Nathan Deal

Mr. DEAL of Georgia

Mr. DEAL of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time. Mr. Chairman, I think that there are two great political issues that face this country. One is welfare reform and the other is immigration reform. Unfortunately, the two of them are inextricably linked together. When you consider the fact that 21 percent of all immigrant households receive some form of assistance, when you consider that for the 12-year period between 1982 and 1994 that the applications for SSI by immigrant families increased some 580 percent compared with only a 49-percent increase for native Americans, then you have to say that the two are linked together. Unfortunately, if we do not address one, it is going to be almost impossible to address and solve the other. So I would urge that we defeat the amendment that is before the House.

Mr. DEAL of Georgia

Mr. DEAL of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I think this debate highlights the fact that we have a serious problem in this country in terms of those who come into the country, give birth to children and citizenship being granted upon that birth and, obviously, it will require apparently a constitutional amendment. I think this highlights the necessity for that. I think we have all seen situations in which we have heard the traditional description of bootstrapping your way into a benefit. This is booty-strapping. This is a situation in which, by virtue of the act of illegal entry on the part of a parent, the birth of the child gives the right to benefits from the taxpayers' coffers. I rise in opposition to this amendment, and I think that it does highlight the fact that we have a situation of rewarding those who would violate our immigration laws. I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me.

Mr. DEAL of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time. Mr. Chairman, there is a truism that I think applies in life as it does in legislation, that one excuse is just as good as another if we do not want to do anything. We have heard a lot of excuses today. I am afraid that this amendment, as well intentioned as it may be, is just another excuse. If we really do not want to do anything about the immigration problem and the employment of those who are not legally in our country, then this excuse is just as good as another. I cannot refute all of the excuses that have been offered as a support for this amendment, but let me take one, the idea that there is an error rate in the Social Security office and that somebody may be denied the opportunity to work because there has been some mix-up in their Social Security number. I want to suggest that if we put in place this bill without this amendment, we will do two things. First of all, let an American citizen who is legally in this country and legally entitled to be employed be denied an opportunity because somebody has made an error in his Social Security rate, two things are going to happen. First of all, they are going to correct his Social Security records, which ought to have been done in the first place, and second, he is going to get the job.

Mr. DEAL of Georgia

Mr. DEAL of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me. Mr. Chairman, we have heard some very interesting debates here today. I support this amendment because I think it is a common-sense amendment. I would like to tell the Members why I think it is good common sense. On the one hand, we have a system in which we as taxpayers spend millions of dollars, hire tens of thousands of employees, to maintain a Social Security system that is designed to have records that relate to employment and records that relate to your contributions as an employee into the system. We also have tens of thousands of people and spend millions of dollars trying to put in place a system that will verify those who are legally in our country, and we have purposes in doing so. On the other hand, we have hundreds of thousands of people who are illegally in our country who are likewise spending, probably, millions of dollars trying to duplicate and reproduce the same kinds of documents that those that are employed by the taxpayers are also doing. Then we have the employer in the middle, and the employer, because of the way our system operates, is faced with an individual standing in front of him, presenting him with documents. He does not know whether they are produced by the legal system or by the illegal system. Yet the employer says, ``Well, if I am a taxpayer paying for the legal system to be in place, whey can I not just ask that system to tell me if these are true or forged documents?'' And the system does not allow him to do so. That, to me, makes no common sense at all. If we are going to make the employer the enforcer, we ought not to put him in a position of simply saying, ``We are going to send the INS into your office, and if you did not have the right documents there, then gotcha.'' We all know, ``Don't ask, don't tell.'' I say that this is a system of ``Do ask, do tell.'' We ought to ask, as an employer, and as the Government, we ought to tell whether or not these are in the one category of legal documents, or in the other category of illegal documents. Mr. Chairman, I urge support of the amendment. 1815

Mr. DEAL of Georgia

Mr. DEAL of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time. Mr. Chairman, as citizens of the United States, we have always taken pride in the fact that we are a nation of laws and not of men. When any law is ignored or intentionally and openly violated, It undermines respect for this concept of a government of laws. No area of Federal law has been more flagrantly violated than our immigration laws. As a result, almost every community in this Nation has felt the impact of these violations. The increased costs of indigent care in our hospitals and emergency rooms, and the rise in property taxes to pay for education costs and social benefits are but a few of the costs associated with the violations of our immigration laws. At a time when we are struggling to provide health care, education, and social services to our own citizens, we cannot justify the depletion of our tax dollars for those who are illegally in our country. The public is correct in demanding that we act to stop these abuses. In my congressional district, Dalton and Whitfield County, GA have acted to form the first joint local-Federal task force on illegal immigration. But it is our job to act on this legislation, since the enforcement of immigration laws is the exclusive responsibility of the Federal Government. I rise to support this bill. Our current system is broken and needs to be fixed. The double magnets of jobs and social benefits are drawing illegal immigrants at unprecedented levels. We must not continue to reward those who break our laws. To do so cheapens our citizenship, fosters disrespect for our laws, and undermines our system of government. It is time to pass meaningful immigration reform. I urge Members to support H.R. 2202.

Mr. DEAL

Mr. DEAL. Mr. Speaker, I join my distinguished colleagues in support of H.R. 2036, the Land Disposal Program Flexibility Act. This bill is also supported by the White House and the Environmental Protection Agency [EPA]. This legislation represents a very simple, yet important modification to the Solid Waste Disposal Act that has the potential to save taxpayers as much as $800 million in annual compliance costs--an expense that the EPA says will provide no additional environmental benefit. This bill was developed through a cooperative, bipartisan effort to correct expensive and needless environmental overregulation. Efforts have been made throughout the process to accommodate the concerns of the environmental community. The current land disposal restrictions prohibit land disposal of hazardous wastes unless these wastes have first been treated to meet EPA standards. As a result of a 1993 decision by the D.C. Circuit Court, these restrictions, known as LDR's would also be extended to nonhazardous wastes managed in wastewater systems that are already regulated under the Clean Water Act or the underground injection control [UIC] program of the Safe Drinking Water Act. The court adopted this position despite the fact that the EPA had previously adopted a rule authorizing the appropriate treatment and disposal of these materials, and despite the fact that the Agency believed that such strict standards are inappropriate. This legislation would restore the EPA's original regulatory determination allowing these materials to be safely treated and disposed of in permitted treatment units and injection wells. Due to the court decision, the EPA will be forced to impose these needless and expensive requirements if Congress does not act very soon. I am glad that we are able to act on this legislation today and I hope that the bill will move quickly in the other body.

Mr. DEAL of Georgia

Mr. DEAL of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, let me at the outset say that I recognize that my colleagues on the other side of the aisle now are sincere in their concerns about welfare reform. There is one issue that should not be partisan in this House, it is not partisan with the American people, and that is that the current system does not work. So as we measure this bill today against a standard, it maybe should not be the standard of what each of us in our individual point of view might prefer, but against the standard of where we are and where we are headed. Mr. Speaker, I would say that by all of those measurements, the conference committee report is a substantial step in the right direction. Many of us worked together on parts of the bill that we voted for earlier this year, and I would say that if you look at this conference committee report, it has moved substantially toward the version that we worked for. It is substantially toward the version. In fact, it exceeds our version that we voted for earlier this year in the critical area of work requirements. All of the first 7 years the work requirements are in excess of the bill we voted for, and we criticized the House-passed version for being weak on work. This takes it even beyond where we were. In terms of childcare, and I agree with the previous speakers that childcare is an important component of this, childcare funding has been substantially increased. I would urge us to look at the bill compared with the system that is broken. I commend the conferees. I urge the adoption of this conference report.

Mr. DEAL of Georgia

Mr. DEAL of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, the balanced budget is made up of many components, one of which is welfare reform, and I would like to talk about it very briefly. It is an issue that both sides have expressed their opinions about. In looking at that component of the President's package, I think we find that it falls short of both of our expectations. All of us recognize that if we are going to reform welfare, first of all we have to emphasize work. The conference committee report puts more people to work every year than does the President's plan. Second, we have to emphasize individual responsibility. Time limits. We are told in a recent survey that the average family now stays on welfare for 6\1/2\ years and that will rise to 13 years. The conference committee report puts a 2-year limit with an overall 5-year limit. The President's plan literally would allow people to remain in a subsidized program and never go into the private sector. Third is State flexibility. States are our partners in welfare reform. Under the Clinton proposal, they still have to go through a bureaucratic maze and beg the HHS for waivers in order to put their plans into place. The conference committee report gives them flexibility. Last of all, it should not serve as a magnet for those who are immigrants into our country. I would tell Members that the conference committee report is far superior in the area of welfare reform.

Mr. DEAL of Georgia

Mr. DEAL of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, the issue of abortions is, perhaps, the most divisive subject to enter the political arena. It is a specific subject encompassed with other broader subjects of religion, morality, and constitutional rights. Theologians and jurists have struggled with this subject for centuries, and in recent decades, as the quest to establish a civilized balance between the rights of the mother and those of her unborn child have intensified, certain markers or points of demarcation have been sought. Viability and corresponding trimesters of pregnancy have become the courts' standard. As uncertain and arbitrary as this standard may be, since it has a fluctuation factory of months or weeks, there should be no disagreement that partial-birth abortions should be prohibited--for here, the difference between life and death is not months or weeks or days, it is a few centimeters. Surely, no civilized society should tolerate such a barbaric procedure that allows the brains of a baby to be sucked from its skull within a few centimeters and a second away from its birth. Our humanity demands that we reject this procedure.

Mr. DEAL of Georgia

Mr. DEAL of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, like many of my colleagues, I held meetings with my constituents this summer about Medicare. The No. 1 complaint that most senior citizens had was the amount of money that was being spent for services that were not rendered, for overcharges for drugs and supplies, and for general waste. They are angry, and well they should be, when they see Medicare paying $2 for an aspirin, $12 for a box of Kleenex, and thousands of dollars for services that were unnecessary or never delivered. We must stop these abuses of the status quo. They are costing at least 10 cents out of every Medicare dollar, $50 million a day, that will amount to $1.3 trillion over the next 7 years. Can we do better than that? Of course we can, if we let our senior citizens have a part in pointing out these abuses. They know better than a government bureaucrat what services and supplies they receive. They are tired of being told not to worry about the fraud since Medicare is paying for it. They know, even if some in government don't, that it is their tax money that is being wasted. This bill gives Medicare recipients a voice in the process. These are men and women who lived through the Depression, fought in the World Wars, and built this Nation by hard work and sacrifice. If they are empowered rather than victimized, they will help eliminate the thieves and con artists who cheat Medicare out of $50 million every day. Let us pass this bill and stop this outrage.

Mr. DEAL of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, it is very clear that there are those who wish to try to defend the status quo. We are here to change the status quo and do something about these problems.

Mr. DEAL

Mr. DEAL. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Mollohan amendment. When the original Thirteen Colonies agreed to join together to ``form a more perfect union'', one of the powers they conferred on their new Federal Government was that of protecting the national borders from foreign invaders. Considering the fact that four million or more aliens are in our country illegally, it is abundantly clear that the Federal Government has woefully failed in its promise to the States to secure our national borders. The very least we can do is to assist the States in paying for the costs of imprisoning illegal aliens who have committed felonies against the people and property of their citizens. This amendment would be a backward step and would say to the States that we are unwilling to pay the costs of our breach of promise. Now is the time to reaffirm to the States our commitment to uphold our Federal responsibility and to attempt to reimburse them for the partial costs resulting from our failure to protect U.S. borders in the past and the present. We can never repay their citizens who have been murdered, raped, and robbed by those who should never have been allowed inside our country, but we can begin by paying the costs of imprisoning these felons. I urge a ``no'' vote on the Mollohan amendment.

Mr. DEAL of Georgia

Mr. DEAL of Georgia. I thank the gentleman from Ohio. amendment offered by mr. stearns

Mr. DEAL of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to strike the last word for the purposes of engaging in a colloquy with the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Regula].

Mr. DEAL of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I would like to engage the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Regula] in a colloquy with regard to the source of continued funding for an ongoing project which involves the construction for a bypass route around the Chickamauga-Chattanooga National Military Park, which is the oldest and largest military park in the country. By way of background, this project was initially authorized in 1987 and has been continually funded since then on agreement between the National Park Service and the State of Georgia. The land acquisition necessary for this route has been substantially completed and construction has begun. The State of Georgia has already spent $7 million on this project under its agreement with the Park Service. It is my understanding, Mr. Chairman, that the gentleman from Ohio has consulted with the Park Service and that there is an agreement with the director of the Park Service to use discretionary Federal Highway Administration dollars to fund this project.

Mr. DEAL of Georgia

Mr. DEAL of Georgia. I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, this topic is a great one for patriotic speeches, and we have certainly heard some sincere ones on both sides of this issue today, that in itself perhaps the best illustration of what the first amendment, freedom of speech, is all about. But this debate symbolizes more than just a venting of patriotism. It highlights the perversions which the Supreme Court has allowed in the name of free speech, and the very Constitution that both sides to this argument have revered in their comments allows us, through the process we are engaged in at this very minute, to correct those perversions of that Supreme Court. For those who would suggest that this proposed constitutional amendment would in any way detract from the original first amendment, I would suggest quite the opposite is true. Freedom of speech is elevated in importance as much by what it excludes as by what it includes. For those who would suggest that someone would intentionally violate this law by wearing clothing that has a flag on it, I suggest, is a hollow argument, indeed. As Chief Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes once observed, ``Even a dog can tell the difference between a man who unintentionally stumbles over him and the one who intentionally kicks him.'' Certainly, we can do the same with regard to desecration of the flag. A nation that tolerates every form of behavior, no matter how demeaning, under the passport of free speech will eventually find that it has very little power to govern, indeed. I support this constitutional amendment to protect our flag. You do not have to love it. You do not have to leave it. But you should not be allowed to burn it. If it is, indeed, the symbol of liberty and that symbol can be destroyed, can the freedom that it symbolizes it be far behind? I suggest not. I urge you to support this amendment to protect the freedom that all of us hold so dear.

Mr. DEAL of Georgia

Mr. DEAL of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of H.R. 961, The Clean Water Amendments of 1995, a commonsense approach to improving our Nation's water. Since last summer, I have been part of the bipartisan effort to improve upon the existing Clean Water Program. I felt back then, as I do today, that we must give States and localities greater flexibility and responsibility to deal with water quality matters. H.R. 961 is a sharp departure from the current Federal, top-down approach to one that gives State and local water quality officials more flexibility and resources to address local problems. It recognizes that we have entered a new era of pollution control which requires new and innovative approaches to deal with pollution control, not rigid Federal standards. This is why the bill is supported by representatives from State and local government officials including the National Governor's Association, the Association of Water Pollution Control Administrators, the Association of Metropolitan Sewerage Agencies, the U.S. Conference of Mayors, National Association of Counties, and National League of Cities. This bill provides for much needed reforms in the wetlands area. It addresses horror stories like the one in Muncie, IN, where an 80-year- old farmer who had farmed his land all his life, like his grandfather and father before him, accidently broke a water pipe and flooded his field. The Government informed him he could no longer farm his land because it was a wetland. H.R. 961 sets forth a clear and workable plan for American agriculture while protecting our most critical wetlands. It also addresses the problems in our Nation's stormwater program. The current permit process is costly for local communities that on the average must spend over $600,000 simply to complete the required application process. H.R. 961 reforms this broken system by giving States more regulatory flexibility to deal with stormwater problems. H.R. 961 provides for unprecedented levels of funding to address water quality challenges. It includes $15 billion for State revolving loan funds, $1 billion for State nonpoint programs, $750 million for State program grants, and $250 million for unsewered and rural areas. In short, I believe the bill prepares us for a third decade of clean water. It provides for commonsense reform while ensuring we have clean water. I urge my colleagues to vote for H.R. 961.

Mr. DEAL of Georgia

Mr. DEAL of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of term limits, but I likewise rise in opposition to this rule. I would like to explain briefly why. As we look at the term limits debate, Mr. Speaker, there are basically three issues that arise. Unfortunately, I do not believe that we have a clear shot at a vote on any version that separates the three issues. The first issue is the number of years. Is it 6 years, is it 8 years, is it 12 years? We will have variations of the number of years to vote on. The second issue is preemption: Do we intend by a Federal constitutional amendment to say to the States that they shall not or that they shall be allowed to fix lower limits by their State law? I, for one, believe that they should have that option. The third issue is prior service, or retroactivity: Will terms that have previously been served prior to the ratification of a term limits amendment count, or will they not count? Recognizing early in this session that there was no clear constitutional amendment that set those propositions forth, on January 27 of this year I, along with several of my Democratic and Republican colleagues, introduced a constitutional amendment which set a 12-year outer limit with specific language that said we did not preempt State statutes, that gave them right to set lower limits if they chose to do so, but that would not have retroactive effect. Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, the thing that comes closest to our proposition, which we did submit to the Committee on Rules and which was rejected, will be the Hilleary amendment. However, the Hilleary amendment will say 12 years outer limit, specific reference to the States to pass lower limits if they choose to do so, but will give prior service of those 22 States that have enacted State laws those retroactive effects, so by the time this constitutional amendment would be ratified under the Hilleary version, we very likely will have 225 Members of this House who will be operating under those statutes of the 22 States, and possibly somewhere in excess of 160 of them may already have their terms expired. Mr. Speaker, I think we should have had a clear-cut shot at a proposition that would say 12 years outer limit, specifically, we do not preempt State statutes, and everybody stands on the same footing. If it is going to be retroactive, in my opinion, even though I am not one of those 22 States and it will not apply to me, I think it is not fair to our colleagues from those 22 States to say that ``Your time in service in office is the only one that will have effect.'' That to me is not putting us all on the same footing. For that reason, I will vote against the rule.

Mr. DEAL of Georgia

Mr. DEAL of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from New York [Mrs. Lowey]. (Mrs. LOWEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. DEAL of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Bentsen]. (Mr. BENTSEN 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 Utah [Mr. Orton].

Mr. DEAL of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from Texas [Ms. Jackson-Lee]. (Ms. JACKSON-LEE asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. DEAL

Mr. DEAL. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. DEAL of Georgia

Mr. DEAL of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. DEAL

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