Jerry Kleczka

Mr. KLECZKA

Mr. KLECZKA. I yield to the gentleman from North Carolina.

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 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. 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. KLECZKA. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey].

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. KLECZKA. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to gentlewoman from California, Ms. Maxine Waters.

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. KLECZKA. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. KLECZKA. Would the Speaker kindly indicate to both sides how much time is remaining?

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. KLECZKA. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida [Mrs. Thurman].

Mr. KLECZKA. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey].

Mr. KLECZKA. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman of California [Mr. Stark], formerly from the State of Wisconsin.

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. KLECZKA. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey], the dean of the Wisconsin delegation.

Mr. KLECZKA

Mr. KLECZKA. Mr. Speaker, in response to the gentleman from Madison, WI, Scott Klug. Scott, you seem to indicate that in a work not welfare program that the State was asking to have all 72 counties in the State covered. My recollection is the legislature only provided for 2 counties, 2 small counties. When the legislature was debating the issue, many wanted Milwaukee County, the largest county in the State, included in this trial test. The Republican legislature said no. So going for waivers was only the 2 counties that were finally tested. There never was a request from the State legislature for the whole State.

Mr. KLECZKA. Mr. Speaker, if I might continue, when we get into general debate on the bill, I will read through a whole bunch of these waivers and then I will see if any Member of the House can explain it to me, or since a contention has been made that the general public is totally knowledgeable on this, let me maybe call some of my constituents, or better yet maybe I will call some from Racine and see if they can inform me and the other Members what some of these one- liners mean. But nevertheless, the whole issue today is not welfare reform. It is one of process, whether or not we are going to have the public come forward and make their views known on 88 specific waivers. The contention has been made, ``Well, the legislature passed the bill.'' They sure did. But also there were 27 vetoes that were made to the bill by the Governor. It took him 5 or 6 weeks after the legislature passed the legislation to sign it, if we are talking about rush, but as far as the legislature, they do not know to this day what any of the 88 waivers are. I served in the legislature. I know a little bit about State legislative enactments. My colleague, Tom Barrett, served in the legislature, as well as Jim Sensenbrenner. Mr. Speaker, in the legislation which is now chapter, law, something or other, State of Wisconsin, there was no listing of the waiver. The legislators who voted for this do not know what waivers are being requested. So let us clean up the nonsense that we are trying to redo the legislation. That is totally not the case. Let me talk about a couple of other things. The President does support the initiative by the State of the Wisconsin. But never in his radio comments did he say, ``And I will sign without reading all 88 waivers.'' It was not said. I think he should have an opportunity to digest them, also. Let me talk about the rush here. The rush is that this program does not go into effect in the State of Wisconsin until October 1, 1997, a year and a half from now. And to show how ludicrous the rush job is that we are being told to engage in, that was one of the vetoes. The legislature said to the Governor, ``We want this on line and running September 1, 1977.'' The Governor vetoed that September 1 date, making it September 30, so he delayed it by his own pen some 30 days. We have to do this within 3 days, without reading it, with no Member knowing what is in the waivers. Why is this before the Federal Government? That was asked and we talked about that at the Committee on Rules. Welfare in this program, Mr. Speaker, is a national program. If the State of Wisconsin was putting 100 percent of their dollars, raised from the taxpayers, into the program, they should have complete say, and no one would disagree with that on this floor. But the taxpayers of this country pay 60 percent of this program, and so I think that the taxpayers from Georgia and Arizona and New Mexico have a say in this, and that is why we have this public process, so if, in fact, they are so moved they will have a say in it. This is not a rewriting of the State legislative enactment. That is the law in Wisconsin. This is the next step, because 60 percent of it is paid for by the national taxpayers. And if we are going to advantage the State of Wisconsin or give them more money, I think the other States should have a say in it, and that is why these waivers do come here for approval. Again, is someone dragging their feet? Clearly not. The Governor indicates he wants this approved August 1 of this year. The substitute amendment which I will be producing with my colleagues, the gentlemen from Wisconsin, Mr. Obey and Mr. Barrett, will do exactly that. The substitute amendment is, instead of rubber stamping it sight unseen, like the Republicans want to do, the substitute is very common- sensical. What it says is we sill print the waivers in the Federal Register, and not just one line, the whole thing; and then we will give the public, the people of the country who pay the tab, 30 days to be heard. I ask my Republican colleagues, why do they fear the public coming out and saying something on this? They are paying for it. They have a right. And then the resolution that expedites consideration and provides July 31, it will be done.

Mr. KLECZKA. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.

Mr. KLECZKA. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.

Mr. KLECZKA. Reclaiming my time, let me indicate that usually the calendars are in the back of the hall here. I did not see any there. But to contend that the general public have all received a copy of the Congressional Record of yesterday is totally ludicrous.

Mr. KLECZKA. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.

Mr. KLECZKA. No. In fact there have been, I believe, nine submitted for approval and all nine have been expedited. So the question before us is not whether or not these waivers are going to be granted or whether or not they are going to be expedited. The main issue before us today is to cut off any public comment like a letter I received from the Catholic bishops, who asked that they be heard on this issue. They will not be heard.

Mr. KLECZKA. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.

Mr. KLECZKA. Let me reclaim my time and indicate to the membership, who know better than I do, that substitute amendments to legislation coming before the House are rare this session under Republican control. The best we can do is a motion to recommit, and there are not 3 people sitting out there watching C-Span who know what the heck that is, but it is good cover. But as far as the rule goes, I do want to thank my good friend from New York, Mr. Solomon, for permitting a substitute amendment which we will offer in a short time before this body. But let us review and try to set straight what is at issue here. What are we doing? Well, the Governor of the State of Wisconsin has asked the President and the administration to approve 88 separate and distinct waivers so Wisconsin can implement a welfare change, a change which I should add that I support for the most part. But the issue today, Mr. Speaker, is not welfare reform, and it is not welfare reform because we are going to have that debate within a couple of weeks on this floor. There is a product being developed as I speak in the Committee on Ways and Means, where I serve, that will provide for a radical change in the welfare laws of this country. It is a redo of a product that has been vetoed, and as far as I am concerned, and as my Republican colleagues know, I supported the last welfare reform bill and I will probably be supporting this one. So the issue before us is not whether or not we should reform welfare. That is not the issue today. Let us not make it the issue today. The issue today is nothing other than process. The Governor a week ago has asked the administration to approve 88 distinct waivers. Normal process would be that there is a 30-day comment period. For what reason? So the public, who is paying the tab, can come forward and have their opinions noted. If in fact we pass what the Republican majority has put before us today, what is going to happen is Congress, or the House of Representatives, will rubber stamp all 88 waivers. As I asked the gentlewoman from California a few minutes ago, has she read the waivers? She said no. The simple fact, Mr. Speaker, is there is not anyone in here except maybe four or five from Wisconsin who have read the waivers. Let me show what has been passed out for today's debate. Here is a copy of the rule, a short one-paragraph. That provides for the consideration of the rule. Then here is the actual resolution, which is 2\1/2\ pages, which indicates that Congress knows all, we are going to rubberstamp this, we are going to deem this done, the rubber stamp this, we are going to deem this done, the public be damned. Then here is a resolution that accompanies the rule report, and that is it. So for the Members from California, the one Member from Alaska, the good Members who represent the State of Florida, they do not know what we are doing. Oh, a copy has just been handed out right now to the gentleman from Wisconsin, but it is not made available to the Members with the documentation that is available in the back room for all of us to decipher.

Mr. KLECZKA. I yield to the gentleman from New York.