Summary:

All articles in House section

PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY ACT OF 1995
(House of Representatives - March 23, 1995)

Text of this article available as: TXT PDF [Pages H3581-H3700] PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY ACT OF 1995 The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Dickey). Pursuant to House Resolution 119, and rule XXIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union for the further consideration of the bill H.R. 4. {time} 1055 in the committee of the whole Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union for the further consideration of the bill (H.R. 4) to restore the American family, reduce illegitimacy, control welfare spending, and reduce welfare dependence, with Mr. Linder in the chair. The Clerk read the title of the bill. The CHAIRMAN. When the Committee of the Whole rose on Wednesday, March 22, 1995, amendment No. 11 printed in House Report 104-85, offered [[Page H3582]] by the gentlewoman from California [Ms. Woolsey], had been disposed of and the bill was open for amendment at any point. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 13, printed in House Report 104-85. amendment offered by Mrs. Johnson of Connecticut Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, I offer amendment No. 13, printed in House Report 104-85. The CHAIRMAN. The clerk will designate the amendment. The text of the amendment is as follows: Amendment offered by Mrs. Johnson of Connecticut: Page 87, line 3, strike ``$1,943,000,000'' and insert ``$2,093,000,000''. The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, the gentlewoman from Connecticut [Mrs. Johnson] will be recognized for 10 minutes, and a Member opposed will be recognized for 10 minutes. Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment. The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Washington [Mr. McDermott] will be recognized for 10 minutes. The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Connecticut [Mrs. Johnson]. Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to urge support of the child care amendment which I am offering along with Congresswomen Pryce, Dunn, and Waldholtz, which raises the authorization level for the child care grant by $150 million a year for 5 years. Mr. Chairman, there are three main points I would like to make with respect to this amendment. First, requiring adults to work in exchange for their benefits will increase the need for child care. This is inevitable. Fully 63 percent of families on AFDC have children age 5 and under. A significant number of children who are in school still need after-school care, since the school day and school year are much more limited than the typical workday and work year. In an ideal world, extended family would be able to provide some amount of this care. But in today's world day care and the need for day care is a reality for those on welfare and those gaining independence. Second, reduced child care funding puts the squeeze on the working poor. In recent years, AFDC participation rates have resulted in States offering the program tilting more and more toward welfare families and away from the working poor. Thirty-five States reported last year that they have a waiting list for subsidized child care for working poor. My State of Connecticut does not even maintain a waiting list anymore, since all slots opened up are already spoken for. As we require more women on welfare to work, this problem is going to get more serious, not less serious. I am pleased to be proposing this amendment today because I think it expands our resources significantly to address the child care needs that will develop as we reform welfare. But this amendment is not the whole answer. That is a point that is very important to make because there was a lot of misunderstanding in recent days as we debated this bill about how we are going to manage the child care needs that welfare reform will impose upon society. The heart of the solution is actually not this amendment; the heart of the solution is moving welfare from a cash-gift basis to a cash-wage basis because if everyone receiving welfare were also working and we used our day care resources to pay very skilled administrators and lead teachers, child development experts to run these day care centers, with welfare recipients now being paid to staff them, then we would in fact have the child care slots that we need at the money that is currently available. So this is simply one step forward, giving States time and resources to create really the much greater, broader child care opportunity, better connected to education, work, and training that real reform demands. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time. {time} 1100 Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, Members of the House, we have again a fig leaf on the other side. They have written the bill, they have gotten it out here. Then they did a poll. On Monday they did a poll; a Republican pollster did a poll, and found that 67 percent of Americans believe the Government should help pay for child care for mothers on welfare. They found that 54 percent of those surveyed opposed eliminating requirements to State-set minimum health and safety standards for child care. So they said, ``This is awful what we did. We've cut 400,000 kids out of child care.'' So they have come out here with an amendment today. It is a fig leaf. It puts 100,000 back on. There is still 300,000 kids who will not get welfare child care under this bill. There should be no mistake about it; this does not solve the problem. The gentlewoman from Connecticut [Mrs. Johnson] is absolutely correct. It is a fig leaf because they got a poll that said they were in trouble. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Connecticut [Mrs. Kennelly]. Mrs. KENNELLY. Mr. Chairman, this goes right to the heart of the debate, and the gentlewoman from Connecticut [Mrs. Johnson] and I have worked on some of these issues over the years, but we part company today in addressing day care; the reason is that the Republican bill block grants and sends everything back to the State. What we would like to do in the Deal amendment is to make sure some of the programs that do work stay in the Federal purview. H.R. 4 repeals a transitional child care program which guarantees day care for the children of parents who leave welfare. This is needed. It repeals an AFDC child care program which provides day care for parents attempting to get off welfare, and H.R. 4 repeals the at-risk child care program for people that try to stay off and do not want to go back on, and so we have this amendment before us which is a good amendment because it has additional dollars for day care. However, Mr. Chairman, the amendment has the correct idea; unfortunately the vehicle is the incorrect vehicle. Block grants will not be able to provide more with less. If you are serious about taking people off welfare and putting them to work, in many cases you have to see there is adequate day care. That is what the programs we are ending tried to do. One of the best parts of the Federal program is taking care of three groups needing child care: The family on welfare trying to get off, the family that was on welfare and doesn't want to go back, and the family in danger of going on welfare. If you work, want to work, or need to work, you often need help--especially if you are a single head of household. I commend the woman and Mrs. Johnson for putting forth this amendment. Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, before yielding to my colleague from Ohio, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I do want to mention that this amendment was put in well before that poll. This is not a poll response. This was put in after all the bills came out of committees. We had a chance to evaluate their interaction and how the program would work, and this is the money that then we decided was needed to be added in order to ensure that welfare reform will work for women and children and provide security and opportunity in the future. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Ohio [Ms. Pryce]. Ms. PRYCE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this amendment offered by my friend, the gentlewoman from Connecticut [Mrs. Johnson], commend her for her efforts, and in strong objection to the fact that there was a statement from the other side that this was the result of a poll. This is the result of mostly hard work, consultation with Governors and working the numbers, as the gentlewoman from Connecticut [Mrs. Johnson] just alluded to. Mr. Chairman, moving people from welfare to work and toward self- sufficiency is the central goal of welfare reform. But only by removing the barriers to work can we achieve this goal. It is clear that lack of affordable quality child care is a primary obstacle [[Page H3583]] to employment for many parents, especially single mothers. If we are going to require work, and we should, our Nation's children must not be forgotten. As the work participation requirements under H.R. 4 are phased in, the demand for child care will increase dramatically. Federal child care dollars will need to serve today's working poor, as well as the new welfare families who will be entering the workplace. All Americans have an interest in meaningful welfare reform that encourages work. Our Nation also has an intense interest in ensuring that our children are cared for, especially in their early years so that they can grow into responsible, productive citizens. The investment H.R. 4 makes in child care will contribute to this goal. Young children watching parents go to work every day is a lesson in life that cannot be taught any other way. Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support the Johnson-Pryce-Dunn- Waldholtz amendment to make sure we take care of America's children while their parents experience the dignity of work and move into self- sufficiency. Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Levin]. Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Chairman, this amendment is better than nothing, but it really is not good enough. Real welfare reform is critical. The status quo is indeed dead. The key to welfare reform is work, and important for getting people off of welfare into work is child care. H.R. 4 would gut the child care provisions, and what this does is to try to retrieve some of that. According to one estimate, 32 percent of what is cut out of H.R. 4 would be restored here. So, Mr. Chairman, a third of a loaf is better than none, but it is going to leave many people who are on welfare, who must get to work, without the provision of child care. The Deal bill goes all the way in terms of making work a reality and making day care available, and that is why I support the Deal bill. Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Goodling], chairman of the Committee on Economic and Educational Opportunities. Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman from Connecticut [Mrs. Johnson] for giving me the time and also for sponsoring the amendment. Mr. Chairman, when the legislation left our committee, I said to the Committee on Ways and Means that I had two concerns about what we had done in committee. One was that perhaps in the outyears we did not have sufficient money. I was not worried about the 1st year or the 2d year as far as day care was concerned, but I was worried about the outyears, and she is taking care of that. The other concern that I had dealt with legal aliens, which I believe will be taken care of later also. Mr. Chairman, the beauty of the gentlewoman's amendment is that she goes way above what the CBO baseline projects for spending over this 5 years. CBO baseline says 9,396,000,000. With the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Connecticut [Mrs. Johnson] we are now up to 10,515,000,000. So there is a sizable increase over what the CBO baseline projects, and I am happy to support the gentlewoman's amendment. Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Kildee], and I ask unanimous consent that he be allowed to control that time. The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Washington? There was no objection. Mr. KILDEE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Connecticut [Mrs. Johnson] because it makes the bill marginally better. But the structure that has been changed in this bill really will not permit me to vote for the bill itself, but I will support the amendment in case this bill passes, that we will have marginally recognized that this child care is very, very important. Let me give my colleagues an example. I have been in public life for 30 years now, and of course for 30 years, like many of my colleagues in public life, I have been asked to try to get people jobs. I can recall in one instance I got a woman a job working in a restaurant in Flint, MI, and she had three children, and she was so happy to get that job, but she really did not have any reliable child care. She worked on that job less than 2 weeks and found that in less than 2 weeks she had four or five different arrangements for child care, with her grandparents, with a sister, with a neighbor. One day the kids were left alone--that was the last day she worked-- left home alone, asking a neighbor to look in once in a while on them. Mr. Chairman, that is a cruel choice to give to women, to tell them that they should work, and certainly work is much to be preferred to welfare, but to force a woman to have no reliable child care, to rely upon a neighbor, a sister, a grandparent, and then the worst choice, to leave them home alone, and that, for her, was the last she could choose, and she had to leave that job. Now we can do better than that. Now I support the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Connecticut [Mrs. Johnson], but the structure and the cuts we have here in child care are enormous. By the year 2000, fiscal year 2000, in Michigan, Michigan will lose $16.1 million for this and lose almost 10,000 child care slots. Now, albeit the Johnson amendment does marginally improve that, under that Michigan, by the year 2000, will lose $12.1 million and lose only 7,400 slots. But I am concerned about those 7,400 slots. That is why I cannot support this bill, but the gentlewoman from Connecticut [Mrs. Johnson] is marginally improving the bill with her amendment. So, Mr. Chairman, I would urge the support of the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Connecticut [Mrs. Johnson] but urge the defeat of the bill. Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Chairman, as the designee of the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Archer], I move to strike the last word in order to receive the 5 minutes of debate time as provided for in the rule. The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman has that right. Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, how much time do I have remaining? The CHAIRMAN. Eight and a half minutes. Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Including the 5 minutes just yielded? The CHAIRMAN. The gentlewoman is correct. Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Washington [Ms. Dunn], a member of the Committee on Ways and Means and the chief sponsor of this amendment. Ms. DUNN of Washington. Mr. Chairman, on behalf of some of America's neediest and yet valued citizens, we begin the process of ending welfare as a way of life and restoring welfare assistance to its original purpose, to provide temporary help to our neighbors in need. Mr. Chairman, Americans are a generous people who have long demonstrated our commitment to help our neighbors, families and children in need, but the American people also ask for results for our efforts. To the American taxpayers who have, so far, spent $5 trillion to support what has been described by both sides in this House debate as a failed welfare system, let me assure them that our bill is a botton-up review. The Republican bill will remove the incentives that encourage welfare dependency and provide new incentives that encourage work and lift people from the cycle of poverty. As part of providing support to the soon-to-be working mothers, Mr. Chairman, we are offering an amendment that will provide an additional $750 million in child care funding to these parents. As people move off welfare the women with children, especially preschool children, could be caught in a trap. Rightfully they are required to enter the work force, and yet also rightfully they are worried about the safety of their children. Our amendment helps newly working mothers meet their personal responsibility obligations and address the legitimate concerns for their children. Last Saturday, Mr. Chairman, at home in Washington State I met with a group of welfare mothers at a Head Start meeting. They were unanimous and emphatic in their desire to get off [[Page H3584]] welfare, but one thing they did ask for help on was the responsibility of funding day care. Help them find good day care, and they will take the responsibility of finding work in the private sector. Mr. Chairman, as a single mother who raised two sons, I know the value of good day care and the peace of mind when it is found. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment. Mr. KILDEE. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from California [Ms. Pelosi]. Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, as the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Kildee] pointed out in his very poignant story about the mother who had to choose between leaving her child at home or going to work to provide for that child, nothing is more important in moving, transitioning, poor women from welfare to work than the availability of quality child care, and that is what is so sad about H.R. 4, because it eliminates child care assistance to more than 400,000 low-income children in the year 2000, it eliminates child care funding now guaranteed for AFDC recipients participating in education, training or work activities. It eliminates the child funding now guaranteed for 12 months to AFDC recipients making the transition from welfare to work, and it cuts more child care services by $2.4 billion over the next 5 years. Now the amendment offered by our colleagues, the gentlewoman from Connecticut [Mrs. Johnson], the gentlewoman from Ohio [Ms. Pryce] and the gentlewoman from Utah [Mrs. Waldholtz], is a step in the right direction, and I commend the sponsors for offering it, but I recall a story by the former Governor of Texas who said, ``You can put lipstick on a sow and call it Monique, but it's still a pig,'' and this, I contend, is a cosmetic change to this terrible bill, H.R. 4. {time} 1115 In my State of California, H.R. 4 cuts out 35,000 child care slots. This bill would restore 9,000 of those. That, as I said, is a step in the right direction. It is interesting to me that our colleagues keep saying why are you criticizing H.R. 4, it is a great bill, and then come to the floor with 25 amendments of their own to make the bill more acceptable, this being one of them, this not being enough, because it does not restore traditional, transitional child care services that have been proven essential to move mothers with young children from welfare to work, does not ensure that the additional funds it authorizes will even be available. It only raises the authorization level, and without it being an entitlement, the funds may never be there, and would continue to cut, I repeat, cut child care services for more than 300,000 low-income children in the year 2000. It would continue to pit poor parents and their demands to children and to work to provide for those children. It addresses the basic fundamental problem with this bill, it is weak on work, cheats children, and rewards the rich, all of this to give a tax break to the wealthiest Americans. Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to vote against H.R. 4. I commend the Members for introducing this amendment. Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 15 seconds. Mr. Chairman, I want to clarify the Record. The Deal bill sets aside $3.5 billion. The CBO baseline estimate is $4.8 billion, for a total of approximately $8.3 billion. With the Johnson amendment, our bill will provide $10.5 billion for day care. So there is absolutely nothing cut. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Utah [Mrs. Waldholtz], a chief sponsor of this bill and an esteemed freshman colleague. Mrs. WALDHOLTZ. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding time to me. Mr. Chairman, one of the greatest failings of our current welfare system is that it forces people to choose between work and benefits. One of the fundamental principles of this bill is that people should be encouraged and rewarded for work, and this bill gives them that opportunity. But parents cannot reasonably be expected to work their way out of dependency if while they are working their children are not safely cared for. The dangers of inadequate child care are obvious. And forcing low- income parents to make a choice between welfare and work based on their ability to afford adequate child care is cruel--and undercuts our efforts to encourage work and promote self-sufficiency. This amendment increases the bill's child care block grant by $750 million, so that the States can fund their own affordable child care programs for low-income and working welfare parents. It will help ensure safe care for our children, and help their parents go to work and stay at work by giving them peace of mind that their children are cared for. I am proud to join with my colleagues in making this important change, and I strongly urge my colleagues to support this amendment. The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Washington [Mr. McDermott], has 1 minute remaining and has the right to close. Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Chairman, to extend the debate I move to strike the last word, and ask unanimous consent to merge that additional time with the time I am presently controlling. The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Washington? There was no objection. Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Deal]. Mr. DEAL. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Chairman, first of all, I commend the gentlewoman who has offered this amendment, because I think it does recognize a movement in the right direction to correct some of the provisions of H.R. 4. It will in fact add back additional funds. But as I look as the scoring on this, it appears to me that we are still talking about cutting the funding in this category by some $600 million below current levels. I think that is what places all of us on the horns of a dilemma in this debate about welfare reform. On the one hand, if we are going to try to move people off of welfare and on to work, especially is we are talking about mothers, the availability of child care is an essential ingredient in that formula. If we are in fact under H.R. 4, even with the amendment, still cutting below current levels by $600 million, and if current levels are not adequate to change the status quo, then we still have a problem. Our Deal substitute, on the other hand, adds $3.7 billion additional to the child care fund, and in addition to that we have some $424 million over a 5-year period to assist the working poor. I think we all recognize that this is an essential ingredient in making the transformation from welfare to work, and I commend the gentlewoman for this effort. I think it is a movement in the right direction. I would like to think, however, that our substitute does a better job. Mr. FORD. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. DEAL. I yield to the gentleman from Tennessee. Mr. FORD. Mr. Chairman, I want to associate myself with the remarks made by the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Deal] and just point out that in the Deal bill, putting work first, you really put mothers into the work force, and you provide additional child care dollars for those mothers to go to work, in change from what current law would do. The Johnson amendment would, I guess, bring about some help. It will reduce the overall package from 400,000 to 300,000 children who will be in need of child care, but the Deal bill provides additional resources to ensure proper child care. Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Shaw], the chairman of the subcommittee and the chief author of the welfare reform bill. Mr. SHAW. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding, and compliment her on a most-needed amendment. Mr. Chairman, we have discussed this in the subcommittee, we have discussed this in the full committee, that the success of the jobs program in providing real jobs in H.R. 4 would require the necessity for additional money to be put into child care. I would like to also point out to the committee that under the Deal bill, the child care provision is $8.3 billion over 5 years. That [[Page H3585]] is a total over 5 years. With the Johnson amendment, H.R. 4 will be $10.5 billion. So these are the figures. The Johnson amendment brings H.R. 4 far ahead of the Deal bill in the amount of money that is put into child care. The figures are plain, the figures are there, and you cannot argue with them. So this bill is much richer in child care and recognizes the need for additional child care much more than the Deal bill. I certainly would urge all the Members to support the amendment. Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I would just point out to the chairman of the committee that he is mixing apples and oranges. The gentleman has taken away the guarantee of child care. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Stenholm]. (Mr. STENHOLM asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.) Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, I again want to come with one set of figures, only to hear what I believe to be true is totally wrong. It makes me very confused. But I do commend the gentlewoman for offering this amendment, because in my opinion, she makes a very badly flawed bill a little bit better. But I still believe very strongly the Deal substitute is much better, and I believe the debate will show this. I want to quickly recount a little conversation that I had with a pastor in a church in my district. He said to me, ``Charlie, if you just do one thing for me, I have five unwed mothers, teenage mothers, in my church. If you do just one thing for me, give me the child care money so that I can provide child care while I tell that young mother, go back to school and get an education. I will tell her you get that education, you make your grades, if you will just help me get the money to take care of her child when we do it.'' That is what the Deal substitute is proposing, a workable--a workable substitute, not what we are being offered in H.R. 4. Mr. Chairman, I commend the gentlewoman for seeking to make improvements in the base bill. Unfortunately, I fear that even were her amendment to pass, the child care provisions would be inadequate. Therefore, I rise in opposition to the Johnson amendment which falls far short of the child care provisions contained in Mr. Deal's substitute. The Deal substitute provides sufficient funding for child care to meet the increased needs under the plan's aggressive work requirements. H.R. 4, on the other hand, reduces child care funding $1.4 billion below levels provided for under current law and does not ensure that child care will be available to individuals who need it. This amendment restores only slightly more than half of the funding needed to maintain current law. In addition, it still does not guarantee that funding will be available for welfare recipients who need child care assistance to move into work. This lack of funding for child care assistance could mean that either welfare recipients won't move into work, or parents will be forced to leave their children in unsafe or substandard care if they do get work. CBO estimates that the Deal substitute will provide $3.7 billion in child care spending to meet the increased demand for child care as more individuals move into work. The substitute also increases child care assistance for the working poor by $424 million over 5 years above the baseline projections. The Deal proposal also consolidates child care programs under a uniform set of rules and regulations, rather than having to comply with a patchwork of rules under different programs. The primary source of child care assistance under the Deal consolidated block grant would be in the form of vouchers that would be used by parents with the child care provider of their choice. Having worked on child care in past Congresses, I strongly believe we must continue to support parental choice as we have in the Deal substitute. In addition, the Deal substitute contains the most aggressive work requirements of any bill we will consider today. We also support these work requirements with funding for the transitional tools recipients need to make the move from welfare to work. Child care is one of the most important tools available for working mothers and I believe we must provide the necessary funding to see that they are able to work. Reluctantly, I urge opposition to the Johnson amendment and enthusiastic support for the Deal substitute. Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Delaware [Mr. Castle]. Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding, and I rise in very strong support of her amendment. Mr. Chairman, I think child care is a vital function of our welfare reform efforts. If you are going to train people, have people work, you need to make a provision for children. But I think we should straighten out a few facts. One, is it the welfare reform bill that we are debating here actually has more money in it than the Deal bill as far as child care is concerned. I say that respectfully, because I do respect the Deal bill. Second, a lot of welfare recipients do not even use State-supported child care. We need to understand that issue as we debate this also. Also the structure of all this has been criticized, the structure of going to a block grant. I would point out a few aspects of going to a block grant which I think help with respect to the providing of child care. First, it provides States maximum flexibility in developing programs that best suit the needs of the residents. It promotes parental choice to help parents make their own decisions on child care to best suit their needs, and we get rid of State set-asides which gives us more money as well. It gives us flexibility, and I support the amendment. Mr. McDERMOTT. I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Levin]. Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Chairman, I have tried to check out the figures of the gentlewoman from Connecticut [Mrs. Johnson] and I truly think they are wrong. You are discussing just part of the Deal bill and not all of the pieces that fall in place under the Deal bill. Your approach provides less money when you take into account the whole picture than would be the entitlement provision under Deal. The analysis is that you provide only one-third of what is cut by H.R. 4, and the Deal bill would keep all of it. Those are the facts. Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Roemer]. (Mr. ROEMER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.) Mr. ROEMER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in reluctant support of this amendment, the Johnson-Pryce amendment. I think it is like throwing a bucket of water into Lake Michigan. We need that bucket of water; we need all the help we can get in child care. I wish that it was more. We have heard countless times in our Committee on Education and Economic Opportunities that child care is directly connected to getting people to work. I strongly support a tougher work requirement. But we want people moving off welfare onto the work rolls. We want them to be good parents and good workers. That is the way that you connect this together, by adequate funding in child care. We do not want them to say go to work and neglect your family, you cannot be a good parent. We want them to do both. This amendment helps in a small way do that. I had an amendment before the Committee on Rules that would have allowed States to match more money into this program, but that was not allowed. Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas [Mr. de la Garza.] Mr. de la GARZA. Mr. Chairman, listening to the debate, a name burns in my mind and in my soul. Alejandrita Hernandez, 6 years old, her parents working in a field in Florida. She is found raped and killed under a truck. These were poor working people, and if you reduce by one the availability of child care, I want it to burn in your mind, Alejandrita Hernandez. We are talking about savings to give tax credits to the rich. We are talking about not welfare, not revamping. We are missing the boat altogether. As good intentioned as all of us might be, you have not done anything to help Alejandrita Hernandez. You cannot bring her back. But it would burn in my mind and soul that her name would be forgotten so that we can give tax credits to $200,000 and over. [[Page H3586]] Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California [Mr. Bilbray], who has had a lot of experience in this area. Mr. BILBRAY. Mr. Chairman, I stand here today not as a Member of Congress, but as somebody who operated a welfare system for a county that was larger than 30 States of the Union, San Diego County. I want to commend my colleague from Connecticut because she shows the awareness of the realities out there that have been ignored by the Federal Government for too long. I appreciate my colleague from Texas being concerned about the tragedies that have occurred. Those tragedies have occurred, Mr. Chairman, because of the lack of innovative approaches being allowed by local government. This amendment will actually allow women to participate in the child care process, to be part of the answer rather than part of the problem. And rather than what our colleagues on the other side of the aisle would like to do, always finance a larger, bigger bureaucracy, this allows the recipients to be part of the answer, to participate, to actually earn part of their benefits by participating in child care. Mr. Chairman, I think that the compassionate approach that our colleagues from Connecticut have shown should entice our colleagues on the other side to join us in this good amendment. Parliamentary Inquiry Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, I have a parliamentary inquiry. The CHAIRMAN. The gentlewoman will state it. Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, is it not procedurally correct that I close? The CHAIRMAN. The gentlewoman from Connecticut is choosing to amend the committee position. The gentleman from Washington [Mr. McDermott] took the committee position in opposition. He has the privilege of closing. Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Kansas [Mrs. Meyers]. {time} 1130 Mrs. MEYERS of Kansas. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this amendment and of the whole concept of block granting. We currently have seven different Federal programs: Child care for AFDC, Transitional Child Care, At-Risk Child Care, Child Care Development Block Grant, State Dependent Care Planning and Development Grants Program, Child Development Associate Credential Scholarship Program, Native American Family Centers Program. This is certainly not a seamless program. There is a great deal of bureaucracy and money spent. It is confusing to the recipients. I strongly support the block grant and the fact that the gentlewoman from Connecticut [Mrs. Johnson] is adding $150 million which will provide even more, certainly, that goes to child care than we are providing now. A great deal is lost in the confusion among the various programs. I strongly support the Johnson amendment. Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. 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. CLEMENT. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Johnson amendment. Mr. Chairman, one of the biggest barriers to work for welfare recipients is their inability to provide their child with safe and affordable care while they work. H.R. 4 will make it more difficult for single parents on welfare to move into work than it is right now. H.R. 4 reduces child care funding and provides no guarantee that child care will be available to individuals who need it. H.R. 4 as it is currently written reduces funding for child care services $1.4 billion below the current levels. The Johnson amendment restores more than half the cut but still leaves funding for child care services $650 million below current levels. Supporters of H.R. 4 claim that their bill has real work requirements and that they will put people to work. If this is true, they do not have enough money for child care and these people will not be able to go to work. So which is it? Is H.R. 4 weak on work as we assert, or is it that H.R. 4 is weak on funding for child care? Which is it? You cannot have it both ways? Mr. Chairman, another day of debate, another hole exposed. Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time. We have talked about numbers here. The fact is that the bill that came out of the committee, proposed by the gentlewoman from Connecticut [Mrs. Johnson] and others, repealed $4.6 billion in child care. That, plus the $8 million that the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Deal] has, is more than $12 billion, which is more money than was presently in this bill. So there is no question. The gentlewoman from Connecticut [Mrs. Johnson] assures us that there is no dealing with polls here, nobody is worried about polls. Well, I have a story from the Washington Times on the 5th of March where the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Goodling] says, ``The only major area of concern I have is the area of day care.'' This has been known since the 5th of March, when it was in the committee of the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Goodling]. He did absolutely nothing about it. When it gets out here on the floor and the American public figures out what it is all about, suddenly they say, in the poll, the Republicans are cutting child care; they should not be doing that. So we suddenly have this little fig leaf amendment. I urge that Members vote against this fig leaf amendment and for the bill of the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Deal]. The CHAIRMAN. All time has expired. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Connecticut [Mrs. Johnson]. The amendment was agreed to. The CHAIRMAN. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 15 printed in House Report 104-85. amendment offered by mrs. roukema Mrs. ROUKEMA. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment. The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment. The text of the amendment is as follows: Amendment offered by Mrs. Roukema: Page 114, strike line 4, and insert the following: ``(b) Additional Requirements With Respect To Assistance for Pregnant, Postpartum, and Breastfeeding Women, Infants, and Children.-- ``(1) Minimum amount of assistance.--The State shall Page 114, after line 11, insert the following paragraph: ``(2) Cost containment measures regarding procurement of infant formula-- ``(A) In general.--The State shall, with respect to the provision of food assistance to economically disadvantaged pregnant women, postpartum women, breastfeeding women, infants, and young children under subsection (a)(1), establish and carry out a cost containment system for the procurement of infant formula. ``(B) Use of amounts resulting from savings.--The State shall use amounts available to the State as result of savings in costs to the State from the implementation of the cost containment system described in subparagraph (A) for the purpose of providing the assistance described in paragraphs (1) through (5) of subsection (a). ``(C) Annual reports.--The State shall submit to the Secretary for each fiscal year a report containing-- ``(i) a description of the cost containment system for infant formula implemented by the State in accordance with subparagraph (A) for such fiscal year; and ``(ii) the estimated amount of savings in costs derived by the State in providing food assistance described in such subparagraph under such cost containment system for such fiscal year as compared to the amount of such savings derived by the State under the cost containment system for the preceding fiscal year, where appropriate. The CHAIRMAN. Under the rule, the gentlewoman from New Jersey [Mrs. Roukema] will be recognized for 10 minutes, and a Member in opposition will be recognized for 10 minutes. Mr. KILDEE. Mr. Chairman, I am mildly opposed to the amendment. The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Kildee] will be recognized for 10 minutes. The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from New Jersey [Mrs. Roukema]. [[Page H3587]] Mrs. ROUKEMA. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, as you know, I am offering an amendment to H.R. 4 that will require States to carry out cost-containment systems for providing infant formula to WIC participants under the family nutrition block grant in H.R. 4. Mr. Chairman, this issue rightfully has been the source of considerable debate over the past few months. During the Opportunities Committee markup, an amendment was offered by my colleague from Michigan [Mr. Kildee], that would have maintained the current system of competitive bidding for infant formula for the WIC Program. This amendment, which I supported--the only Republican to do so--was defeated, which is why I am standing here today. Many Members, including myself, continue to be deeply concerned that, under the current system in H.R. 4, which eliminates the existing competitive bidding system for infant formula, States might no longer choose to carry out competitive bidding. Mr. Chairman, under current law, States are required to have infant formula producers bid competitively for WIC contracts, or any other cost-containment measure that yields equal to or greater savings than those achieved under competitive bidding. And, currently, according to the USDA, this system achieves an estimated savings of over $1 billion annually which is used to provide WIC services to 1.6 million economically disadvantaged pregnant women, postpartum women, breastfeeding women, infants, and young children every month. This, of course, is why I support retaining competitive bidding. And, although my amendment does not mandate competitive bidding, I believe that it takes a big step in ensuring that States achieve the necessary savings in their infant formula program so that eligible individuals can receive essential WIC services. Importantly, Mr. Chairman, my amendment would require that States use the savings achieved under this system for the purposes of carrying out all services under this nutrition block grant--child and adult care food, summer food, and homeless children nutrition. As a result, States are given the flexibility to use these savings where they see the greatest need. Moreover, my amendment would have States report annually to the Secretary of Agriculture on the system they are using, the savings achieved, and how this savings compares to that of the previous fiscal year. This is an important part of the amendment because it gives infant formula producers the incentive to keep their bids low. Without this safeguard, no one has to know what, if any, savings are being achieved. Nor can we assess whether fraudulent practices are adding to costs. Mr. Chairman, I support the block grant approach. However, some block grant supporters argue that States are capable of carrying out their own cost-containment systems without Federal involvement, and that States will continue to carry out cost-containment systems that best serve those in need. But we should not assume that States will do the right thing when this kind of money is at stake. That is precisely what this amendment attempts to do, Mr. Chairman. The Congress has an obligation--a fiduciary one--to evaluate and monitor how Federal tax dollars are being spent. And, I would argue against those who claim that this would be a mandate on the States interfering with flexibility because my amendment neither tells the State what type of cost-containment measure to implement, nor does it tell the State how much savings to achieve. Mr. Chairman, this is a good amendment, and a necessary one. I urge my colleagues to support it. This amendment would require States to carry out cost-containment systems for infant formula included in food packages provided under the family nutrition block grant. The State will report to the Secretary of Agriculture on an annual basis: the system it is using; the savings generated by this system; and how this savings compares to previous savings under the Federal system. The State shall use whatever savings it achieves for the purpose of providing services to the programs under the family nutrition block grant. While I am about to mention four current alternative cost-containment systems, States are certainly not limited to these options but can combine and/or devise new ways to contain costs. One, multisource systems--State agencies procuring infant formula can award contracts to the lowest bidder as well as other manufacturers whose bids fall within a certain price range of this bid. States can determine how big this margin should be. Two, open market rebate systems--State agencies can negotiate separate rebates with each infant formula manufacturer so that WIC participants can choose between those infant formulas being offered. These rebates do not increase a manufacturers market share nor will choosing not to offer a rebate prevent a manufacturer from having less shelf space. This merely assures smaller or newer infant formula manufacturers some access to the WIC infant formula market. Three multistate systems--cooperative purchasing--States within a region of the U.S. can join together under one type of rebate system to procure infant formula. Rebates tend to be higher in large States because in those States there are more people which means that there will most likely be more WIC participants and subsequently a larger market share at stake for which infant formula manufacturers are willing to pay a higher price. Conversely, rebates tend to be lower in smaller States because these States have smaller populations most likely translating into fewer WIC participants which means that the market is smaller and, subsequently, less of an incentive for an infant formula manufacturer to offer a low bid. It has been suggested that, as evidenced through past multistate systems, larger States join with other large States and that small States join with other small States because, when they cross over, smaller States will benefit with a higher rebate which might fall below the rebate that the larger States were originally receiving. Four, fixed price procurement systems--State agencies purchase infant formula directly from the manufacturer at some type of discounted fixed price. The infant formula can then either be distributed by the appropriate State agency or by the retail stores. And, this fixed price could be determined by all three parties involved--manufacturer, agency, and retailer. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time. Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Chairman, to extend debate, as the designee of the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Gibbons], I move to strike the last word and ask unanimous consent to merge that additional time with the time which the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Kildee] is now controlling. The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Washington? There was no objection. The CHAIRMAN. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Kildee]. Mr. KILDEE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I am very disappointed that the Committee on Rules would not allow me to offer my amendment to require States to continue to use competitive bidding when purchasing infant formula for the WIC program. That amendment would have saved $1 billion. Although I will support probably, if I am persuaded, the amendment of the gentlewoman from New Jersey [Mrs. Roukema], as it is well-intentioned, I am skeptical that it will really do anything. There is a billion dollars worth of difference between the words ``cost containment'' and ``competitive bidding.'' A billion dollars worth of difference. The amendment of the gentlewoman from New Jersey [Mrs. Roukema] would require States to use cost containment measures. Prior to the enactment of the 1989 law requiring States to use competitive bidding, States were using a variety of cost containment measures. We found that they just did not work. The savings were minimal. That is why in 1989, in a true bipartisan manner with the help of President George Bush, we enacted a law to require States to use competitive bidding in the WIC program. We found that when we required States to use that competitive bidding, Mr. Chairman, not mere cost containment, that we saved $1 billion a year, $1 billion, $1 billion that enabled 1\1/2\ million more [[Page H3588]] pregnant women and infants to be served each month under the WIC program. Many of you will say, well, the States will continue to use competitive bidding. But only half the States were doing that before we mandated that by law. The other half were using industry-favored cost containment systems. I would like to ask a question of the gentlewoman from New Jersey, who I know is the only Republican in committee who supported my amendment on competitive bidding. Let us say that the State enters into a contract with one of the infant formula companies and gets a $10,000 rebate on a $5 million contract. Would that qualify? Mrs. ROUKEMA. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. KILDEE. I yield to the gentlewoman from New Jersey. Mrs. ROUKEMA. Mr. Chairman, I did not hear the gentleman. I could not hear the gentleman over the din. Mr. KILDEE. The question is, under the gentlewoman's language, if a State entered into a contract with an infant formula company and got a $10,000 rebate on a $5 million contract, would that qualify under the gentlewoman's language? Mrs. ROUKEMA. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will continue to yield, if that is the cost containment program, yes. I believe that money would then be reinvested back into the WIC program. I am sorry. WIC or any other part of the block grant, as I explained in my opening statement. Mr. KILDEE. Mr. Chairman, $100,000 would qualify then, and $1 million would certainly qualify, right? If they entered into a contract with an infant formula company and say we will get a million dollars rebate on a $5 million contract, a fortiori, that would qualify under the gentlewoman's language? Mrs. ROUKEMA. I think I am not quite sure what the gentleman is getting at, but I think he is talking about sole-source bidding, and maybe he is not going to make those same savings. That, of course, is one of the underlying reasons I supported the gentleman in committee. We do not have all those benefits here, but this is a giant step, it seems to me, in the right direction of exercising, maintaining the flexibility of the States and still exercising our fiduciary responsibility. Mr. KILDEE. My point is that under the gentlewoman's language, a $10,000 rebate would qualify for a $5 million contract, and a $1 million rebate would qualify under a $5 million contract. The fact of the matter is that we would do better under a competitive bidding than a $1 million rebate under a $5 million contract. We found that out. We would save much more under competitive bidding. So the gentlewoman can see the markup they have on infant formula. We would do far more than even if we got a $1 million rebate on a $5 million contract, if we used the language I wanted to use and which the gentlewoman supported in committee, to her great credit, competitive bidding. Competitive bidding saves $1 billion a year. We found that out as soon as we enacted this in 1989. So the most generous cost containment that could be used under the gentlewoman's language would be far less a savings than competitive bidding. There is a $1 billion worth of difference between cost containment and competitive bidding. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time. {time} 1145 Mrs. ROUKEMA. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Goodling], the chairman of the committee. Mr. GOODLING. I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me the time. I want to echo what she said because it is what I have said since day 1, that we do not believe in block grants as revenue sharing. We set the goals and that is what she is doing. The gentleman from Michigan is correct. Back in the old days, and it seems we cannot get beyond the old days. But back in the olden days, States did not know all those things. They learned all those things now. Would it not be kind of foolish now to walk away from the opportunity of getting an extra $1 billion, or $2 billion if you can get that? So what she does is give that flexibility to the States. I cannot imagine any State anywhere walking away from getting the biggest amount that they can possibly get. As I said, they have learned how to do that now. Ten years ago, they did not know that. But they have the experience. So I think the gentlewoman's amendment is one that should be accepted and it will go a long way to take care of those we wish to take care in a flexible manner that more can be served than have been served in the past. I would hope all would support her amendment. Mr. KILDEE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I would say that I certainly would hope that we all learn from subsequent actions. But I having served 12 years in State government know the influence of the infant formula companies on State government. They do various things on cost containment. They will promise the university hospital so much infant formula. They will promise the health department so much. They work very closely with the legislature too. I know that there can be other inducements not nearly as advantageous to the taxpayers and to the women and the infants as competitive bidding. If you think they are going to do it, why are you so reluctant to put it into law? The gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Goodling] worked with me in 1989. He, George Bush, and the gentleman from Oregon [Mr. Wyden], worked with me to get that language in. I think we need that language because I know how the infant formula companies work in the various States. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon [Mr. Wyden]. Mr. WYDEN. I want to thank the gentleman for his good work. Let me start by saying that I brought to the floor a can of infant formula which costs a little bit over 30 cents a can to manufacture and sells retail in our stores for maybe $2.70 a can. As a result of the free enterprise system that we brought to WIC on a bipartisan basis in 1989, as my colleague has said, we get 1 billion dollars' worth of taxpayer efficiency on this program every year. But what I want to say to my colleagues is that after all the talk of free enterprise that we have heard from the other side this session, as a result of this bill, even with the Roukema amendment, we will be going back to the old days of closed markets and backroom contracting. We ought to note that the gentlewoman from New Jersey wanted to do this right and to keep competitive bidding. What will happen even with this amendment is a lot of States will not have to do sealed bids which is the way to have real competition. We will also see the infant formula companies going about this country offering inducements to the States to reject competitive bidding and go with cost containment. I would like to mention that the Federal Trade Commission, the experts there, are alarmed not just about the negative aspects for WIC of eliminating competitive bidding, they have written to me and they have said that by eliminating competitive bidding, we will reduce competition for infant formula in our stores and for the general market. The reason that is the case is the way these giant infant formula companies get known is to move into the WIC market and get the public familiar with their product. I just say to my colleagues, particularly on the other side, let us reinvent Government where it does not work. This is an example of a program where free enterprise, that the parties worked on together in 1989, has worked. As a result, we are going to be eliminating competitive bidding. That is going to take milk from the mouths of poor infants and it is going to give cookies and cream to the infant formula companies and that is wrong. Mr. Chairman, I include the following for the Record. Federal Trade Commission, Washington, DC, March 16, 1995. Hon. Ron Wyden, U.S. House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Dear Representative Wyden: Chairman Steiger forwarded a copy of your March 8, 1995 letter to me and asked that I respond to your inquiries. In that letter, you indicated that the House Economic and Education Opportunities Committee had voted to end the competitive bidding requirement for infant [[Page H3589]] formula contracts that are part of the Special Supplemental Food Program for Women, Infants and Children (``WIC''). You also noted that three companies dominate the infant formula industry and you pointed to a possible effect in the general retail market from eliminating bidding requirements in the WIC Program, namely, that it might discourage new companies from entering the infant formula market. In this regard, you asked that, based on our experience in dealing with competitive issues related to the WIC and general retail market for infant formula, we respond to a series of questions. I should point out that while I have not studied the proposed legislation to which you referred, I have been involved in lengthy litigations relating to the WIC and general retail markets for infant formula, and I am able to provide you with my views on the questions you have raised. These views, of course, are my own and do not necessarily reflect the views of the Commission or any individual Commissioner. This response does not provide any non-public information and, accordingly, I do not request confidential treatment. 1. Do you believe that eliminating competitive bidding for infant formula in the WIC market will discourage competition in the general market for infant formula? Please explain. I agree with your assessment that competitive bidding in the WIC program makes entry into the infant formula market easier. I also agree that to the extent that competitive bidding in the WIC market is eliminated or made less likely, then competition in the general retail market for infant formula would be adversely affected. The infant formula market is highly concentrated, with three companies accounting for the va

Major Actions:

All articles in House section

PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY ACT OF 1995
(House of Representatives - March 23, 1995)

Text of this article available as: TXT PDF [Pages H3581-H3700] PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY ACT OF 1995 The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Dickey). Pursuant to House Resolution 119, and rule XXIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union for the further consideration of the bill H.R. 4. {time} 1055 in the committee of the whole Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union for the further consideration of the bill (H.R. 4) to restore the American family, reduce illegitimacy, control welfare spending, and reduce welfare dependence, with Mr. Linder in the chair. The Clerk read the title of the bill. The CHAIRMAN. When the Committee of the Whole rose on Wednesday, March 22, 1995, amendment No. 11 printed in House Report 104-85, offered [[Page H3582]] by the gentlewoman from California [Ms. Woolsey], had been disposed of and the bill was open for amendment at any point. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 13, printed in House Report 104-85. amendment offered by Mrs. Johnson of Connecticut Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, I offer amendment No. 13, printed in House Report 104-85. The CHAIRMAN. The clerk will designate the amendment. The text of the amendment is as follows: Amendment offered by Mrs. Johnson of Connecticut: Page 87, line 3, strike ``$1,943,000,000'' and insert ``$2,093,000,000''. The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, the gentlewoman from Connecticut [Mrs. Johnson] will be recognized for 10 minutes, and a Member opposed will be recognized for 10 minutes. Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment. The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Washington [Mr. McDermott] will be recognized for 10 minutes. The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Connecticut [Mrs. Johnson]. Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to urge support of the child care amendment which I am offering along with Congresswomen Pryce, Dunn, and Waldholtz, which raises the authorization level for the child care grant by $150 million a year for 5 years. Mr. Chairman, there are three main points I would like to make with respect to this amendment. First, requiring adults to work in exchange for their benefits will increase the need for child care. This is inevitable. Fully 63 percent of families on AFDC have children age 5 and under. A significant number of children who are in school still need after-school care, since the school day and school year are much more limited than the typical workday and work year. In an ideal world, extended family would be able to provide some amount of this care. But in today's world day care and the need for day care is a reality for those on welfare and those gaining independence. Second, reduced child care funding puts the squeeze on the working poor. In recent years, AFDC participation rates have resulted in States offering the program tilting more and more toward welfare families and away from the working poor. Thirty-five States reported last year that they have a waiting list for subsidized child care for working poor. My State of Connecticut does not even maintain a waiting list anymore, since all slots opened up are already spoken for. As we require more women on welfare to work, this problem is going to get more serious, not less serious. I am pleased to be proposing this amendment today because I think it expands our resources significantly to address the child care needs that will develop as we reform welfare. But this amendment is not the whole answer. That is a point that is very important to make because there was a lot of misunderstanding in recent days as we debated this bill about how we are going to manage the child care needs that welfare reform will impose upon society. The heart of the solution is actually not this amendment; the heart of the solution is moving welfare from a cash-gift basis to a cash-wage basis because if everyone receiving welfare were also working and we used our day care resources to pay very skilled administrators and lead teachers, child development experts to run these day care centers, with welfare recipients now being paid to staff them, then we would in fact have the child care slots that we need at the money that is currently available. So this is simply one step forward, giving States time and resources to create really the much greater, broader child care opportunity, better connected to education, work, and training that real reform demands. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time. {time} 1100 Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, Members of the House, we have again a fig leaf on the other side. They have written the bill, they have gotten it out here. Then they did a poll. On Monday they did a poll; a Republican pollster did a poll, and found that 67 percent of Americans believe the Government should help pay for child care for mothers on welfare. They found that 54 percent of those surveyed opposed eliminating requirements to State-set minimum health and safety standards for child care. So they said, ``This is awful what we did. We've cut 400,000 kids out of child care.'' So they have come out here with an amendment today. It is a fig leaf. It puts 100,000 back on. There is still 300,000 kids who will not get welfare child care under this bill. There should be no mistake about it; this does not solve the problem. The gentlewoman from Connecticut [Mrs. Johnson] is absolutely correct. It is a fig leaf because they got a poll that said they were in trouble. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Connecticut [Mrs. Kennelly]. Mrs. KENNELLY. Mr. Chairman, this goes right to the heart of the debate, and the gentlewoman from Connecticut [Mrs. Johnson] and I have worked on some of these issues over the years, but we part company today in addressing day care; the reason is that the Republican bill block grants and sends everything back to the State. What we would like to do in the Deal amendment is to make sure some of the programs that do work stay in the Federal purview. H.R. 4 repeals a transitional child care program which guarantees day care for the children of parents who leave welfare. This is needed. It repeals an AFDC child care program which provides day care for parents attempting to get off welfare, and H.R. 4 repeals the at-risk child care program for people that try to stay off and do not want to go back on, and so we have this amendment before us which is a good amendment because it has additional dollars for day care. However, Mr. Chairman, the amendment has the correct idea; unfortunately the vehicle is the incorrect vehicle. Block grants will not be able to provide more with less. If you are serious about taking people off welfare and putting them to work, in many cases you have to see there is adequate day care. That is what the programs we are ending tried to do. One of the best parts of the Federal program is taking care of three groups needing child care: The family on welfare trying to get off, the family that was on welfare and doesn't want to go back, and the family in danger of going on welfare. If you work, want to work, or need to work, you often need help--especially if you are a single head of household. I commend the woman and Mrs. Johnson for putting forth this amendment. Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, before yielding to my colleague from Ohio, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I do want to mention that this amendment was put in well before that poll. This is not a poll response. This was put in after all the bills came out of committees. We had a chance to evaluate their interaction and how the program would work, and this is the money that then we decided was needed to be added in order to ensure that welfare reform will work for women and children and provide security and opportunity in the future. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Ohio [Ms. Pryce]. Ms. PRYCE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this amendment offered by my friend, the gentlewoman from Connecticut [Mrs. Johnson], commend her for her efforts, and in strong objection to the fact that there was a statement from the other side that this was the result of a poll. This is the result of mostly hard work, consultation with Governors and working the numbers, as the gentlewoman from Connecticut [Mrs. Johnson] just alluded to. Mr. Chairman, moving people from welfare to work and toward self- sufficiency is the central goal of welfare reform. But only by removing the barriers to work can we achieve this goal. It is clear that lack of affordable quality child care is a primary obstacle [[Page H3583]] to employment for many parents, especially single mothers. If we are going to require work, and we should, our Nation's children must not be forgotten. As the work participation requirements under H.R. 4 are phased in, the demand for child care will increase dramatically. Federal child care dollars will need to serve today's working poor, as well as the new welfare families who will be entering the workplace. All Americans have an interest in meaningful welfare reform that encourages work. Our Nation also has an intense interest in ensuring that our children are cared for, especially in their early years so that they can grow into responsible, productive citizens. The investment H.R. 4 makes in child care will contribute to this goal. Young children watching parents go to work every day is a lesson in life that cannot be taught any other way. Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support the Johnson-Pryce-Dunn- Waldholtz amendment to make sure we take care of America's children while their parents experience the dignity of work and move into self- sufficiency. Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Levin]. Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Chairman, this amendment is better than nothing, but it really is not good enough. Real welfare reform is critical. The status quo is indeed dead. The key to welfare reform is work, and important for getting people off of welfare into work is child care. H.R. 4 would gut the child care provisions, and what this does is to try to retrieve some of that. According to one estimate, 32 percent of what is cut out of H.R. 4 would be restored here. So, Mr. Chairman, a third of a loaf is better than none, but it is going to leave many people who are on welfare, who must get to work, without the provision of child care. The Deal bill goes all the way in terms of making work a reality and making day care available, and that is why I support the Deal bill. Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Goodling], chairman of the Committee on Economic and Educational Opportunities. Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman from Connecticut [Mrs. Johnson] for giving me the time and also for sponsoring the amendment. Mr. Chairman, when the legislation left our committee, I said to the Committee on Ways and Means that I had two concerns about what we had done in committee. One was that perhaps in the outyears we did not have sufficient money. I was not worried about the 1st year or the 2d year as far as day care was concerned, but I was worried about the outyears, and she is taking care of that. The other concern that I had dealt with legal aliens, which I believe will be taken care of later also. Mr. Chairman, the beauty of the gentlewoman's amendment is that she goes way above what the CBO baseline projects for spending over this 5 years. CBO baseline says 9,396,000,000. With the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Connecticut [Mrs. Johnson] we are now up to 10,515,000,000. So there is a sizable increase over what the CBO baseline projects, and I am happy to support the gentlewoman's amendment. Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Kildee], and I ask unanimous consent that he be allowed to control that time. The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Washington? There was no objection. Mr. KILDEE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Connecticut [Mrs. Johnson] because it makes the bill marginally better. But the structure that has been changed in this bill really will not permit me to vote for the bill itself, but I will support the amendment in case this bill passes, that we will have marginally recognized that this child care is very, very important. Let me give my colleagues an example. I have been in public life for 30 years now, and of course for 30 years, like many of my colleagues in public life, I have been asked to try to get people jobs. I can recall in one instance I got a woman a job working in a restaurant in Flint, MI, and she had three children, and she was so happy to get that job, but she really did not have any reliable child care. She worked on that job less than 2 weeks and found that in less than 2 weeks she had four or five different arrangements for child care, with her grandparents, with a sister, with a neighbor. One day the kids were left alone--that was the last day she worked-- left home alone, asking a neighbor to look in once in a while on them. Mr. Chairman, that is a cruel choice to give to women, to tell them that they should work, and certainly work is much to be preferred to welfare, but to force a woman to have no reliable child care, to rely upon a neighbor, a sister, a grandparent, and then the worst choice, to leave them home alone, and that, for her, was the last she could choose, and she had to leave that job. Now we can do better than that. Now I support the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Connecticut [Mrs. Johnson], but the structure and the cuts we have here in child care are enormous. By the year 2000, fiscal year 2000, in Michigan, Michigan will lose $16.1 million for this and lose almost 10,000 child care slots. Now, albeit the Johnson amendment does marginally improve that, under that Michigan, by the year 2000, will lose $12.1 million and lose only 7,400 slots. But I am concerned about those 7,400 slots. That is why I cannot support this bill, but the gentlewoman from Connecticut [Mrs. Johnson] is marginally improving the bill with her amendment. So, Mr. Chairman, I would urge the support of the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Connecticut [Mrs. Johnson] but urge the defeat of the bill. Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Chairman, as the designee of the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Archer], I move to strike the last word in order to receive the 5 minutes of debate time as provided for in the rule. The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman has that right. Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, how much time do I have remaining? The CHAIRMAN. Eight and a half minutes. Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Including the 5 minutes just yielded? The CHAIRMAN. The gentlewoman is correct. Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Washington [Ms. Dunn], a member of the Committee on Ways and Means and the chief sponsor of this amendment. Ms. DUNN of Washington. Mr. Chairman, on behalf of some of America's neediest and yet valued citizens, we begin the process of ending welfare as a way of life and restoring welfare assistance to its original purpose, to provide temporary help to our neighbors in need. Mr. Chairman, Americans are a generous people who have long demonstrated our commitment to help our neighbors, families and children in need, but the American people also ask for results for our efforts. To the American taxpayers who have, so far, spent $5 trillion to support what has been described by both sides in this House debate as a failed welfare system, let me assure them that our bill is a botton-up review. The Republican bill will remove the incentives that encourage welfare dependency and provide new incentives that encourage work and lift people from the cycle of poverty. As part of providing support to the soon-to-be working mothers, Mr. Chairman, we are offering an amendment that will provide an additional $750 million in child care funding to these parents. As people move off welfare the women with children, especially preschool children, could be caught in a trap. Rightfully they are required to enter the work force, and yet also rightfully they are worried about the safety of their children. Our amendment helps newly working mothers meet their personal responsibility obligations and address the legitimate concerns for their children. Last Saturday, Mr. Chairman, at home in Washington State I met with a group of welfare mothers at a Head Start meeting. They were unanimous and emphatic in their desire to get off [[Page H3584]] welfare, but one thing they did ask for help on was the responsibility of funding day care. Help them find good day care, and they will take the responsibility of finding work in the private sector. Mr. Chairman, as a single mother who raised two sons, I know the value of good day care and the peace of mind when it is found. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment. Mr. KILDEE. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from California [Ms. Pelosi]. Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, as the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Kildee] pointed out in his very poignant story about the mother who had to choose between leaving her child at home or going to work to provide for that child, nothing is more important in moving, transitioning, poor women from welfare to work than the availability of quality child care, and that is what is so sad about H.R. 4, because it eliminates child care assistance to more than 400,000 low-income children in the year 2000, it eliminates child care funding now guaranteed for AFDC recipients participating in education, training or work activities. It eliminates the child funding now guaranteed for 12 months to AFDC recipients making the transition from welfare to work, and it cuts more child care services by $2.4 billion over the next 5 years. Now the amendment offered by our colleagues, the gentlewoman from Connecticut [Mrs. Johnson], the gentlewoman from Ohio [Ms. Pryce] and the gentlewoman from Utah [Mrs. Waldholtz], is a step in the right direction, and I commend the sponsors for offering it, but I recall a story by the former Governor of Texas who said, ``You can put lipstick on a sow and call it Monique, but it's still a pig,'' and this, I contend, is a cosmetic change to this terrible bill, H.R. 4. {time} 1115 In my State of California, H.R. 4 cuts out 35,000 child care slots. This bill would restore 9,000 of those. That, as I said, is a step in the right direction. It is interesting to me that our colleagues keep saying why are you criticizing H.R. 4, it is a great bill, and then come to the floor with 25 amendments of their own to make the bill more acceptable, this being one of them, this not being enough, because it does not restore traditional, transitional child care services that have been proven essential to move mothers with young children from welfare to work, does not ensure that the additional funds it authorizes will even be available. It only raises the authorization level, and without it being an entitlement, the funds may never be there, and would continue to cut, I repeat, cut child care services for more than 300,000 low-income children in the year 2000. It would continue to pit poor parents and their demands to children and to work to provide for those children. It addresses the basic fundamental problem with this bill, it is weak on work, cheats children, and rewards the rich, all of this to give a tax break to the wealthiest Americans. Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to vote against H.R. 4. I commend the Members for introducing this amendment. Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 15 seconds. Mr. Chairman, I want to clarify the Record. The Deal bill sets aside $3.5 billion. The CBO baseline estimate is $4.8 billion, for a total of approximately $8.3 billion. With the Johnson amendment, our bill will provide $10.5 billion for day care. So there is absolutely nothing cut. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Utah [Mrs. Waldholtz], a chief sponsor of this bill and an esteemed freshman colleague. Mrs. WALDHOLTZ. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding time to me. Mr. Chairman, one of the greatest failings of our current welfare system is that it forces people to choose between work and benefits. One of the fundamental principles of this bill is that people should be encouraged and rewarded for work, and this bill gives them that opportunity. But parents cannot reasonably be expected to work their way out of dependency if while they are working their children are not safely cared for. The dangers of inadequate child care are obvious. And forcing low- income parents to make a choice between welfare and work based on their ability to afford adequate child care is cruel--and undercuts our efforts to encourage work and promote self-sufficiency. This amendment increases the bill's child care block grant by $750 million, so that the States can fund their own affordable child care programs for low-income and working welfare parents. It will help ensure safe care for our children, and help their parents go to work and stay at work by giving them peace of mind that their children are cared for. I am proud to join with my colleagues in making this important change, and I strongly urge my colleagues to support this amendment. The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Washington [Mr. McDermott], has 1 minute remaining and has the right to close. Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Chairman, to extend the debate I move to strike the last word, and ask unanimous consent to merge that additional time with the time I am presently controlling. The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Washington? There was no objection. Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Deal]. Mr. DEAL. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Chairman, first of all, I commend the gentlewoman who has offered this amendment, because I think it does recognize a movement in the right direction to correct some of the provisions of H.R. 4. It will in fact add back additional funds. But as I look as the scoring on this, it appears to me that we are still talking about cutting the funding in this category by some $600 million below current levels. I think that is what places all of us on the horns of a dilemma in this debate about welfare reform. On the one hand, if we are going to try to move people off of welfare and on to work, especially is we are talking about mothers, the availability of child care is an essential ingredient in that formula. If we are in fact under H.R. 4, even with the amendment, still cutting below current levels by $600 million, and if current levels are not adequate to change the status quo, then we still have a problem. Our Deal substitute, on the other hand, adds $3.7 billion additional to the child care fund, and in addition to that we have some $424 million over a 5-year period to assist the working poor. I think we all recognize that this is an essential ingredient in making the transformation from welfare to work, and I commend the gentlewoman for this effort. I think it is a movement in the right direction. I would like to think, however, that our substitute does a better job. Mr. FORD. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. DEAL. I yield to the gentleman from Tennessee. Mr. FORD. Mr. Chairman, I want to associate myself with the remarks made by the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Deal] and just point out that in the Deal bill, putting work first, you really put mothers into the work force, and you provide additional child care dollars for those mothers to go to work, in change from what current law would do. The Johnson amendment would, I guess, bring about some help. It will reduce the overall package from 400,000 to 300,000 children who will be in need of child care, but the Deal bill provides additional resources to ensure proper child care. Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Shaw], the chairman of the subcommittee and the chief author of the welfare reform bill. Mr. SHAW. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding, and compliment her on a most-needed amendment. Mr. Chairman, we have discussed this in the subcommittee, we have discussed this in the full committee, that the success of the jobs program in providing real jobs in H.R. 4 would require the necessity for additional money to be put into child care. I would like to also point out to the committee that under the Deal bill, the child care provision is $8.3 billion over 5 years. That [[Page H3585]] is a total over 5 years. With the Johnson amendment, H.R. 4 will be $10.5 billion. So these are the figures. The Johnson amendment brings H.R. 4 far ahead of the Deal bill in the amount of money that is put into child care. The figures are plain, the figures are there, and you cannot argue with them. So this bill is much richer in child care and recognizes the need for additional child care much more than the Deal bill. I certainly would urge all the Members to support the amendment. Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I would just point out to the chairman of the committee that he is mixing apples and oranges. The gentleman has taken away the guarantee of child care. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Stenholm]. (Mr. STENHOLM asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.) Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, I again want to come with one set of figures, only to hear what I believe to be true is totally wrong. It makes me very confused. But I do commend the gentlewoman for offering this amendment, because in my opinion, she makes a very badly flawed bill a little bit better. But I still believe very strongly the Deal substitute is much better, and I believe the debate will show this. I want to quickly recount a little conversation that I had with a pastor in a church in my district. He said to me, ``Charlie, if you just do one thing for me, I have five unwed mothers, teenage mothers, in my church. If you do just one thing for me, give me the child care money so that I can provide child care while I tell that young mother, go back to school and get an education. I will tell her you get that education, you make your grades, if you will just help me get the money to take care of her child when we do it.'' That is what the Deal substitute is proposing, a workable--a workable substitute, not what we are being offered in H.R. 4. Mr. Chairman, I commend the gentlewoman for seeking to make improvements in the base bill. Unfortunately, I fear that even were her amendment to pass, the child care provisions would be inadequate. Therefore, I rise in opposition to the Johnson amendment which falls far short of the child care provisions contained in Mr. Deal's substitute. The Deal substitute provides sufficient funding for child care to meet the increased needs under the plan's aggressive work requirements. H.R. 4, on the other hand, reduces child care funding $1.4 billion below levels provided for under current law and does not ensure that child care will be available to individuals who need it. This amendment restores only slightly more than half of the funding needed to maintain current law. In addition, it still does not guarantee that funding will be available for welfare recipients who need child care assistance to move into work. This lack of funding for child care assistance could mean that either welfare recipients won't move into work, or parents will be forced to leave their children in unsafe or substandard care if they do get work. CBO estimates that the Deal substitute will provide $3.7 billion in child care spending to meet the increased demand for child care as more individuals move into work. The substitute also increases child care assistance for the working poor by $424 million over 5 years above the baseline projections. The Deal proposal also consolidates child care programs under a uniform set of rules and regulations, rather than having to comply with a patchwork of rules under different programs. The primary source of child care assistance under the Deal consolidated block grant would be in the form of vouchers that would be used by parents with the child care provider of their choice. Having worked on child care in past Congresses, I strongly believe we must continue to support parental choice as we have in the Deal substitute. In addition, the Deal substitute contains the most aggressive work requirements of any bill we will consider today. We also support these work requirements with funding for the transitional tools recipients need to make the move from welfare to work. Child care is one of the most important tools available for working mothers and I believe we must provide the necessary funding to see that they are able to work. Reluctantly, I urge opposition to the Johnson amendment and enthusiastic support for the Deal substitute. Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Delaware [Mr. Castle]. Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding, and I rise in very strong support of her amendment. Mr. Chairman, I think child care is a vital function of our welfare reform efforts. If you are going to train people, have people work, you need to make a provision for children. But I think we should straighten out a few facts. One, is it the welfare reform bill that we are debating here actually has more money in it than the Deal bill as far as child care is concerned. I say that respectfully, because I do respect the Deal bill. Second, a lot of welfare recipients do not even use State-supported child care. We need to understand that issue as we debate this also. Also the structure of all this has been criticized, the structure of going to a block grant. I would point out a few aspects of going to a block grant which I think help with respect to the providing of child care. First, it provides States maximum flexibility in developing programs that best suit the needs of the residents. It promotes parental choice to help parents make their own decisions on child care to best suit their needs, and we get rid of State set-asides which gives us more money as well. It gives us flexibility, and I support the amendment. Mr. McDERMOTT. I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Levin]. Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Chairman, I have tried to check out the figures of the gentlewoman from Connecticut [Mrs. Johnson] and I truly think they are wrong. You are discussing just part of the Deal bill and not all of the pieces that fall in place under the Deal bill. Your approach provides less money when you take into account the whole picture than would be the entitlement provision under Deal. The analysis is that you provide only one-third of what is cut by H.R. 4, and the Deal bill would keep all of it. Those are the facts. Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Roemer]. (Mr. ROEMER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.) Mr. ROEMER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in reluctant support of this amendment, the Johnson-Pryce amendment. I think it is like throwing a bucket of water into Lake Michigan. We need that bucket of water; we need all the help we can get in child care. I wish that it was more. We have heard countless times in our Committee on Education and Economic Opportunities that child care is directly connected to getting people to work. I strongly support a tougher work requirement. But we want people moving off welfare onto the work rolls. We want them to be good parents and good workers. That is the way that you connect this together, by adequate funding in child care. We do not want them to say go to work and neglect your family, you cannot be a good parent. We want them to do both. This amendment helps in a small way do that. I had an amendment before the Committee on Rules that would have allowed States to match more money into this program, but that was not allowed. Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas [Mr. de la Garza.] Mr. de la GARZA. Mr. Chairman, listening to the debate, a name burns in my mind and in my soul. Alejandrita Hernandez, 6 years old, her parents working in a field in Florida. She is found raped and killed under a truck. These were poor working people, and if you reduce by one the availability of child care, I want it to burn in your mind, Alejandrita Hernandez. We are talking about savings to give tax credits to the rich. We are talking about not welfare, not revamping. We are missing the boat altogether. As good intentioned as all of us might be, you have not done anything to help Alejandrita Hernandez. You cannot bring her back. But it would burn in my mind and soul that her name would be forgotten so that we can give tax credits to $200,000 and over. [[Page H3586]] Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California [Mr. Bilbray], who has had a lot of experience in this area. Mr. BILBRAY. Mr. Chairman, I stand here today not as a Member of Congress, but as somebody who operated a welfare system for a county that was larger than 30 States of the Union, San Diego County. I want to commend my colleague from Connecticut because she shows the awareness of the realities out there that have been ignored by the Federal Government for too long. I appreciate my colleague from Texas being concerned about the tragedies that have occurred. Those tragedies have occurred, Mr. Chairman, because of the lack of innovative approaches being allowed by local government. This amendment will actually allow women to participate in the child care process, to be part of the answer rather than part of the problem. And rather than what our colleagues on the other side of the aisle would like to do, always finance a larger, bigger bureaucracy, this allows the recipients to be part of the answer, to participate, to actually earn part of their benefits by participating in child care. Mr. Chairman, I think that the compassionate approach that our colleagues from Connecticut have shown should entice our colleagues on the other side to join us in this good amendment. Parliamentary Inquiry Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, I have a parliamentary inquiry. The CHAIRMAN. The gentlewoman will state it. Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, is it not procedurally correct that I close? The CHAIRMAN. The gentlewoman from Connecticut is choosing to amend the committee position. The gentleman from Washington [Mr. McDermott] took the committee position in opposition. He has the privilege of closing. Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Kansas [Mrs. Meyers]. {time} 1130 Mrs. MEYERS of Kansas. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this amendment and of the whole concept of block granting. We currently have seven different Federal programs: Child care for AFDC, Transitional Child Care, At-Risk Child Care, Child Care Development Block Grant, State Dependent Care Planning and Development Grants Program, Child Development Associate Credential Scholarship Program, Native American Family Centers Program. This is certainly not a seamless program. There is a great deal of bureaucracy and money spent. It is confusing to the recipients. I strongly support the block grant and the fact that the gentlewoman from Connecticut [Mrs. Johnson] is adding $150 million which will provide even more, certainly, that goes to child care than we are providing now. A great deal is lost in the confusion among the various programs. I strongly support the Johnson amendment. Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. 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. CLEMENT. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Johnson amendment. Mr. Chairman, one of the biggest barriers to work for welfare recipients is their inability to provide their child with safe and affordable care while they work. H.R. 4 will make it more difficult for single parents on welfare to move into work than it is right now. H.R. 4 reduces child care funding and provides no guarantee that child care will be available to individuals who need it. H.R. 4 as it is currently written reduces funding for child care services $1.4 billion below the current levels. The Johnson amendment restores more than half the cut but still leaves funding for child care services $650 million below current levels. Supporters of H.R. 4 claim that their bill has real work requirements and that they will put people to work. If this is true, they do not have enough money for child care and these people will not be able to go to work. So which is it? Is H.R. 4 weak on work as we assert, or is it that H.R. 4 is weak on funding for child care? Which is it? You cannot have it both ways? Mr. Chairman, another day of debate, another hole exposed. Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time. We have talked about numbers here. The fact is that the bill that came out of the committee, proposed by the gentlewoman from Connecticut [Mrs. Johnson] and others, repealed $4.6 billion in child care. That, plus the $8 million that the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Deal] has, is more than $12 billion, which is more money than was presently in this bill. So there is no question. The gentlewoman from Connecticut [Mrs. Johnson] assures us that there is no dealing with polls here, nobody is worried about polls. Well, I have a story from the Washington Times on the 5th of March where the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Goodling] says, ``The only major area of concern I have is the area of day care.'' This has been known since the 5th of March, when it was in the committee of the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Goodling]. He did absolutely nothing about it. When it gets out here on the floor and the American public figures out what it is all about, suddenly they say, in the poll, the Republicans are cutting child care; they should not be doing that. So we suddenly have this little fig leaf amendment. I urge that Members vote against this fig leaf amendment and for the bill of the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Deal]. The CHAIRMAN. All time has expired. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Connecticut [Mrs. Johnson]. The amendment was agreed to. The CHAIRMAN. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 15 printed in House Report 104-85. amendment offered by mrs. roukema Mrs. ROUKEMA. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment. The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment. The text of the amendment is as follows: Amendment offered by Mrs. Roukema: Page 114, strike line 4, and insert the following: ``(b) Additional Requirements With Respect To Assistance for Pregnant, Postpartum, and Breastfeeding Women, Infants, and Children.-- ``(1) Minimum amount of assistance.--The State shall Page 114, after line 11, insert the following paragraph: ``(2) Cost containment measures regarding procurement of infant formula-- ``(A) In general.--The State shall, with respect to the provision of food assistance to economically disadvantaged pregnant women, postpartum women, breastfeeding women, infants, and young children under subsection (a)(1), establish and carry out a cost containment system for the procurement of infant formula. ``(B) Use of amounts resulting from savings.--The State shall use amounts available to the State as result of savings in costs to the State from the implementation of the cost containment system described in subparagraph (A) for the purpose of providing the assistance described in paragraphs (1) through (5) of subsection (a). ``(C) Annual reports.--The State shall submit to the Secretary for each fiscal year a report containing-- ``(i) a description of the cost containment system for infant formula implemented by the State in accordance with subparagraph (A) for such fiscal year; and ``(ii) the estimated amount of savings in costs derived by the State in providing food assistance described in such subparagraph under such cost containment system for such fiscal year as compared to the amount of such savings derived by the State under the cost containment system for the preceding fiscal year, where appropriate. The CHAIRMAN. Under the rule, the gentlewoman from New Jersey [Mrs. Roukema] will be recognized for 10 minutes, and a Member in opposition will be recognized for 10 minutes. Mr. KILDEE. Mr. Chairman, I am mildly opposed to the amendment. The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Kildee] will be recognized for 10 minutes. The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from New Jersey [Mrs. Roukema]. [[Page H3587]] Mrs. ROUKEMA. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, as you know, I am offering an amendment to H.R. 4 that will require States to carry out cost-containment systems for providing infant formula to WIC participants under the family nutrition block grant in H.R. 4. Mr. Chairman, this issue rightfully has been the source of considerable debate over the past few months. During the Opportunities Committee markup, an amendment was offered by my colleague from Michigan [Mr. Kildee], that would have maintained the current system of competitive bidding for infant formula for the WIC Program. This amendment, which I supported--the only Republican to do so--was defeated, which is why I am standing here today. Many Members, including myself, continue to be deeply concerned that, under the current system in H.R. 4, which eliminates the existing competitive bidding system for infant formula, States might no longer choose to carry out competitive bidding. Mr. Chairman, under current law, States are required to have infant formula producers bid competitively for WIC contracts, or any other cost-containment measure that yields equal to or greater savings than those achieved under competitive bidding. And, currently, according to the USDA, this system achieves an estimated savings of over $1 billion annually which is used to provide WIC services to 1.6 million economically disadvantaged pregnant women, postpartum women, breastfeeding women, infants, and young children every month. This, of course, is why I support retaining competitive bidding. And, although my amendment does not mandate competitive bidding, I believe that it takes a big step in ensuring that States achieve the necessary savings in their infant formula program so that eligible individuals can receive essential WIC services. Importantly, Mr. Chairman, my amendment would require that States use the savings achieved under this system for the purposes of carrying out all services under this nutrition block grant--child and adult care food, summer food, and homeless children nutrition. As a result, States are given the flexibility to use these savings where they see the greatest need. Moreover, my amendment would have States report annually to the Secretary of Agriculture on the system they are using, the savings achieved, and how this savings compares to that of the previous fiscal year. This is an important part of the amendment because it gives infant formula producers the incentive to keep their bids low. Without this safeguard, no one has to know what, if any, savings are being achieved. Nor can we assess whether fraudulent practices are adding to costs. Mr. Chairman, I support the block grant approach. However, some block grant supporters argue that States are capable of carrying out their own cost-containment systems without Federal involvement, and that States will continue to carry out cost-containment systems that best serve those in need. But we should not assume that States will do the right thing when this kind of money is at stake. That is precisely what this amendment attempts to do, Mr. Chairman. The Congress has an obligation--a fiduciary one--to evaluate and monitor how Federal tax dollars are being spent. And, I would argue against those who claim that this would be a mandate on the States interfering with flexibility because my amendment neither tells the State what type of cost-containment measure to implement, nor does it tell the State how much savings to achieve. Mr. Chairman, this is a good amendment, and a necessary one. I urge my colleagues to support it. This amendment would require States to carry out cost-containment systems for infant formula included in food packages provided under the family nutrition block grant. The State will report to the Secretary of Agriculture on an annual basis: the system it is using; the savings generated by this system; and how this savings compares to previous savings under the Federal system. The State shall use whatever savings it achieves for the purpose of providing services to the programs under the family nutrition block grant. While I am about to mention four current alternative cost-containment systems, States are certainly not limited to these options but can combine and/or devise new ways to contain costs. One, multisource systems--State agencies procuring infant formula can award contracts to the lowest bidder as well as other manufacturers whose bids fall within a certain price range of this bid. States can determine how big this margin should be. Two, open market rebate systems--State agencies can negotiate separate rebates with each infant formula manufacturer so that WIC participants can choose between those infant formulas being offered. These rebates do not increase a manufacturers market share nor will choosing not to offer a rebate prevent a manufacturer from having less shelf space. This merely assures smaller or newer infant formula manufacturers some access to the WIC infant formula market. Three multistate systems--cooperative purchasing--States within a region of the U.S. can join together under one type of rebate system to procure infant formula. Rebates tend to be higher in large States because in those States there are more people which means that there will most likely be more WIC participants and subsequently a larger market share at stake for which infant formula manufacturers are willing to pay a higher price. Conversely, rebates tend to be lower in smaller States because these States have smaller populations most likely translating into fewer WIC participants which means that the market is smaller and, subsequently, less of an incentive for an infant formula manufacturer to offer a low bid. It has been suggested that, as evidenced through past multistate systems, larger States join with other large States and that small States join with other small States because, when they cross over, smaller States will benefit with a higher rebate which might fall below the rebate that the larger States were originally receiving. Four, fixed price procurement systems--State agencies purchase infant formula directly from the manufacturer at some type of discounted fixed price. The infant formula can then either be distributed by the appropriate State agency or by the retail stores. And, this fixed price could be determined by all three parties involved--manufacturer, agency, and retailer. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time. Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Chairman, to extend debate, as the designee of the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Gibbons], I move to strike the last word and ask unanimous consent to merge that additional time with the time which the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Kildee] is now controlling. The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Washington? There was no objection. The CHAIRMAN. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Kildee]. Mr. KILDEE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I am very disappointed that the Committee on Rules would not allow me to offer my amendment to require States to continue to use competitive bidding when purchasing infant formula for the WIC program. That amendment would have saved $1 billion. Although I will support probably, if I am persuaded, the amendment of the gentlewoman from New Jersey [Mrs. Roukema], as it is well-intentioned, I am skeptical that it will really do anything. There is a billion dollars worth of difference between the words ``cost containment'' and ``competitive bidding.'' A billion dollars worth of difference. The amendment of the gentlewoman from New Jersey [Mrs. Roukema] would require States to use cost containment measures. Prior to the enactment of the 1989 law requiring States to use competitive bidding, States were using a variety of cost containment measures. We found that they just did not work. The savings were minimal. That is why in 1989, in a true bipartisan manner with the help of President George Bush, we enacted a law to require States to use competitive bidding in the WIC program. We found that when we required States to use that competitive bidding, Mr. Chairman, not mere cost containment, that we saved $1 billion a year, $1 billion, $1 billion that enabled 1\1/2\ million more [[Page H3588]] pregnant women and infants to be served each month under the WIC program. Many of you will say, well, the States will continue to use competitive bidding. But only half the States were doing that before we mandated that by law. The other half were using industry-favored cost containment systems. I would like to ask a question of the gentlewoman from New Jersey, who I know is the only Republican in committee who supported my amendment on competitive bidding. Let us say that the State enters into a contract with one of the infant formula companies and gets a $10,000 rebate on a $5 million contract. Would that qualify? Mrs. ROUKEMA. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. KILDEE. I yield to the gentlewoman from New Jersey. Mrs. ROUKEMA. Mr. Chairman, I did not hear the gentleman. I could not hear the gentleman over the din. Mr. KILDEE. The question is, under the gentlewoman's language, if a State entered into a contract with an infant formula company and got a $10,000 rebate on a $5 million contract, would that qualify under the gentlewoman's language? Mrs. ROUKEMA. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will continue to yield, if that is the cost containment program, yes. I believe that money would then be reinvested back into the WIC program. I am sorry. WIC or any other part of the block grant, as I explained in my opening statement. Mr. KILDEE. Mr. Chairman, $100,000 would qualify then, and $1 million would certainly qualify, right? If they entered into a contract with an infant formula company and say we will get a million dollars rebate on a $5 million contract, a fortiori, that would qualify under the gentlewoman's language? Mrs. ROUKEMA. I think I am not quite sure what the gentleman is getting at, but I think he is talking about sole-source bidding, and maybe he is not going to make those same savings. That, of course, is one of the underlying reasons I supported the gentleman in committee. We do not have all those benefits here, but this is a giant step, it seems to me, in the right direction of exercising, maintaining the flexibility of the States and still exercising our fiduciary responsibility. Mr. KILDEE. My point is that under the gentlewoman's language, a $10,000 rebate would qualify for a $5 million contract, and a $1 million rebate would qualify under a $5 million contract. The fact of the matter is that we would do better under a competitive bidding than a $1 million rebate under a $5 million contract. We found that out. We would save much more under competitive bidding. So the gentlewoman can see the markup they have on infant formula. We would do far more than even if we got a $1 million rebate on a $5 million contract, if we used the language I wanted to use and which the gentlewoman supported in committee, to her great credit, competitive bidding. Competitive bidding saves $1 billion a year. We found that out as soon as we enacted this in 1989. So the most generous cost containment that could be used under the gentlewoman's language would be far less a savings than competitive bidding. There is a $1 billion worth of difference between cost containment and competitive bidding. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time. {time} 1145 Mrs. ROUKEMA. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Goodling], the chairman of the committee. Mr. GOODLING. I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me the time. I want to echo what she said because it is what I have said since day 1, that we do not believe in block grants as revenue sharing. We set the goals and that is what she is doing. The gentleman from Michigan is correct. Back in the old days, and it seems we cannot get beyond the old days. But back in the olden days, States did not know all those things. They learned all those things now. Would it not be kind of foolish now to walk away from the opportunity of getting an extra $1 billion, or $2 billion if you can get that? So what she does is give that flexibility to the States. I cannot imagine any State anywhere walking away from getting the biggest amount that they can possibly get. As I said, they have learned how to do that now. Ten years ago, they did not know that. But they have the experience. So I think the gentlewoman's amendment is one that should be accepted and it will go a long way to take care of those we wish to take care in a flexible manner that more can be served than have been served in the past. I would hope all would support her amendment. Mr. KILDEE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I would say that I certainly would hope that we all learn from subsequent actions. But I having served 12 years in State government know the influence of the infant formula companies on State government. They do various things on cost containment. They will promise the university hospital so much infant formula. They will promise the health department so much. They work very closely with the legislature too. I know that there can be other inducements not nearly as advantageous to the taxpayers and to the women and the infants as competitive bidding. If you think they are going to do it, why are you so reluctant to put it into law? The gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Goodling] worked with me in 1989. He, George Bush, and the gentleman from Oregon [Mr. Wyden], worked with me to get that language in. I think we need that language because I know how the infant formula companies work in the various States. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon [Mr. Wyden]. Mr. WYDEN. I want to thank the gentleman for his good work. Let me start by saying that I brought to the floor a can of infant formula which costs a little bit over 30 cents a can to manufacture and sells retail in our stores for maybe $2.70 a can. As a result of the free enterprise system that we brought to WIC on a bipartisan basis in 1989, as my colleague has said, we get 1 billion dollars' worth of taxpayer efficiency on this program every year. But what I want to say to my colleagues is that after all the talk of free enterprise that we have heard from the other side this session, as a result of this bill, even with the Roukema amendment, we will be going back to the old days of closed markets and backroom contracting. We ought to note that the gentlewoman from New Jersey wanted to do this right and to keep competitive bidding. What will happen even with this amendment is a lot of States will not have to do sealed bids which is the way to have real competition. We will also see the infant formula companies going about this country offering inducements to the States to reject competitive bidding and go with cost containment. I would like to mention that the Federal Trade Commission, the experts there, are alarmed not just about the negative aspects for WIC of eliminating competitive bidding, they have written to me and they have said that by eliminating competitive bidding, we will reduce competition for infant formula in our stores and for the general market. The reason that is the case is the way these giant infant formula companies get known is to move into the WIC market and get the public familiar with their product. I just say to my colleagues, particularly on the other side, let us reinvent Government where it does not work. This is an example of a program where free enterprise, that the parties worked on together in 1989, has worked. As a result, we are going to be eliminating competitive bidding. That is going to take milk from the mouths of poor infants and it is going to give cookies and cream to the infant formula companies and that is wrong. Mr. Chairman, I include the following for the Record. Federal Trade Commission, Washington, DC, March 16, 1995. Hon. Ron Wyden, U.S. House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Dear Representative Wyden: Chairman Steiger forwarded a copy of your March 8, 1995 letter to me and asked that I respond to your inquiries. In that letter, you indicated that the House Economic and Education Opportunities Committee had voted to end the competitive bidding requirement for infant [[Page H3589]] formula contracts that are part of the Special Supplemental Food Program for Women, Infants and Children (``WIC''). You also noted that three companies dominate the infant formula industry and you pointed to a possible effect in the general retail market from eliminating bidding requirements in the WIC Program, namely, that it might discourage new companies from entering the infant formula market. In this regard, you asked that, based on our experience in dealing with competitive issues related to the WIC and general retail market for infant formula, we respond to a series of questions. I should point out that while I have not studied the proposed legislation to which you referred, I have been involved in lengthy litigations relating to the WIC and general retail markets for infant formula, and I am able to provide you with my views on the questions you have raised. These views, of course, are my own and do not necessarily reflect the views of the Commission or any individual Commissioner. This response does not provide any non-public information and, accordingly, I do not request confidential treatment. 1. Do you believe that eliminating competitive bidding for infant formula in the WIC market will discourage competition in the general market for infant formula? Please explain. I agree with your assessment that competitive bidding in the WIC program makes entry into the infant formula market easier. I also agree that to the extent that competitive bidding in the WIC market is eliminated or made less likely, then competition in the general retail market for infant formula would be adversely affected. The infant formula market is highly concentrated, with three companies accounting

Summary:

All articles in House section

PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY ACT OF 1995
(House of Representatives - March 23, 1995)

Text of this article available as: TXT PDF [Pages H3581-H3700] PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY ACT OF 1995 The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Dickey). Pursuant to House Resolution 119, and rule XXIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union for the further consideration of the bill H.R. 4. {time} 1055 in the committee of the whole Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union for the further consideration of the bill (H.R. 4) to restore the American family, reduce illegitimacy, control welfare spending, and reduce welfare dependence, with Mr. Linder in the chair. The Clerk read the title of the bill. The CHAIRMAN. When the Committee of the Whole rose on Wednesday, March 22, 1995, amendment No. 11 printed in House Report 104-85, offered [[Page H3582]] by the gentlewoman from California [Ms. Woolsey], had been disposed of and the bill was open for amendment at any point. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 13, printed in House Report 104-85. amendment offered by Mrs. Johnson of Connecticut Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, I offer amendment No. 13, printed in House Report 104-85. The CHAIRMAN. The clerk will designate the amendment. The text of the amendment is as follows: Amendment offered by Mrs. Johnson of Connecticut: Page 87, line 3, strike ``$1,943,000,000'' and insert ``$2,093,000,000''. The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, the gentlewoman from Connecticut [Mrs. Johnson] will be recognized for 10 minutes, and a Member opposed will be recognized for 10 minutes. Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment. The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Washington [Mr. McDermott] will be recognized for 10 minutes. The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Connecticut [Mrs. Johnson]. Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to urge support of the child care amendment which I am offering along with Congresswomen Pryce, Dunn, and Waldholtz, which raises the authorization level for the child care grant by $150 million a year for 5 years. Mr. Chairman, there are three main points I would like to make with respect to this amendment. First, requiring adults to work in exchange for their benefits will increase the need for child care. This is inevitable. Fully 63 percent of families on AFDC have children age 5 and under. A significant number of children who are in school still need after-school care, since the school day and school year are much more limited than the typical workday and work year. In an ideal world, extended family would be able to provide some amount of this care. But in today's world day care and the need for day care is a reality for those on welfare and those gaining independence. Second, reduced child care funding puts the squeeze on the working poor. In recent years, AFDC participation rates have resulted in States offering the program tilting more and more toward welfare families and away from the working poor. Thirty-five States reported last year that they have a waiting list for subsidized child care for working poor. My State of Connecticut does not even maintain a waiting list anymore, since all slots opened up are already spoken for. As we require more women on welfare to work, this problem is going to get more serious, not less serious. I am pleased to be proposing this amendment today because I think it expands our resources significantly to address the child care needs that will develop as we reform welfare. But this amendment is not the whole answer. That is a point that is very important to make because there was a lot of misunderstanding in recent days as we debated this bill about how we are going to manage the child care needs that welfare reform will impose upon society. The heart of the solution is actually not this amendment; the heart of the solution is moving welfare from a cash-gift basis to a cash-wage basis because if everyone receiving welfare were also working and we used our day care resources to pay very skilled administrators and lead teachers, child development experts to run these day care centers, with welfare recipients now being paid to staff them, then we would in fact have the child care slots that we need at the money that is currently available. So this is simply one step forward, giving States time and resources to create really the much greater, broader child care opportunity, better connected to education, work, and training that real reform demands. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time. {time} 1100 Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, Members of the House, we have again a fig leaf on the other side. They have written the bill, they have gotten it out here. Then they did a poll. On Monday they did a poll; a Republican pollster did a poll, and found that 67 percent of Americans believe the Government should help pay for child care for mothers on welfare. They found that 54 percent of those surveyed opposed eliminating requirements to State-set minimum health and safety standards for child care. So they said, ``This is awful what we did. We've cut 400,000 kids out of child care.'' So they have come out here with an amendment today. It is a fig leaf. It puts 100,000 back on. There is still 300,000 kids who will not get welfare child care under this bill. There should be no mistake about it; this does not solve the problem. The gentlewoman from Connecticut [Mrs. Johnson] is absolutely correct. It is a fig leaf because they got a poll that said they were in trouble. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Connecticut [Mrs. Kennelly]. Mrs. KENNELLY. Mr. Chairman, this goes right to the heart of the debate, and the gentlewoman from Connecticut [Mrs. Johnson] and I have worked on some of these issues over the years, but we part company today in addressing day care; the reason is that the Republican bill block grants and sends everything back to the State. What we would like to do in the Deal amendment is to make sure some of the programs that do work stay in the Federal purview. H.R. 4 repeals a transitional child care program which guarantees day care for the children of parents who leave welfare. This is needed. It repeals an AFDC child care program which provides day care for parents attempting to get off welfare, and H.R. 4 repeals the at-risk child care program for people that try to stay off and do not want to go back on, and so we have this amendment before us which is a good amendment because it has additional dollars for day care. However, Mr. Chairman, the amendment has the correct idea; unfortunately the vehicle is the incorrect vehicle. Block grants will not be able to provide more with less. If you are serious about taking people off welfare and putting them to work, in many cases you have to see there is adequate day care. That is what the programs we are ending tried to do. One of the best parts of the Federal program is taking care of three groups needing child care: The family on welfare trying to get off, the family that was on welfare and doesn't want to go back, and the family in danger of going on welfare. If you work, want to work, or need to work, you often need help--especially if you are a single head of household. I commend the woman and Mrs. Johnson for putting forth this amendment. Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, before yielding to my colleague from Ohio, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I do want to mention that this amendment was put in well before that poll. This is not a poll response. This was put in after all the bills came out of committees. We had a chance to evaluate their interaction and how the program would work, and this is the money that then we decided was needed to be added in order to ensure that welfare reform will work for women and children and provide security and opportunity in the future. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Ohio [Ms. Pryce]. Ms. PRYCE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this amendment offered by my friend, the gentlewoman from Connecticut [Mrs. Johnson], commend her for her efforts, and in strong objection to the fact that there was a statement from the other side that this was the result of a poll. This is the result of mostly hard work, consultation with Governors and working the numbers, as the gentlewoman from Connecticut [Mrs. Johnson] just alluded to. Mr. Chairman, moving people from welfare to work and toward self- sufficiency is the central goal of welfare reform. But only by removing the barriers to work can we achieve this goal. It is clear that lack of affordable quality child care is a primary obstacle [[Page H3583]] to employment for many parents, especially single mothers. If we are going to require work, and we should, our Nation's children must not be forgotten. As the work participation requirements under H.R. 4 are phased in, the demand for child care will increase dramatically. Federal child care dollars will need to serve today's working poor, as well as the new welfare families who will be entering the workplace. All Americans have an interest in meaningful welfare reform that encourages work. Our Nation also has an intense interest in ensuring that our children are cared for, especially in their early years so that they can grow into responsible, productive citizens. The investment H.R. 4 makes in child care will contribute to this goal. Young children watching parents go to work every day is a lesson in life that cannot be taught any other way. Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support the Johnson-Pryce-Dunn- Waldholtz amendment to make sure we take care of America's children while their parents experience the dignity of work and move into self- sufficiency. Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Levin]. Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Chairman, this amendment is better than nothing, but it really is not good enough. Real welfare reform is critical. The status quo is indeed dead. The key to welfare reform is work, and important for getting people off of welfare into work is child care. H.R. 4 would gut the child care provisions, and what this does is to try to retrieve some of that. According to one estimate, 32 percent of what is cut out of H.R. 4 would be restored here. So, Mr. Chairman, a third of a loaf is better than none, but it is going to leave many people who are on welfare, who must get to work, without the provision of child care. The Deal bill goes all the way in terms of making work a reality and making day care available, and that is why I support the Deal bill. Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Goodling], chairman of the Committee on Economic and Educational Opportunities. Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman from Connecticut [Mrs. Johnson] for giving me the time and also for sponsoring the amendment. Mr. Chairman, when the legislation left our committee, I said to the Committee on Ways and Means that I had two concerns about what we had done in committee. One was that perhaps in the outyears we did not have sufficient money. I was not worried about the 1st year or the 2d year as far as day care was concerned, but I was worried about the outyears, and she is taking care of that. The other concern that I had dealt with legal aliens, which I believe will be taken care of later also. Mr. Chairman, the beauty of the gentlewoman's amendment is that she goes way above what the CBO baseline projects for spending over this 5 years. CBO baseline says 9,396,000,000. With the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Connecticut [Mrs. Johnson] we are now up to 10,515,000,000. So there is a sizable increase over what the CBO baseline projects, and I am happy to support the gentlewoman's amendment. Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Kildee], and I ask unanimous consent that he be allowed to control that time. The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Washington? There was no objection. Mr. KILDEE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Connecticut [Mrs. Johnson] because it makes the bill marginally better. But the structure that has been changed in this bill really will not permit me to vote for the bill itself, but I will support the amendment in case this bill passes, that we will have marginally recognized that this child care is very, very important. Let me give my colleagues an example. I have been in public life for 30 years now, and of course for 30 years, like many of my colleagues in public life, I have been asked to try to get people jobs. I can recall in one instance I got a woman a job working in a restaurant in Flint, MI, and she had three children, and she was so happy to get that job, but she really did not have any reliable child care. She worked on that job less than 2 weeks and found that in less than 2 weeks she had four or five different arrangements for child care, with her grandparents, with a sister, with a neighbor. One day the kids were left alone--that was the last day she worked-- left home alone, asking a neighbor to look in once in a while on them. Mr. Chairman, that is a cruel choice to give to women, to tell them that they should work, and certainly work is much to be preferred to welfare, but to force a woman to have no reliable child care, to rely upon a neighbor, a sister, a grandparent, and then the worst choice, to leave them home alone, and that, for her, was the last she could choose, and she had to leave that job. Now we can do better than that. Now I support the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Connecticut [Mrs. Johnson], but the structure and the cuts we have here in child care are enormous. By the year 2000, fiscal year 2000, in Michigan, Michigan will lose $16.1 million for this and lose almost 10,000 child care slots. Now, albeit the Johnson amendment does marginally improve that, under that Michigan, by the year 2000, will lose $12.1 million and lose only 7,400 slots. But I am concerned about those 7,400 slots. That is why I cannot support this bill, but the gentlewoman from Connecticut [Mrs. Johnson] is marginally improving the bill with her amendment. So, Mr. Chairman, I would urge the support of the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Connecticut [Mrs. Johnson] but urge the defeat of the bill. Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Chairman, as the designee of the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Archer], I move to strike the last word in order to receive the 5 minutes of debate time as provided for in the rule. The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman has that right. Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, how much time do I have remaining? The CHAIRMAN. Eight and a half minutes. Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Including the 5 minutes just yielded? The CHAIRMAN. The gentlewoman is correct. Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Washington [Ms. Dunn], a member of the Committee on Ways and Means and the chief sponsor of this amendment. Ms. DUNN of Washington. Mr. Chairman, on behalf of some of America's neediest and yet valued citizens, we begin the process of ending welfare as a way of life and restoring welfare assistance to its original purpose, to provide temporary help to our neighbors in need. Mr. Chairman, Americans are a generous people who have long demonstrated our commitment to help our neighbors, families and children in need, but the American people also ask for results for our efforts. To the American taxpayers who have, so far, spent $5 trillion to support what has been described by both sides in this House debate as a failed welfare system, let me assure them that our bill is a botton-up review. The Republican bill will remove the incentives that encourage welfare dependency and provide new incentives that encourage work and lift people from the cycle of poverty. As part of providing support to the soon-to-be working mothers, Mr. Chairman, we are offering an amendment that will provide an additional $750 million in child care funding to these parents. As people move off welfare the women with children, especially preschool children, could be caught in a trap. Rightfully they are required to enter the work force, and yet also rightfully they are worried about the safety of their children. Our amendment helps newly working mothers meet their personal responsibility obligations and address the legitimate concerns for their children. Last Saturday, Mr. Chairman, at home in Washington State I met with a group of welfare mothers at a Head Start meeting. They were unanimous and emphatic in their desire to get off [[Page H3584]] welfare, but one thing they did ask for help on was the responsibility of funding day care. Help them find good day care, and they will take the responsibility of finding work in the private sector. Mr. Chairman, as a single mother who raised two sons, I know the value of good day care and the peace of mind when it is found. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment. Mr. KILDEE. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from California [Ms. Pelosi]. Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, as the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Kildee] pointed out in his very poignant story about the mother who had to choose between leaving her child at home or going to work to provide for that child, nothing is more important in moving, transitioning, poor women from welfare to work than the availability of quality child care, and that is what is so sad about H.R. 4, because it eliminates child care assistance to more than 400,000 low-income children in the year 2000, it eliminates child care funding now guaranteed for AFDC recipients participating in education, training or work activities. It eliminates the child funding now guaranteed for 12 months to AFDC recipients making the transition from welfare to work, and it cuts more child care services by $2.4 billion over the next 5 years. Now the amendment offered by our colleagues, the gentlewoman from Connecticut [Mrs. Johnson], the gentlewoman from Ohio [Ms. Pryce] and the gentlewoman from Utah [Mrs. Waldholtz], is a step in the right direction, and I commend the sponsors for offering it, but I recall a story by the former Governor of Texas who said, ``You can put lipstick on a sow and call it Monique, but it's still a pig,'' and this, I contend, is a cosmetic change to this terrible bill, H.R. 4. {time} 1115 In my State of California, H.R. 4 cuts out 35,000 child care slots. This bill would restore 9,000 of those. That, as I said, is a step in the right direction. It is interesting to me that our colleagues keep saying why are you criticizing H.R. 4, it is a great bill, and then come to the floor with 25 amendments of their own to make the bill more acceptable, this being one of them, this not being enough, because it does not restore traditional, transitional child care services that have been proven essential to move mothers with young children from welfare to work, does not ensure that the additional funds it authorizes will even be available. It only raises the authorization level, and without it being an entitlement, the funds may never be there, and would continue to cut, I repeat, cut child care services for more than 300,000 low-income children in the year 2000. It would continue to pit poor parents and their demands to children and to work to provide for those children. It addresses the basic fundamental problem with this bill, it is weak on work, cheats children, and rewards the rich, all of this to give a tax break to the wealthiest Americans. Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to vote against H.R. 4. I commend the Members for introducing this amendment. Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 15 seconds. Mr. Chairman, I want to clarify the Record. The Deal bill sets aside $3.5 billion. The CBO baseline estimate is $4.8 billion, for a total of approximately $8.3 billion. With the Johnson amendment, our bill will provide $10.5 billion for day care. So there is absolutely nothing cut. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Utah [Mrs. Waldholtz], a chief sponsor of this bill and an esteemed freshman colleague. Mrs. WALDHOLTZ. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding time to me. Mr. Chairman, one of the greatest failings of our current welfare system is that it forces people to choose between work and benefits. One of the fundamental principles of this bill is that people should be encouraged and rewarded for work, and this bill gives them that opportunity. But parents cannot reasonably be expected to work their way out of dependency if while they are working their children are not safely cared for. The dangers of inadequate child care are obvious. And forcing low- income parents to make a choice between welfare and work based on their ability to afford adequate child care is cruel--and undercuts our efforts to encourage work and promote self-sufficiency. This amendment increases the bill's child care block grant by $750 million, so that the States can fund their own affordable child care programs for low-income and working welfare parents. It will help ensure safe care for our children, and help their parents go to work and stay at work by giving them peace of mind that their children are cared for. I am proud to join with my colleagues in making this important change, and I strongly urge my colleagues to support this amendment. The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Washington [Mr. McDermott], has 1 minute remaining and has the right to close. Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Chairman, to extend the debate I move to strike the last word, and ask unanimous consent to merge that additional time with the time I am presently controlling. The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Washington? There was no objection. Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Deal]. Mr. DEAL. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Chairman, first of all, I commend the gentlewoman who has offered this amendment, because I think it does recognize a movement in the right direction to correct some of the provisions of H.R. 4. It will in fact add back additional funds. But as I look as the scoring on this, it appears to me that we are still talking about cutting the funding in this category by some $600 million below current levels. I think that is what places all of us on the horns of a dilemma in this debate about welfare reform. On the one hand, if we are going to try to move people off of welfare and on to work, especially is we are talking about mothers, the availability of child care is an essential ingredient in that formula. If we are in fact under H.R. 4, even with the amendment, still cutting below current levels by $600 million, and if current levels are not adequate to change the status quo, then we still have a problem. Our Deal substitute, on the other hand, adds $3.7 billion additional to the child care fund, and in addition to that we have some $424 million over a 5-year period to assist the working poor. I think we all recognize that this is an essential ingredient in making the transformation from welfare to work, and I commend the gentlewoman for this effort. I think it is a movement in the right direction. I would like to think, however, that our substitute does a better job. Mr. FORD. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. DEAL. I yield to the gentleman from Tennessee. Mr. FORD. Mr. Chairman, I want to associate myself with the remarks made by the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Deal] and just point out that in the Deal bill, putting work first, you really put mothers into the work force, and you provide additional child care dollars for those mothers to go to work, in change from what current law would do. The Johnson amendment would, I guess, bring about some help. It will reduce the overall package from 400,000 to 300,000 children who will be in need of child care, but the Deal bill provides additional resources to ensure proper child care. Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Shaw], the chairman of the subcommittee and the chief author of the welfare reform bill. Mr. SHAW. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding, and compliment her on a most-needed amendment. Mr. Chairman, we have discussed this in the subcommittee, we have discussed this in the full committee, that the success of the jobs program in providing real jobs in H.R. 4 would require the necessity for additional money to be put into child care. I would like to also point out to the committee that under the Deal bill, the child care provision is $8.3 billion over 5 years. That [[Page H3585]] is a total over 5 years. With the Johnson amendment, H.R. 4 will be $10.5 billion. So these are the figures. The Johnson amendment brings H.R. 4 far ahead of the Deal bill in the amount of money that is put into child care. The figures are plain, the figures are there, and you cannot argue with them. So this bill is much richer in child care and recognizes the need for additional child care much more than the Deal bill. I certainly would urge all the Members to support the amendment. Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I would just point out to the chairman of the committee that he is mixing apples and oranges. The gentleman has taken away the guarantee of child care. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Stenholm]. (Mr. STENHOLM asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.) Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, I again want to come with one set of figures, only to hear what I believe to be true is totally wrong. It makes me very confused. But I do commend the gentlewoman for offering this amendment, because in my opinion, she makes a very badly flawed bill a little bit better. But I still believe very strongly the Deal substitute is much better, and I believe the debate will show this. I want to quickly recount a little conversation that I had with a pastor in a church in my district. He said to me, ``Charlie, if you just do one thing for me, I have five unwed mothers, teenage mothers, in my church. If you do just one thing for me, give me the child care money so that I can provide child care while I tell that young mother, go back to school and get an education. I will tell her you get that education, you make your grades, if you will just help me get the money to take care of her child when we do it.'' That is what the Deal substitute is proposing, a workable--a workable substitute, not what we are being offered in H.R. 4. Mr. Chairman, I commend the gentlewoman for seeking to make improvements in the base bill. Unfortunately, I fear that even were her amendment to pass, the child care provisions would be inadequate. Therefore, I rise in opposition to the Johnson amendment which falls far short of the child care provisions contained in Mr. Deal's substitute. The Deal substitute provides sufficient funding for child care to meet the increased needs under the plan's aggressive work requirements. H.R. 4, on the other hand, reduces child care funding $1.4 billion below levels provided for under current law and does not ensure that child care will be available to individuals who need it. This amendment restores only slightly more than half of the funding needed to maintain current law. In addition, it still does not guarantee that funding will be available for welfare recipients who need child care assistance to move into work. This lack of funding for child care assistance could mean that either welfare recipients won't move into work, or parents will be forced to leave their children in unsafe or substandard care if they do get work. CBO estimates that the Deal substitute will provide $3.7 billion in child care spending to meet the increased demand for child care as more individuals move into work. The substitute also increases child care assistance for the working poor by $424 million over 5 years above the baseline projections. The Deal proposal also consolidates child care programs under a uniform set of rules and regulations, rather than having to comply with a patchwork of rules under different programs. The primary source of child care assistance under the Deal consolidated block grant would be in the form of vouchers that would be used by parents with the child care provider of their choice. Having worked on child care in past Congresses, I strongly believe we must continue to support parental choice as we have in the Deal substitute. In addition, the Deal substitute contains the most aggressive work requirements of any bill we will consider today. We also support these work requirements with funding for the transitional tools recipients need to make the move from welfare to work. Child care is one of the most important tools available for working mothers and I believe we must provide the necessary funding to see that they are able to work. Reluctantly, I urge opposition to the Johnson amendment and enthusiastic support for the Deal substitute. Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Delaware [Mr. Castle]. Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding, and I rise in very strong support of her amendment. Mr. Chairman, I think child care is a vital function of our welfare reform efforts. If you are going to train people, have people work, you need to make a provision for children. But I think we should straighten out a few facts. One, is it the welfare reform bill that we are debating here actually has more money in it than the Deal bill as far as child care is concerned. I say that respectfully, because I do respect the Deal bill. Second, a lot of welfare recipients do not even use State-supported child care. We need to understand that issue as we debate this also. Also the structure of all this has been criticized, the structure of going to a block grant. I would point out a few aspects of going to a block grant which I think help with respect to the providing of child care. First, it provides States maximum flexibility in developing programs that best suit the needs of the residents. It promotes parental choice to help parents make their own decisions on child care to best suit their needs, and we get rid of State set-asides which gives us more money as well. It gives us flexibility, and I support the amendment. Mr. McDERMOTT. I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Levin]. Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Chairman, I have tried to check out the figures of the gentlewoman from Connecticut [Mrs. Johnson] and I truly think they are wrong. You are discussing just part of the Deal bill and not all of the pieces that fall in place under the Deal bill. Your approach provides less money when you take into account the whole picture than would be the entitlement provision under Deal. The analysis is that you provide only one-third of what is cut by H.R. 4, and the Deal bill would keep all of it. Those are the facts. Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Roemer]. (Mr. ROEMER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.) Mr. ROEMER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in reluctant support of this amendment, the Johnson-Pryce amendment. I think it is like throwing a bucket of water into Lake Michigan. We need that bucket of water; we need all the help we can get in child care. I wish that it was more. We have heard countless times in our Committee on Education and Economic Opportunities that child care is directly connected to getting people to work. I strongly support a tougher work requirement. But we want people moving off welfare onto the work rolls. We want them to be good parents and good workers. That is the way that you connect this together, by adequate funding in child care. We do not want them to say go to work and neglect your family, you cannot be a good parent. We want them to do both. This amendment helps in a small way do that. I had an amendment before the Committee on Rules that would have allowed States to match more money into this program, but that was not allowed. Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas [Mr. de la Garza.] Mr. de la GARZA. Mr. Chairman, listening to the debate, a name burns in my mind and in my soul. Alejandrita Hernandez, 6 years old, her parents working in a field in Florida. She is found raped and killed under a truck. These were poor working people, and if you reduce by one the availability of child care, I want it to burn in your mind, Alejandrita Hernandez. We are talking about savings to give tax credits to the rich. We are talking about not welfare, not revamping. We are missing the boat altogether. As good intentioned as all of us might be, you have not done anything to help Alejandrita Hernandez. You cannot bring her back. But it would burn in my mind and soul that her name would be forgotten so that we can give tax credits to $200,000 and over. [[Page H3586]] Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California [Mr. Bilbray], who has had a lot of experience in this area. Mr. BILBRAY. Mr. Chairman, I stand here today not as a Member of Congress, but as somebody who operated a welfare system for a county that was larger than 30 States of the Union, San Diego County. I want to commend my colleague from Connecticut because she shows the awareness of the realities out there that have been ignored by the Federal Government for too long. I appreciate my colleague from Texas being concerned about the tragedies that have occurred. Those tragedies have occurred, Mr. Chairman, because of the lack of innovative approaches being allowed by local government. This amendment will actually allow women to participate in the child care process, to be part of the answer rather than part of the problem. And rather than what our colleagues on the other side of the aisle would like to do, always finance a larger, bigger bureaucracy, this allows the recipients to be part of the answer, to participate, to actually earn part of their benefits by participating in child care. Mr. Chairman, I think that the compassionate approach that our colleagues from Connecticut have shown should entice our colleagues on the other side to join us in this good amendment. Parliamentary Inquiry Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, I have a parliamentary inquiry. The CHAIRMAN. The gentlewoman will state it. Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, is it not procedurally correct that I close? The CHAIRMAN. The gentlewoman from Connecticut is choosing to amend the committee position. The gentleman from Washington [Mr. McDermott] took the committee position in opposition. He has the privilege of closing. Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Kansas [Mrs. Meyers]. {time} 1130 Mrs. MEYERS of Kansas. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this amendment and of the whole concept of block granting. We currently have seven different Federal programs: Child care for AFDC, Transitional Child Care, At-Risk Child Care, Child Care Development Block Grant, State Dependent Care Planning and Development Grants Program, Child Development Associate Credential Scholarship Program, Native American Family Centers Program. This is certainly not a seamless program. There is a great deal of bureaucracy and money spent. It is confusing to the recipients. I strongly support the block grant and the fact that the gentlewoman from Connecticut [Mrs. Johnson] is adding $150 million which will provide even more, certainly, that goes to child care than we are providing now. A great deal is lost in the confusion among the various programs. I strongly support the Johnson amendment. Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. 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. CLEMENT. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Johnson amendment. Mr. Chairman, one of the biggest barriers to work for welfare recipients is their inability to provide their child with safe and affordable care while they work. H.R. 4 will make it more difficult for single parents on welfare to move into work than it is right now. H.R. 4 reduces child care funding and provides no guarantee that child care will be available to individuals who need it. H.R. 4 as it is currently written reduces funding for child care services $1.4 billion below the current levels. The Johnson amendment restores more than half the cut but still leaves funding for child care services $650 million below current levels. Supporters of H.R. 4 claim that their bill has real work requirements and that they will put people to work. If this is true, they do not have enough money for child care and these people will not be able to go to work. So which is it? Is H.R. 4 weak on work as we assert, or is it that H.R. 4 is weak on funding for child care? Which is it? You cannot have it both ways? Mr. Chairman, another day of debate, another hole exposed. Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time. We have talked about numbers here. The fact is that the bill that came out of the committee, proposed by the gentlewoman from Connecticut [Mrs. Johnson] and others, repealed $4.6 billion in child care. That, plus the $8 million that the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Deal] has, is more than $12 billion, which is more money than was presently in this bill. So there is no question. The gentlewoman from Connecticut [Mrs. Johnson] assures us that there is no dealing with polls here, nobody is worried about polls. Well, I have a story from the Washington Times on the 5th of March where the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Goodling] says, ``The only major area of concern I have is the area of day care.'' This has been known since the 5th of March, when it was in the committee of the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Goodling]. He did absolutely nothing about it. When it gets out here on the floor and the American public figures out what it is all about, suddenly they say, in the poll, the Republicans are cutting child care; they should not be doing that. So we suddenly have this little fig leaf amendment. I urge that Members vote against this fig leaf amendment and for the bill of the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Deal]. The CHAIRMAN. All time has expired. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Connecticut [Mrs. Johnson]. The amendment was agreed to. The CHAIRMAN. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 15 printed in House Report 104-85. amendment offered by mrs. roukema Mrs. ROUKEMA. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment. The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment. The text of the amendment is as follows: Amendment offered by Mrs. Roukema: Page 114, strike line 4, and insert the following: ``(b) Additional Requirements With Respect To Assistance for Pregnant, Postpartum, and Breastfeeding Women, Infants, and Children.-- ``(1) Minimum amount of assistance.--The State shall Page 114, after line 11, insert the following paragraph: ``(2) Cost containment measures regarding procurement of infant formula-- ``(A) In general.--The State shall, with respect to the provision of food assistance to economically disadvantaged pregnant women, postpartum women, breastfeeding women, infants, and young children under subsection (a)(1), establish and carry out a cost containment system for the procurement of infant formula. ``(B) Use of amounts resulting from savings.--The State shall use amounts available to the State as result of savings in costs to the State from the implementation of the cost containment system described in subparagraph (A) for the purpose of providing the assistance described in paragraphs (1) through (5) of subsection (a). ``(C) Annual reports.--The State shall submit to the Secretary for each fiscal year a report containing-- ``(i) a description of the cost containment system for infant formula implemented by the State in accordance with subparagraph (A) for such fiscal year; and ``(ii) the estimated amount of savings in costs derived by the State in providing food assistance described in such subparagraph under such cost containment system for such fiscal year as compared to the amount of such savings derived by the State under the cost containment system for the preceding fiscal year, where appropriate. The CHAIRMAN. Under the rule, the gentlewoman from New Jersey [Mrs. Roukema] will be recognized for 10 minutes, and a Member in opposition will be recognized for 10 minutes. Mr. KILDEE. Mr. Chairman, I am mildly opposed to the amendment. The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Kildee] will be recognized for 10 minutes. The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from New Jersey [Mrs. Roukema]. [[Page H3587]] Mrs. ROUKEMA. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, as you know, I am offering an amendment to H.R. 4 that will require States to carry out cost-containment systems for providing infant formula to WIC participants under the family nutrition block grant in H.R. 4. Mr. Chairman, this issue rightfully has been the source of considerable debate over the past few months. During the Opportunities Committee markup, an amendment was offered by my colleague from Michigan [Mr. Kildee], that would have maintained the current system of competitive bidding for infant formula for the WIC Program. This amendment, which I supported--the only Republican to do so--was defeated, which is why I am standing here today. Many Members, including myself, continue to be deeply concerned that, under the current system in H.R. 4, which eliminates the existing competitive bidding system for infant formula, States might no longer choose to carry out competitive bidding. Mr. Chairman, under current law, States are required to have infant formula producers bid competitively for WIC contracts, or any other cost-containment measure that yields equal to or greater savings than those achieved under competitive bidding. And, currently, according to the USDA, this system achieves an estimated savings of over $1 billion annually which is used to provide WIC services to 1.6 million economically disadvantaged pregnant women, postpartum women, breastfeeding women, infants, and young children every month. This, of course, is why I support retaining competitive bidding. And, although my amendment does not mandate competitive bidding, I believe that it takes a big step in ensuring that States achieve the necessary savings in their infant formula program so that eligible individuals can receive essential WIC services. Importantly, Mr. Chairman, my amendment would require that States use the savings achieved under this system for the purposes of carrying out all services under this nutrition block grant--child and adult care food, summer food, and homeless children nutrition. As a result, States are given the flexibility to use these savings where they see the greatest need. Moreover, my amendment would have States report annually to the Secretary of Agriculture on the system they are using, the savings achieved, and how this savings compares to that of the previous fiscal year. This is an important part of the amendment because it gives infant formula producers the incentive to keep their bids low. Without this safeguard, no one has to know what, if any, savings are being achieved. Nor can we assess whether fraudulent practices are adding to costs. Mr. Chairman, I support the block grant approach. However, some block grant supporters argue that States are capable of carrying out their own cost-containment systems without Federal involvement, and that States will continue to carry out cost-containment systems that best serve those in need. But we should not assume that States will do the right thing when this kind of money is at stake. That is precisely what this amendment attempts to do, Mr. Chairman. The Congress has an obligation--a fiduciary one--to evaluate and monitor how Federal tax dollars are being spent. And, I would argue against those who claim that this would be a mandate on the States interfering with flexibility because my amendment neither tells the State what type of cost-containment measure to implement, nor does it tell the State how much savings to achieve. Mr. Chairman, this is a good amendment, and a necessary one. I urge my colleagues to support it. This amendment would require States to carry out cost-containment systems for infant formula included in food packages provided under the family nutrition block grant. The State will report to the Secretary of Agriculture on an annual basis: the system it is using; the savings generated by this system; and how this savings compares to previous savings under the Federal system. The State shall use whatever savings it achieves for the purpose of providing services to the programs under the family nutrition block grant. While I am about to mention four current alternative cost-containment systems, States are certainly not limited to these options but can combine and/or devise new ways to contain costs. One, multisource systems--State agencies procuring infant formula can award contracts to the lowest bidder as well as other manufacturers whose bids fall within a certain price range of this bid. States can determine how big this margin should be. Two, open market rebate systems--State agencies can negotiate separate rebates with each infant formula manufacturer so that WIC participants can choose between those infant formulas being offered. These rebates do not increase a manufacturers market share nor will choosing not to offer a rebate prevent a manufacturer from having less shelf space. This merely assures smaller or newer infant formula manufacturers some access to the WIC infant formula market. Three multistate systems--cooperative purchasing--States within a region of the U.S. can join together under one type of rebate system to procure infant formula. Rebates tend to be higher in large States because in those States there are more people which means that there will most likely be more WIC participants and subsequently a larger market share at stake for which infant formula manufacturers are willing to pay a higher price. Conversely, rebates tend to be lower in smaller States because these States have smaller populations most likely translating into fewer WIC participants which means that the market is smaller and, subsequently, less of an incentive for an infant formula manufacturer to offer a low bid. It has been suggested that, as evidenced through past multistate systems, larger States join with other large States and that small States join with other small States because, when they cross over, smaller States will benefit with a higher rebate which might fall below the rebate that the larger States were originally receiving. Four, fixed price procurement systems--State agencies purchase infant formula directly from the manufacturer at some type of discounted fixed price. The infant formula can then either be distributed by the appropriate State agency or by the retail stores. And, this fixed price could be determined by all three parties involved--manufacturer, agency, and retailer. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time. Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Chairman, to extend debate, as the designee of the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Gibbons], I move to strike the last word and ask unanimous consent to merge that additional time with the time which the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Kildee] is now controlling. The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Washington? There was no objection. The CHAIRMAN. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Kildee]. Mr. KILDEE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I am very disappointed that the Committee on Rules would not allow me to offer my amendment to require States to continue to use competitive bidding when purchasing infant formula for the WIC program. That amendment would have saved $1 billion. Although I will support probably, if I am persuaded, the amendment of the gentlewoman from New Jersey [Mrs. Roukema], as it is well-intentioned, I am skeptical that it will really do anything. There is a billion dollars worth of difference between the words ``cost containment'' and ``competitive bidding.'' A billion dollars worth of difference. The amendment of the gentlewoman from New Jersey [Mrs. Roukema] would require States to use cost containment measures. Prior to the enactment of the 1989 law requiring States to use competitive bidding, States were using a variety of cost containment measures. We found that they just did not work. The savings were minimal. That is why in 1989, in a true bipartisan manner with the help of President George Bush, we enacted a law to require States to use competitive bidding in the WIC program. We found that when we required States to use that competitive bidding, Mr. Chairman, not mere cost containment, that we saved $1 billion a year, $1 billion, $1 billion that enabled 1\1/2\ million more [[Page H3588]] pregnant women and infants to be served each month under the WIC program. Many of you will say, well, the States will continue to use competitive bidding. But only half the States were doing that before we mandated that by law. The other half were using industry-favored cost containment systems. I would like to ask a question of the gentlewoman from New Jersey, who I know is the only Republican in committee who supported my amendment on competitive bidding. Let us say that the State enters into a contract with one of the infant formula companies and gets a $10,000 rebate on a $5 million contract. Would that qualify? Mrs. ROUKEMA. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. KILDEE. I yield to the gentlewoman from New Jersey. Mrs. ROUKEMA. Mr. Chairman, I did not hear the gentleman. I could not hear the gentleman over the din. Mr. KILDEE. The question is, under the gentlewoman's language, if a State entered into a contract with an infant formula company and got a $10,000 rebate on a $5 million contract, would that qualify under the gentlewoman's language? Mrs. ROUKEMA. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will continue to yield, if that is the cost containment program, yes. I believe that money would then be reinvested back into the WIC program. I am sorry. WIC or any other part of the block grant, as I explained in my opening statement. Mr. KILDEE. Mr. Chairman, $100,000 would qualify then, and $1 million would certainly qualify, right? If they entered into a contract with an infant formula company and say we will get a million dollars rebate on a $5 million contract, a fortiori, that would qualify under the gentlewoman's language? Mrs. ROUKEMA. I think I am not quite sure what the gentleman is getting at, but I think he is talking about sole-source bidding, and maybe he is not going to make those same savings. That, of course, is one of the underlying reasons I supported the gentleman in committee. We do not have all those benefits here, but this is a giant step, it seems to me, in the right direction of exercising, maintaining the flexibility of the States and still exercising our fiduciary responsibility. Mr. KILDEE. My point is that under the gentlewoman's language, a $10,000 rebate would qualify for a $5 million contract, and a $1 million rebate would qualify under a $5 million contract. The fact of the matter is that we would do better under a competitive bidding than a $1 million rebate under a $5 million contract. We found that out. We would save much more under competitive bidding. So the gentlewoman can see the markup they have on infant formula. We would do far more than even if we got a $1 million rebate on a $5 million contract, if we used the language I wanted to use and which the gentlewoman supported in committee, to her great credit, competitive bidding. Competitive bidding saves $1 billion a year. We found that out as soon as we enacted this in 1989. So the most generous cost containment that could be used under the gentlewoman's language would be far less a savings than competitive bidding. There is a $1 billion worth of difference between cost containment and competitive bidding. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time. {time} 1145 Mrs. ROUKEMA. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Goodling], the chairman of the committee. Mr. GOODLING. I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me the time. I want to echo what she said because it is what I have said since day 1, that we do not believe in block grants as revenue sharing. We set the goals and that is what she is doing. The gentleman from Michigan is correct. Back in the old days, and it seems we cannot get beyond the old days. But back in the olden days, States did not know all those things. They learned all those things now. Would it not be kind of foolish now to walk away from the opportunity of getting an extra $1 billion, or $2 billion if you can get that? So what she does is give that flexibility to the States. I cannot imagine any State anywhere walking away from getting the biggest amount that they can possibly get. As I said, they have learned how to do that now. Ten years ago, they did not know that. But they have the experience. So I think the gentlewoman's amendment is one that should be accepted and it will go a long way to take care of those we wish to take care in a flexible manner that more can be served than have been served in the past. I would hope all would support her amendment. Mr. KILDEE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I would say that I certainly would hope that we all learn from subsequent actions. But I having served 12 years in State government know the influence of the infant formula companies on State government. They do various things on cost containment. They will promise the university hospital so much infant formula. They will promise the health department so much. They work very closely with the legislature too. I know that there can be other inducements not nearly as advantageous to the taxpayers and to the women and the infants as competitive bidding. If you think they are going to do it, why are you so reluctant to put it into law? The gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Goodling] worked with me in 1989. He, George Bush, and the gentleman from Oregon [Mr. Wyden], worked with me to get that language in. I think we need that language because I know how the infant formula companies work in the various States. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon [Mr. Wyden]. Mr. WYDEN. I want to thank the gentleman for his good work. Let me start by saying that I brought to the floor a can of infant formula which costs a little bit over 30 cents a can to manufacture and sells retail in our stores for maybe $2.70 a can. As a result of the free enterprise system that we brought to WIC on a bipartisan basis in 1989, as my colleague has said, we get 1 billion dollars' worth of taxpayer efficiency on this program every year. But what I want to say to my colleagues is that after all the talk of free enterprise that we have heard from the other side this session, as a result of this bill, even with the Roukema amendment, we will be going back to the old days of closed markets and backroom contracting. We ought to note that the gentlewoman from New Jersey wanted to do this right and to keep competitive bidding. What will happen even with this amendment is a lot of States will not have to do sealed bids which is the way to have real competition. We will also see the infant formula companies going about this country offering inducements to the States to reject competitive bidding and go with cost containment. I would like to mention that the Federal Trade Commission, the experts there, are alarmed not just about the negative aspects for WIC of eliminating competitive bidding, they have written to me and they have said that by eliminating competitive bidding, we will reduce competition for infant formula in our stores and for the general market. The reason that is the case is the way these giant infant formula companies get known is to move into the WIC market and get the public familiar with their product. I just say to my colleagues, particularly on the other side, let us reinvent Government where it does not work. This is an example of a program where free enterprise, that the parties worked on together in 1989, has worked. As a result, we are going to be eliminating competitive bidding. That is going to take milk from the mouths of poor infants and it is going to give cookies and cream to the infant formula companies and that is wrong. Mr. Chairman, I include the following for the Record. Federal Trade Commission, Washington, DC, March 16, 1995. Hon. Ron Wyden, U.S. House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Dear Representative Wyden: Chairman Steiger forwarded a copy of your March 8, 1995 letter to me and asked that I respond to your inquiries. In that letter, you indicated that the House Economic and Education Opportunities Committee had voted to end the competitive bidding requirement for infant [[Page H3589]] formula contracts that are part of the Special Supplemental Food Program for Women, Infants and Children (``WIC''). You also noted that three companies dominate the infant formula industry and you pointed to a possible effect in the general retail market from eliminating bidding requirements in the WIC Program, namely, that it might discourage new companies from entering the infant formula market. In this regard, you asked that, based on our experience in dealing with competitive issues related to the WIC and general retail market for infant formula, we respond to a series of questions. I should point out that while I have not studied the proposed legislation to which you referred, I have been involved in lengthy litigations relating to the WIC and general retail markets for infant formula, and I am able to provide you with my views on the questions you have raised. These views, of course, are my own and do not necessarily reflect the views of the Commission or any individual Commissioner. This response does not provide any non-public information and, accordingly, I do not request confidential treatment. 1. Do you believe that eliminating competitive bidding for infant formula in the WIC market will discourage competition in the general market for infant formula? Please explain. I agree with your assessment that competitive bidding in the WIC program makes entry into the infant formula market easier. I also agree that to the extent that competitive bidding in the WIC market is eliminated or made less likely, then competition in the general retail market for infant formula would be adversely affected. The infant formula market is highly concentrated, with three companies accounting for the va

Major Actions:

All articles in House section

PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY ACT OF 1995
(House of Representatives - March 23, 1995)

Text of this article available as: TXT PDF [Pages H3581-H3700] PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY ACT OF 1995 The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Dickey). Pursuant to House Resolution 119, and rule XXIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union for the further consideration of the bill H.R. 4. {time} 1055 in the committee of the whole Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union for the further consideration of the bill (H.R. 4) to restore the American family, reduce illegitimacy, control welfare spending, and reduce welfare dependence, with Mr. Linder in the chair. The Clerk read the title of the bill. The CHAIRMAN. When the Committee of the Whole rose on Wednesday, March 22, 1995, amendment No. 11 printed in House Report 104-85, offered [[Page H3582]] by the gentlewoman from California [Ms. Woolsey], had been disposed of and the bill was open for amendment at any point. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 13, printed in House Report 104-85. amendment offered by Mrs. Johnson of Connecticut Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, I offer amendment No. 13, printed in House Report 104-85. The CHAIRMAN. The clerk will designate the amendment. The text of the amendment is as follows: Amendment offered by Mrs. Johnson of Connecticut: Page 87, line 3, strike ``$1,943,000,000'' and insert ``$2,093,000,000''. The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, the gentlewoman from Connecticut [Mrs. Johnson] will be recognized for 10 minutes, and a Member opposed will be recognized for 10 minutes. Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment. The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Washington [Mr. McDermott] will be recognized for 10 minutes. The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Connecticut [Mrs. Johnson]. Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to urge support of the child care amendment which I am offering along with Congresswomen Pryce, Dunn, and Waldholtz, which raises the authorization level for the child care grant by $150 million a year for 5 years. Mr. Chairman, there are three main points I would like to make with respect to this amendment. First, requiring adults to work in exchange for their benefits will increase the need for child care. This is inevitable. Fully 63 percent of families on AFDC have children age 5 and under. A significant number of children who are in school still need after-school care, since the school day and school year are much more limited than the typical workday and work year. In an ideal world, extended family would be able to provide some amount of this care. But in today's world day care and the need for day care is a reality for those on welfare and those gaining independence. Second, reduced child care funding puts the squeeze on the working poor. In recent years, AFDC participation rates have resulted in States offering the program tilting more and more toward welfare families and away from the working poor. Thirty-five States reported last year that they have a waiting list for subsidized child care for working poor. My State of Connecticut does not even maintain a waiting list anymore, since all slots opened up are already spoken for. As we require more women on welfare to work, this problem is going to get more serious, not less serious. I am pleased to be proposing this amendment today because I think it expands our resources significantly to address the child care needs that will develop as we reform welfare. But this amendment is not the whole answer. That is a point that is very important to make because there was a lot of misunderstanding in recent days as we debated this bill about how we are going to manage the child care needs that welfare reform will impose upon society. The heart of the solution is actually not this amendment; the heart of the solution is moving welfare from a cash-gift basis to a cash-wage basis because if everyone receiving welfare were also working and we used our day care resources to pay very skilled administrators and lead teachers, child development experts to run these day care centers, with welfare recipients now being paid to staff them, then we would in fact have the child care slots that we need at the money that is currently available. So this is simply one step forward, giving States time and resources to create really the much greater, broader child care opportunity, better connected to education, work, and training that real reform demands. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time. {time} 1100 Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, Members of the House, we have again a fig leaf on the other side. They have written the bill, they have gotten it out here. Then they did a poll. On Monday they did a poll; a Republican pollster did a poll, and found that 67 percent of Americans believe the Government should help pay for child care for mothers on welfare. They found that 54 percent of those surveyed opposed eliminating requirements to State-set minimum health and safety standards for child care. So they said, ``This is awful what we did. We've cut 400,000 kids out of child care.'' So they have come out here with an amendment today. It is a fig leaf. It puts 100,000 back on. There is still 300,000 kids who will not get welfare child care under this bill. There should be no mistake about it; this does not solve the problem. The gentlewoman from Connecticut [Mrs. Johnson] is absolutely correct. It is a fig leaf because they got a poll that said they were in trouble. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Connecticut [Mrs. Kennelly]. Mrs. KENNELLY. Mr. Chairman, this goes right to the heart of the debate, and the gentlewoman from Connecticut [Mrs. Johnson] and I have worked on some of these issues over the years, but we part company today in addressing day care; the reason is that the Republican bill block grants and sends everything back to the State. What we would like to do in the Deal amendment is to make sure some of the programs that do work stay in the Federal purview. H.R. 4 repeals a transitional child care program which guarantees day care for the children of parents who leave welfare. This is needed. It repeals an AFDC child care program which provides day care for parents attempting to get off welfare, and H.R. 4 repeals the at-risk child care program for people that try to stay off and do not want to go back on, and so we have this amendment before us which is a good amendment because it has additional dollars for day care. However, Mr. Chairman, the amendment has the correct idea; unfortunately the vehicle is the incorrect vehicle. Block grants will not be able to provide more with less. If you are serious about taking people off welfare and putting them to work, in many cases you have to see there is adequate day care. That is what the programs we are ending tried to do. One of the best parts of the Federal program is taking care of three groups needing child care: The family on welfare trying to get off, the family that was on welfare and doesn't want to go back, and the family in danger of going on welfare. If you work, want to work, or need to work, you often need help--especially if you are a single head of household. I commend the woman and Mrs. Johnson for putting forth this amendment. Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, before yielding to my colleague from Ohio, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I do want to mention that this amendment was put in well before that poll. This is not a poll response. This was put in after all the bills came out of committees. We had a chance to evaluate their interaction and how the program would work, and this is the money that then we decided was needed to be added in order to ensure that welfare reform will work for women and children and provide security and opportunity in the future. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Ohio [Ms. Pryce]. Ms. PRYCE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this amendment offered by my friend, the gentlewoman from Connecticut [Mrs. Johnson], commend her for her efforts, and in strong objection to the fact that there was a statement from the other side that this was the result of a poll. This is the result of mostly hard work, consultation with Governors and working the numbers, as the gentlewoman from Connecticut [Mrs. Johnson] just alluded to. Mr. Chairman, moving people from welfare to work and toward self- sufficiency is the central goal of welfare reform. But only by removing the barriers to work can we achieve this goal. It is clear that lack of affordable quality child care is a primary obstacle [[Page H3583]] to employment for many parents, especially single mothers. If we are going to require work, and we should, our Nation's children must not be forgotten. As the work participation requirements under H.R. 4 are phased in, the demand for child care will increase dramatically. Federal child care dollars will need to serve today's working poor, as well as the new welfare families who will be entering the workplace. All Americans have an interest in meaningful welfare reform that encourages work. Our Nation also has an intense interest in ensuring that our children are cared for, especially in their early years so that they can grow into responsible, productive citizens. The investment H.R. 4 makes in child care will contribute to this goal. Young children watching parents go to work every day is a lesson in life that cannot be taught any other way. Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support the Johnson-Pryce-Dunn- Waldholtz amendment to make sure we take care of America's children while their parents experience the dignity of work and move into self- sufficiency. Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Levin]. Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Chairman, this amendment is better than nothing, but it really is not good enough. Real welfare reform is critical. The status quo is indeed dead. The key to welfare reform is work, and important for getting people off of welfare into work is child care. H.R. 4 would gut the child care provisions, and what this does is to try to retrieve some of that. According to one estimate, 32 percent of what is cut out of H.R. 4 would be restored here. So, Mr. Chairman, a third of a loaf is better than none, but it is going to leave many people who are on welfare, who must get to work, without the provision of child care. The Deal bill goes all the way in terms of making work a reality and making day care available, and that is why I support the Deal bill. Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Goodling], chairman of the Committee on Economic and Educational Opportunities. Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman from Connecticut [Mrs. Johnson] for giving me the time and also for sponsoring the amendment. Mr. Chairman, when the legislation left our committee, I said to the Committee on Ways and Means that I had two concerns about what we had done in committee. One was that perhaps in the outyears we did not have sufficient money. I was not worried about the 1st year or the 2d year as far as day care was concerned, but I was worried about the outyears, and she is taking care of that. The other concern that I had dealt with legal aliens, which I believe will be taken care of later also. Mr. Chairman, the beauty of the gentlewoman's amendment is that she goes way above what the CBO baseline projects for spending over this 5 years. CBO baseline says 9,396,000,000. With the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Connecticut [Mrs. Johnson] we are now up to 10,515,000,000. So there is a sizable increase over what the CBO baseline projects, and I am happy to support the gentlewoman's amendment. Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Kildee], and I ask unanimous consent that he be allowed to control that time. The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Washington? There was no objection. Mr. KILDEE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Connecticut [Mrs. Johnson] because it makes the bill marginally better. But the structure that has been changed in this bill really will not permit me to vote for the bill itself, but I will support the amendment in case this bill passes, that we will have marginally recognized that this child care is very, very important. Let me give my colleagues an example. I have been in public life for 30 years now, and of course for 30 years, like many of my colleagues in public life, I have been asked to try to get people jobs. I can recall in one instance I got a woman a job working in a restaurant in Flint, MI, and she had three children, and she was so happy to get that job, but she really did not have any reliable child care. She worked on that job less than 2 weeks and found that in less than 2 weeks she had four or five different arrangements for child care, with her grandparents, with a sister, with a neighbor. One day the kids were left alone--that was the last day she worked-- left home alone, asking a neighbor to look in once in a while on them. Mr. Chairman, that is a cruel choice to give to women, to tell them that they should work, and certainly work is much to be preferred to welfare, but to force a woman to have no reliable child care, to rely upon a neighbor, a sister, a grandparent, and then the worst choice, to leave them home alone, and that, for her, was the last she could choose, and she had to leave that job. Now we can do better than that. Now I support the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Connecticut [Mrs. Johnson], but the structure and the cuts we have here in child care are enormous. By the year 2000, fiscal year 2000, in Michigan, Michigan will lose $16.1 million for this and lose almost 10,000 child care slots. Now, albeit the Johnson amendment does marginally improve that, under that Michigan, by the year 2000, will lose $12.1 million and lose only 7,400 slots. But I am concerned about those 7,400 slots. That is why I cannot support this bill, but the gentlewoman from Connecticut [Mrs. Johnson] is marginally improving the bill with her amendment. So, Mr. Chairman, I would urge the support of the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Connecticut [Mrs. Johnson] but urge the defeat of the bill. Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Chairman, as the designee of the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Archer], I move to strike the last word in order to receive the 5 minutes of debate time as provided for in the rule. The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman has that right. Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, how much time do I have remaining? The CHAIRMAN. Eight and a half minutes. Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Including the 5 minutes just yielded? The CHAIRMAN. The gentlewoman is correct. Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Washington [Ms. Dunn], a member of the Committee on Ways and Means and the chief sponsor of this amendment. Ms. DUNN of Washington. Mr. Chairman, on behalf of some of America's neediest and yet valued citizens, we begin the process of ending welfare as a way of life and restoring welfare assistance to its original purpose, to provide temporary help to our neighbors in need. Mr. Chairman, Americans are a generous people who have long demonstrated our commitment to help our neighbors, families and children in need, but the American people also ask for results for our efforts. To the American taxpayers who have, so far, spent $5 trillion to support what has been described by both sides in this House debate as a failed welfare system, let me assure them that our bill is a botton-up review. The Republican bill will remove the incentives that encourage welfare dependency and provide new incentives that encourage work and lift people from the cycle of poverty. As part of providing support to the soon-to-be working mothers, Mr. Chairman, we are offering an amendment that will provide an additional $750 million in child care funding to these parents. As people move off welfare the women with children, especially preschool children, could be caught in a trap. Rightfully they are required to enter the work force, and yet also rightfully they are worried about the safety of their children. Our amendment helps newly working mothers meet their personal responsibility obligations and address the legitimate concerns for their children. Last Saturday, Mr. Chairman, at home in Washington State I met with a group of welfare mothers at a Head Start meeting. They were unanimous and emphatic in their desire to get off [[Page H3584]] welfare, but one thing they did ask for help on was the responsibility of funding day care. Help them find good day care, and they will take the responsibility of finding work in the private sector. Mr. Chairman, as a single mother who raised two sons, I know the value of good day care and the peace of mind when it is found. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment. Mr. KILDEE. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from California [Ms. Pelosi]. Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, as the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Kildee] pointed out in his very poignant story about the mother who had to choose between leaving her child at home or going to work to provide for that child, nothing is more important in moving, transitioning, poor women from welfare to work than the availability of quality child care, and that is what is so sad about H.R. 4, because it eliminates child care assistance to more than 400,000 low-income children in the year 2000, it eliminates child care funding now guaranteed for AFDC recipients participating in education, training or work activities. It eliminates the child funding now guaranteed for 12 months to AFDC recipients making the transition from welfare to work, and it cuts more child care services by $2.4 billion over the next 5 years. Now the amendment offered by our colleagues, the gentlewoman from Connecticut [Mrs. Johnson], the gentlewoman from Ohio [Ms. Pryce] and the gentlewoman from Utah [Mrs. Waldholtz], is a step in the right direction, and I commend the sponsors for offering it, but I recall a story by the former Governor of Texas who said, ``You can put lipstick on a sow and call it Monique, but it's still a pig,'' and this, I contend, is a cosmetic change to this terrible bill, H.R. 4. {time} 1115 In my State of California, H.R. 4 cuts out 35,000 child care slots. This bill would restore 9,000 of those. That, as I said, is a step in the right direction. It is interesting to me that our colleagues keep saying why are you criticizing H.R. 4, it is a great bill, and then come to the floor with 25 amendments of their own to make the bill more acceptable, this being one of them, this not being enough, because it does not restore traditional, transitional child care services that have been proven essential to move mothers with young children from welfare to work, does not ensure that the additional funds it authorizes will even be available. It only raises the authorization level, and without it being an entitlement, the funds may never be there, and would continue to cut, I repeat, cut child care services for more than 300,000 low-income children in the year 2000. It would continue to pit poor parents and their demands to children and to work to provide for those children. It addresses the basic fundamental problem with this bill, it is weak on work, cheats children, and rewards the rich, all of this to give a tax break to the wealthiest Americans. Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to vote against H.R. 4. I commend the Members for introducing this amendment. Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 15 seconds. Mr. Chairman, I want to clarify the Record. The Deal bill sets aside $3.5 billion. The CBO baseline estimate is $4.8 billion, for a total of approximately $8.3 billion. With the Johnson amendment, our bill will provide $10.5 billion for day care. So there is absolutely nothing cut. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Utah [Mrs. Waldholtz], a chief sponsor of this bill and an esteemed freshman colleague. Mrs. WALDHOLTZ. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding time to me. Mr. Chairman, one of the greatest failings of our current welfare system is that it forces people to choose between work and benefits. One of the fundamental principles of this bill is that people should be encouraged and rewarded for work, and this bill gives them that opportunity. But parents cannot reasonably be expected to work their way out of dependency if while they are working their children are not safely cared for. The dangers of inadequate child care are obvious. And forcing low- income parents to make a choice between welfare and work based on their ability to afford adequate child care is cruel--and undercuts our efforts to encourage work and promote self-sufficiency. This amendment increases the bill's child care block grant by $750 million, so that the States can fund their own affordable child care programs for low-income and working welfare parents. It will help ensure safe care for our children, and help their parents go to work and stay at work by giving them peace of mind that their children are cared for. I am proud to join with my colleagues in making this important change, and I strongly urge my colleagues to support this amendment. The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Washington [Mr. McDermott], has 1 minute remaining and has the right to close. Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Chairman, to extend the debate I move to strike the last word, and ask unanimous consent to merge that additional time with the time I am presently controlling. The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Washington? There was no objection. Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Deal]. Mr. DEAL. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Chairman, first of all, I commend the gentlewoman who has offered this amendment, because I think it does recognize a movement in the right direction to correct some of the provisions of H.R. 4. It will in fact add back additional funds. But as I look as the scoring on this, it appears to me that we are still talking about cutting the funding in this category by some $600 million below current levels. I think that is what places all of us on the horns of a dilemma in this debate about welfare reform. On the one hand, if we are going to try to move people off of welfare and on to work, especially is we are talking about mothers, the availability of child care is an essential ingredient in that formula. If we are in fact under H.R. 4, even with the amendment, still cutting below current levels by $600 million, and if current levels are not adequate to change the status quo, then we still have a problem. Our Deal substitute, on the other hand, adds $3.7 billion additional to the child care fund, and in addition to that we have some $424 million over a 5-year period to assist the working poor. I think we all recognize that this is an essential ingredient in making the transformation from welfare to work, and I commend the gentlewoman for this effort. I think it is a movement in the right direction. I would like to think, however, that our substitute does a better job. Mr. FORD. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. DEAL. I yield to the gentleman from Tennessee. Mr. FORD. Mr. Chairman, I want to associate myself with the remarks made by the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Deal] and just point out that in the Deal bill, putting work first, you really put mothers into the work force, and you provide additional child care dollars for those mothers to go to work, in change from what current law would do. The Johnson amendment would, I guess, bring about some help. It will reduce the overall package from 400,000 to 300,000 children who will be in need of child care, but the Deal bill provides additional resources to ensure proper child care. Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Shaw], the chairman of the subcommittee and the chief author of the welfare reform bill. Mr. SHAW. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding, and compliment her on a most-needed amendment. Mr. Chairman, we have discussed this in the subcommittee, we have discussed this in the full committee, that the success of the jobs program in providing real jobs in H.R. 4 would require the necessity for additional money to be put into child care. I would like to also point out to the committee that under the Deal bill, the child care provision is $8.3 billion over 5 years. That [[Page H3585]] is a total over 5 years. With the Johnson amendment, H.R. 4 will be $10.5 billion. So these are the figures. The Johnson amendment brings H.R. 4 far ahead of the Deal bill in the amount of money that is put into child care. The figures are plain, the figures are there, and you cannot argue with them. So this bill is much richer in child care and recognizes the need for additional child care much more than the Deal bill. I certainly would urge all the Members to support the amendment. Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I would just point out to the chairman of the committee that he is mixing apples and oranges. The gentleman has taken away the guarantee of child care. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Stenholm]. (Mr. STENHOLM asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.) Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, I again want to come with one set of figures, only to hear what I believe to be true is totally wrong. It makes me very confused. But I do commend the gentlewoman for offering this amendment, because in my opinion, she makes a very badly flawed bill a little bit better. But I still believe very strongly the Deal substitute is much better, and I believe the debate will show this. I want to quickly recount a little conversation that I had with a pastor in a church in my district. He said to me, ``Charlie, if you just do one thing for me, I have five unwed mothers, teenage mothers, in my church. If you do just one thing for me, give me the child care money so that I can provide child care while I tell that young mother, go back to school and get an education. I will tell her you get that education, you make your grades, if you will just help me get the money to take care of her child when we do it.'' That is what the Deal substitute is proposing, a workable--a workable substitute, not what we are being offered in H.R. 4. Mr. Chairman, I commend the gentlewoman for seeking to make improvements in the base bill. Unfortunately, I fear that even were her amendment to pass, the child care provisions would be inadequate. Therefore, I rise in opposition to the Johnson amendment which falls far short of the child care provisions contained in Mr. Deal's substitute. The Deal substitute provides sufficient funding for child care to meet the increased needs under the plan's aggressive work requirements. H.R. 4, on the other hand, reduces child care funding $1.4 billion below levels provided for under current law and does not ensure that child care will be available to individuals who need it. This amendment restores only slightly more than half of the funding needed to maintain current law. In addition, it still does not guarantee that funding will be available for welfare recipients who need child care assistance to move into work. This lack of funding for child care assistance could mean that either welfare recipients won't move into work, or parents will be forced to leave their children in unsafe or substandard care if they do get work. CBO estimates that the Deal substitute will provide $3.7 billion in child care spending to meet the increased demand for child care as more individuals move into work. The substitute also increases child care assistance for the working poor by $424 million over 5 years above the baseline projections. The Deal proposal also consolidates child care programs under a uniform set of rules and regulations, rather than having to comply with a patchwork of rules under different programs. The primary source of child care assistance under the Deal consolidated block grant would be in the form of vouchers that would be used by parents with the child care provider of their choice. Having worked on child care in past Congresses, I strongly believe we must continue to support parental choice as we have in the Deal substitute. In addition, the Deal substitute contains the most aggressive work requirements of any bill we will consider today. We also support these work requirements with funding for the transitional tools recipients need to make the move from welfare to work. Child care is one of the most important tools available for working mothers and I believe we must provide the necessary funding to see that they are able to work. Reluctantly, I urge opposition to the Johnson amendment and enthusiastic support for the Deal substitute. Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Delaware [Mr. Castle]. Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding, and I rise in very strong support of her amendment. Mr. Chairman, I think child care is a vital function of our welfare reform efforts. If you are going to train people, have people work, you need to make a provision for children. But I think we should straighten out a few facts. One, is it the welfare reform bill that we are debating here actually has more money in it than the Deal bill as far as child care is concerned. I say that respectfully, because I do respect the Deal bill. Second, a lot of welfare recipients do not even use State-supported child care. We need to understand that issue as we debate this also. Also the structure of all this has been criticized, the structure of going to a block grant. I would point out a few aspects of going to a block grant which I think help with respect to the providing of child care. First, it provides States maximum flexibility in developing programs that best suit the needs of the residents. It promotes parental choice to help parents make their own decisions on child care to best suit their needs, and we get rid of State set-asides which gives us more money as well. It gives us flexibility, and I support the amendment. Mr. McDERMOTT. I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Levin]. Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Chairman, I have tried to check out the figures of the gentlewoman from Connecticut [Mrs. Johnson] and I truly think they are wrong. You are discussing just part of the Deal bill and not all of the pieces that fall in place under the Deal bill. Your approach provides less money when you take into account the whole picture than would be the entitlement provision under Deal. The analysis is that you provide only one-third of what is cut by H.R. 4, and the Deal bill would keep all of it. Those are the facts. Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Roemer]. (Mr. ROEMER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.) Mr. ROEMER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in reluctant support of this amendment, the Johnson-Pryce amendment. I think it is like throwing a bucket of water into Lake Michigan. We need that bucket of water; we need all the help we can get in child care. I wish that it was more. We have heard countless times in our Committee on Education and Economic Opportunities that child care is directly connected to getting people to work. I strongly support a tougher work requirement. But we want people moving off welfare onto the work rolls. We want them to be good parents and good workers. That is the way that you connect this together, by adequate funding in child care. We do not want them to say go to work and neglect your family, you cannot be a good parent. We want them to do both. This amendment helps in a small way do that. I had an amendment before the Committee on Rules that would have allowed States to match more money into this program, but that was not allowed. Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas [Mr. de la Garza.] Mr. de la GARZA. Mr. Chairman, listening to the debate, a name burns in my mind and in my soul. Alejandrita Hernandez, 6 years old, her parents working in a field in Florida. She is found raped and killed under a truck. These were poor working people, and if you reduce by one the availability of child care, I want it to burn in your mind, Alejandrita Hernandez. We are talking about savings to give tax credits to the rich. We are talking about not welfare, not revamping. We are missing the boat altogether. As good intentioned as all of us might be, you have not done anything to help Alejandrita Hernandez. You cannot bring her back. But it would burn in my mind and soul that her name would be forgotten so that we can give tax credits to $200,000 and over. [[Page H3586]] Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California [Mr. Bilbray], who has had a lot of experience in this area. Mr. BILBRAY. Mr. Chairman, I stand here today not as a Member of Congress, but as somebody who operated a welfare system for a county that was larger than 30 States of the Union, San Diego County. I want to commend my colleague from Connecticut because she shows the awareness of the realities out there that have been ignored by the Federal Government for too long. I appreciate my colleague from Texas being concerned about the tragedies that have occurred. Those tragedies have occurred, Mr. Chairman, because of the lack of innovative approaches being allowed by local government. This amendment will actually allow women to participate in the child care process, to be part of the answer rather than part of the problem. And rather than what our colleagues on the other side of the aisle would like to do, always finance a larger, bigger bureaucracy, this allows the recipients to be part of the answer, to participate, to actually earn part of their benefits by participating in child care. Mr. Chairman, I think that the compassionate approach that our colleagues from Connecticut have shown should entice our colleagues on the other side to join us in this good amendment. Parliamentary Inquiry Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, I have a parliamentary inquiry. The CHAIRMAN. The gentlewoman will state it. Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, is it not procedurally correct that I close? The CHAIRMAN. The gentlewoman from Connecticut is choosing to amend the committee position. The gentleman from Washington [Mr. McDermott] took the committee position in opposition. He has the privilege of closing. Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Kansas [Mrs. Meyers]. {time} 1130 Mrs. MEYERS of Kansas. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this amendment and of the whole concept of block granting. We currently have seven different Federal programs: Child care for AFDC, Transitional Child Care, At-Risk Child Care, Child Care Development Block Grant, State Dependent Care Planning and Development Grants Program, Child Development Associate Credential Scholarship Program, Native American Family Centers Program. This is certainly not a seamless program. There is a great deal of bureaucracy and money spent. It is confusing to the recipients. I strongly support the block grant and the fact that the gentlewoman from Connecticut [Mrs. Johnson] is adding $150 million which will provide even more, certainly, that goes to child care than we are providing now. A great deal is lost in the confusion among the various programs. I strongly support the Johnson amendment. Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. 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. CLEMENT. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Johnson amendment. Mr. Chairman, one of the biggest barriers to work for welfare recipients is their inability to provide their child with safe and affordable care while they work. H.R. 4 will make it more difficult for single parents on welfare to move into work than it is right now. H.R. 4 reduces child care funding and provides no guarantee that child care will be available to individuals who need it. H.R. 4 as it is currently written reduces funding for child care services $1.4 billion below the current levels. The Johnson amendment restores more than half the cut but still leaves funding for child care services $650 million below current levels. Supporters of H.R. 4 claim that their bill has real work requirements and that they will put people to work. If this is true, they do not have enough money for child care and these people will not be able to go to work. So which is it? Is H.R. 4 weak on work as we assert, or is it that H.R. 4 is weak on funding for child care? Which is it? You cannot have it both ways? Mr. Chairman, another day of debate, another hole exposed. Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time. We have talked about numbers here. The fact is that the bill that came out of the committee, proposed by the gentlewoman from Connecticut [Mrs. Johnson] and others, repealed $4.6 billion in child care. That, plus the $8 million that the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Deal] has, is more than $12 billion, which is more money than was presently in this bill. So there is no question. The gentlewoman from Connecticut [Mrs. Johnson] assures us that there is no dealing with polls here, nobody is worried about polls. Well, I have a story from the Washington Times on the 5th of March where the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Goodling] says, ``The only major area of concern I have is the area of day care.'' This has been known since the 5th of March, when it was in the committee of the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Goodling]. He did absolutely nothing about it. When it gets out here on the floor and the American public figures out what it is all about, suddenly they say, in the poll, the Republicans are cutting child care; they should not be doing that. So we suddenly have this little fig leaf amendment. I urge that Members vote against this fig leaf amendment and for the bill of the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Deal]. The CHAIRMAN. All time has expired. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Connecticut [Mrs. Johnson]. The amendment was agreed to. The CHAIRMAN. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 15 printed in House Report 104-85. amendment offered by mrs. roukema Mrs. ROUKEMA. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment. The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment. The text of the amendment is as follows: Amendment offered by Mrs. Roukema: Page 114, strike line 4, and insert the following: ``(b) Additional Requirements With Respect To Assistance for Pregnant, Postpartum, and Breastfeeding Women, Infants, and Children.-- ``(1) Minimum amount of assistance.--The State shall Page 114, after line 11, insert the following paragraph: ``(2) Cost containment measures regarding procurement of infant formula-- ``(A) In general.--The State shall, with respect to the provision of food assistance to economically disadvantaged pregnant women, postpartum women, breastfeeding women, infants, and young children under subsection (a)(1), establish and carry out a cost containment system for the procurement of infant formula. ``(B) Use of amounts resulting from savings.--The State shall use amounts available to the State as result of savings in costs to the State from the implementation of the cost containment system described in subparagraph (A) for the purpose of providing the assistance described in paragraphs (1) through (5) of subsection (a). ``(C) Annual reports.--The State shall submit to the Secretary for each fiscal year a report containing-- ``(i) a description of the cost containment system for infant formula implemented by the State in accordance with subparagraph (A) for such fiscal year; and ``(ii) the estimated amount of savings in costs derived by the State in providing food assistance described in such subparagraph under such cost containment system for such fiscal year as compared to the amount of such savings derived by the State under the cost containment system for the preceding fiscal year, where appropriate. The CHAIRMAN. Under the rule, the gentlewoman from New Jersey [Mrs. Roukema] will be recognized for 10 minutes, and a Member in opposition will be recognized for 10 minutes. Mr. KILDEE. Mr. Chairman, I am mildly opposed to the amendment. The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Kildee] will be recognized for 10 minutes. The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from New Jersey [Mrs. Roukema]. [[Page H3587]] Mrs. ROUKEMA. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, as you know, I am offering an amendment to H.R. 4 that will require States to carry out cost-containment systems for providing infant formula to WIC participants under the family nutrition block grant in H.R. 4. Mr. Chairman, this issue rightfully has been the source of considerable debate over the past few months. During the Opportunities Committee markup, an amendment was offered by my colleague from Michigan [Mr. Kildee], that would have maintained the current system of competitive bidding for infant formula for the WIC Program. This amendment, which I supported--the only Republican to do so--was defeated, which is why I am standing here today. Many Members, including myself, continue to be deeply concerned that, under the current system in H.R. 4, which eliminates the existing competitive bidding system for infant formula, States might no longer choose to carry out competitive bidding. Mr. Chairman, under current law, States are required to have infant formula producers bid competitively for WIC contracts, or any other cost-containment measure that yields equal to or greater savings than those achieved under competitive bidding. And, currently, according to the USDA, this system achieves an estimated savings of over $1 billion annually which is used to provide WIC services to 1.6 million economically disadvantaged pregnant women, postpartum women, breastfeeding women, infants, and young children every month. This, of course, is why I support retaining competitive bidding. And, although my amendment does not mandate competitive bidding, I believe that it takes a big step in ensuring that States achieve the necessary savings in their infant formula program so that eligible individuals can receive essential WIC services. Importantly, Mr. Chairman, my amendment would require that States use the savings achieved under this system for the purposes of carrying out all services under this nutrition block grant--child and adult care food, summer food, and homeless children nutrition. As a result, States are given the flexibility to use these savings where they see the greatest need. Moreover, my amendment would have States report annually to the Secretary of Agriculture on the system they are using, the savings achieved, and how this savings compares to that of the previous fiscal year. This is an important part of the amendment because it gives infant formula producers the incentive to keep their bids low. Without this safeguard, no one has to know what, if any, savings are being achieved. Nor can we assess whether fraudulent practices are adding to costs. Mr. Chairman, I support the block grant approach. However, some block grant supporters argue that States are capable of carrying out their own cost-containment systems without Federal involvement, and that States will continue to carry out cost-containment systems that best serve those in need. But we should not assume that States will do the right thing when this kind of money is at stake. That is precisely what this amendment attempts to do, Mr. Chairman. The Congress has an obligation--a fiduciary one--to evaluate and monitor how Federal tax dollars are being spent. And, I would argue against those who claim that this would be a mandate on the States interfering with flexibility because my amendment neither tells the State what type of cost-containment measure to implement, nor does it tell the State how much savings to achieve. Mr. Chairman, this is a good amendment, and a necessary one. I urge my colleagues to support it. This amendment would require States to carry out cost-containment systems for infant formula included in food packages provided under the family nutrition block grant. The State will report to the Secretary of Agriculture on an annual basis: the system it is using; the savings generated by this system; and how this savings compares to previous savings under the Federal system. The State shall use whatever savings it achieves for the purpose of providing services to the programs under the family nutrition block grant. While I am about to mention four current alternative cost-containment systems, States are certainly not limited to these options but can combine and/or devise new ways to contain costs. One, multisource systems--State agencies procuring infant formula can award contracts to the lowest bidder as well as other manufacturers whose bids fall within a certain price range of this bid. States can determine how big this margin should be. Two, open market rebate systems--State agencies can negotiate separate rebates with each infant formula manufacturer so that WIC participants can choose between those infant formulas being offered. These rebates do not increase a manufacturers market share nor will choosing not to offer a rebate prevent a manufacturer from having less shelf space. This merely assures smaller or newer infant formula manufacturers some access to the WIC infant formula market. Three multistate systems--cooperative purchasing--States within a region of the U.S. can join together under one type of rebate system to procure infant formula. Rebates tend to be higher in large States because in those States there are more people which means that there will most likely be more WIC participants and subsequently a larger market share at stake for which infant formula manufacturers are willing to pay a higher price. Conversely, rebates tend to be lower in smaller States because these States have smaller populations most likely translating into fewer WIC participants which means that the market is smaller and, subsequently, less of an incentive for an infant formula manufacturer to offer a low bid. It has been suggested that, as evidenced through past multistate systems, larger States join with other large States and that small States join with other small States because, when they cross over, smaller States will benefit with a higher rebate which might fall below the rebate that the larger States were originally receiving. Four, fixed price procurement systems--State agencies purchase infant formula directly from the manufacturer at some type of discounted fixed price. The infant formula can then either be distributed by the appropriate State agency or by the retail stores. And, this fixed price could be determined by all three parties involved--manufacturer, agency, and retailer. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time. Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Chairman, to extend debate, as the designee of the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Gibbons], I move to strike the last word and ask unanimous consent to merge that additional time with the time which the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Kildee] is now controlling. The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Washington? There was no objection. The CHAIRMAN. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Kildee]. Mr. KILDEE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I am very disappointed that the Committee on Rules would not allow me to offer my amendment to require States to continue to use competitive bidding when purchasing infant formula for the WIC program. That amendment would have saved $1 billion. Although I will support probably, if I am persuaded, the amendment of the gentlewoman from New Jersey [Mrs. Roukema], as it is well-intentioned, I am skeptical that it will really do anything. There is a billion dollars worth of difference between the words ``cost containment'' and ``competitive bidding.'' A billion dollars worth of difference. The amendment of the gentlewoman from New Jersey [Mrs. Roukema] would require States to use cost containment measures. Prior to the enactment of the 1989 law requiring States to use competitive bidding, States were using a variety of cost containment measures. We found that they just did not work. The savings were minimal. That is why in 1989, in a true bipartisan manner with the help of President George Bush, we enacted a law to require States to use competitive bidding in the WIC program. We found that when we required States to use that competitive bidding, Mr. Chairman, not mere cost containment, that we saved $1 billion a year, $1 billion, $1 billion that enabled 1\1/2\ million more [[Page H3588]] pregnant women and infants to be served each month under the WIC program. Many of you will say, well, the States will continue to use competitive bidding. But only half the States were doing that before we mandated that by law. The other half were using industry-favored cost containment systems. I would like to ask a question of the gentlewoman from New Jersey, who I know is the only Republican in committee who supported my amendment on competitive bidding. Let us say that the State enters into a contract with one of the infant formula companies and gets a $10,000 rebate on a $5 million contract. Would that qualify? Mrs. ROUKEMA. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. KILDEE. I yield to the gentlewoman from New Jersey. Mrs. ROUKEMA. Mr. Chairman, I did not hear the gentleman. I could not hear the gentleman over the din. Mr. KILDEE. The question is, under the gentlewoman's language, if a State entered into a contract with an infant formula company and got a $10,000 rebate on a $5 million contract, would that qualify under the gentlewoman's language? Mrs. ROUKEMA. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will continue to yield, if that is the cost containment program, yes. I believe that money would then be reinvested back into the WIC program. I am sorry. WIC or any other part of the block grant, as I explained in my opening statement. Mr. KILDEE. Mr. Chairman, $100,000 would qualify then, and $1 million would certainly qualify, right? If they entered into a contract with an infant formula company and say we will get a million dollars rebate on a $5 million contract, a fortiori, that would qualify under the gentlewoman's language? Mrs. ROUKEMA. I think I am not quite sure what the gentleman is getting at, but I think he is talking about sole-source bidding, and maybe he is not going to make those same savings. That, of course, is one of the underlying reasons I supported the gentleman in committee. We do not have all those benefits here, but this is a giant step, it seems to me, in the right direction of exercising, maintaining the flexibility of the States and still exercising our fiduciary responsibility. Mr. KILDEE. My point is that under the gentlewoman's language, a $10,000 rebate would qualify for a $5 million contract, and a $1 million rebate would qualify under a $5 million contract. The fact of the matter is that we would do better under a competitive bidding than a $1 million rebate under a $5 million contract. We found that out. We would save much more under competitive bidding. So the gentlewoman can see the markup they have on infant formula. We would do far more than even if we got a $1 million rebate on a $5 million contract, if we used the language I wanted to use and which the gentlewoman supported in committee, to her great credit, competitive bidding. Competitive bidding saves $1 billion a year. We found that out as soon as we enacted this in 1989. So the most generous cost containment that could be used under the gentlewoman's language would be far less a savings than competitive bidding. There is a $1 billion worth of difference between cost containment and competitive bidding. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time. {time} 1145 Mrs. ROUKEMA. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Goodling], the chairman of the committee. Mr. GOODLING. I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me the time. I want to echo what she said because it is what I have said since day 1, that we do not believe in block grants as revenue sharing. We set the goals and that is what she is doing. The gentleman from Michigan is correct. Back in the old days, and it seems we cannot get beyond the old days. But back in the olden days, States did not know all those things. They learned all those things now. Would it not be kind of foolish now to walk away from the opportunity of getting an extra $1 billion, or $2 billion if you can get that? So what she does is give that flexibility to the States. I cannot imagine any State anywhere walking away from getting the biggest amount that they can possibly get. As I said, they have learned how to do that now. Ten years ago, they did not know that. But they have the experience. So I think the gentlewoman's amendment is one that should be accepted and it will go a long way to take care of those we wish to take care in a flexible manner that more can be served than have been served in the past. I would hope all would support her amendment. Mr. KILDEE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I would say that I certainly would hope that we all learn from subsequent actions. But I having served 12 years in State government know the influence of the infant formula companies on State government. They do various things on cost containment. They will promise the university hospital so much infant formula. They will promise the health department so much. They work very closely with the legislature too. I know that there can be other inducements not nearly as advantageous to the taxpayers and to the women and the infants as competitive bidding. If you think they are going to do it, why are you so reluctant to put it into law? The gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Goodling] worked with me in 1989. He, George Bush, and the gentleman from Oregon [Mr. Wyden], worked with me to get that language in. I think we need that language because I know how the infant formula companies work in the various States. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon [Mr. Wyden]. Mr. WYDEN. I want to thank the gentleman for his good work. Let me start by saying that I brought to the floor a can of infant formula which costs a little bit over 30 cents a can to manufacture and sells retail in our stores for maybe $2.70 a can. As a result of the free enterprise system that we brought to WIC on a bipartisan basis in 1989, as my colleague has said, we get 1 billion dollars' worth of taxpayer efficiency on this program every year. But what I want to say to my colleagues is that after all the talk of free enterprise that we have heard from the other side this session, as a result of this bill, even with the Roukema amendment, we will be going back to the old days of closed markets and backroom contracting. We ought to note that the gentlewoman from New Jersey wanted to do this right and to keep competitive bidding. What will happen even with this amendment is a lot of States will not have to do sealed bids which is the way to have real competition. We will also see the infant formula companies going about this country offering inducements to the States to reject competitive bidding and go with cost containment. I would like to mention that the Federal Trade Commission, the experts there, are alarmed not just about the negative aspects for WIC of eliminating competitive bidding, they have written to me and they have said that by eliminating competitive bidding, we will reduce competition for infant formula in our stores and for the general market. The reason that is the case is the way these giant infant formula companies get known is to move into the WIC market and get the public familiar with their product. I just say to my colleagues, particularly on the other side, let us reinvent Government where it does not work. This is an example of a program where free enterprise, that the parties worked on together in 1989, has worked. As a result, we are going to be eliminating competitive bidding. That is going to take milk from the mouths of poor infants and it is going to give cookies and cream to the infant formula companies and that is wrong. Mr. Chairman, I include the following for the Record. Federal Trade Commission, Washington, DC, March 16, 1995. Hon. Ron Wyden, U.S. House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Dear Representative Wyden: Chairman Steiger forwarded a copy of your March 8, 1995 letter to me and asked that I respond to your inquiries. In that letter, you indicated that the House Economic and Education Opportunities Committee had voted to end the competitive bidding requirement for infant [[Page H3589]] formula contracts that are part of the Special Supplemental Food Program for Women, Infants and Children (``WIC''). You also noted that three companies dominate the infant formula industry and you pointed to a possible effect in the general retail market from eliminating bidding requirements in the WIC Program, namely, that it might discourage new companies from entering the infant formula market. In this regard, you asked that, based on our experience in dealing with competitive issues related to the WIC and general retail market for infant formula, we respond to a series of questions. I should point out that while I have not studied the proposed legislation to which you referred, I have been involved in lengthy litigations relating to the WIC and general retail markets for infant formula, and I am able to provide you with my views on the questions you have raised. These views, of course, are my own and do not necessarily reflect the views of the Commission or any individual Commissioner. This response does not provide any non-public information and, accordingly, I do not request confidential treatment. 1. Do you believe that eliminating competitive bidding for infant formula in the WIC market will discourage competition in the general market for infant formula? Please explain. I agree with your assessment that competitive bidding in the WIC program makes entry into the infant formula market easier. I also agree that to the extent that competitive bidding in the WIC market is eliminated or made less likely, then competition in the general retail market for infant formula would be adversely affected. The infant formula market is highly concentrated, with three companies accounting