E. Shaw

Mr. SHAW

Mr. SHAW. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Chairman, we have had a long few days. I think we have had some good moments in this Chamber, and I think we have had some of our worst moments in this Chamber. But I am struck by the fact that no one has come to the floor and defended the status quo, despite the fact that for so many years the Democrats of this House have prevented real welfare reform. The gentleman from Tennessee who spoke just a few moments ago about gentleman from Texas [Mr. Stenholm] mentioned the child care bill. We worked on that together, and we got good legislation. The problem is here there is too much politics and there is not enough cure. But let us look for a minute. I want to be very complimentary of the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Deal] for doing this and being able to bring about some of the Members of his party who are dead fast against any reform to bring them on board. You say you have been back and forth to the beauty parlor. Some areas you have sat under the dryer too long, I might say. I think that there are areas that your bill is very commendable. But I am not here to tell you where you did good. I am here to tell you where you messed up. And I know you messed up because of the compromises that you had to make to bring so many of your Members aboard. You increase the deficit by $2 billion. This is not a time to do this. The Republican bill decreases the deficit. It adds back to $67 billion. That is a big, big difference. You increase taxes. That is a mistake in this atmosphere. It is a mistake to increase taxes, and you increase it on over 2 million middle-income families. That is a very, very big mistake. You should not have done it. You should not have weakened to that. It is weak on work. There is no question about it. When you say someone is looking for work, that counts as work. And you say you are tough on work. All you have to do is go home and say, I am working on my resume or send your resume to be president of General Motors and by God you are looking for work. But that should not score. On our side we say that you cannot, it is not a question of sitting home 2 years. Many of the Governors today, they provide that you have got to work the first day. You absolutely gut the program that is now in place in places such as Massachusetts and Michigan, where they are requiring them to go to work. Under the Deal bill they can say, I am getting an education and training. I am not going to go to work. I got 2 years. Under our bill, the States can say, no, you do not. You are going to work right now, because there is work out there and it is there for you and you are going to be able to take it. The unfunded mandates and keeping the bureaucracy here in Washington is the greatest tragedy of this bill. Vote ``no'' on the Deal bill.

Mr. SHAW. Mr. Chairman, I would say to the previous speaker that if we started pointing out the good parts, they would start losing votes on that side. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Talent].

Mr. SHAW. Mr. Chairman, I yield a minute and a half to the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. McIntosh].

Mr. SHAW. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Arkansas [Mr. Hutchinson].

Mr. SHAW. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Nevada [Mr. Ensign], a member of the committee.

Mr. SHAW. Mr. Chairman, I will tell the gentleman privately, if he wishes to know.

Mr. SHAW. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. English], a member of the committee.

Mr. SHAW. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New York [Mr. Houghton], a member of the committee.

Mr. SHAW. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. McCrery], a member of the Committee on Ways and Means.

Mr. SHAW. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Alabama [Mr. Callahan]. (Mr. CALLAHAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

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

Mr. SHAW. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, at this point I would like to paraphrase for the Record from a letter dated March 22, from the Republican Governors' Association, signed by a number of Governors. This is a letter addressed to the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Deal]. In referring to his bill, they say that it maintains the individual entitlements, highly prescriptive Federal rules remain intact. It turns back the clock and has a chilling effect on the Governors' plans--including his own State of Georgia, I might add. It increases taxes by penalizing working Americans. By reducing dependent care tax credit for working women, you are sending a message that work, for these women, does not pay. It is an unfunded mandate, and they end by saying, ``We must oppose this bill.'' Mr. Chairman, the full text of the letter is as follows: Republican Governors Association, Washington, DC, March 22, 1995. Hon. Nathan J. Deal, House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Dear Congressman Deal: Although we salute your good intentions on welfare reform key elements of your bill will, we believe, substantially hinder real welfare reform efforts in the states. Your bill maintains the individual entitlements and does not provide states with a block grant. Current highly prescriptive Federal rules intact. We need the flexibility of block grants to design programs that will work in our states. Under you bill, states would be prohibited from removing an individual from cash welfare without first providing 2 years of education and training benefits. This provision will turn back the clock on many state programs already operating and will have a chilling effect on Governors' plans to put individuals to work as soon as we determine they are ready to do so. Further, your bill increases taxes by reducing the dependent care tax credit. In effect, you are financing two years of education and training for welfare recipients by penalizing working Americans. Working women in particular will be hurt by these changes. The costs associated with child care for working mothers are work related. By reducing the dependent care tax credit for working women, you are sending the message that work for these women doesn't pay. The work requirements in your bill are highly prescriptive and seriously restrict state flexibility. The two years of additional Medicaid coverage required by your bill is an unfunded mandate on states and will cost states an additional $1.5 billion by the year 2000. For all of the above reasons we must oppose your bill. Sincerely, Tommy Thompson, Jim Edgar, Ed Schafer, and 5 others.

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

Mr. SHAW. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from California [Mr. Cunningham].

Mr. SHAW

Mr. SHAW. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Talent].

Mr. SHAW. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the remaining 30 seconds. I would like to say that I am opposed to this particular amendment. I think the work provisions, I think, are good and well thought out, but I think the problem that we have, very eloquently pointed out by the gentlewoman from Connecticut, it puts, it divides people up into several classes. It raises the work requirement from the present 3 the flexibility that we intend to hand down to the States and, therefore, I would urge a no vote.

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

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

Mr. SHAW. Mr. Chairman, we both agree with the amendment and we are very pleased with the gentlewoman from California for bringing it to our attention. She is quite correct, it was a drafting error, we compliment her for bringing it to our attention and we support the amendment.

Mr. SHAW. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding. Just very quickly in one sentence, let us not forget that what we are doing right now, we are talking about a choice between what is in the bill and adding this to the bill. If you are against adding this to the bill, then vote no. If you think that this brings the Republican side a little closer, even though it might be millimeters closer to where you are, then vote for it.

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

Mr. SHAW. Would that not be punishing the child?

Mr. SHAW. Mr. Chairman, with that gracious introduction, I would say to the gentleman that if my recollection is correct, in the committee the Democrats offered a substitute that would take away benefits if the young mother did not attend school. Is that not the same thing, that he is punishing the child for the actions of the mother or omissions of the mother?

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

Mr. SHAW. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman has brought up the point that the other gentleman just brought up. Admittedly, the bill is not clear on that. I can assure the gentleman that it will come up in the conference and there will be no doubt about that.