E. Shaw

Mr. SHAW

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

Mr. SHAW. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will continue to yield to me, the reason we are talking about mothers under 18 being treated different than mothers over 18, through the hearing process we had witnesses that came in and they said that giving mothers under 18, and now we are talking about 15-, 13-, and 14-year-olds as well, to give them cash benefits is nothing less than child abuse. We are talking about children the gentleman would not leave his cat with over the weekend, and we as a Federal Government are giving them cash, we are setting them up in housekeeping, and this is wrong. We need to correct it. These kids themselves should be in foster care, or in some type of group housing. Mr. Chairman, all we said was that mothers under 18, under 18, the monies can be spent for their benefit but they cannot be just handed out as cash. We strongly believe, and our witnesses have backed us up on this, that there is great evidence showing that the cash benefits are a lure to get pregnant and to really ruin their lives. Mr. Chairman, this was done out of kindness, not to save money, believe me. We will not save money through this. It will actually probably be more expensive, but it will be much more responsible and will help the person rather than hurt them.

Mr. SHAW. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from New York for yielding to me. Mr. Chairman, I am delighted I caught him in such a good spirit here this evening. It is my opinion under the bill, and I hesitate, but I have to correct the gentleman from New York. This applies to only the 17 years and under. It is 18 years and older that are handled quite differently, so it is under 18, it is not the 18-year-old mother. opinion when we say that the cash can be spent for the mother, that perhaps this could be done anyway. I would like to compliment the gentleman for his amendment. I think it is a good clarifying amendment. There has been a lot of disinformation out there.

Mr. SHAW. Mr. Chairman, I understand that the gentleman from Wisconsin has no further requests for time. I have no requests on this side. I support the amendment. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SHAW. Mr. Chairman, I am not aware of any Member on the floor who is opposed to the amendment. I ask unanimous consent to claim the 10 minutes.

Mr. SHAW. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Connecticut [Mrs. Johnson].

Mr. SHAW. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words, and would ask unanimous consent to be able to divide my time.

Mr. SHAW. Mr. Chairman, at the appropriate time, I intend as the designee of the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Archer] to move to strike the last word, which under the rule will give me 5 minutes of time. I believe the minority has the right to close debate on this particular amendment. I do not want to preempt that right.

Mr. SHAW. Mr. Chairman, I also oppose the amendment. May I ask under the rule is the opposing time divided, or does it belong to the minority?

Mr. SHAW. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman for yielding me this time. You know, it is very interesting, in listening to the last speaker speak out against the en bloc amendment, he never, never made any specific reference to any one of these amendments that he is criticizing. This is truly an uncontroversial en bloc amendment. The gentlewoman from Hawaii [Mrs. Mink], I think, is the only speaker on the other side that came down and made reference to one having to do with nutrition programs on military bases. I, for the life of me, cannot understand. I mean, it is perfectly obvious here that what has happened is procedurally the hysteria that has broken out on the minority side has been geared toward not this amendment. We could have done half the time on this amendment. In fact, I do not think we have argued 6 or 7 minutes on the en bloc amendment. The gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Clay], whose name I am often referred to, came down and was making speeches with regard to the big lie. And then we find people coming down on the minority side saying we are cutting funding, where the gentlewoman from Connecticut [Mrs. Johnson] got up and showed where we were actually increasing it 25 percent. Nobody comes back down to the well to talk about it again. Yes, we are talking about the big lie, and the question is how many times can you say it, and how many times do you expect it to get through. The truth of the matter of what we are doing in this bill is we are cutting down the bureaucracy, and if you want to know where the cuts are, that is exactly where it is. We are simplifying the law. We are taking 40 years of chairmanship held exclusively by the Democrat side, 363 means-tested Federal programs, each having their own regulations. We are taking a large number of them and we are combining them. We are downsizing government. We are the ones that are truly reinventing government. We are the ones that are getting the money to the people who need it. We are going to stop the trickle-down bureaucracy that has been mandated by existing law.

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

Mr. SHAW. Mr. Chairman, I would like to commend the gentlewoman from Connecticut for the wonderful work she has done in this area. What we have here, though, are some 40 of these programs dealing with taking care of kids, 40 Federal programs each having its own set of regulations. The point has been made that some of the States have been called to task on them. Is there any wonder, each having their own sets of bureaucrats here in Washington, tons of regulations? We have taken 23 of them and folded them into this bill, and I think the cries of hysteria we are hearing is about the decrease in the bureaucracy.

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

Mr. SHAW. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from Connecticut [Mrs. Johnson], a member of the committee.

Mr. SHAW. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Burton].

Mr. SHAW. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Roth].

Mr. SHAW. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, this has I think gotten to be one of the most bizarre debates that I have ever heard. The other side raised all kinds of points that we did not have enough time on this amendment. I do not think that they have spent 2 minutes of the time on this particular amendment. They are going back and trying to disturb the whole issue. I think that it is important that this committee realize that under the 40 years of stewardship of the Democrats, nothing happened. I would hope that it is not the motivation right now or the objective of the minority to disrupt the process so that we cannot go ahead with welfare reform. This is desperately needed. I believe and I hope that the committee will focus on let's get a bill out. If they want the Deal bill, let's get into a regular order and let's go forward. Let's bring dignity back to the House. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Talent].

Mr. SHAW. Mr. Chairman, I do not see any opposition on the floor, but I would claim the time in opposition.

Mr. SHAW. Mr. Chairman, I would like to compliment the gentleman for a very wise amendment. Being a grandfather of five myself, I can certainly appreciate the full impact to which the gentleman speaks, and I think he brings a very good element to the bill. I plan to support it. assistance. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SHAW. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding. I would like to compliment the gentleman from New Jersey, as I did earlier the gentleman from Oregon, in putting in what I consider to be clarifying amendments. For the life of me I cannot understand the opposition we are getting from the other side when if there was any question as to how this money could be spent for the benefit of this person, this is moving it, by clarification we are showing we are not as far life of me I cannot understand. Some people may think we are moving toward the minority position and they stand up and oppose it. I do not understand, but I guess that is politics, but politics is one thing I wish we would get off of this floor for the moment and take care of the poor of this country and take care of the children of this country and get on with the business at hand.

Mr. SHAW. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. McCrery. I yield to the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Shaw] for a little explanation.

Mr. SHAW. If the gentleman will further yield, would that not be taking the benefits away from the child? Would that not be terribly cruel? Would the gentleman not be penalizing the child by the omission of the mother to go back to school?

Mr. SHAW

Mr. SHAW. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Talent], who has been very active in the preparation of H.R. 4.

Mr. SHAW. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Nevada [Mr. Ensign], a member of the committee. (Mr. ENSIGN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. SHAW. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. English], a member of the committee.