improvement over what is being offered. We are Cinderella, and we believe at the end of the ball we will be wearing the slipper.

Mr. DEAL of Georgia

Mr. DEAL of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Tennessee [Mr. Tanner], one of the original cosponsors of this legislation. (Mr. TANNER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. DEAL of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Alabama [Mr. Cramer]. (Mr. CRAMER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. DEAL

Mr. DEAL. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Lewis]. (Mr. LEWIS of Georgia asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. DEAL of Georgia

Mr. DEAL of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida [Mrs. Thurman], one of the original cosponsors of this amendment. (Mrs. THURMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. DEAL of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Arkansas [Mrs. Lincoln], one of the original cosponsors of the amendment. (Mrs. LINCOLN asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. DEAL of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 15 seconds to respond to the gentleman from Texas [Mr. DeLay]. Mr. Chairman, I wish he would read my bill. It says we do not continue those benefits to underage mothers. They have to live at home with a parent or an adult, and they do not have the freedom to live in that public housing, and we require they go back to school and complete their high school education. I would also point out there is no Clinton-Deal bill. It is the Clement-Deal bill. The gentleman from Tennessee [Mr. Clement] has previously spoken. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Levin].

Mr. DEAL of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Stenholm], one of the original cosponsors of this legislation. (Mr. STENHOLM asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. DEAL of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. Hefner]. (Mr. HEFNER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. DEAL of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 15 seconds in order to respond. I also have a letter, and since I have not received the one the gentleman from Florida quoted from, I have a letter from his own school board in which they say they do support our legislation. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California [Ms. Woolsey]. (Ms. WOOLSEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.) (Ms. WOOLSEY. I thank the gentleman for yielding this time to me. Mr. Chairman, as the only Member of this body who has actually been a single, working mother on welfare, I support the Deal substitute. Mr. Chairman, Representative Rich Neal of Massachusetts and I co- chaired the Democratic task force on welfare reform, and I want to compliment the many Members who made this substitute worthy of widespread support: Nathan Deal, Patsy Mink, Sandy Levin, Xavier Becerra, Eleanor Holmes Norton, Bill Orton, and many others worked long and hard to create a bill that reforms welfare without punishing poor women and children. The Deal substitute offers a fair deal. It invests in education; job training; and child care to get people into jobs. Mr. Chairman, the choice comes down to this: We either punish poor children as the Republican bill does or, as in my case we invest in families so they can get off welfare permanently. Let us put politics aside and put our children first. Support the Deal substitute.

Mr. DEAL of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute. First of all, I respond to the gentleman's comments: Yes, we believe that for those who are taking Federal assistance through food stamps and AFDC and earning the same amount of money as hardworking poor people, that a dollar of welfare ought to be worth the same thing as the dollar you work for. That is the reason for it. In responding to the issue of who supports whom in this issue, I would like to quote briefly from a letter. I would like to quote briefly from a letter dated March 20, 1995, from the National League of Cities, in which they say, ``We believe the pending bill, H.R. 4, could affect local government. The bill could be one of the greatest mandates ever imposed upon our communities.'' Governor Carper of Delaware, in responding to the Republican bill, says, ``In sum, this legislation would not transform the welfare. Rather, it would not severely undercut our efforts to reform the welfare system in our State.'' Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Peterson].

Mr. DEAL of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Payne]. (Mr. PAYNE of Virginia asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. DEAL of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, in light of that, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from California [Mr. Fazio]. (Mr. FAZIO of California asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. DEAL of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Neal].

Mr. DEAL

Mr. DEAL. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, today is the day for change, today is the time to reaffirm our basic belief in work. Hard work has built this Nation and hard work continues to sustain it. Today we are here to talk about changing the institution of welfare and replacing it with work. This should not be a partisan debate, we should all share in seeking the best answers regardless of whose ideas they are. The substitute is brought to you by six Members and their hard- working staffs, none of whom are chairmen or ranking members, and three of whom were freshmen when this issue began in our group last Congress. In this time of basketball fever with the final four being talked about, I would suggest that our bill is assigned a real label that has made it to the final three and for that I am grateful. I express my appreciation to the leadership for allowing this issue of welfare reform to come to the floor and to the members of the Committee on Rules and its chairman for allowing our substitute to be presented for debate. We believe that work is the only long-term solution to the issue of welfare, and we believe that our plan presents the best alternative with the resources to the States to achieve that transition. In the 30 minutes that we are allotted, we will do our best to reveal to Members why we believe that our plan presents the best alternative of making the transition from welfare to work. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Hoyer]. (Mr. HOYER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. DEAL of Georgia

Mr. DEAL of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 10 seconds. Mr. Chairman, I point out that under the Republican bill it is 2 years before anybody ever has to go to work, but in ours 30 days after they enter they have to begin a job search and sign a self-sufficiency plan. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the ranking member of the Committee on Agriculture, the gentleman from Texas [Mr. de la Garza]. Mr. de la GARZA. Mr. Chairman, I say to my colleagues, I urge you to vote for the substitute bill prepared by Mr. Deal and others. The food stamp title of this substitute includes all of the antifraud proposals of the U.S. Department of Agriculture. No one can say that the substitute isn't tough on waste, fraud, and abuse. The food stamp substitute requires people to work. No one can say that this substitute does not have a work provision to receive food stamp benefits. After 6 months, anyone who is unable to find work, we also have provisions for employment and training. The substitute bill will promote expansion of electronic benefit transfers, or EBT. The substitute requires, and this is very important, this difference between the substitute and H.R. 4: We reduce legitimate costs, but we will not reduce costs from legitimate users of food stamps. These are not the no counts, not the anything else. What H.R. 4 does, it keeps the thrifty food plan at 103 percent, but with no increase. If the cost of food goes up; too bad, you go hungry. We don't do that. And also the substitute bill requires that all net savings must go to reducing the deficit. It does not go to anything else. Mr. Chairman, let us not punch holes in the safety net in the name of welfare. I say to my colleagues, don't talk to the Ag Committee about reducing expenditures. We have done over $60 billion in 12 years, but, Mr. Chairman and my colleagues, I refuse to use hungry people to get moneys to give tax breaks to wealthy people. The Deal substitute mandates you to use the savings only for deficit reduction. I urge colleagues to vote for the substitute bill prepared by Mr. Deal and others. We have worked with Mr. Deal on the food stamp provisions of that substitute and believe that they present a much better option than the food stamp provisions of H.R. 4. The food stamp title of the substitute includes all of the antifraud proposals of the U.S. Department of Agriculture, proposals incorporated in H.R. 1093, a bill I introduced on March 1. Although a number of the USDA proposals were included in H.R. 4 as a result of an amendment I offered at our welfare reform markup, the substitute includes all of the Department's proposals. The most significant of the substitute's antifraud provisions will authorize criminal and civil forfeiture when food retailers traffic in food stamps. This provision will create a significant disincentive to food stamp trafficking. The substitute also doubles the penalties for individuals violating program rules, and requires the collection of certain claims against households by Federal tax and salary offset. The substitute will require that food stamp recipients work at least half-time, participate in a public service program in return for their benefits, or participate in an employment and training program. This requirement will be imposed on able-bodied recipients who have no children, after they have received food stamps for 6 months. This category of recipient is very likely to find work on their own during the first 6 months and no longer need food stamps. if they are unable to find work within that 6 month period and continue to need food stamps, the work requirements will be imposed. Every recipient wishing to continue to receive food stamp benefits after 6 months who is unable to find work, will be assured of a slot in an employment and training program rather than being kicked off of the food stamp program. Of course, the elderly and disabled are exempt, and those families receiving AFDC will be required to follow the AFDC work rules. The substitute will provide greater coordination between food stamps and AFDC by requiring in many instances that the same rules be used to calculate income and assets. This provision will help caseworkers who now must use different rules for different programs. The substitute will promote the expansion of electronic benefits transfer, or EBT, by allowing States to begin using EBT without seeking USDA approval first. Of course, the EBT requirements of the Food Stamp Act will still apply, and USDA will still monitor States to make sure that their EBT systems are in compliance with the law, but States will no longer have to prepare and have approved by USDA their plan for EBT. This provision should make it easier for States to implement EBT, and EBT will help us reduce fraud in the program. The substitute requires that food stamp allotments be based on 102 percent of the thrifty food plan. The thrifty food plan is the cheapest of four food plans designed by USDA, and it assures a family a nutritionally adequate diet. It is adjusted annually to reflect the current cost of food, and food stamp allotments are then adjusted to reflect the changes in the thrifty food plan. This is one way that food stamps are responsive to changes in the economy. When food costs go up, food stamp allotments go up by the same percentage. H.R. 4 will discontinue use of this mechanism to keep food stamp benefits in line with the cost of food, and it will simply require that allotments be raised by 2 percent each year, no matter how much food costs might increase. CBO estimates that by fiscal year 1998, food stamp benefits will fall below what a family will need to maintain a nutritionally adequate diet if H.R. 4 is enacted. The substitute bill will not let that happen. The annual adjustments to reflect the cost of food will still be made, and instead of families getting 103 percent of what they need, they will get 102 percent--the extra 2 percent addresses the lag between the time that the thrifty food plan adjustment is made and when benefits are issued over the next 15 months. This reduction in food stamp benefits, and several other provisions of the substitute, are included to provide some savings in the projected cost of the food stamp program. I understand that OMB projects the savings from these food stamp provisions at approximately $4 billion over 5 years. These are painful cuts, but we are providing those savings in as humane a way as we possibly can. The substitute bill requires that any net savings must go to deficit reduction and nothing else. This will assure that any reductions in benefits will only go to the employment and training programs, the coordination of AFDC and food stamps, or deficit reduction. To reduce benefits and allow the savings to be used for any other purpose is unacceptable. Finally, the bill coordinates four commodity distribution programs: the Emergency Food Assistance Program, the Commodity Supplemental Food Program, the program for soup kitchens and food banks, and the program for charitable institutions. These programs will be consolidated into one discretionary program. This substitute will maintain the safety net for all welfare recipients who are willing to work but unable to find jobs. It will help those recipients find work, and train them for work if that is what is needed. The policy behind the substitute demands that we reform our welfare system so that it is humane and effective as it moves people off of welfare and into jobs. Let us not punch holes in the safety net in the name of welfare reform.

Mr. DEAL of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Bishop].

Mr. DEAL of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Tennessee [Mr. Clement], one of the original cosponsors of the bill.

Mr. DEAL of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from California [Ms. Harman]. (Ms. HARMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. DEAL of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from Ohio [Ms. Kaptur]. (Ms. KAPTUR asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. DEAL

Mr. DEAL. I yield to the gentleman from Tennessee.

Mr. DEAL. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Chairman, first of all, I commend the gentlewoman who has offered this amendment, because I think it does recognize a movement in the right direction to correct some of the provisions of H.R. 4. It will in fact add back additional funds. But as I look as the scoring on this, it appears to me that we are still talking about cutting the funding in this category by some $600 million below current levels. I think that is what places all of us on the horns of a dilemma in this debate about welfare reform. On the one hand, if we are going to try to move people off of welfare and on to work, especially is we are talking about mothers, the availability of child care is an essential ingredient in that formula. If we are in fact under H.R. 4, even with the amendment, still cutting below current levels by $600 million, and if current levels are not adequate to change the status quo, then we still have a problem. Our Deal substitute, on the other hand, adds $3.7 billion additional to the child care fund, and in addition to that we have some $424 million over a 5-year period to assist the working poor. I think we all recognize that this is an essential ingredient in making the transformation from welfare to work, and I commend the gentlewoman for this effort. I think it is a movement in the right direction. I would like to think, however, that our substitute does a better job.

Mr. DEAL of Georgia

Mr. DEAL of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment in the nature of a substitute.

Mr. DEAL

Mr. DEAL. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me. Mr. Chairman, I understand what the gentleman's amendment is attempting to do, and that is to overcome one of the negative mandates contained in the major bill. That is that the gentleman would prohibit any revenue or resources being given to those underage mothers. If the gentleman would like to clean up that part of the bill, if he would pardon the pun, boy, have I got a deal for him, and that is the Deal substitute, because we do exactly what the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Shaw] has suggested. Our bill says that we do not pay cash benefits to underage mothers, that they must be with an adult, a parent or a supervising adult; that they are required to go back to school to complete their education. This effort to simply in part address that issue with baby diapers or clothes is only a partial solution to it. We believe that these underage mothers need to have the leverage placed upon them to make sure that they complete their education, to make sure that they do not establish independent households. Mr. Chairman, I would just simply suggest that the Deal substitute addresses this problem in a more thorough and complete manner.