E. Shaw

Mr. SHAW

Mr. SHAW. Madam Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Hoke].

Mr. SHAW. Madam Chairman, I would point out to the gentleman in the well that the letter from the Congressional Budget Office to the chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means states that the work requirements contained in the portion of H.R. 3734 titled Temporary Assistance for Needy Families do not constitute an intergovernmental mandate as defined under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995. It is a bogus argument. Madam Chairman, I include for the Record the letter to which I referred: U.S. Congress, Congressional Budget Office, Washington, DC, July 18, 1996. Hon. Bill Archer, Chairman, Committee on Ways and Means, House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Dear Mr. Chairman: At the request of your staff, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) is providing a more detailed explanation of why the work requirements contained in the portion of H.R. 3734 titled Temporary Assistance for Needy Families do not constitute an intergovernmental mandate as defined under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Public Law 104-4). On June 26, 1996, CBO transmitted an intergovernmental mandates statement for H.R. 3734, the Welfare and Medicaid Reform Act of 1996, as ordered reported by the House Committee on the Budget on June 18, 1996. Even though the proposed work requirements would be more stringent than those in current law, the additional requirements would not constitute a mandate because states would have the flexibility to offset the cost of the requirement by reducing their own financial or programmatic responsibilities. Public Law 104-4 defines a federal intergovernmental mandate, in part, as: ``* * * any provision in legislation, statute, or regulation that relates to a then-existing Federal program under which $500,000,000 or more is provided annually to State, local, and tribal governments under entitlement authority, if the provision-- ``(i)(I) would increase the stringency of conditions of assistance to State, local, or tribal governments under that program; or ``(II) would place caps upon, or otherwise decrease, the Federal Government's responsibility to provide funding to State, local, or tribal governments under the program; and ``(ii) the State, local, or tribal governments that participate in the Federal program lack authority under the program to amend their financial or programmatic responsibilities to continue providing required services that are affected by the legislation, statute, or regulation.'' Under the program titled Temporary Assistance to Needy Families, states would have the flexibility to determine who is eligible for assistance and the size of the benefit. Therefore, the bill would not require states to devote additional funds to assistance for needy families. States would have the flexibility to offset the cost of the work requirements by tightening eligibility for assistance to needy families or by reducing the size of the benefit. If you wish further details on this analysis, we will be pleased to provide them. The staff contact is John Patterson who can be reached at 225-3220. Sincerely, James T. Blum (For June E. O'Neill, Director.) Madam Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Texas [Mr. DeLay], distinguished Republican whip.

Mr. SHAW. Madam Chairman, I yield 5\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Kansas [Mr. Roberts], the distinguished chairman of the Committee on Agriculture.

Mr. SHAW. Madam Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. SHAW. Madam Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Goodling], the chairman of the Committee on Economic and Educational Opportunities. (Mr. GOODLING asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. SHAW

Mr. SHAW. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.

Mr. SHAW. Madam Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Chairman, I would say to the gentleman in the well, we exempt veterans who are non-citizens. Madam Chairman, I yield the balance of my time back to the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Kasich] and ask unanimous consent that he be allowed to control the remainder of the time.

Mr. SHAW. Madam Chairman, today I think is a defining day in the history of this Congress. We are going straight at probably one of the biggest problems that we have in this country and something that I can only describe as a national disgrace. I respect every Member of this body, and I respect the great diversity all across this country. I respect the Governors of this country, and I respect the 50 States. But I would say to all of my colleagues, let us recognize that we have a failed welfare system in this country. Let us realize that at one time or another, every sitting Member of this Congress who has been here through the 104th Congress has at one time voted against the existing welfare system. What brings us together is that we all agree that the existing welfare system is not worth defending. We must change. We have got stagnation of population. We have tremendous problems out there that have been caused by a welfare system that the Congress procrastinated with, did nothing about, did not change. Now we are bringing forth change. Last year there was a Democrat substitute which took the vote of every Member on the minority side, and then there was a Republican bill that prevailed and went on to the President, and he vetoed it. It went to the President again and he vetoed it. What we are giving to the President today is another chance, another chance to deliver upon his promise to change welfare as we know it today. That is tremendously important. Those of you who vote for the Castle- Tanner substitute which will be put forth by Mr. Gephardt at a later time today, you are saying you will have faith in the States and you are willing to send the programs back to the States and let them run it, and you are going to give them great latitude in designing it. I have great respect for the authors of that bill and what is in that bill. But can we do better? Yes, we can do better. We can do better by passing the bill that the Republicans have put forth, that has come to us from the Committee on Ways and Means. Why is that a better bill? One, it does not slash the earned income tax credit. I would like to read a provision from the Executive Office of the President in talking about the Republican bill when the Republicans were cutting EITC. He says the bill would still raise taxes on millions of working families by cutting the earned income tax credit. This is a letter written on July 16 to the gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon]. At a later time I may put it into the Record. Now, when is a tax increase not a tax increase? To hear some of the Members come to the floor, they say it is not a tax increase when it is in the Democrat bill, but it is when it is in the Republican bill. Mr. Chairman, we took it out. We were criticized for it. We went back and looked at it and said, ``You are right,'' and we took it out and we are not going to put it back in. But it is in the substitute, in the one we are going to be asked to vote on later this evening. That is an important distinction for many of the Members on the Democrat side of the aisle. I respect that. I respect it so much that we took it out of our bill. What else have we done? The President said that Medicaid was a poison pill. We took it out of our bill. This is not an exercise in politics. This is a rescue mission by the Members of Congress to smash a corrupt system that has led to poverty across this country, has perpetuated it, and led to stagnation of people, an unforgivable sin, a stagnation of people within our inner cities all across this country who are paid to do nothing with there lives, paid not to get married, paid not to work, paid to have children, who then themselves turn around and go into the welfare system. This is a rescue mission. I respect every Member for wanting to change that system, but I would say that the best way to go is with the Republican bill. Vote against the substitute that will be offered by Mr. Gephardt. If you truly believe that noncitizens who are growing on our welfare rolls at a tremendous speed, if you believe they should still receive welfare, fine, vote for the Gephardt substitute. If you believe that welfare should truly not be time-limited, fine, vote for the substitute. But vote for something. That is what is very important. This I think is an historic moment. I think that the President will end up signing the bill that we will send him. It makes a lot of sense. It is a good bill.

Mr. SHAW. Madam Chairman, I yield myself 5 minutes. (Mr. SHAW asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. SHAW. Madam Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Ramstad]. (Mr. RAMSTAD asked and was given permission to revise and expend his remarks.)

Mr. SHAW. Madam Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Gilchrest].

Mr. SHAW. Madam Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Hayes], a member of the Committee on Ways and Means. (Mr. HAYES asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. SHAW. Madam Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Chairman, I would invite the gentleman from Minnesota to read on page 7, subtitle B, the earned income tax credit of the gentleman's bill. It provides and it has been scored that that is a $6 billion statement. The gentleman stands there and tells us that we are going to somehow put this into our bill. It is not in our bill, it is in the gentleman's bill. It is a tax increase. It is the gentleman's problem, and he is going to have to deal with it. We took it out of our bill because we did not want a tax increase on the working poor. He left it in his bill because obviously he wanted to take $6 billion out of the pockets of working Americans. Madam Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Washington [Ms. Dunn].

Mr. SHAW. I yield to the gentleman from Michigan.

Mr. SHAW. Madam Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I want to respond to my good friend, a valued Member and a good friend of mine, and someone who has really worked hard, trying to work on welfare reform. Madam Chairman, I can tell the gentleman from Michigan, he is wrong. He has the increase in his bill. We do not have the increase in our bill. The gentleman gets up there and says shame on us for having it in there and then taking it out. That is absolutely ridiculous.

Mr. SHAW. Reclaiming my time, Madam Chairman. I would advise the gentleman from California that his bill does precisely that. Our bill does not. Madam Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Traficant]. (Mr. TRAFICANT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. SHAW. I yield to the gentleman from California.

Mr. SHAW. Madam Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Chairman, I would ask the gentleman from California if he is aware that the bill that he has endorsed imposes a tax increase which the President characterized as a tax increase on the working poor by slashing EITC?

Mr. SHAW. Modification of Adjusted Gross Income Definition for the Earned Income Tax Credit. You take working poor out by a modification of the definition.

Mr. SHAW. Madam Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Tennessee [Mr. Wamp]. (Mr. WAMP asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. SHAW. Madam Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Texas, Mr. Sam Johnson, from the Committee on Ways and Means. (Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. SHAW. Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SHAW. You forced it out, and where did it go? It went to your bill.

Mr. SHAW. Madam Chairman, will the gentleman yield?