John Tanner

Mr. TANNER

Mr. TANNER. Madam Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Missouri [Ms. McCarthy].

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

Mr. TANNER. Madam Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time. Madam Chairman, I want to thank again, as I said at the outset, the cosponsors of this legislation. Particularly it has been a pleasure working with the gentleman from Delaware [Mr. Castle] and his staff in trying to put together a truly bipartisan approach to what is an American crisis and will require an American solution. The American solution to me means a bipartisan solution, one that both sides maybe cannot embrace in total but can accept. That is really what we have tried to do, because we are honestly, sincerely, and for no other purpose, interested in changing and reforming a broken system. Everyone has spoken to that today, and that is the sole purpose for the countless hours that we have worked on this and brought it to this point. We have tried to sail a partisan ship through this place twice this year, and it has not worked. What happens when we do that? We all fail; the White House fails, the Congress fails. It does not matter whether one is Democrat or Republican. We fail to deliver welfare reform to the American people when we insist on sailing this partisan ship through the Halls of this Congress. Our bill does not do that. We have got 42 cosponsors, 26 Democrats and 16 Republicans. Our premise started when we sailed that ship of partisanship through here, and it became obvious to us that the Republican leadership and the White House had a gap. They were apart. So we got together and said, ``Let's see what we can do to bridge the gap.'' Our substitute is much like the base bill as the gentleman from Delaware [Mr. Castle] said in his opening remarks. We impose time limits on welfare. We change the system. We require personal responsibility. We have tough work requirements. No one can say that we do not. We have provisions to combat illegitimacy, and two-parent families we encourage. We have tough child support measures and so on. It is clear to anyone, I think, to be fair, who reads these measures that both of them dramatically reform the current system and end, hopefully, this destructive cycle of generational dependency. So why should a Member vote for Castle-Tanner over the base bill? First of all, one of the speakers, I think the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Stenholm] said, we have a chance to pass and actually enact law, if we do, one that is close to the Republican bill in many respects but is better for kids. We can pass this and actually make a law this year. We do not have to wait until next year. The President mentioned it in his radio address last Saturday morning. He has moved and said he would move to something like Castle-Tanner. Second, we do a better job, we think, in providing the necessary structure, or infrastructure, to actually put people to work. That is the whole purpose of this bill, getting people off welfare, some say off the dole, into meaningful jobs, so that they will be role models for their kids and so on. We are better, we think, on the State-Federal partnership theory. That really is what any social program like this ought to be under our system of government. We provide and we are better on the economic and necessary responsiveness to a downturn. And then, finally, it has been alluded to many times, we are really better for the kids. I do not know anyone who is the most fervent supporter for welfare reform that thinks that treating a 4-year-old child like they are a 34- year-old person who will not work is a good idea. If we read the Republican underlying bill, that is what is happening. I hope Members will support this amendment.

Mr. TANNER. Madam Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from California [Ms. Harman]. (Ms. HARMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. TANNER. Madam Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. TANNER. Madam Chairman, I would state again for the record, we do not do anything with the EITC substantively. Madam Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California [Mr. Fazio].

Mr. TANNER. Madam Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Chairman, I thank the gentleman for his previous remarks, and would point out that our bill contains the electronic transfer provisions as well. Madam Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Stenholm]. (Mr. STENHOLM asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. TANNER. Madam Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Levin]. (Mr. LEVIN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. TANNER. Madam Chairman, I yield a minute and a half to the gentlewoman from Florida [Mrs. Thurman].

Mr. TANNER. Madam Chairman, I am advised that we made no substantive changes, that we get scoring for that savings because we cut out waste, fraud and abuse and maintained compliance. for example, if one has a trust fund income of $50,000 and has a job that pays 12, one would not be able to claim the EITC because they have a $12,000 income because we count the $50,000 unearned that they received from a trust fund. So, as we score that, we are entitled to savings, and they have been so stated.

Mr. TANNER. Madam Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Chairman, I would simply say that insofar as the EITC matter is concerned, once again we make no substantive change in the law. What we do is have savings scored because of compliance with the law. Madam Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Alabama [Mr. Cramer].

Mr. TANNER. Madam Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from New Jersey [Mrs. Roukema]. (Mrs. ROUKEMA asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. TANNER. Madam Chairman, one could categorize our bill as a lot of things, but status quo it is not. Madam Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Tennessee [Mr. Clement]. (Mr. CLEMENT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. TANNER. Madam Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Utah [Mr. Orton].

Mr. TANNER. Madam Chairman, I yield 10 seconds to the gentleman from Delaware [Mr. Castle].

Mr. TANNER. Madam Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Chairman, I would like to thank the minority leader for allowing us to present the so-called Castle-Tanner amendment to the matter pending before the body in this fashion. I want to, at the outset, thank my cosponsor, the gentleman from Delaware [Mr. Castle], the cosponsor of this Castle-Tanner bill. It has received some favorable comment around, and I appreciate it being considered on the floor today. Madam Chairman, with those words, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Delaware [Mr. Castle].

Mr. TANNER. Madam Chairman, in response, I would simply say we have a modest exemption in our plan for kids and people who are legally in this country working and paying taxes. Madam Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Roemer].

Mr. TANNER. Madam Chairman, as the designee of the minority leader, I offer an amendment in the nature of a substitute.

Mr. TANNER. Madam Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume to parenthetically note that the gentleman's criticism of our plan with respect to work participation is what the Governors' conference told us that they thought they could achieve. The numbers came from the Governors, not from us. Madam Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Sawyer].

Mr. TANNER. Mr. Speaker, I know it has been a long debate. Almost everything that can be said has been said about the bill. I do not intend to use the full 5 minutes. The motion to recommit is a laser beam about children. The Castle- Tanner substitute that was just voted down requires States to provide vouchers for the needs of the child for families cut off as a result of State-imposed time limits of less than 5 years, and gives States the option of providing vouchers for families cut off as a result of the Federal 5-year limit. The bill that we are about to vote on in a minute explicitly prohibits States from using Federal funds to provide vouchers for children after this 5-year time limit. Now, Mr. Speaker, I think both of these bills, under the debate that has occurred, a fair reading by any fair-minded individual would conclude both of these proposals are a complete and dramatic reform and change of the present system, which everybody wants. Our substitute and time limits, personal responsibility, work requirements, State flexibility, just like the base bill. I am going to talk about State flexibility. Why in the world, when we are going to a block grant and telling the States, ``You fashion the program that you think is best for your State,'' would we go then and after 5 years prohibit the States from using any Federal funds for noncash vouchers for kids whose parents have run over the 5-year or run out of the 5-year limit? Mr. Speaker, according to the New Testament there is only one individual in the whole of human history who was privileged or enabled to decide the circumstance and the place and time of his birth, and that was decided for him by his father. These children come into this world and they cannot help their circumstance. Now, for this body to say to the State, ``You cannot use block grant money that is put there for you to devise for children in welfare programs,'' for this Congress to say, ``But, by the way, you cannot use any of this money to provide noncash assistance to children because their,'' according to some, ``deadbeat parent has overstayed his welcome in society,'' I think is just plain wrong. This motion to recommit days that States will simply have the option to use part of the Federal grant money they receive to take care of these people in vouchers, noncash vouchers for children. I do not know of anyone who wants a welfare system where we reform it and say to a 3- year-old child, ``You are just cut off, and it is too bad because your 33-year-old parents are not taking care of you.'' That is not welfare reform. This will cure that, and I would urge a ``yes'' vote on this very simple, straightforward motion to recommit.

Mr. TANNER. Yes, Mr. Speaker, in its present form.

Mr. TANNER. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to recommit.

Mr. TANNER

Mr. TANNER. Madam Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Texas, and I want to publicly thank the gentleman from Delaware [Mr. Castle]. We have worked very had on the so-called Castle-Tanner bill. It is the only bipartisan, actually bicameral, bill that we have before the 104th Congress. This bill has been introduced specifically and in the same wording that we have in our bill in the Senate by Senator Biden and Senator Specter. I want to compliment the Republicans for moving off of H.R. 4. The gentleman from Delaware [Mr. Castle] spoke to that. I am not yet ready to make that leap, but I want to commend some movement and some willingness to work on the part of the Republican majority, but I want to spend most of my time talking about what I think the Castle-Tanner bill is a better bill for the country and for the people that are both paying for the welfare system and those who are trapped or otherwise a part of it tonight. I want to speak more tomorrow about the differences, but let me just say this: Any system that we try to do in the Castle-Tanner bill is in some respects very much like the Republican bill. We are time limited, we give the States flexibility, we are interested in work, we require work and so forth, as the gentleman from Delaware suggested in his remarks. But there are three or four things that we do that we think will make it work better, and CBO happens to agree with us. We have a stronger maintenance-of-effort factor in the Castle-Tanner bill. This is important because welfare reform must truly be, in our opinion, a Federal-State partnership, and we do not want to, it seems to me, give the States money and they do not match it and make welfare more a Federal program than it perhaps already is in the minds of some. The other thing we do has to do with children. We restrict the transferability of these block grant funds that go to the States so that they must be used for child care. After all, if anybody gets unintentionally hurt by our best intentioned efforts to reform the welfare system and demand that able-bodied adults work, it is going to be children who have no other opportunity, who have no other means to support themselves than they came into the world and happen to be born to what some might consider deadbeat parents. This is our main concern, and Castle-Tanner, I think if my colleagues carefully read it, does a better job, even though the Republicans are trying to do better, a better job of trying to put that safety net in society for people who otherwise have no recourse and no opportunity or ability to help themselves. Another area about the children is in the area of vouchers. The Republican bill, unfortunately, prohibits Federal involvement for vouchers for children whose parents have been cut off because they refuse to work or otherwise are not cooperating, refuses or prohibits using Federal money for vouchers after the 5-year cutoff time. Now, I understood at the outset that we were trying to give the States flexibility, that we were trying to give to the States a block grant for them to fashion programs that were better than this one-size- fits-all Federal program, and so we do that, and yet then we say, ``But, by the way, you cannot use Federal money to help kids after 5 years.'' I do not understand the logic of that proposal, but maybe we can continue to work on that. I hope so. And bottom line: I think we have a historic opportunity in this 104th Congress. I think we have an opportunity to change the system so that people are, as the gentleman from Delaware said, better off then they are now. This system is broken, everybody knows it, nobody defends status quo, and we are trying to change it. If we could move the Castle-Tanner bill, if we could move toward it just a little bit more, I think we could get a bill that the President would sign and actually become law. That, I think, is the bottom line. Let us quit throwing brickbats at each other and trying to threaten vetoes or not threatening vetoes or we are going to make this political statement, and try to come together as we have tried to do with 16 Democrats and 16 Republicans to seek an American solution to an American problem. I believe that is what our people that sent us here would like to see happen, and I think we have a chance to do that if we can continue to tweak this thing and work together. I believe we have a historic opportunity.

Mr. TANNER

Mr. TANNER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time. Mr. Speaker, this is about fairness, as the gentleman from Mississippi [Mr. Taylor] said earlier, and this is the only way we know to bring this matter to the floor at this time. Military retirees and their dependents who are Medicare eligible over the age of 65 are now being forced out of the military health care system and on to Medicare. Under current law, the Department of Defense cannot be reimbursed by HCFA for treating Medicare-eligible retirees. Without Medicare reimbursement, the Retired Officers Association said these words: The DOD has no funding or financial incentive to treat military Medicare eligibles; thus, they are being shoved out of the military health care system and on to Medicare. If that were not bad enough, CHAMPUS eligible beneficiaries who enroll are abruptly disenfranchised from Tricare when they become Medicare eligible. After we looked at the Persian Gulf war 3 years ago and realized that we could have had a problem if as many people had gotten hurt as possibly could have, in treating them, we decided we ought to not persist in a drawdown of medical personnel and medical infrastructure in our active guard and reserve forces. And so at that time we passed MediGuard, allowing the Governors of the various States to select medically underserved areas in those States, and then we would use reserve and guard personnel to go and conduct what we would call, I suppose, defensive medicine, screening for high blood pressure and so forth, to keep that ready military medical infrastructure in place in case we have another situation like the Persian Gulf. I am convinced that military medical readiness will suffer if these people are continued to be denied access to care. Our medical military system must attract, train, and retain physicians and other health care personnel if it is going to be a capable and viable national resource for our defense. Medicare subvention provides this institutional foundation which is needed to meet any contingency operation and will ensure that our military retirees have the freedom of choice in health care that they have earned, have been promised and deserve. Now they say, well, this is out of order because we are in an open rule on Labor-HHS. This is telling HHS in this bill that they can reimburse the Department of Defense for these people. It is the same money, the same illnesses, the same medical people, but we do not force military retirees over the age of 65 out of military hospitals. That is just plain wrong. There is a remedy under this bill to do it. If we could defeat this rule or the previous question, then we can have our amendment, which was denied us in the Committee on Rules, brought on the floor for a vote. That is all we ask.

Mr. TANNER

Mr. TANNER. I thank the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Skelton] for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, what Bob Clement said earlier I thought was very apropos; that is, that people can disagree without being disagreeable. Bill Emerson was truly a man of the House, a man of this institution. I had the privilege of working with Bill a lot, because part of my district is right across the river from the Missouri boot heel. I can tell Members from personal experience, Bill Emerson was loved in the Missouri boot heel. We did a lot of work together on the Mississippi River. both of us served as president of the Lower Mississippi Valley Flood Control Association and had a lot of common interests that we were pursuing to help the folks that lived along the river up and down. My heart goes out to Jo Ann and the family because Bill Emerson was truly a gentleman. I never heard him say a harsh remark about someone personally on this floor. It happens all too often, as some of the other speakers have said. That is what I mean about being able to disagree in an agreeable way. That is really what this institution ought to be about. Bill Emerson lived his life in furtherance of that goal. I just hope his memory, and I think it will, will permeate this place for many years to come. He was a good man and true gentleman and we will miss him greatly.