Pat Roberts

Mr. ROBERTS

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. ROBERTS. Well, if we could lower our voice a little bit and indicate that Members who oppose the amendment are not smoking dope, it would be helpful. Maybe corn silk at one time but certainly not dope. I would hope the gentleman would withdraw the amendment, that we could deal with this in regards to the farm bill when we reauthorize the Food Stamp Program. That is the appropriate time. It is an unfunded mandate. The Inspector General of the Department of Agriculture who has done more to sift out fraud and point out the problem says from a perception standpoint maybe, from a practical effect no. Consequently, I would hope that Members would oppose the amendment.

Mr. ROBERTS. Regular order.

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. ROBERTS. I thank the gentleman for yielding this time to me. The Deal substitute does not represent real food stamp reform. Rather than allowing States to harmonize AFDC and food stamp rules for those families receiving assistance from both programs, the substitute clings to the waiver system. Rather than taking the food stamp program off of automatic pilot, the Deal substitute continues the pattern of ever escalating runaway costs. Rather than demanding workfare for able- bodied people, the substitute simply mandates that States do provide the make-work jobs and training, but provides, really, less than half the money. It is an unfunded mandate. But here is the real deal, I did not know this, I read the CBO report: The Deal substitute would count: Benefit payments from the AFDC and food stamp programs would be included in income subject to income tax. You are taxing food stamps? That is a mean deal.

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my demand for a recorded vote.

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

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, again I want to say that I am rising in reluctant opposition to the amendment of the gentleman from Indiana. The intent of the amendment is to move immediately in regard to block grants to the States. The intent of the amendment is good. The bill as passed by the committee gives us the opportunity to do that once States can demonstrate they meet the criteria of an EBT program. So we are not at odds. It is merely a timing issue. I would also like to add, in a calmer tone, that this perception that somehow the Committee on Agriculture did not address true food stamp reform is simply not accurate. I would like to stress again that no farm organization, no commodity group, no lobbyists in regard to the food chain, no one in the agriculture community, that I am aware, called the chairman in reference to changing any policy in regards to food stamp reform, whether it be a block grant or not. The decision reached by the committee was reached by determining serious policy options: Will it work, can we achieve the reform, can it be done in a timely basis. Now, I understand the blood pressure around this place in regards to the marching orders and the deadlines that have been suggested, not only with welfare reform but the entire Contract With America. There is nothing in the Contract With America, by the way, that specifies that block grants of cash be given to States. We are attempting, and I think we are actually achieving, true reform. Now, my good friend from Texas, the chairman emeritus of the House Committee on Agriculture, and others on the minority side, have characterized the food stamp reforms as something that we have done in regards to saving money to pay for tax cuts. We had this discussion all during our committee markup, and I want to repeat what I said then: The food stamp provisions of H.R. 4 in title IV are for the purpose of badly needed reforms. These reforms pay for taxes. The Committee on Agriculture held extensive hearings, and let me just read again the provisions that are contained in this reform package. I want all sides to listen to this. I want all of the folks who have been so vocal on that side in regard to the tax cuts and all the Robin Hood statements that we have had in that regard, and I want everybody on this side over here who claims instant purity in regards to whatever this legislation should or should not be. We increase the penalties and procedures to curb the more than $3 billion annually that is lost to waste, fraud, and abuse. We have not done that for years. We are doing it now. We are harmonizing the welfare reform in regards to AFDC and food stamp programs so that States can provide a more efficient one-stop service. Not only for the taxpayer, but for the user. In regards to the recipient, we have a promotion of real private sector work by requiring able-bodied individuals between 18 and 50 years of age who have no dependents must work at least part-time now to be eligible for food stamps, called workfare, jobfare. It promotes the adoption of a new and more efficient technology within something called the electronic benefit transfer system. Finally, it takes the program off of autopilot that it has been on for years and years and years and years, to regain the control of the ballooning costs. This thing started about $1 million back in 1961. Four years later, we were up to $60 million. I remember the former chairman of the House Committee on Agriculture, Bob Poage said, ``You know, sometimes this is going to get to be expensive. We are going to get to real money here.'' Ten years later, $4.6 billion. Today, $27 billion, in terms of cost. Ten years ago, 19.9 million people. Today, 27.3 million people. The economy went up, these costs went up, automatically. The economy went down, and that is the time the Food Stamp Program should work. Why, of course they continued to go up. So we have restored, as far as I am concerned, the congressional responsibility to at least come in and take a look at this with a 2- percent increase every year, and with real reform, as suggested by the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Emerson], in terms of adding $100 million in terms of the feeding programs to the homeless and the soup kitchens all around the country. Under these reforms there will be no more uncontrolled growth in costs. If there is a future need for funding, Congress will do its job, we will step up to that responsibility. No child will go hungry. So I think it a good reform package.

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word, and I ask unanimous consent to merge that additional time with the time I am currently controlling.

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. Chairman, is it the Chair's understanding that as the designee of the chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means, I can move to strike the last word?

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. Chairman, I have a parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I thank the gentleman for his comments. There is sound policy for all of these reforms. It is time to stop building straw men and support the reform. Mr. de la GARZA. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I join the gentleman from Kansas in opposition to this amendment. There was a novel and innovative block grant program called revenue sharing. It did not work. Besides, if you give 50 States the money, you will have 50 different programs. Is that streamlining? Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Stenholm].

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the distinguished gentleman from Arizona [Mr. Pastor], a valued member of the committee.

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the concern and the sense of frustration of the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Sam Johnson, who spoke here just a moment ago, and, as I tried to indicate, in regard to the policy options that we considered in the House Committee on Agriculture there were four. The first option that was suggested by the gentleman from Indiana was obviously supported by the gentleman from Texas in terms of his remarks, and we offered the Governors a block grant, and we said, ``What do you want? Here are the coupons. Here is the Food Stamp Program.'' They said, ``Thank you, but no thank you. We don't want to administer the Food Stamp Program. We want the tax, 27 billion dollars' worth.'' Well, with all due respect, Richard Nixon is no longer President, and we do not have any revenue to share. So then we said, ``OK, you can't have the cash. That really wouldn't be responsible. But you can have the coupons.'' They said, ``We don't want the coupons.'' That may give my colleagues a little indication as to what they would do with the cash. So then we considered a 40-60 split, and if you give them the 40 percent, and that amounts to the people on food stamps that are also on welfare, and we wanted to have one-stop service, streamline it, bring the cost down. But the 60 percent on the other side would have grown. That is about a $6 billion expenditure, and we could not afford that. So we decided to do what we tried to do for decades, years, and that is establish food stamp reform. And we have done that, and we have a good bill. I remind everyone on this floor that not one farm lobbyist came to this chairman and this committee and indicated that we should cave in in regards to food stamp reform. I am tired of hearing it, and it is not accurate. And the Committee on Agriculture measured up to its responsibility, and we have a fine food stamp reform package. If the package were considered a year ago, it would have been incredible in this House of Representatives. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time. Mr. de la GARZA. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida [Mrs. Thurman].

Mr. ROBERTS. I yield to the gentleman from Texas, the distinguished ranking minority member. Mr. de la GARZA. Mr. Chairman, I associate myself with the gentleman's remarks and endorse his remarks in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, the amendment offered by the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Hostettler] does provide that the Food Stamp Program will be block granted to the States. I rise in reluctant opposition. The committee considered several policy options as we were considering food stamp reform, and in contacting the Governors of the States and the National Governors' Conference, not to mention many experts in the field, the first policy option that we considered was that of the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Hostettler]. However the Republican leadership, along with the committee leadership, made the determination that the Food Stamp Program should remain at the Federal level as a safety net during the transition period while States begin to reform the entire welfare programs, and the committee strongly believes that the intent of the gentleman is very good, but that the Food Stamp Program should be reformed. After all, it a block grant. Fraud and trafficking, as we have heard, are serious problems in the program. We do have significant reforms, and they are bipartisan, and States will have the responsibility to institute reforms of the AFDC program and other State programs. They will be harmonized, and, while this is going on, we think it is important that there be a food program for needy families. We have a provision allowing States that have implemented the EBT system that has been much discussed in this debate on a statewide basis to administer the Food Stamp Program in a block grant. Therefore States can have a block grant for food stamps, as the gentleman desires, if they have taken steps to reduce fraud and if they have really started to implement an efficient system to issue the food benefits. The EBT block grant in H.R. 4 says that food benefits can only be used for food. The Hostettler amendment will allow States to issue food benefits and cash. The gentleman has a very innovative amendment. It was a good amendment. This is a very sharp departure from our current practice. Food stamps should be used only for food. Under that amendment what has been food benefits can be used for any item. My opposition to this amendment does not mean there will never be any block grant for the food stamp program, quite the contrary, but the Committee on Agriculture will continue its oversight of the program, monitor the State's progress of AFDC and other block grants. Mr. de la GARZA. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Texas for his comments, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. ROBERTS. I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Emerson].

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 35.2 seconds to the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Upton].

Mr. ROBERTS. I yield 1 minute to the distinguished chairman of the Subcommittee on Human Resources of the Committee of the Ways and Means, the man who is most responsible for this welfare reform proposal, Mr. Shaw.

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, so finally, a third rule, Mr. Chairman, as I continue with memories are made of this, and would call for the attention of the gentleman from Florida if he might, was reported which provided for 4 hours of general debate, only minority substitute, and a set of en bloc amendments by the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Andrews]. Both the Michel and Andrews amendments were subject to 1 hour of debate each. The rule made in order a compromise and reported bill put together by the four committees of jurisdiction, 1 hour, four committees, not what we are having here today, as the base text for the amendment purposes. The rule was adopted 213 to 206, so there was just a tad bit of controversy in regards to that rule back in 1987 on the very same subject. The manager of the rule, the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Frost], said that was a modified closed rule, and so here we are today after hours of debate, many hours of debate. I would remind the gentleman from Florida that Members are in their offices. Members have heard this debate on and on and on, 15 hours in the Ag Committee, many, many hearings. I think the commentary is specious. I think it ill serves the House. I think it ill serves the intent of Members who brought to this title of the bill important amendments that they thought were important. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Upton] if he chooses to comment.

Mr. ROBERTS. Regular order, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. ROBERTS. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Ah, memories are made of this. It was just the other day when the gentleman from Florida was requesting of just used everybody to sit down and cease and desist, let us have a rational debate. I would suggest that the amendments that we are considering are not nothing amendments. I would suggest the policy debate we had in the House Agriculture Committee that went 15 hours did not involve nothing. It involved tremendous policy decision in regards to food stamp reform. Might I remind the gentleman from Florida that in October 1987 the Democrats first attempted to self-execute the adoption of their welfare reform bill into the reconciliation bill without a separate vote. The adoption of the rule was considered to be the adoption of the welfare reform amendment. That rule was rejected by the House. A second legislative day was created that same day by Speaker Wright. Memories are made of this. And we brought forward a new rule for reconciliation minus the welfare reform component. The Committee on Rules subsequently reported a separate rule for the welfare reform bill making in order just one amendment, one amendment, not a series of amendments or nothing amendments that we are talking about here, in the nature of a substitute by the minority leader, but that rule was withdrawn from lack of support by the Democrats. Finally we had a third rule.

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. ROBERTS. I support the gentleman's amendment and I thank him for his contribution.