Ray LaHood

Mr. LaHOOD

Mr. LaHOOD. This is it, America. Today is the day. We are going to pass welfare reform. We are going to give to the President what his own party for 2 years could not give him. We are going to give him the pledge that he made to all of America, the pledge that his own party could not help him deliver for 2 years. We are going to past welfare reform and reform a system that has been lousy. We are going to require people to work. We are not going to reward people for having more children. We are going to reform a lousy system. For 2 years the Democrats have controlled this House, the U.S. Senate, and the White House, and they could not deliver on their promise. So today we will do that. And I know that there will be those on their side that will join us as we pass welfare reform, because they know it is a lousy system, it does not work, and they want to help their President deliver on his promist to end welfare as we know it.

Mr. LaHOOD

Mr. LaHOOD. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.

Mr. LaHOOD. Reclaiming my time, I have not said one word yet on my own time, but I want to tell the American people what is happening here. Last night we saw the distinguished gentleman from California stand up here with his paper plate display and move them around and try and shift things around to try to persuade the American people that if you say something often enough, my gosh, they might even believe you. So we move this paper plate here and this one here and this one here and, all of a sudden, we have moved a bunch of paper plates around. But we have not proved anything. So tonight we get a little geography lesson. They bring a map of the United States of America. And we are trying to teach a little geography. And we bring these little cutouts of children to try and tell the American people again to continue the drumbeat, as I said, if we say it often enough, somebody is going to believe us, we are cutting school lunch programs. You believe that if you tell the American people something often enough they will believe you. That is why you have been on the floor every night. And the truth is, and you know it is the truth, there is not one Member in this House, not one Republican, not one Democrat that want to cut the school lunch program. Nobody wants to do that. Nobody wants to do it. But what we want to do is what you could not do when you had control of the White House, the House of Representatives, and the U.S. Senate. We want to reform welfare. You had your chance to do it. Where were you? You had two years to do it. You talk a good game. You talk a great game. But you never produce. welfare reform Tomorrow the House of Representatives will deliver on one of President Clinton's own campaign promises. We will ``end welfare as we know it.'' But it will be a Republican-controlled House of Representatives forging ahead with this revolutionary task--not his own Democrat-controlled House. This piece of legislation, the Personal Responsibility Act, is quite possibly the most important piece of legislation that I will vote on as a Member of Congress. We have fought the war on poverty and, unfortunately, we have lost that war. We must now turn to solutions that will stop this cycle of generational poverty. Even though Americans remain compassionate people, we have to do something to stop kids from having kids--to make fathers and mothers more responsible--and to encourage able-bodied members of the work force to provide a proper livelihood for their families. Welfare has exploded into an industry that no longer cares for--or effectively deals with--what Lyndon Johnson envisioned. His temporary assistance has turned into permanent poverty. The collapse of work and family has spawned crime, drug use, problematic educational environments, and other social ills--and the people who have suffered the most are the ones we want to help the most--the children. Residents of my hometown of Peoria have been horrified last week by an occurrence on the north side. A young boy, age 11, was found dead in a vacant lot covered with plastic garbage bags. He has been beaten with a metal pipe and suffocated to death, a 14-year-old ``friend'' was charged with the murder. The mother of the slain boy was alleged to have allowed the child to smoke marijuana when he was 5. He was put in a foster home at a young age, but, later, was given back to his mother--a mother who has been convicted on prostitution charges, and is currently facing another charge for the same offense. And neighbors say the slain boy would wander the neighborhood late at night--sometimes being locked out of his house. This is just another in a long succession of American tragedies. This takes place, only with different names, in cities all across our Nation. This is shameful--and immoral--and we must have the courage to face up to the tragedy of circumstances like this and do something about it. This monumental task of reform will not be accomplished without naysayers decrying at every attempt. One example of this has been the Women, Infants, and Children [WIC] program. Liberals have been racing around breathlessly accusing Republicans of gutting the WIC program. When, in fact, the $25 million rescission is coming out of a $3.5 billion-a-year program. But, this is not a cut, as you and I understand the program. Each year, the WIC program runs a $55 million to $125 million carry-over of funds. In other words, this is what they usually have left over, because they have not yet been able to spend all of their budget. When the Federal Government is adding $200 billion a year to the national debt, one place to start saving money to balance the budget is in carry-over funds. More lies have been told about the school lunch program. Liberals have again accused Republicans of either cutting or abolishing these programs. The fact is that our plan would do neither. Our Nation's school lunch program for children would not be abolished or cut. School lunch spending will, in fact, grow by 4.5 percent every year through to the end of this century. Far from cutting its programmatic spending, the block grants would increase from $6.7 billion next year to $7.8 billion over the next 4 years. Our bill seeks to turn over all of the program's money to the States and let them run it in the most efficient way possible. Finally, the $27 billion food stamp program will be reformed by capping its growth to 2 percent a year and combining four other food programs into one. The bill preserves food stamps as a federal program to guarantee that any American who needs food will continue to have access to nutrition assistance. The reforms will result in a savings of over $26 billion in 5 years. The Republican proposal will break this vicious cycle of welfare. All able-bodied welfare recipients between the ages of 18 and 50, who do not have children, will be required to work. Having more children will no longer be rewarded. And we will means test for the nutrition block grant programs. You will hear much crying this week from old-line liberals. We are about to bring changes to some of their favorite programs--programs that have been proven failures. These changes are desperately needed to change this system into a trampoline--not a hammock--for its recipients.

Mr. LaHOOD. Reclaiming my time, I yield to the distinguished gentleman from Georgia, [Mr. Kingston].

Mr. LaHOOD. Reclaiming my time, I am happy to say that we have all supported a balanced budget amendment. We could not get some of you to help us.

Mr. LaHOOD. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the distinguished gentleman from Ohio, [Mr. Hoke].

Mr. LaHOOD

Mr. LaHOOD. Parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. LaHOOD. Previously when a Member from the other side asked to have their name substituted earlier this evening, it was allowed. But if you do not want to play by those rules, that is fine, Mr. Green, but that is what we were doing earlier on.

Mr. LaHOOD

Mr. LaHOOD. Mr. Speaker, as the misinformation swirls around the welfare debate, it is important to remember a few principles that have passed the test of time. Our great President Abraham Lincoln had a list of ``Lincoln's Can-Nots.'' Mr. Speaker, here are just a few: You cannot build character and courage by taking away a man's initiative and independence. You cannot further the brotherhood of man by inciting class hatred. You cannot help men permanently by doing for them what they could and should do for themselves. But, Mr. Speaker, the failure that we call a welfare system snubs these principles. It saps initiative; it does for its victims what they should do for themselves; its defenders stir up class hatred to protect it. It replaces principle with pork, and confuses reason with regulation. As a result, children are born into a world without hope or independence. Mr. Speaker, answers start with principles. Our welfare reform bill works because it is based on solid, enduring principles. Lincoln would have approved.

Mr. LaHOOD

Mr. LaHOOD. Mr. Chairman, I first want to congratulate the chairman of the sometimes powerful Agriculture Committee, the gentleman from Kansas [Mr. Roberts], who has done a magnificent job providing the leadership on this important bill and also to the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Emerson] for his leadership. I have a very limited amount of time. I have not met one Democrat or one Republican in all of this House that wants to gut or cut the School Lunch Program. I do not know of anybody who wants to gut or cut the School Lunch Program. For anyone to stand here in the House and proclaim that is just simply not true. Our proposal will reform the School Lunch Program, will feed hungry children, will provide the nutrition necessary for hungry young people, but it will not gut or cut the program. So I simply not true. Our proposal will also reform the Food Stamp Program. Americans know that we have a lousy welfare system. It is fraught with abuse and fraud, and Americans want a change. And we are going to carry out one of President Clinton's campaign promises. We are going to reform welfare as we know it, and we are going to do it by giving back to the people in local communities and States the responsibility and the financial resources to really deal with the problems. We are going to give back to them not only the responsibility but the resources to carry out these programs. Who knows better than people in local communities who the most needy are? Local people do. I ask support for this important legislation. Mr. de la GARZA. I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to our distinguished colleague, the gentlewoman from New York [Mrs. Malony].

Mr. LaHOOD

Mr. LaHOOD. Mr. Speaker, on August 8, 1890, in Washington, DC, a national organization of women descended from patriots of the American Revolution organized the National Society of Daughters of the American Revolution. Four years later, on June 14, 1894, a chapter was formed in Springfield, IL, in what is now my congressional district. Throughout this past year, the Springfield chapter of the DAR has celebrated this centennial year of service to the community, culminating with a luncheon in February. The contributions made by this chapter to the community of Springfield, the State of Illinois, and the Nation as a whole have been tremendous, and I wanted to take this time today to salute their membership and to congratulate them on 100 years of dedicated service.

Mr. LaHOOD

Mr. LaHOOD. Mr. Speaker, I see where several of our colleagues on the other side of the aisle are up to their same old class warfare tricks. The gentleman from Michigan, the distinguished minority whip, said that Republicans are giving working Americans the cold shoulder. Well, the Democrats' class warfare will not wash with the American people. Republicans are not out to cut school lunches. Actually our program will increase school lunches to the children of our country. We do not intend to cut the School Lunch Program. Our proposal will actually increase school lunches. We offer incentives. Our proposals offer better opportunities. The Democrats offer the same old class warfare rhetoric with more taxing and more spending. I urge the American people to look carefully at what we the Republicans are attempting to do, which is provide more school lunches for our school children.

Mr. LaHOOD

Mr. LaHOOD. Mr. Speaker, 8 months ago the striker replacement legislation died in the Senate of the United States. Almost 4 months ago, the people of the United States vetoed the failed policies of the past. They demanded less intrusion in our lives. The President of the United States is seeking to force through that which we and the American people have rejected. Mr. Speaker, we learn from the media that the administration has issued an Executive order to ban the use of permanent replacement workers during labor disputes involving government contractors. We have not seen the details yet, but I cannot imagine such an order that would be constitutional or lawful. The Executive order will be a serious impediment to our defense readiness. The order would debar Federal contractors for reasons other than quality and effectiveness. As a result, for political reasons, our fighting men and women would not necessarily be guaranteed the best product by the best possible contractors. This I cannot countenance. Mr. Speaker, it is a sad day for our Nation whenever one branch of our constitutional form of government seeks to encroach on the province of another. I am afraid we are on the verge of such a day.

Mr. LaHOOD

Mr. LaHOOD. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased that there was an accommodation made on 1-minutes, and I hope that the gentleman from Missouri will abide by his word and not interrupt the good business of the House during the day. Mr. Speaker, do you remember the incident in Chicago last year when authorities found 19 children living in squalor in a single apartment on the west side. Some of the children were eating food from the same bowl used by the family dog. Kim King of the Cook County Public Guardian's Office had this to say in the aftermath of the incident: The welfare system is a humongous failure. There's no question about that. The welfare system condones having children and not being responsible for those children. This, Mr. Speaker, is what liberalism's failed welfare system has wrought. To those liberals who come down here to defend this system, I say you have a lot of explaining to do. And when they talk about taking the food out of babies' mouths, I have news for my liberal colleagues--it is already happening on a far grander scale than imaginable. Yet you all have the nerve to take the well to call for more of the same.

Mr. LaHOOD

Mr. LaHOOD. This letter I referred to is obviously last year's: ``Toward that end, my Administration will continue to work with Congress and the small business community next year for enactment of a strong judicial review that will permit small businesses to challenge agencies and receive meaningful redress when agencies ignore the protections afforded by this statute.'' That is from the President of the United States, addressed to Senator Wallop, by the way. This is a letter, as I indicated, from the administrator-designee with similar language, which I would be happy to share. Another important letter is from the Vice President of the United States to Congressman Ewing in which he says, ``We remain committed to securing this important reform during the next Congress and will work with Congress for the enactment of strong judicial review for small businesses.'' I have to assume by these letters that they know the Congress has good sense, with good legislators, and will adopt good amendments that, like that which Mr. Ewing has put forth here today, that will provide enough time for small business people of our districts to review these and have an opportunity to challenge them. I know we all appreciate the support from the administration and their designees.

Mr. LaHOOD. I guess what it comes down to, then, I say to the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Volkmer], when it comes to the vote, he and I disagree on this, but the small business people, if we pass it, which I think we will, I believe that we will pass it, will then have the additional time they need. The letters referred to follow: The White House, Washington, October 7, 1994. Hon. Malcolm Wallop, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC. Dear Senator Wallop: Your particular question about the Administration's position on judicial review of actions taken under the Regulatory Flexibility Act has come to my attention. As you have discussed with Senator Bumpers, the Administration supports such judicial review of ``Reg Flex.'' The Administration supports a strong judicial review provision that will permit small businesses to challenge agencies and receive meaningful redress when they choose to ignore the protections afforded by this important statute. In fact, the National Performance Review endorsed this policy to ensure that the Act's intent is achieved and the regulatory and paperwork burdens on small business, states, and other entities are reduced. Ironically, Phil Lader, our nominee for Administrator of the Small Business Administration (whose nomination was voted favorably today by a 22-0 vote of the Senate Small Business Committee) has been a principal champion of judicial review of ``Reg Flex.'' In his capacity as Chairman of the Policy Committee on the National Performance Review, Phil vigorously advocated this position. I know that, if confirmed, as SBA Administrator, he would join us in continued efforts to win Congressional support for such judicial review. Sincerely, Leon E. Panetta, Chief of Staff.

Mr. LaHOOD. We heap all of these regulations on them, and they need the time. That is why the Ewing amendment is so important to them, to give them the time to do it.

Mr. LaHOOD. Reclaiming my time, as I said in my statement, there are some agencies that are as little as 30, and sometimes 60, days. The gentleman from Missouri knows as well as I do because we represent similar districts. employ 5, 10, 15 people. They work hard. They work long hours. They provide the jobs. They do not have time or the legal expertise to go through and figure out what kind of mandates or imprimaturs, or however you want to characterize the laws that we are passing on them. They need time. I am sure the gentleman from Missouri, having represented the same kind of district as the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Ewing] and myself, across Illinois and across Missouri, knows these small business people simply do not have the time. They are providing the jobs, they are working hard, they are working long hours to make a living.

Mr. LaHOOD. I yield to the gentleman from Missouri.

Mr. LaHOOD. That is all, that is right. That is right. That is why the gentleman should be voting for it.

Mr. LaHOOD. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Volkmer].

Mr. LaHOOD. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Ewing amendment to H.R. 926. For too long, more than 15 years, regulations have been thumbing their noses at small business when it comes to issuing regulations. Many agencies have ignored the Regulatory Flexibility Act, because they knew they could not be challenged in court for not considering small business and not complying with the act. The original intent of the Reg Flex Act was to help ease the regressive one-size-fits-all regulatory process. Regulators are supposed to analyze the impact of the regulations they produce on small business and take steps to modify these regulations by taking into account small business' limited resources. But, as I have stated, the regulators find a loophole, and regulations go out, regardless of the impact they may have on small business. The bill, H.R. 926, will do away with this never-mind attitude of Federal regulators by allowing judicial review and judicial enforcement. More importantly, the Ewing amendment will strengthen the judicial review component and recognize small business' special needs in addressing regulations. Furthermore, the Ewing amendment will give small business 1 year, notwithstanding any other law, to appeal a regulation if the Reg Flex Act was ignored. Some current rules and regulations, like OSHA and clean air, have as little as 30 to 60 days for appeal. To me, these time periods totally disregard small business' limited resources. I can't imagine any small business in my district being able to identify how a regulation impacts them in 30 days. In fact, I believe many small businesses would be hard pressed to know that a regulation has been put into effect in 30 to 60 days, let alone to even read the Federal Register. Mr. Chairman, past Congresses have totally ignored small business concerns with regulations. But this new Congress will stand up and listen to the job generators of this country. In my district, and many other districts across this Nation, small businesses are the consistent job creators. Simply put, small business is not equipped to deal with excessive regulations. Walk into any small business on main street and look for the accounting department or the legal department or the human resources division. You will not find them. Hence, the need for regulatory flexibility. This is why I support the Ewing amendment. It upholds the original intent of the Reg Flex Act--allowing small business flexibility in confronting regulations. I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the Ewing amendment. I also want to make note of the fact that there are letters from the chief of staff of the White House, Leon Panetta, dated October 7, 1994, upholding the kind of legislation that we are trying to pass, a letter dated October 8, 1994, from the President of the United States upholding the type of legislation we are trying to pass here; a letter from the administrator-designee dated October 8, 1994, upholding the type of legislation we are trying to pass, and a letter to Congressman Ewing from the Vice President of the United States which suggests strongly that he believes we are headed in the right direction in this legislation. expressing appreciation to the majority and minority leadership (By unanimous consent, Mr. Foglietta was allowed to proceed out of order for 1 minute.)

Mr. LaHOOD. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. and extend his remarks.)

Mr. LaHOOD. Reclaiming my time, the first letter, from the Chief of Staff of the White House, Mr. Panetta, in a paragraph, he says that, ``The nominee for Administrator of the Small Business Administration has been a principal champion of judicial review of `reg flex'.'' Now, I have not read the entire letter, obviously. That is the letter from the Chief of Staff of the White House. From the President we have a letter dated October 8, 1994.

Mr. LaHOOD. I would be happy to read the letters for the gentleman.