John Tanner

Mr. TANNER

Mr. TANNER. Mr. Chairman, may I just simply say something very, I hope, profound, but very simple. No matter what you call it, an attempt to diminish the right of an American citizen's access, unrestricted access, to the ballot box in a free country is wrong. It is not only wrong, it is dangerous. These people are asking us to vote today to take away from an American citizen whom through the years people have fought and died to protect, defend, and honor, take away your right as an American citizen to vote for whomever you wish, whenever you wish, for as long as you wish. It is that simple. You can call it anything you want to. But it is a diminishment of an American citizen's right of unrestricted access to the ballot box. The people on this floor are totally irrelevant to this question. They are all, everyone you see, all on this floor today, tomorrow, or the next day are all going to die, get beat, leave, or otherwise retire or quit. They are not even a part of the question. The question today is: Are we going to, for the first time in this country's history, put a restriction on our citizens' right of unfettered access to the ballot box? The only other place I know in recent times that has been done was in the Soviet Union where only one party appeared on the ballot box. I want to ask the conservative constitutional scholars to speak up before we do something to the American people that is absolutely almost an outrage, to say the Government is going to tell you who you can vote for. That is what this is. This is an attempt to muzzle the will of the American people, and it ought to be stopped today.

Mr. TANNER

Mr. TANNER. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Deal] and say that the six of us who have been working on this for 3, almost 4 years now, none of us are committee chairmen, none of us are ranking members of a committee, and so the gentleman was right when he said it is really, I think, a tribute to the merit of this work that our staffs and others have done that we are even on the floor tonight. We looked at our welfare system again about 4 years ago and decided that we needed to change it for three or four reasons. One, the present system encouraged unwed motherhood, and that is wrong, and we changed that in our bill. Second, it discouraged two-parent families, and that is wrong, and we changed incentives in the system in this bill. Third, we knew we had to do child care and some things for kids so that people could accept a job and go to work, and we went about this in a way that was quiet in many respects. But it was like this. We went with one guiding principle, and that is if life, as one man once said, is about nothing else, it is about the dignity that comes with earning one's own way. Our bill is the only one that really and truly tries to get people back to work with self-sufficiency contracts, with a partnership with the State. We try to fix the things that are wrong with the Federal system before we dump it on the governors and the legislatures and the cities of this Nation. I have letters from the U.S. Conference of Mayors, the National League of Cities against H.R. 4 because of what they see coming down the road in terms of unfunded mandates. But I am not going to get into all that tonight. Let me tell you what I am going to talk about with the little time I have got left. Very similar to our bill, 162 Republicans in the last Congress signed a bill just like this, almost like it, and we have been working with them a long time. The six of us that are sponsors of this bill cannot be accused of being partisan voters. We have had, we collectively have, I would suggest, the most nonpartisan voting record in this House over the time we have been here. And for the criticism that comes from the Republicans tonight on some of the things that they have been for until it was here tonight as our bill, I think, is disgusting and disgusting for this reason. The American people have got enough sense to know that neither party has got a monopoly on wisdom and virtue. And they are tired of partisan gamesmanship and this unbelievable rhetoric at the level that there is, and 162 of you were for it when we had this almost same bill in the last Congress, and now all of a sudden it is bad. I think it is a shame. I think the American people want this Congress to work for them and do something about our problems. We have got a chance to do it tonight, and I would urge us to lay aside our partisan differences and try to do that.

Mr. TANNER

Mr. TANNER. Mr. Speaker, let me just say as I start here, I have been here 6 years and we have been working on this welfare reform program almost from the day I got here. The people who have been working on the Deal substitute have been working tirelessly for the last 3 years that I know of, and we appreciate the opportunity to come to the floor tomorrow and offer the Congress, the House, a chance to vote with us. I have been disappointed in the debate tonight. I still have trouble determining why a school lunch program has anything to do with helping people go back to work. When we started our welfare reform plan, we went from the principle that work is dignity, work is what people need, work will make this country stronger, and we insist that if you want something from the Government you must do something for yourself. For people who are talking about the school lunch program, the school lunch program started 49 years ago and it was a national program. The reason it was started by President Truman was because so many kids from around the country in poor, rural States were unable to pass their draftee physical. School nutrition, what kids have for lunch is not what we are about. We are about reforming the welfare system so people can go back to work and earn their own way. We give more State flexibility in the Deal bill than anybody does. Right here, provisions, AFDC benefits, State option; mandated in H.R. 4. Families, States option, mandated in H.R. 4. Child support pass- through, State option for Deal, mandated in H.R. 4. It is ironic that on the day the President signs the unfunded mandates legislation, which many of us have been working on for 2 or 3 years, and again we thank the majority for bringing that to the floor, that we have seen a bill now come before the floor on welfare for mandating to the States many of the things that we leave to State flexibility on the wonderful theory that many Republicans have professed through the years that local people know best. We have work first. We give States flexibility in how they do that, and we do one other thing for those people that are just barely getting by and they are working, they are living by the rules, playing by the rules and that is this: We include public assistance for purposes of taxable income on the basic fair theory that a welfare dollar should not be worth more than a work-earned dollar. We are the only plan that does that. Now we have, many of us who have been voting for some of the contract provisions as conservative Democrats, have asked some of our moderate Republican friends to join us on the theory, as the gentleman said earlier tonight, neither party has a monopoly on wisdom and virtue, and I think anybody who does not subscribe to that theory is fooling themselves. We asked for some bipartisan support on our plan. The Deal plan is the best plan in this Congress. You would not have had to have all of these amendments today you have had to put up. It is already in our package, if you would just give us the same consideration you ask from time to time from us, and it would be bipartisan. Come on over, read the Deal bill. If you have not, you ought to, because what we do in this substitute is exactly what many of you all have professed you want to do, and that is bring back the dignity of work to the American people and help them get off of welfare. That is what welfare reform is about. We can talk all night about whether there is a cut in the child school lunch program or not. It does not have much to do with helping someone get back to work, an adult, and that is what we try to do, and that is what we will do. And we know this: Real welfare reform has to be a Federal-State partnership and you cannot just block grant it and say States, here is some money, do the best you can with it. That will not work. That will not put people back to work. And that is why we got this letter today from the United States Conference of Mayors. They know what is going to hit them and they do not have the equipment or the ability to handle it, quite frankly, and you cannot just say block grant it and let the States do it any way they want to. We do, and we enter into a true Federal-State partnership and we clean up the mess here in Washington in the Deal bill before we turn it over to the States. And I believe, and I would ask everybody here to read our bill and to give us serious consideration tomorrow. I think you will find it is by far the best approach.

Mr. TANNER

Mr. TANNER. Mr. Chairman, in this general debate, I am going to remain general, but I know that over the next 2 days there will be a lot of specifics. I have been in the Congress for 6 years. I have been aware and working on welfare reform for that time, particularly the last 3 years. And I want to thank the Members who have brought this bill to the floor because I think Republicans and Democrats can both agree that the time for welfare reform is now. I come to speak tonight as one of the original cosponsors of the so- called Nathan Deal bill. I believe that we have the best approach, the Contract With America notwithstanding. work requirement to bring the dignity of work to the American people. We also, unlike any other proposal, make sure that the value of a welfare dollar is no more than a dollar earned by the sweat of the brow. And our final bottom line in our approach is simply this, if you want something from the Government, then you must be willing to do something for yourself. Let me talk just a minute generally about the Deal substitute to the Contract With America. All of us any many Members have said tonight and this afternoon that the present welfare system, Federal welfare system is broken. Its evolution has trapped many in broken families and generational dependence with little, if any, hope. That is wrong and we know that. In the present system all too often the emphasis is on how to receive a welfare check rather than how to return to work. The present system has built in disincentives against two-parent families. It has a powerful incentive, actually, for young unwed motherhood. That is also wrong. There is nothing in the present system really requiring personal responsibility for one's own future. This is our fault. This is the fault of the American people and the policymakers. The Federal system is broken. We all know that. We must fix it, in my opinion, here, before we take the Republican approach and block grant it and dump it in the hands of the States and their Governors and their legislatures. That is not the way we need to fulfill our obligation as Federal legislators. We abdicate it by just saying we will block grant it and our hands are clean. The Nathan Deal bill has a way, I think, to address this problem and give the States the flexibility they need to address the problem. In our bill, the Deal substitute, is work in exchange for assistance with a 2-year time limit. If you are offered a job and do not take it, benefits end. And if you find a job and refuse to accept it, the same is true. We encourage families by ending the disincentives in the present system to favor marriage. We end the incentives that lead to unwed teenage motherhood by demanding liability from parents and requiring minor mothers to live with a parent or guardian and remain in school. Personal responsibility is demanded in our bill and, unlike any other proposal here, we make benefits from AFDC and food stamps subject to taxable income, ensuring, as I said at the outset, that a welfare dollar is not worth more than a dollar earned by work. John Kennedy once said, Our privileges can be no greater than our obligations. The protection of our rights can endure no longer than the performance of our responsibilities. Let us exercise our responsibilities as Federal legislators and fix the Federal system before we dump it on the States. I think that is the responsible thing to do. I think the Deal substitute will do that, and I would encourage all of my colleagues, as this debate continues, to give it great consideration, great weight and put aside partisan differences and consider voting for it.

Mr. TANNER. I yield to the gentleman from North Carolina.

Mr. TANNER

Mr. TANNER. Mr. Chairman, I have always been and will continue to be a strong supporter of risk assessments and regulatory reform. This bill was intended to address real problems within the current system. However, this new version before us today differs from either bill considered by the Committee on Commerce or the Committee on Science, and it needs substantive changes if it is to address the regulatory morass now present. Implementation of its cumbersome procedures requires people. Using conservative CBO estimates this could mean putting about 5,000 people back on the federal payroll. This bill will result in an increase in risk assessments and cost- benefits analyses by agencies from the current level of 80 per year to more than 2,400 per year. The cost to the Department of Defense for developing and implementing peer review for the base realignment and closure process alone will be estimated between $35 and $70 million per year. The Department of Transportation will have to perform risk assessment and cost-benefit analysis before issuing mirror requirements to help school bus drivers protect the safety of our schoolchildren. That is not the kind of reform our constituents would like to see, not to mention State governments coming under this. Talk about an unfunded mandate; H.R. 1022 would require State governments, when acting as agents of the Federal Government, to perform risk assessment and cost-benefit analysis on issuance of permits or even modifications to the permitting process. In my opinion this is the classic definition of an unfunded mandate. courts to determine the criteria for sound science, the impact which will certainly be endless lawsuits. Remember, my colleagues, it was 1991, after the Reagan- administration-appointed judge who, after reviewing thousands of pages of scientific assessments, imposed a logging ban across much of the Pacific Northwest to protect the spotted owl. Finally, and unbelievably, as written H.R. 1022 allows individuals with a vested interest in the outcome to sit on peer review panels. Curiously, this contract that was created by legislators rightly concerned about the exercise of power by unelected bureaucrats would give the power to delay new regulations, some needed, to unelected peer review panels and the courts. I am for reform, as I said, but this bill must have substantive change to be worthy of its title. Mr. Chairman, in our haste to meet an arbitrary deadline on this legislation let us, please, not make an intolerable situation more intolerable.

Mr. TANNER

Mr. TANNER. Mr. Chairman, those of us who support the Edwards amendment take a back seat to no one in supporting a strong national defense. But we believe that setting the wrong priorities diverts needed funding in a deleterious way for necessary technology and equipment for our front-line men and women. Effective theater missile defense systems are being built to protect our people here at home and our U.S. and allied forces abroad. Research and development must continue so we will be able to deploy a national missile defense system whenever a threat to our shore emerges. I strongly support that, research and development. But this Contract With America provision will risk national security when deployment of space-based interceptors diverts billions of scarce defense dollars and resources from acquisition funds that provide our soldiers and sailors protection from Scuds and other theater missile attacks. That is what our military leaders will tell us and that is what is real national security. Those of us who support the Edwards amendment take a back seat to no one in supporting a strong national defense but we believe that setting the wrong priorities diverts needed funding in a deleterious way from necessary technology and equipment for our frontline men and women. Effective theater missile defense systems are being built to protect our people here at home, U.S. and allied forces abroad. Research and development must continue so we will be able to deploy a national missile defense system whenever a threat to our shores emerges and I strongly support that--research and development. But, this Contract With America provision will risk national security when deployment of space-based interceptors diverts billions of scarce defense dollars and resources from acquisition funds that provide our soldiers and sailors protection from Scuds, and other theater missile attacks. That's what our military leaders will tell you and that is what is real national security. I urge support for the Edwards amendment.

Mr. TANNER

Mr. TANNER. Mr. Chairman, this is the fourth time that I have been on the floor on this subject since I came here 6 years ago. I am in my seventh year now. We have come within 12 votes one year, 9 votes one year, and, I think, even 7 votes one time, and I want to commend the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Stenholm] and the gentleman from Colorado [Mr. Schaefer] for bringing once again, I think, a workable solution to our problems. Abraham Lincoln, our 16th President, once said, ``A majority held in restraint by constitutional checks and limitations is the only true sovereign of a free people. Whoever rejects it does, of necessity, fly to anarchy or to despotism.'' I think, if he were here today, he would say the same thing. What he said was, in my words: There must be a clear, cogent and compelling reason to disregard this most basic premise of democracy: majority rules. Over the past 25 years, Mr. Chairman, a clear willingness to borrow from tomorrow for today's gratifications has been shown by administrations, Democrat and Republican, by Congresses, Democrat and Republican, and the American people. Therefore, Mr. Chairman, I think circumstances justify, or maybe even demand, a three-fifths requirement for a supermajority to borrow money as it relates to our national debt and to place such a restraint in our most basic document of government, the United States Constitution. Always in these arguments about spending, Mr. Chairman, those whose voices are not heard in these decisions to raise the debt ceiling are those who are not here: our children, our grandchildren and their children. On the other hand, Mr. Chairman, there is a significant and profound influence in our body politic to prevent this or any Congress from raising taxes.

Mr. TANNER

Mr. TANNER. Mr. Chairman, we have been working on this approach for a long time, and my colleagues will hear and have heard a lot of rhetoric about what the approach will and will not do. Let me try, if I may, as a former member of the State legislature in Tennessee and after speaking with the president of the U.S. Mayors' Conference from my own State of Tennessee in Knoxville, Victor Ashe, let me try to say succinctly what this approach will do. This bill is about having accurate information on the costs of a given statutory provision being considered and encouraging the Congress to consult with State and local government representatives about how best to address the Nation's problems. My colleagues, this is not going to cause or prevent something good, and needed, and necessary in this country from happening. It will encourage the Congress to consult with local, and State, and Federal, and municipal officials, county officials, and that, after all, is what we all desire. This is a federation of States, this country, and I think this is a huge step in the right direction to fulfill the American exercise in self- government.