Gene Green

Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas

Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Reclaiming my time. I like a lot of Democrats will vote for cuts, but let's vote for cuts that do not take the cuts today and penalize those in the future. Let's vote like you said, let's grow out of this deficit, but you do not grow out of it by cutting job training funds, by cutting summer jobs programs. We want those youngsters to be productive citizens so they will pay those taxes 5 and 10 years from now, but if you cut the job training today and you cut their summer jobs, then growing out of this deficit is really a pie in the sky and a pipe dream, just like the 1981 tax cut was to balance the budget.

Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. I will vote for cuts.

Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. On a short term basis, we are going to say, well, let's do not have those 2,000 people in my district or 6,000 in the City of Houston who have a summer job, let's put that money into abolishing the alternative minimum tax for corporations. Let's get our priorities straight.

Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. I would be more than happy. Last year I voted, in 1993 as we hear, I voted to cut $250 billion out of the budget that did not have one Republican vote. I did not vote for the rescission because the rescission cut 2,000 jobs in my district of summer jobs programs.

Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. I will be glad to yield, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas

Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, there is a flaw in the jewel. We will begin debate today on a bill that will cut taxes, and the winners who will receive the majority of the cuts are families with incomes over $100,000. The losers will be deficit reduction, summer jobs, school lunches, and education funding. The Speaker calls this the crown jewel of the contract. Well, this crown jewel in 1999 will cause us deficits of over $200 billion. There is a flaw in this jewel. Unfortunately, to pay for this jewel many young people will lose. Thousands of teenagers will be denied a summer job, school children will be denied a meal, legal immigrants will be denied services for the $66 billion welfare reform to the cracked crown jewel, seniors will be denied by cutting energy assistance, safe and drug-free schools will be denied $500 million, college students will be denied $13 billion to help pay for the flawed jewel. The contract was a deal with the rich including unpatriotic families who are leaving our country and taking their billions with them. Let us change this jewel of denial.

Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas

Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, today Congress will pass a welfare bill that will cut $35.1 million out of the school lunches in the State of Texas, according to my outside-the-beltway analysis from our State comptroller in Texas. Today the Republican majority will rejoice, but the children will be hurt. Many of my Democratic Members have been sporting ties and scarves from Save the Children, and I even heard this morning one Republican Member offered to have a secondary market in used ties. But I am going to save mine until October and November of 1996, so when the kids start getting their lunches taken away from them, the voters will remember in November who took those lunches away.

Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas

Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. We have someone who has already spoken, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. I thought we were under a five-minute rule. I would be glad to yield time when I come, but, Mr. Speaker, if we probably have about 20 Democrats over here.

Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I would object.

Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. I will withdraw my objection.

Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I was under the impression that Mr. Greenwood had spoken earlier under the 5-minute rule. If he has not, and I will take your word for it because I know you spoke, but maybe it was yielded because we have been yielding time to many different people.

Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas

Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Let me remind, I have heard it tonight that we started with Lyndon Johnson's Great Society, 1969 was the last time we had a balanced budget. That was the last budget Lyndon Johnson submitted. So even though you trace it to 1965, the last budget, after 18 years of Republican leadership in the White House, we have not had a balanced budget since

Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas

Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Deal amendment. I support the substitute offered by Representative Deal which provides real reform of our Nation's welfare system without penalizing children, seniors, or economically disadvantaging people. Congress must provide training and transitional assistance to move Americans from welfare to work. Without providing the helping hand to welfare participants, Congress will force them to make a choice between health care benefits, child care and housing assistance, or work. No one should be forced to pick between their children or work. We must take charge and reform the welfare system which penalizes families for staying together or trying to obtain work which will cause the loss of several assistance programs. The Deal substitute does provide this assistance in the crucial transition period. A 2-year extension for medical assistance allows a welfare recipient to better their life and keep their health care benefits. The Deal substitute is tough love but it provides the helping hand for recipients to move on to a better life. Deal requires double the number of people to work than the Republicans do and provides more assistance. While the Republicans claim they are tough on requiring work for welfare, the Deal substitute requires it. The Deal substitute allows nutrition programs to continue under current law. The Republican bill cuts school lunch and completely changes the entire program. Under the Republican's bill, school breakfast and lunch funding is guaranteed to Governors but there is no guarantee of a school lunch meal for our children. The block grant funding system does not allow for any of this and will force the State of Texas to make up for lost funding either by raising taxes or cutting services. Cutting services means fewer meals. The Comptroller for the State of Texas estimated a loss of federal revenues of over $1 billion in the next 2 years if the Republican welfare bill is passed. Congress must not force this massive cost shift onto the States. We passed the unfunded mandates but this will be an unfunded mandate beyond any other. The State of Texas will be forced to take charge of programs which the Federal Government is abandoning. We must not turn our backs on the children, seniors, or any Americans. I support the Deal substitute and I ask for its passage.

Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas

Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I want to address some of the CRS report Mr. Hoke brought up tonight and last night, because we have had a chance to analyze that. Mr. Speaker, I want to place in the record a letter from a student I received today from the Aldine School District who talks about how important the school lunch is to her and how she believes the Preamble to the Constitution pointed out that we are supposed to provide for the general welfare. Now, we need to reform welfare, but we need to recognize that is still a part of our Constitution. The student praises the benefits of the school lunch program in the Aldine community, and last night Members from the Republican side and Congressman Hoke talked about the CRS memorandum, that I had a chance to read today and claims that school lunch funding under the welfare block grants was sufficient. However, this memorandum points out that the children under the Department of Defense were left out, were left out, until it was put in on the floor, because three committees looked at it and forgot 57,000 children. This memo says that was left out. The memo does not take into effect the programs folded into the school nutrition block grant. The memo does not estimate the 1997 to year 2000 funding based on the assumption that the CRS did not want to guess at what new programs would be established by the States. This does not do anything except talk about next year. When they talk about the State of Ohio getting $11 million, we hope the Committee on Appropriations in 1997, 1998, and 1999 would fund that money, but there is no guarantee. This assumes the system will change in such a dramatic way that the current assumptions will not work. That is what this CRS report says. about it in this bill. What Members of Congress should focus on is the shell game that this does. It takes away that guarantee of that school lunch for an authorization and maybe an appropriation, maybe. In the amendment today we had a chance to vote on the school lunch program in Mr. Deals's amendment. The school lunch program would have been protected in current law. But we saw on a party line vote who wanted to protect the school lunch program, and that voted failed on the Deal substitute. Current law provides that school districts are reimbursed for every meal and the Republicans' promise of an increase again depends on what will happen in their Committee on Appropriations. Let's take for example what happened last week in the rescissions bill. We have a track record already in the first 100 days of cuts in summer jobs programs for students, and I would hope the U.S. Senate would take that out. I would be glad to pin my label on there for the State of Texas, because our comptroller estimates we will lose $35 million in school lunch funding. Houston, Tx. Hon. Gene Green, Longworth House Office Bldg., Washington, DC. Dear Gene Green; My name is LaDeirdre C. Lane and I am an 8th grade student at Kentwell, Aldine I.S.D. In my history class our teacher gave us an assignment to write a government official talking about an issues that we feel very strongly about. I feel strongly about the welfare reform. I feel that this one proposal that shouldn't get past Congress. For one, it would take money out of our school lunch plan. Many of the students in my school already eat free or reduced lunch. For some of these students it might just be the only hot meal that they get all day. Secondly there are people out there who abuse these government fundings, but for every one who abuses, there are two who really need it. Without welfare many families would end up starving and in poor health. Also another reason is stated in the preamble of the Constitution that we the people must promote the general welfare and in this one saying that must take effect. I would appreciate if you would take my ideas into consideration. Thank you for your time, and I hope that my ideas have begun to turn the wheels of progress, I will be waiting to hear a response from you. Sincerely yours, LaDeirdre C. Lane.

Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas

Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to address the House tonight. I want to compliment our speaker on his ability tonight, but also when I heard last week that you were fortunate to have Dave Berry sit in your office just briefly as your press secretary, you are a very brave man, Mr. Speaker. Let me talk about the welfare bill that we are considering because that has been the topic this evening. The Republican shell game continues with the lives of the children hanging in the estimates on exactly how much the welfare reform bill would cost the state of Texas, and it would be over a billion dollars in the year 1996 and 1997. The good news, if you can call it that, is that the early estimates of 60 million reduction for the Texas school nutrition program is now, after looking at the final bill that came out of the committee, will now only be a 35.1 million cut. And my Republican colleagues tonight, when they talked about that it is really an increase, they obviously, I would rather read and depend on outside the beltway information from someone who is looking at it than from someone who is inside the beltway. The chief financial officer of Texas estimates, in fiscal year 1996, the appropriations will be sufficient. But after that year, with only the 4.1 percent increase, and I would like to read part of the letter and also have it all inserted from John Sharp. I am happy to provide you with our analysis of the federal welfare reform proposals. The analysis below has been updated based on the bill language expected to reach the House floor. Again, I received this today. My concern isn't with making cuts in federal spending but rather with the unfair way in which Texas is being placed at a disadvantage and asked to shoulder more than its fair share. The proposals currently under consideration in Congress have a disproportionate and grossly inequitable effect on Texas. Nothing has changed since our preliminary analysis. While I support block grant funding as an effective way to reduce federal spending, the fact is that the current formulas being debated by Congress are based on past allocations for the states. It is unfair to Texas that high- spending, low-growth states like Michigan and Wisconsin would make money with the current formulas while Texas would be one of the hardest hit. Texas is a typically low-spending and high-growth state for funding: The inequity of the current formula would result in a loss of $1 billion anticipated federal funds for Texas in the 1996-1997 biennial budget. I know Texans are willing to take their share of the cuts, but we want to make sure that we aren't penalized while other high-spending states avoid cuts and actually make money. That is what we are looking at, if you are a member of Congress from Texas. And to continue: As far as your specific request regarding current funding formula proposals for the school nutrition program, we expect to sustain a shortfall of $35.1 million during the next two- year budget cycle. The family-based nutrition program funding formulas will also cost Texas more than $149.5 million during the same period. I know earlier this evening my colleague from Ohio [Mr. Hoke] talked about how Ohio is going to benefit, but let me tell you, Texas is low spending on welfare but a high-growth state and we will lose money. The Republicans will not admit that we grow at 8 percent each year. What they do not tell you is that now we have a guarantee of a school lunch and that an increase in authorization, with an increase in authorization but a possible cut in the appropriations each year, the Republicans should not play the shell games with our children and take nutrition programs out of welfare reform. Under this shell game, the authorization under this bill is one shell. The appropriations is another. And yet the 80 percent that will only be required to be used is the other shell. We ought to take school lunch out like the Deal amendment talks about. I am not a cosponsor of the Deal amendment, but I intend to vote for it because it is so much better than the current bill that we have. We do not call buying textbooks, computers, desks or other material in our schools welfare. And we should not call a school lunch or a breakfast that they are providing that helps them to be a better student welfare. Congress must stop the shell game and calling school lunch and breakfast welfare. Call it like it is. It is a helping hand to our students. That is what we need to consider. That is why it should not be part of this bill, and that is why I would, the Committee on Rules did not let us have an amendment on the nutrition. But at least we will get a shot at it when we have the Deal amendment up. Mr. Speaker, I include for the Record the letter to which I referred. Comptroller of Public Accounts, Austin, TX, March 22, 1995. Hon. Gene Green, House of Representatives, Longworth House Office Building, Washington, DC. Dear Congressman Green: I am happy to provide you with our analysis of Federal welfare reform proposals. The analysis below has been updated based on the bill language expected to reach the House floor. My concern isn't with making cuts in federal spending, but rather with the unfair way in which Texas is being placed at a disadvantage and asked to shoulder more than it's fair share. The proposals currently under consideration in Congress will have a disproportionate and grossly inequitable effect on Texas. Nothing has changed since our preliminary analysis. While I support block grant funding as an effective way to reduce federal spending, the fact is that the current formulas being debated by Congress are based on past allocations to the states. It is unfair to Texas that high- spending, low-growth states like Michigan and Wisconsin would make money with the current formulas, while Texas would be one of the hardest hit states in the Union. The inequity of the current formulas would result in a loss of more than $1 billion in anticipated federal funds for Texas' 1996-1997 biennial budget. I know Texans are willing to take their fair share of cuts, but we want to be sure we aren't penalized while other high-spending states avoid cuts and actually make money. As for your specific questions regarding current funding formula proposals for the School Nutrition program, we expect to sustain a shortfall $35.1 million during the next two-year budget cycle. The Family-based Nutrition program funding formulas will also cost Texas more than $149.5 million during the same period. Attached are two charts illustrating the estimated five- year impact of current nutritional block grant funding proposals. We derived the estimates for the proposed block grants by taking the anticipated 1996-97 federal revenues for the affected programs from the current Biennial Revenue Estimate (BRE) and then subtracting the anticipated revenues from these programs in each block grant. The BRE revenue estimates are based on projected caseload growth, program costs and the federal share of total costs of the programs under current law. Again, I strongly support block grants as a means of cutting federal spending, balancing the federal budget and returning control to the states. However, the future losses to be incurred by our state under the proposed funding formulas are unfair because they ignore the fact that Texas, with one of the fastest-growing populations and lowest per capita income rates in the nation, will have one of the greatest needs for these funds in the years ahead and yet, states like Michigan, which is losing population, face no loss of funds. I look forward to working with you, the Texas delegation, the Governor and Texas' legislative leadership to ensure the necessary curtailments to federal spending occur--without treating Texas unfairly. Sincerly, John Sharp, Comptroller of Public Accounts. Comptroller Estimates of Potential losses in federal funds under block grant formula for federal nutrition payments with Block Grant Caps, under formula approved by Committee. nutrition funding block grant funding proposal Combining total WIC, Child Summer Nutrition programs into single lump sum payment to the states (including growth rates in bill formula): ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Proposed BRE Block Year Estimate Grant Rev. loss (millions (Grant of $) formula) ------------------------------------------------------------------------ 1996................................... $476.1 $412.7 $63.4 1997................................... 514.1 428.0 86.2 1998................................... 555.3 442.1 113.2 1999................................... 599.7 458.5 141.3 2000................................... 647.7 475.4 172.3

Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas

Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. I will let you reclaim your time since Mr. Hoke wouldn't let some Members reclaim their time.

Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. The difference between the President is 3.1. I will give you an example. In the State of Texas, we are actually growing 8 percent instead of 4.5.

Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. If you would yield again to me.

Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Mr. Greenwood, like you, I was waiting for my turn, and I also serve on the committee with you. And let us talk about that ``not cut'' a minute because we served on that committee, and we tried to take away, and there was an amendment in committee to eliminate the block granting of the school nutrition. And it was generally a party line vote, as I recall, to take away the school lunch in this process and say, okay, let us do welfare reform without touching school lunches. And it was defeated on a party line. So the Republican majority in our committee said school lunch is a part of the welfare reform bill. You say you have an increase, but let me talk about and ask you about if this is correct.

Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. If the gentleman would yield.

Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas

Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I thank the ranking member of the committee for yielding to me. Mr. Chairman, I had hoped last year when we talked about welfare reform and the President announced his plan that we would have a bipartisan welfare reform bill. But having served on the Committee on Economic and Educational Opportunities, I realize this is not a bipartisan welfare reform bill. This amendment increases the work requirements, but will it lift a person out of the web of Federal assistance? No, it will not. The best way to end welfare as we know it is to provide a job. If a worker puts in 40 hours a week, 52 weeks a year, their gross pay under our current minimum wage is $8,800. For an individual that is just barely over the poverty level. But if they have just one child, just one child, they are $1,000 under the poverty line. For an average family in the 29th Congressional District in Houston, which I am proud to represent, a family of three, for that amount of money they would be $3,500 below the poverty line without a minimum wage increase. That is why a minimum wage increase should be part of our welfare reform bill. This would make them eligible for assistance at this 3,500 less for many of the programs that we want to reform. If Members on the majority side wish to save on welfare and wish people to work, we should increase the minimum wage so full-time workers would not be eligible for that assistance. Over half the workers earning the minimum wage are over 26 years old. We are not just talking about teenagers or young people, we are talking about people who have to support a family on the minimum wage. The purchasing power of the current minimum wage has declined by 40 percent since 1990 due to inflation. We must end this shell game, this Republican shell game, and this partisan bill to give tax cuts and take our children's lunch money. We need to stop paying for tax cuts with infant formula money. The best way to stop welfare is to provide a job, and a job that lifts people out of welfare at a decent wage.

Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas

Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman, the ranking member of the committee, for yielding me the time. Mr. Chairman, we are considering the Personal Responsibility Act and it is an easy bumper sticker name and people will hear for the next few days some of the easy names, that this bill was going to solve out-of- marriage births. I would hope that we have some reality checks on the other side of the aisle, also, because what this bill does, it is a transfer of power to the Governors of the country. This bill allows Governors to deny legal immigrants State-funded assistance. The bill allows governors to remove 20 percent in the 3 block grants for child care, family, and school nutrition. That is where we would see the cuts on the State level. The Governors could do that. Congress should provide a great deal of latitude for State governments, but we also need to make sure that the food actually gets to those children instead of saying, well, we're guaranteeing it to a Governor but we're not guaranteeing it to that child. I wish to make it clear that that is what we are doing. We are guaranteeing funding to that Governor but not to that child. Welfare reform is requiring for work, requiring transitional assistance, requiring going to job training. We can reform food stamps. Those are all goals that we should have and I think we should have on this side of the aisle but I am on the committee that this bill was considered and we did not have a bipartisan bill. This was laid out and literally rolled over in two days' time. That is why a lot of us are opposing it, because it will cut children's nutrition, because the only guarantee it is to the Governors of the States and not to the children of our country. The House of Representatives is debating the Personal Responsibility Act. sweeping powers in the hands of Governors to reform welfare. What are some of powers that Governors will be given? The bill before us will allow Governors to deny legal immigrants and State funded assistance based on economic needs. The bill also allows Governors to move 20 percent of funds from the three block grants for child care, family and school nutrition programs. Congress should provide a great deal of latitude to State governments to be innovative and imaginative, but Congress must also ensure Federal assistance is used by the people who most need that help. This bill provides a guarantee to Governors for the funds included in the block grants. I wish to be very clear on this point: A Governor is guaranteed funding but not a child. Welfare reform is called for, requiring work requiring transitional assistance, reforming food stamps are all goals which must be obtained but not at the cost of school children, and nutrition. The fatal flaw in the school breakfast and lunch block grant is it does not guarantee a child a meal but just as important it does not take into affect that foods costs increase along with school population. Without increasing the funds as a result of food cost inflation and increased population, a local school district will be forced to increase local tax rates to make up the short-fall. We will hear on one side that funding is increased and on the other side there are cuts. The simple fact is we are all guessing because this bill has been rushed through the Congress like a runaway train. Mistakes have been made. At one point 57,000 military children were left out. We must be diligent in reforming welfare but when we are forced to take up legislation which has been run through with little discussion, mistakes are made. Earlier, A fellow Texas colleague states that we should not take away someone's dream, and I agree but we should also not take away a helping hand. Reform is needed, but informed reform is real reform.

Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas

Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, welfare reform is needed. Let us have a real debate on welfare reform. We can require work. Let us set time limits on assistance for the nondisabled. Let us require job training. Let us do a better job on collecting child support. I think that needs to be done. But this bill today is more than that. This bill is about cuts in assistance to children. And whether you call it cuts or, under the newspeak, we call it limitations on increases, the American people want welfare reform, but they do not want cuts in our school lunches. Yesterday I had lunch at the J.P. Henderson Elementary School in Houston, TX. Those children enjoyed their lunch. We had a burrito, and I will have to admit it was harder for me to eat than it was for them to eat. But their lunch is important to them, as important as their school work, their room or their teachers, because a child who is hungry cannot learn. The American people understand that, and I hope people would understand in this Congress that they need to read their lips; they want welfare reform but they do not want cuts in school lunch programs, as this bill, H.R. 1214, will do.