[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 53 (Wednesday, March 22, 1995)]
[House]
[Pages H3435-H3449]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]


           REMOVAL OF NAME OF MEMBER AS COSPONSOR OF H.R. 390

  Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to remove my name as 
a cosponsor of H.R. 390.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Gillmor). Is there objection to the 
request of the gentleman from California?
  There was no objection.
[[Page H3436]] PROVIDING FOR FURTHER CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 4, PERSONAL 
                       RESPONSIBILITY ACT OF 1995

  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I 
call up House Resolution 119 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 119

       Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this 
     resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 1(b) of rule 
     XXIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the 
     Whole House on the State of the Union for further 
     consideration of the bill (H.R. 4) to restore the American 
     family, reduce illegitimacy, control welfare spending, and 
     reduce welfare dependence. No further general debate shall be 
     in order. An amendment in the nature of a substitute 
     consisting of the text of H.R. 1214 shall be considered as 
     adopted in the House and in the Committee of the Whole. The 
     bill, as amended, shall be considered as the original bill 
     for the purpose of further amendment under the five-minute 
     rule. The bill, as amended, shall be considered as read. No 
     further amendment shall be in order except the amendments 
     printed in the report of the Committee on Rules accompanying 
     this resolution, amendments en bloc described in section 2 of 
     this resolution, and the amendments designated in section 3 
     of this resolution. Except as specified in section 2, 3, or 4 
     of this resolution, each amendment made in order by this 
     resolution may be considered only in the order printed in the 
     report, may be offered only by a Member designated in the 
     report, shall be considered as read, shall be debatable for 
     twenty minutes equally divided and controlled by the 
     proponent and an opponent, shall not be subject to amendment 
     (except that the chairman and ranking minority member of the 
     Committee on Ways and Means, or their designees, each may 
     offer one pro forma amendment to any amendment printed in the 
     report for the purpose of debate), and shall not be subject 
     to a demand for division of the question in the House or in 
     the Committee of the Whole. All
      points of order against amendments made in order by this 
     resolution are waived.
       Sec. 2. It shall be in order at any time before the 
     consideration of the amendments designated in section 3 of 
     this resolution for the chairman of the Committee on Ways and 
     Means or his designee to offer amendments en bloc consisting 
     of amendments printed in the report of the Committee on Rules 
     accompanying this resolution not earlier disposed of or 
     germane modifications of any such amendment. Amendments en 
     bloc offered pursuant to this section shall be considered as 
     read (except that modifications shall be reported) and shall 
     be debatable for twenty minutes equally divided and 
     controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the 
     Committee on Ways and Means or their designees. For the 
     purpose of inclusion in such amendments en bloc, an amendment 
     printed in the form of a motion to strike may be modified to 
     the form of a germane perfecting amendment to the text 
     originally proposed to be stricken. The original proponent of 
     an amendment included in such amendments en bloc may insert a 
     statement in the Congressional Record immediately before the 
     discussion of the amendments en bloc.
       Sec. 3. (a) After disposition of the amendments printed in 
     the report of the Committee on Rules accompanying this 
     resolution and any amendments en bloc offered pursuant to 
     section 2 of this resolution, it shall be in order to 
     consider the following amendments in the following order--
       (1) a further amendment in the nature of a substitute 
     consisting of the text of H.R. 1267, if offered by 
     Representative Deal of Georgia or his designee;
       (2) a further amendment in the nature of a substitute 
     consisting of the text of H.R. 1250, if offered by 
     Representative Mink of Hawaii or her designee; and
       (3) a further amendment in the nature of a substitute 
     consisting of the text of the bill, as it had been perfected 
     before the consideration of amendments pursuant to this 
     section, if offered by the chairman of the Committee on Ways 
     and Means or his designee.
       (b) Each of the amendments designated in subsection (a) of 
     this section shall be debatable for one hour equally divided 
     and controlled by the proponent and an opponent.
       (c) The amendment designated in subparagraph (a)(3) of this 
     section shall be subject to amendment by any amendment 
     printed in the report of the Committee on Rules accompanying 
     this resolution that was not earlier disposed of as an 
     amendment to the bill, as amended pursuant to this 
     resolution, before the consideration of amendments pursuant 
     to this section. Amendments to the amendment designated in 
     subparagraph (a)(3) of this section shall be considered under 
     the same terms as if offered to the bill, as amended by this 
     resolution, and shall be subject to the last sentence of 
     section 4 of this resolution.
       (d) If more than one of the amendments designated in 
     subsection (a) of this section is adopted, then only the one 
     receiving the greater number of affirmative votes shall be 
     considered as finally adopted. In the case of a tie for the 
     greater number of affirmative votes, then only the last 
     amendment to receive that number of affirmative votes shall 
     be considered as finally adopted.
       Sec. 4. The Chairman of the Committee of the Whole may 
     postpone until a time during further consideration in the 
     Committee of the Whole a request for a recorded vote on any 
     amendment made in order by this resolution. The Chairman of 
     the Committee of the Whole may reduce to not less than five 
     minutes the time for voting by electronic device on any 
     postponed question that immediately follows another vote by 
     electronic device without intervening business, provided that 
     the time for voting by electronic device on the first in any 
     series of questions shall be not less than fifteen minutes. 
     The Chairman of the Committee of the Whole may recognize for 
     consideration of any amendment printed in the report of the 
     Committee on Rules accompanying this resolution out of the 
     order printed, but not sooner than one hour after the 
     chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means or a designee 
     announces from the floor a request to that effect.
       Sec. 5 At the conclusion of the bill for amendment the 
     Committee shall rise and report the bill, as amended pursuant 
     to this resolution, to the House with such further amendments 
     as may have been finally adopted. Any Member may demand a 
     separate vote in the House on any amendment adopted in the 
     Committee of the Whole either to the bill, as amended 
     pursuant to this resolution, or as incorporated in a further 
     amendment in the nature of a substitute designated in section 
     3(a)(3) of this resolution, unless replaced by a further 
     amendment in the nature of a substitute designated in section 
     3(a)(1) or 3(a)(2) of this resolution. The previous question 
     shall be considered as ordered on the bill and any amendments 
     thereto to final passage without intervening motion except 
     one motion to recommit with or without instructions.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Oxley). The gentleman from New York [Mr. 
Solomon] is recognized for 1 hour.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, for the purposes of debate only, I yield 
half of our time to the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Hall], pending which I 
yield myself such time as I may consume.
  During the consideration of the resolution, all time yielded is for 
the purposes of debate only.
  (Mr. SOLOMON asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks and include extraneous material.)
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 119 is both a structured 
and complex rule as you have heard the Clerk read a few minutes ago, 
and yet it is the most open and fair rule we have ever had on a welfare 
reform bill in my 16 years here in this Congress.
  When last this House attempted to reform our welfare system back in 
1987, just one Republican substitute was allowed plus one en bloc 
amendment to the base bill offered by a Democrat.
  This rule, by stark contrast, makes in order not 1 but 2 Democrat 
substitutes, but also makes in order some 31 amendments to the base 
bill, including 5 by Democrats.
  At the same time, we respected the request of the distinguished 
minority leader, Mr. Gephardt, who appeared before the Rules Committee, 
to prohibit any amendments from being offered to either of the two 
Democratic substitutes by Representatives Deal and Mink.
  The minority leader even indicated in his testimony before us that, 
and I quote, ``We would be happy if there could simply be a 
consideration of alternative proposals without the ability to amend any 
of those proposals.''
  That was certainly a tempting option, and one that we considered.
  But, on further reflection, we decided that in all fairness we should 
allow some perfecting amendments to our bill, while at the same time 
respecting the minority's wish to keep its substitutes closed to 
amendments.
  I think all that is important to keep in mind as we discuss this 
rule. It is much more open than the minority leader indicated he would 
be happy with.
  At the same time, we did not think it would be right to take the time 
of this House on all of the over 160 amendments that were filed with 
our committee, many of which would simply try to convert our bill into 
one of the Democrat substitutes.
  That is why Republican amendments outnumber Democrat amendments to 
our bill by 26 to 5. On a bill as complex and important as this, it is 
important that we maintain the integrity of our basic principles and 
fundamental policies in moving this legislation forward.
  That is not to say that there were not some important and meritorious 
amendments that were denied in the fashioning of this rule. I would 
have preferred to have made in order several 
[[Page H3437]] more amendments from both sides of the aisle.
  But this rule was the final product of ongoing negotiations between 
the various committees of jurisdiction, the leadership, and the members 
of the Rules Committee.
  Politics is, after all, the art of compromise, and this rule is a 
reflection of such a compromise.
  Mr. Speaker, I think it is important to keep our eye on the big 
picture of choosing between the major alternatives of reforming the 
welfare system as we know it--of focusing on the fundamental 
differences that do exist between our two parties on how this best can 
be done.
  We did not, as earlier considered, for instance, make in order the 
President's welfare reform bill as introduced in the last Congress, 
because it was not introduced by even one Democrat in this Congress.
  But I think it is significant to note that while we promised last 
September in our Contract With America to bring forward a welfare 
reform bill in the first 100 days of this Congress, the administration 
has been virtually silent on pressing its alternative proposal.
  Mr. Speaker, the rule before us will provide ample debate and 
consideration of the major pending alternatives, and, at least with 
respect to our bill, allow for some 31 amendments to further perfect 
it. We have never claimed that we had a perfect solution, and have been 
open to further suggestions for improving our legislation.
  We have already completed 5 hours of general debate on this bill and 
the two Democrat substitutes, compared to 4 hours of general debate on 
the Democrats' welfare reform bill and our one substitute made in order 
in 1987.
  We will now take the rest of this week on the amendment process 
provided for under this rule. Each of the 31 amendments made in order 
will be subject to at least 20 minutes of debate, which may be extended 
to 30 minutes if the majority and minority mangers choose to offer a 
further, 5-minute pro forma amendment each.
  We have adopted the format used on past defense authorization bills 
of allowing amendments to be offered en bloc, and for votes to be 
postponed and clustered in order to help expedite our proceedings.
  Once we have completed the consideration of those 31 individual 
amendments, we will then have 1 hour of debate and a vote on each of 
the 2 Democrat substitutes by Representatives Deal and Mink, in that 
order.
  If necessary, we will then proceed to a vote on our base bill as 
amended as a third substitute under our winner-takes-all process.
  What that means is that if more than one substitute is adopted, then 
the one having the most votes will be considered as having been finally 
adopted and reported back to the House for a final vote.
  In addition, we have permitted our final substitute to be further 
amended by any amendment printed in the rule which was not offered 
during the course of the earlier amendment process, provided that at 
least 1 hour's advance notice is given before offering such an 
amendment.
  The rule also requires 1-hour advance notice of any amendments 
offered earlier to the base bill which are offered out of the order 
printed.
  That is only fair to the Members of this House so that they will know 
for certain what it is they will be asked to vote on.
  Finally, to my colleagues on the other side who are disappointed that 
their amendments were not made in order to the base bill, our rule 
preserves the right of the minority to offer a final motion to recommit 
which may include a final amendment or amendments of their choosing, 
provided they are germane and otherwise in order under House rules.
  In concluding my remarks on this rule, I think it is fair and 
balanced. It protects the rights of the minority to have not just five 
perfecting amendments to our bill plus two substitutes.
  It also allows the minority to offer any amendments it chooses to 
include in its motion to recommit with instructions--even if they were 
not filed with the Rules Committee. For that reason, I think the rule 
is deserving of the support of fairminded Members on both sides of the 
aisle.
  Mr. Speaker, when I called up the rule for general debate yesterday, 
I suggested that the public should measure the proposals offered by 
both parties against the status quo.
  There is a consensus of opinion in Washington and in the State 
houses, that the current welfare system has failed.
  Which of the alternatives offered will allow continued runaway 
spending, set on auto-pilot inside the beltway, for programs that never 
really reach or improve the lot of the poor? Which alternatives remain 
silent on the issue that is most crippling the American family unit--
the issue of out-of-wedlock births?
  When measured against this yardstick, H.R. 4 is clearly the superior 
alternative.
  Members on the other side of the aisle who defend the current system 
talk in grand terms about compassion. They try to seize the moral high 
ground in this debate while their feet remain firmly planted against 
any meaningful change in the current system.
  What kind of compassion is it that leaves unaltered a monolithic 
bureaucracy that has the ability to ensnare entire generations in the 
despair of poverty?
  What kind of compassion is it that saddles future generations with 
mountains of debt built on failed but costly programs--debt that harms 
the poor more than the better-off by stifling economic growth, 
opportunity, and meaningful jobs in the private sector?
  However well-intentioned these programs were at their inception, 
defenders of the welfare state must face the fact that they have 
failed, and that it is time for real and revolutionary change.
  House Republicans have recognized that fact, and we have produced, 
after much debate and negotiation, the most comprehensive welfare 
reform bill in the history of this Republic--and one that will save us 
nearly $70 billion over the next 5 years compared to current spending 
trends.
  I therefore urge adoption of this rule and the passage of this bill.

  THE AMENDMENT PROCESS UNDER SPECIAL RULES REPORTED BY THE RULES COMMITTEE,\1\ 103D CONGRESS V. 104TH CONGRESS 
                                             [As of March 15, 1995]                                             
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                  103d Congress                        104th Congress           
              Rule type              ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                       Number of rules    Percent of total   Number of rules    Percent of total
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Open/Modified-open\2\...............                 46                 44                 19                 79
Modified Closed\3\..................                 49                 47                  5                 11
Closed\4\...........................                  9                  9                  0                  0
                                     ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Totals:.......................                104                100                 24                100
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\This table applies only to rules which provide for the original consideration of bills, joint resolutions or 
  budget resolutions and which provide for an amendment process. It does not apply to special rules which only  
  waive points of order against appropriations bills which are already privileged and are considered under an   
  open amendment process under House rules.                                                                     
\2\An open rule is one under which any Member may offer a germane amendment under the five-minute rule. A       
  modified open rule is one under which any Member may offer a germane amendment under the five-minute rule     
  subject only to an overall time limit on the amendment process and/or a requirement that the amendment be     
  preprinted in the Congressional Record.                                                                       
\3\A modified closed rule is one under which the Rules Committee limits the amendments that may be offered only 
  to those amendments designated in the special rule or the Rules Committee report to accompany it, or which    
  preclude amendments to a particular portion of a bill, even though the rest of the bill may be completely open
  to amendment.                                                                                                 
\4\A closed rule is one under which no amendments may be offered (other than amendments recommended by the      
  committee in reporting the bill).                                                                             


                                                                                                                
[[Page H3438]]
                          SPECIAL RULES REPORTED BY THE RULES COMMITTEE, 104TH CONGRESS                         
                                              [As of March 1, 1995]                                             
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  H. Res. No. (Date                                                                                             
       rept.)               Rule type             Bill No.                 Subject           Disposition of rule
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
H. Res. 38 (1/18/95)  O...................  H.R. 5..............  Unfunded Mandate Reform..  A: 350-71 (1/19/   
                                                                                              95).              
H. Res. 44 (1/24/95)  MC..................  H. Con. Res. 17.....  Social Security..........  A: 255-172 (1/25/  
                                            H.J. Res. 1.........  Balanced Budget Amdt.....   95).              
H. Res. 51 (1/31/95)  O...................  H.R. 101............  Land Transfer, Taos        A: voice vote (2/1/
                                                                   Pueblo Indians.            95).              
H. Res. 52 (1/31/95)  O...................  H.R. 400............  Land Exchange, Arctic      A: voice vote (2/1/
                                                                   Nat'l. Park and Preserve.  95).              
H. Res. 53 (1/31/95)  O...................  H.R. 440............  Land Conveyance, Butte     A: voice vote (2/1/
                                                                   County, Calif.             95).              
H. Res. 55 (2/1/95).  O...................  H.R. 2..............  Line Item Veto...........  A: voice vote (2/2/
                                                                                              95).              
H. Res. 60 (2/6/95).  O...................  H.R. 665............  Victim Restitution.......  A: voice vote (2/7/
                                                                                              95).              
H. Res. 61 (2/6/95).  O...................  H.R. 666............  Exclusionary Rule Reform.  A: voice vote (2/7/
                                                                                              95).              
H. Res. 63 (2/8/95).  MO..................  H.R. 667............  Violent Criminal           A: voice vote (2/9/
                                                                   Incarceration.             95).              
H. Res. 69 (2/9/95).  O...................  H.R. 668............  Criminal Alien             A: voice vote (2/10/
                                                                   Deportation.               95).              
H. Res. 79 (2/10/95)  MO..................  H.R. 728............  Law Enforcement Block      A: voice vote (2/10/
                                                                   Grants.                    95).              
H. Res. 83 (2/13/95)  MO..................  H.R. 7..............  National Security          PQ: 229-100; A: 227-
                                                                   Revitalization.            127 (2/15/95).    
H. Res. 88 (2/16/95)  MC..................  H.R. 831............  Health Insurance           PQ: 230-191; A: 229-
                                                                   Deductibility.             188 (2/21/95).    
H. Res. 91 (2/21/95)  O...................  H.R. 830............  Paperwork Reduction Act..  A: voice vote (2/22/
                                                                                              95).              
H. Res. 92 (2/21/95)  MC..................  H.R. 889............  Defense Supplemental.....  A: 282-144 (2/22/  
                                                                                              95).              
H. Res. 93 (2/22/95)  MO..................  H.R. 450............  Regulatory Transition Act  A: 252-175 (2/23/  
                                                                                              95).              
H. Res. 96 (2/24/95)  MO..................  H.R. 1022...........  Risk Assessment..........  A: 253-165 (2/27/  
                                                                                              95).              
H. Res. 100 (2/27/    O...................  H.R. 926............  Regulatory Reform and      A: voice vote (2/28/
 95).                                                              Relief Act.                95).              
H. Res. 101 (2/28/    MO..................  H.R. 925............  Private Property           A: 271-151 (3/1/   
 95).                                                              Protection Act.            95).              
H. Res. 104 (3/3/95)  MO..................  H.R. 988............  Attorney Accountability    A: voice vote (3/6/
                                                                   Act.                       95).              
H. Res. 103 (3/3/95)  MO..................  H.R. 1058...........  Securities Litigation      ...................
                                                                   Reform.                                      
H. Res. 105 (3/6/95)  MO..................  ....................  .........................  A: 257-155 (3/7/   
                                                                                              95).              
H. Res. 108 (3/6/95)  Debate..............  H.R. 956............  Product Liability Reform.  A: voice vote (3/8/
                                                                                              95).              
H. Res. 109 (3/8/95)  MC..................  ....................  .........................  PQ: 234-191 A: 247-
                                                                                              181 (3/9/95).     
H. Res. 115 (3/14/    MO..................  H.R. 1158...........  Making Emergency Supp.     A: 242-190 (3/15/  
 95).                                                              Approps..                  95).              
H. Res. 117 (3/16/    Debate..............  H.R. 4..............  Personal Responsibility    A: voice vote (3/21/
 95).                                                              Act of 1995.               95).              
H. Res. 119 (3/21/    MC..................  ....................  .........................  ...................
 95).                                                                                                           
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Codes: O-open rule; MO-modified open rule; MC-modified closed rule; C-closed rule; A-adoption vote; PQ-previous 
  question vote. Source: Notices of Action Taken, Committee on Rules, 104th Congress.                           

              Correction of Votes in Committee Report

       The Rules Committee's report, House Report 104-85 on H. 
     Res. 119, the rule for the further consideration of H.R. 4, 
     the ``Personal Responsibility Act of 1995,'' contains three 
     erroneously reported rollcall votes due to typographical 
     errors during the printing process. The votes were correctly 
     reported in the original report filed with the Clerk.
       Below is a correct version of those votes as contained in 
     the Rules Committee report as filed with the House. The 
     amendment numbers referred to in the motions are to 
     amendments filed with the Rules Committee--a summary of which 
     are contained following the listing of votes in the committee 
     report.
       The corrected rollcall votes for Rollcall Nos. 102, 104, 
     and 109, are as follows:


                    Rules Committee Rollcall No. 102

       Date: March 21, 1995.
       Measure: Rule for H.R. 4, The Personal Responsibility Act 
     of 1995.
       Motion By: Mr. Moakley.
       Summary of Motion: Make in order Berman amendment No. 159.
       Results: Rejected, 4 to 8.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Vote by Member                 Yea        Nay      Present 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quillen................................  .........         X   .........
Dreier.................................  .........  .........  .........
Goss...................................  .........         X   .........
Linder.................................  .........         X   .........
Pryce..................................  .........         X   .........
Diaz-Balart............................  .........         X   .........
McInnis................................  .........         X   .........
Waldholtz..............................  .........         X   .........
Moakley................................         X   .........  .........
Beilenson..............................         X   .........  .........
Frost..................................         X   .........  .........
Hall...................................         X   .........  .........
Solomon................................  .........         X            
------------------------------------------------------------------------

                    Rules Committee Rollcall No. 104

       Date: March 21, 1995.
       Measure: Rule for H.R. 4, The Personal Responsibility Act 
     of 1995.
       Motion By: Mr. Beilenson.
       Summary of Motion: Make in order McDermott amendment No. 
     102.
       Results: Rejected, 3 to 8.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Vote by Member                 Yea        Nay      Present 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quillen................................  .........         X   .........
Dreier.................................  .........  .........  .........
Goss...................................  .........         X   .........
Linder.................................  .........         X   .........
Pryce..................................  .........         X   .........
Diaz-Balart............................  .........         X   .........
McInnis................................  .........         X   .........
Waldholtz..............................  .........         X   .........
Moakley................................         X   .........  .........
Beilenson..............................         X   .........  .........
Frost..................................         X   .........  .........
Hall...................................  .........  .........  .........
Solomon................................  .........         X            
------------------------------------------------------------------------

                    Rules Committee Rollcall No. 109

       Date: March 21, 1995.
       Measure: Rule for H.R. 4, The Personal Responsibility Act 
     of 1995.
       Motion By: Mr. Beilenson.
       Summary of Motion: Make in order Hyde/Woolsey amendment No. 
     1.
       Results: Rejected, 3 to 8.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Vote by Member                 Yea        Nay      Present 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quillen................................  .........         X   .........
Dreier.................................  .........  .........  .........
Goss...................................  .........         X   .........
Linder.................................  .........         X   .........
Pryce..................................  .........         X   .........
Diaz-Balart............................  .........         X   .........
McInnis................................  .........         X   .........
Waldholtz..............................  .........         X   .........
Moakley................................  .........  .........  .........
Beilenson..............................         X   .........  .........
Frost..................................         X   .........  .........
Hall...................................         X   .........  .........
Solomon................................  .........         X            
------------------------------------------------------------------------

                              {time}  1300

  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman from New York [Mr. 
Solomon] yield?
  Mr. SOLOMON. May I very shortly, because I am limited in time, yield 
to my New York colleague, the gentleman from New York [Mr. Rangel].
  Mr. RANGEL. I thank the gentleman for yielding, my friend and 
colleague.
  Mr. Speaker, last Monday I had an opportunity to meet with Cardinal 
O'Connor on this bill, and we had a very long session. Cardinal 
O'Connor indicated a great concern about the children being hurt, 
especially those with teenage----
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, may I say to the gentleman from New York, 
Charlie, could I interrupt? Let me reserve the balance of my time, and 
the gentleman can get his time because I really want to have a dialog 
with him, but I do not have the time here. If the gentleman would get 
time, I would be glad to continue with him.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. RANGEL. The Cardinal said he had an agreement with the gentleman 
from New York [Mr. Solomon], and I just wanted to know whether that is 
included.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Oxley). The gentleman from New York [Mr. 
Solomon] reserves the balance of his time.
  Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  (Mr. HALL of Ohio asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)
  Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this rule. 
This is a rule that limits amendments on the welfare reform package 
known as the Personal Responsibility Act of 1995.
  As my colleague on the other side of the aisle well knows, this is a 
closed rule which picks and chooses amendments that can and cannot be 
offered to improve a bad bill. The rule makes a 400-page substitute 
bill in order which most Members of this body have not read and is 
being rammed through to meet an arbitrary contract on America deadline.
  To make matters worse, the rule allows only 31 freestanding 
amendments out of the 161 received by the Rules Committee. So out of 
the 93 amendments that were proposed by Democrats, only 5 can be 
offered. This rule is a product of a party that only last year 
complained about gag rules and stifling debates. This is from the party 
that promised openness and fairness. I would just ask what happened to 
these promises?
  The American people do not like these kinds of games, particularly 
when we are playing with their money.
  Mr. Speaker, this so-called Personal Responsibility Act is a bad bill 
and it ought to be voted down. It is weak on work, it is hard on 
children, and it is punitive in nature. We all support personal 
responsibility, but the name of 
[[Page H3439]] the bill has no relation to the provisions in it. They 
call this the Personal Responsibility Act. But I propose that we call 
it the Congressional Irresponsibility Act because this legislation is 
irresponsible to the weak, the poor, and the needy.
  We need to concentrate on getting people off public assistance and 
into the job market. Yet the Republican version has no real 
requirements that States get people working before simply dropping them 
off the rolls. There are no assurances that they will get real job 
training, much less day care for their children.
  On top of this, we understand a portion of the money saved by this 
bill, somewhere between $69 and $80 billion, will go toward tax cuts 
for corporations and the wealthy, instead of deficit reduction, where 
it belongs.
  I do not like the title of this bill, which implies that people have 
no responsibility if they are poor. After having spent a good part of 
my career working with the poor and hungry, I can attest that most 
people are responsible and want to work. I have visited many hunger 
centers and homeless shelters in my city and even in this city. I have 
found overwhelmingly the number of men who might live in a homeless 
shelter but go out on a daily basis looking for work and securing work. 
Where abuse exists, we need to eliminate it. But we need to provide 
people with dignity and hope and, most importantly, jobs. Welfare 
reform should not amount to cutting off help for children having 
children or taking away school lunches and WIC. It should mean training 
people for the real jobs that exist, offering quality child care, and 
getting people into the mainstream of society.
  This bill and the rule that governs its debate is a joke. I am 
particularly concerned that my amendments to strike the block-granting 
of child nutrition programs, including school lunch, school breakfast, 
and WIC, were not made in order under this rule.
                              {time}  1315

  Last night in the Rules Committee I offered my amendment as a motion 
to the rule which would have allowed a free debate on the school lunch 
and school breakfast programs, and WIC. The amendment was voted down 8 
to 4 with no Republican support.
  Yet this so-called Personal Responsibility Act erases 50 years of law 
governing the School Lunch Program without so much as a floor debate. 
Major changes to food and nutrition programs are gone in one sweeping 
gesture. By not allowing Members the opportunity to have a floor 
amendment, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle have reneged on 
their commitment to open up the process. Just as they are breaking 
promises to 25 million school children who depend upon a school lunch, 
they are breaking their promise to the American people to bring up open 
rules that allow fair debate. Unfortunately according to their own 
definition of rules in the 103d Congress, 59 percent of the rules 
reported to the House in 3 short months have been closed.
  Stifling debate on school lunch and other child nutrition programs is 
wrong for several reasons:
  First and foremost, Mr. Speaker, the bill under consideration cuts 
back the programs which reach low- and middle-income children by $7.2 
billion over 5 years according to CBO. For some low-income children, 
school breakfast and lunch constitute the majority of their daily food 
supply. For most of these kids this might be the only, and certainly 
the best, meal that they are going to receive during the day. Under 
this bill, up to 2,000,000 children will no longer receive adequate 
school lunches by the year 2000.
  Second, nutrition programs are an investment in education. More than 
95 percent of all public schools participate in the National School 
Lunch Program. It has a documented record of success. Children learn 
better when they have at least one reliable meal a day.
  Third, there is no reason on Earth why we should cut child nutrition 
to finance a tax break for wealthy Americans and corporations. If, in 
fact, we are going to realize billions of dollars in savings under this 
bill, it had better go to deficit reduction and not to corporate 
welfare and wealthy individuals.
  Many of my colleagues know on this floor my love for these programs 
that are very much concerned for the hungry and the hurting of this 
country and other countries, and I try to be very decent in the way 
that I approach rules and as I approach my colleagues in all the 
matters that we deal with in the House of Representatives. I try not to 
be partisan, and I hope that I am not, but I must end my portion of 
what I am going to say by saying this is a lousy bill and it is a lousy 
rule. I hope the House votes against the rule.

                                      FLOOR PROCEDURE IN THE 104TH CONGRESS                                     
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                       Process used for floor      Amendments in
        Bill No.                  Title            Resolution No.           consideration              order    
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
H.R. 1.................  Compliance.............  H. Res. 6         Closed......................           None.
H. Res. 6..............  Opening Day Rules        H. Res. 5         Closed; contained a closed             None.
                          Package.                                   rule on H.R. 1 within the                  
                                                                     closed rule.                               
H.R. 5.................  Unfunded Mandates......  H. Res. 38        Restrictive; Motion adopted             N/A.
                                                                     over Democratic objection                  
                                                                     in the Committee of the                    
                                                                     Whole to limit debate on                   
                                                                     section 4; Pre-printing                    
                                                                     gets preference.                           
H.J. Res. 2............  Balanced Budget........  H. Res. 44        Restrictive; only certain            2R; 4D.
                                                                     substitutes.                               
H. Res. 43.............  Committee Hearings       H. Res. 43 (OJ)   Restrictive; considered in              N/A.
                          Scheduling.                                House no amendments.                       
H.R. 2.................  Line Item Veto.........  H. Res. 55        Open; Pre-printing gets                 N/A.
                                                                     preference.                                
H.R. 665...............  Victim Restitution Act   H. Res. 61        Open; Pre-printing gets                 N/A.
                          of 1995.                                   preference.                                
H.R. 666...............  Exclusionary Rule        H. Res. 60        Open; Pre-printing gets                 N/A.
                          Reform Act of 1995.                        preference.                                
H.R. 667...............  Violent Criminal         H. Res. 63        Restrictive; 10 hr. Time Cap            N/A.
                          Incarceration Act of                       on amendments.                             
                          1995.                                                                                 
H.R. 668...............  The Criminal Alien       H. Res. 69        Open; Pre-printing gets                 N/A.
                          Deportation                                preference; Contains self-                 
                          Improvement Act.                           executing provision.                       
H.R. 728...............  Local Government Law     H. Res. 79        Restrictive; 10 hr. Time Cap            N/A.
                          Enforcement Block                          on amendments; Pre-printing                
                          Grants.                                    gets preference.                           
H.R. 7.................  National Security        H. Res. 83        Restrictive; 10 hr. Time Cap            N/A.
                          Revitalization Act.                        on amendments; Pre-printing                
                                                                     gets preference.                           
H.R. 729...............  Death Penalty/Habeas...  N/A               Restrictive; brought up                 N/A.
                                                                     under UC with a 6 hr. time                 
                                                                     cap on amendments.                         
S. 2...................  Senate Compliance......  N/A               Closed; Put on suspension              None.
                                                                     calendar over Democratic                   
                                                                     objection.                                 
H.R. 831...............  To Permanently Extend    H. Res. 88        Restrictive; makes in order              1D.
                          the Health Insurance                       only the Gibbons amendment;                
                          Deduction for the Self-                    waives all points of order;                
                          Employed.                                  Contains self-executing                    
                                                                     provision.                                 
H.R. 830...............  The Paperwork Reduction  H. Res. 91        Open........................            N/A.
                          Act.                                                                                  
H.R. 889...............  Emergency Supplemental/  H. Res. 92        Restrictive; makes in order              1D.
                          Rescinding Certain                         only the Obey substitute.                  
                          Budget Authority.                                                                     
H.R. 450...............  Regulatory Moratorium..  H. Res. 93        Restrictive; 10 hr. Time Cap            N/A.
                                                                     on amendments; Pre-printing                
                                                                     gets preference.                           
H.R. 1022..............  Risk Assessment........  H. Res. 96        Restrictive; 10 hr. Time Cap            N/A.
                                                                     on amendments.                             
H.R. 926...............  Regulatory Flexibility.  H. Res. 100       Open........................            N/A.
H.R. 925...............  Private Property         H. Res. 101       Restrictive; 12 hr. time cap             1D.
                          Protection Act.                            on amendments; Requires                    
                                                                     Members to pre-print their                 
                                                                     amendments in the Record                   
                                                                     prior to the bill's                        
                                                                     consideration for                          
                                                                     amendment, waives                          
                                                                     germaneness and budget act                 
                                                                     points of order as well as                 
                                                                     points of order concerning                 
                                                                     appropriating on a                         
                                                                     legislative bill against                   
                                                                     the committee substitute                   
                                                                     used as base text.                         
H.R. 1058..............  Securities Litigation    H. Res. 105       Restrictive; 8 hr. time cap              1D.
                          Reform Act.                                on amendments; Pre-printing                
                                                                     gets preference; Makes in                  
                                                                     order the Wyden amendment                  
                                                                     and waives germaneness                     
                                                                     against it.                                
H.R. 988...............  The Attorney             H. Res. 104       Restrictive; 7 hr. time cap             N/A.
                          Accountability Act of                      on amendments; Pre-printing                
                          1995.                                      gets preference.                           
H.R. 956...............  Product Liability and    H. Res. 109       Restrictive; makes in order          8D; 7R.
                          Legal Reform Act.                          only 15 germane amendments                 
                                                                     and denies 64 germane                      
                                                                     amendments from being                      
                                                                     considered.                                
H.R. 1158..............  Making Emergency         H. Res. 115       Restrictive; Combines                   N/A.
                          Supplemental                               emergency H.R. 1158 &                      
                          Appropriations and                         nonemergency 1159 and                      
                          Rescissions.                               strikes the abortion                       
                                                                     provision; makes in order                  
                                                                     only pre-printed amendments                
                                                                     that include offsets within                
                                                                     the same chapter (deeper                   
                                                                     cuts in programs already                   
                                                                     cut); waives points of                     
                                                                     order against three                        
                                                                     amendments; waives cl 2 of                 
                                                                     rule XXI against the bill,                 
                                                                     cl 2, XXI and cl 7 of rule                 
                                                                     XVI against the substitute;                
                                                                     waives cl 2(e) od rule XXI                 
                                                                     against the amendments in                  
                                                                     the Record; 10 hr time cap                 
                                                                     on amendments. 30 minutes                  
                                                                     debate on each amendment.                  
H.J. Res. 73...........  Term Limits............  H. Res. 116       Restrictive; Makes in order          1D; 3R.
                                                                     only 4 amendments                          
                                                                     considered under a ``Queen                 
                                                                     of the Hill'' procedure and                
                                                                     denies 21 germane                          
                                                                     amendments from being                      
                                                                     considered.                                


                                                                                                                
[[Page H3440]]
                                FLOOR PROCEDURE IN THE 104TH CONGRESS--Continued                                
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                       Process used for floor      Amendments in
        Bill No.                  Title            Resolution No.           consideration              order    
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
H.R. 4.................  Welfare Reform.........  H. Res. 119       Restrictive; Makes in order         5D; 26R.
                                                                     only 31 perfecting                         
                                                                     amendments and two                         
                                                                     substitutes; Denies 130                    
                                                                     germane amendments from                    
                                                                     being considered; The                      
                                                                     substitutes are to be                      
                                                                     considered under a ``Queen                 
                                                                     of the Hill'' procedure;                   
                                                                     All points of order are                    
                                                                     waived against the                         
                                                                     amendments.                                
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
**78% restrictive; 22% open. ****Restrictive rules are those which limit the number of amendments which can be  
  offered, and include so called modified open and modified closed rules as well as completely closed rules and 
  rules providing for consideration in the House as opposed to the Committee of the Whole. This definition of   
  restrictive rule is taken from the Republican chart of resolutions reported from the Rules Committee in the   
  103rd Congress. ****Not included in this chart are three bills which should have been placed on the Suspension
  Calendar. H.R. 101, H.R. 400, H.R. 440.                                                                       

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman 
from Missouri [Mr. Clay].
  (Mr. CLAY asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. CLAY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this outrageously 
restrictive rule. This is but another indication that the Republican 
majority has engaged in a bait-and-switch routine. They promised the 
American people free and open debate. Now that they've gained control, 
they continue to play by a new set of rules. Closed rules. Rules that 
stifle debate. Rules that deny Members of this body the right to be 
heard.
  Mr. Speaker, Democratic members of the Committee on Economic and 
Educational Opportunities submitted only a dozen amendments that we 
asked be made in order on issues that matter deeply to the public, 
including the school lunch and breakfast programs, the WIC Program, and 
access to safe child care. But the Rules Committee refused to make a 
single one of our amendments in order. I intended to offer two 
amendments. One, to maintain the current Federal nutrition programs; 
and the other to provide for an increase in the minimum wage.
  The Republican majority decided not to allow me and my colleagues to 
offer our amendments because they are nervous about debating these 
issues out in the open, where the American public can see for itself 
the kind of devastation they are carrying out in the name of welfare 
reform. They don't want to explain how they will decimate the School 
Lunch Program. They don't want to explain how they no longer believe 
there is a Federal interest in protecting children from hunger and 
premature birth. They do not want to explain that their claim of jobs 
for welfare recipients is nonexistent. They do not want to explain why 
they oppose even a modest increase in the minimum wage.
  I urge my colleagues to vote against this restrictive rule. Let us 
send the Rules Committee back to the drawing board and come up with a 
rule that allows for free and open debate.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the very 
distinguished gentlewoman from Ohio [Ms. Pryce], a very valuable member 
of the Committee on Rules.
  Ms. PRYCE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this rule. This 
is a fair and responsible rule. It permits the House to debate a 
significant number of worthwhile amendments on issues such as child 
support enforcement, stronger work requirements, increasing funding for 
child care, and adoption assistance, to name just a few. In addition, 
Mr. Speaker, the rule makes in order two amendments in the nature of a 
substitute to be offered by our Democrat colleagues together with a 
motion to recommit. We offer the minority many opportunities to effect 
significant, substantive changes.
  Mr. Speaker, a generation ago President Lyndon Johnson launched is 
much-celebrated War on Poverty. Well, Mr. Speaker, here we are in 1995, 
30 years and $5.3 trillion later, ready to launch an entirely new war, 
only this time the war is against a failed welfare system which has 
trapped the less fortunate in our society in an endless cycle of 
poverty and despair. No one disagrees that our present welfare system, 
no matter how well intentioned, has failed. Seventy-one percent of 
Americans say that the current systems does more harm than good, but 
the need for
 major reform seems obvious to everyone but Washington and the special 
interests. We are going to hear a lot of complaints in the next couple 
of days from those who would rather protect the status quo, but make no 
mistake about it, Mr. Speaker. We have had enough of the status quo, 
and we have an entirely, wholly new solution, a solution no less 
compassionate, only more efficient; no less caring, only more 
commonsensical.

  So, Mr. Speaker, this debate really comes down to a very simple 
choice. Some people want to continue the status quo and keep in place a 
system that creates more dependence and rewards self-destruction. On 
the other side are those who recognize that things have to change and 
that the present system should be replaced with reforms based on the 
dignity of work, the strength of families, and trust in local 
government.
  The minority may try to paint us with black hats. It is great 
rhetoric, but simply not true, and using, even exploiting, the very 
children we are trying to desperately help into better futures as pawns 
in their effort to protect this cruel, hopeless system is nothing short 
of shameful.
  Mr. Speaker, I am very proud of the work product of this Committee on 
Rules. Let us get on with it. Let us adopt this rule. Let us redirect 
America's largesse of compassion, redirect it to where it can do more 
good than harm.
  Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman 
from Massachusetts [Mr. Moakley], the former chairman and now ranking 
minority member of the Committee on Rules.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, we are now looking at the farthest of the 
gag rules. The most important thing ever to come through this body in 
the Democrat amendments were knocked out one after the other by the 
Republican majority up in the Committee on Rules. This is not the way 
to take care of children. This is not the way to feed children. I 
believe our single most significant responsibility as legislators is to 
educate, is to feed and is to protect America's children.
  Last night in the Committee on Rules, Mr. Speaker, Republicans, one 
right after the other, disagreed with me over and again on party-line 
votes, and today we are about to vote on a Republican welfare proposal 
to hurt children in order to give the richest 2 percent in this country 
a tax break and also to increase military spending. This bill does 
nothing to help people get jobs. All it does is to kick them and their 
children off of welfare.
  Mr. Speaker, this welfare bill is a cruel bill, and Republicans 
should be ashamed to bring it to the floor in this condition. I urge my 
colleagues to oppose this gage rule. Republicans are breaking their 
promise of open rules, and they are abandoning American children.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I would just point out to the gentleman from 
Massachusetts [Mr. Moakley] that back in 1987, he and the other 
Democrat members of this Committee on Rules voted unanimously to allow 
only one Republican substitute, nothing else. That was a gag rule; this 
is not.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to my good friend, the gentleman from 
New Jersey [Mr. Smith].
  (Mr. SMITH of New Jersey asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend his remarks and to include extraneous material.)
  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I do not relish being put in 
the position of opposing the rule on welfare reform, but, in conscious 
and sincere disagreement with leadership, I must.
  First, Mr. Speaker, let me note that I am grateful that my amendment 
to reform the so-called family cap by permitting welfare moms to get 
vouchers in lieu of cash to better provide for the necessities for 
their babies was made in order. So I say, ``Thank you for that.'' But I 
am deeply concerned that in an otherwise laudable drive to reduce 
illegitimacy and dependency we are poised to enact legislation that is 
likely to reward States that increase the number of abortions performed 
in that State while also making children more impoverished.
  Both of these scenarios are unacceptable and are largely preventable.
  [[Page H3441]] To mitigate these two possibilities, Mr. Speaker, four 
amendments were crafted. Only two were made in order--well, perhaps two 
and a half. It is my hope that a new rule would give us the opportunity 
to consider all four amendments, including the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Oregon [Mr. Bunn] and the Stark-Volkmer amendment.
  Mr. Speaker, this so-called illegitimacy ratio provision in the bill 
is well meaning, but it is fatally flawed, and the Stark-Volkmer 
amendment would strike it. The illegitimacy ratio was not part of the 
Contract With America in its original form. The ratio might well have 
provided incentives to States to decrease their abortion rates to 
qualify for the monetary bonus stipulated in the bill. But the version 
contained in the bill today is likely to reward States that increase 
the number of abortions from the benchmark year, the year of enactment.
  Mr. Speaker, the flaw is contained in the formula itself, again, 
which started out OK but was rewritten when objections were raised by 
certain proabortion Members. The formula is designed to curb 
illegitimacy; no problem there. But the means to that end uses the 
wrong numerator to calculate what is progress.
  The original language, which I support, said: ``Add the number of 
out-of-wedlock births and abortions. Then divide the number by the 
total of births in that State. States that lowered the ratio by 1 
percent would get a 5-percent extra block grant. Lower the ratio by 2 
percent, and the State gets 10 percent extra.''
  This is no perfect formula, but the ratio that would have promoted a 
decline of both abortion rates and illegitimacy.
  The new formula, however, steers a far different course. The new 
formula says: ``Add the number of out-of-wedlock births to the number 
of additional abortions performed over those performed in the year the 
bill was enacted, and divide by the total births in that State. As some 
births in the State are legitimized by adoption or marriage, the 
numerator, as it relates to illegitimacy, will automatically decrease, 
leaving ample room for corresponding increases in abortion rates.'' In 
other words, that State can then achieve a, quote, good mark and get a 
big reward from Uncle Sam, even though the abortion rates have 
skyrocketed in that State.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge a no vote on this rule, however unintended the 
consequences of the ratio will be to reward States that push abortions 
for welfare moms, and pay for them under their Medicaid provisions, and 
then declare victory by showing a good score on a flawed scorecard.

 Illegitimacy Ratio Test Would Reward States Even if Abortions Increase

                      (By David N. O'Steen, Ph.D.)

       An ``illegitimacy ratio bonus'' plan for states was added 
     to welfare reform legislation (H.R. 1214--known as the 
     personal Responsibility Act) by the full House Ways and Means 
     Committee. The plan would reward states financially for 
     reducing their ``illegitimacy ratio'' even in circumstances 
     where abortion increased. For this reason, NRLC is opposing 
     the ``illegitimacy ratio bonus'' plan as passed by the House 
     Ways and Means Committee and supports the Stark-Volkmer 
     Amendment to remove the bonus provision.


                 The ``Illegitimacy Ratio Bonus'' Plan

       The bill provides that federal welfare funds received by a 
     state be increased by 5% in any year in which the states 
     ``illegitimacy ratio'` (as defined below) is one percentage 
     point lower than in the year prior to enactment of the 
     legislation. The state's federal grant would be increased 10% 
     if the ratio was two percentage points lower than the year 
     prior to enactment.
       The ``illegitimacy ratio'' in the year prior to enactment 
     is defined as the percentage obtained by dividing the number 
     of out-of-wedlock births by the total number of births. In 
     subsequent years it is defined as the percentage obtained by 
     dividing the number of out-of-wedlock births plus any 
     increase in abortion by the total number of births.


                      Incentives for State Action

       The ``illegitimacy ratio bonus'' plan is intended to be an 
     incentive for a state to adopt programs to discourage out-of-
     wedlock childbearing. Such a campaign could consist of many 
     components including the denial of state aid to such 
     children, similar to the ``teen mother's child exclusion'' 
     provision of the bill.
       Whatever programs the state implements, however, there are 
     five possible changes in behavior people could utilize to 
     attempt to avoid an out-of-wedlock birth. They could: (1) Use 
     contraception, (2) abstain from sexual relations, (3) marry 
     before the birth of the child, (4) place the child for 
     adoption (for purposes of the bill's ratio test both marriage 
     and placing the child for adoption is considered to 
     ``legitimize'' the child), or (5) abort the child.
       Under a comprehensive out-of-wedlock ``anti-childbearing'' 
     campaign, it can be expected that a combination of all five 
     of the above changes in behavior would occur.
       It is the fifth--aborting children conceived out of 
     wedlock--that NRLC must oppose. Unfortunately, as explained 
     below, the ratio test passed by the House Ways and Means 
     Committee allows abortions to increase significantly and the 
     state to still reap the financial reward of increased federal 
     funds.


             how the ratio test allows increased abortions

       For purposes of the ``illegitimacy ratio'' test, changes in 
     behavior in the second or subsequent years are treated 
     mathematically in the following manner. Those who avoid 
     pregnancy (and thus an out-of-wedlock birth) through either 
     contraception or abstention are treated the same: those 
     missing births disappear from both the numerator and the 
     denominator of the new ratio. Those who ``legitimize'' the 
     child either through marriage or adoption are also treated 
     the same: those births disappear from the numerator but 
     remain in the denominator.
       Changes in behavior that result in increased abortions 
     rather than out-of-wedlock births do not actually affect the 
     numerator since these abortions would reduce the number of 
     births in the numerator but would also be added back in. 
     However, they do reduce the births in the denominator. While 
     this means that an abortion in lieu of an out-of-wedlock 
     birth does actually hurt the state's ratio, this is not 
     sufficient to prevent the state from receiving the bonus 
     while experiencing a substantial increase in abortions, 
     because the effect of the increase in abortions on the ratio 
     can easily be more than offset by the other changes in 
     behavior.
       The following examples show how a state can receive the 
     bonus while increasing abortion:
       Example 1: Suppose in the initial year a hypothetical state 
     has 100,000 births, 30,000 of them out-of-wedlock for an 
     ``illegitimacy ratio'' of .30. Then suppose the state 
     implements a rigorous anti out-of-wedlock child bearing 
     program that results in a 10 percent (i.e. 3,000) reduction 
     in out-of-wedlock births. (This is not an unreasonable 
     assumption since the New Jersey ``family cap'' has reportedly 
     resulted in a 13 percent decrease in births among AFDC 
     recipients.) Further, suppose this reduction of 3,000 out-of-
     wedlock births was the result of 900 who successfully used 
     contraception or abstained, 900 more married or placed the 
     baby for adoption and 1,200 who had abortions.
       Then, assuming other births and abortions remained 
     constant, the state's new ``illegitimacy ratio'' would be 
     28,200 (27,000 out-of-wedlock births plus 1,200 abortions) 
     divided by 97,900 reflecting the 900 non-conceptions and 
     1,200 abortions) which equals .288.
       Thus, the state would qualify for the 5 percent federal 
     bonus even though abortions accounted for 40 percent of the 
     reduction in out-of-wedlock births.
       Example 2: In the above example, again assume a 10 percent 
     change in behavior, but spouse the reduction of 3,000 out-of-
     wedlock births is the result of 1,200 who successfully used 
     contraception or abstained, 1,300 who married or placed for 
     adoption and 500 who had abortions. In this case the new 
     ``illegitimacy ratio'' would equal 27,500 (27,000 out-of-
     wedlock births plus 500 abortions) divided by 98,300 
     (reflecting the 1,200 non-conceptions and 500 abortions) 
     which equals .2798 or less than .28.
       In this case, the state would qualify for the 10 percent 
     bonus in the federal funds, even though abortions accounted 
     for one-sixth of the reduction in out-of-wedlock births.
       Example 3: As a generalization of Example 1, it can be 
     shown that if out-of-wedlock births initially account for 30 
     percent of all births and there is a 10 percent reduction in 
     out-of-wedlock births in the second year, with other births 
     and abortions remaining constant, and the reduction is due to 
     equal numbers of non-conceptions and ``legitimized'' babies 
     due to marriage or adoption, then the increase in abortions 
     can be as much as 1.3 percent of all births and the state 
     will still get the federal ``bonus.'' In this case, abortions 
     could equal up to 43% of the reduction in out-of-wedlock 
     births!
       Example 4: In Example 3, the number of out-of-wedlock 
     births that were avoided through marriage or adoption 
     exceeded those that were avoided by reducing conceptions. For 
     an example where a greater number of out-of-wedlock births 
     are avoided by reducing conceptions, assume again that in the 
     initial year there were 100,000 births with 3,000 of them 
     out-of-wedlock for an ``illegitimacy ratio'' of .3.
       In the second year, suppose there are 5,000 fewer out of 
     wedlock births due to 2,000 non-conceptions, 1,000 adoptions 
     or marriages and 2,000 abortions, and that other factors 
     remain constant. The new ``illegitimacy'' ratio would be 
     27,000 divided by 96,000 or about .28. The state would again 
     get the financial bonus despite the increase in abortions.

  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. I just want to inform the gentleman that I proposed the 
so- 
[[Page H3442]] called illegitimacy ratio at the Committee on Rules last 
night, and the majority party voted it down.
  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Well, I would hope then, if this rule goes 
down, that it would be made in order in an amendment to strike it or, 
perhaps, to fix it.
  Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Florida [Mr. Gibbons], the former chairman of the Committee on Ways and 
Means.
  Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Speaker, I want to pay personal tribute to the 
gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon] because I do not think he would 
produce this kind of rule if he were not under the pressure from the 
gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Gingrich] and the gentleman from Texas [Mr. 
Armey] to jam all this thing through the House by some make-believe 
date that we are all operating under.

                              {time}  1330

  This is the type of a program that should take 6 months of 
consideration in the committee and on the floor. I wish I could have 
gotten this bill amended to take out the 10 reasons that I think this 
bill is cruel, cruel to children. This bill punishes the child because 
the mother who gave birth to the child was under 18 years of age. It 
punishes that child not just while the mother is under 18 years of age 
but it punishes that child for life. It will affect each year 70,000 
children.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Oxley). The time of the gentleman from 
Florida [Mr. Gibbons] has expired.
  Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Speaker, I have nine other reasons, and I will take 
them up later.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of our time.
  Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
New York [Mr. Rangel].
  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I wanted to ask the chairman of the 
committee about certain commitments that the Cardinal thought were made 
to him as they relate to this bill, but obviously those commitments 
were not made and we do not have time for a dialogue. But one of the 
reasons why I want to encourage the House to vote against this rule is 
because while the chairman of the committee would indicate that these 
were Democratic and Republican rules, when I take a look at it, the 
Democratic rules that would guarantee foster care and adoption, that 
would guarantee jobs, that would guarantee child care, that would 
guarantee that the child not be punished because of an irresponsible 
mother who could not identify the father, and an amendment that would 
guarantee vaccination and national nutrition, I would say that these 
were good amendments that the Democrats had, amendments that no one 
passed on. But then I look at the amendments that were made in order, 
and one of them says that a deadbeat dad who died is still liable for 
the money.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman from New York [Mr. 
Rangel] has expired.
  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I have some other amendments here that I 
would like to discuss on the floor later.
  Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Minnesota [Mr. Sabo], the former chairman of the Committee on the 
Budget.
  (Mr. SABO asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. SABO. Mr. Speaker, here we go again. Once more we have a major 
piece of legislation before us and the Republican majority has 
structured a rule to get around all kinds of serious Budget Act 
violations. This proposal is too serious, its budgetary implications 
too important, and its long-term consequences too critical to be 
treated so cavalierly.
  Mr. Speaker, if this bill were taken up under normal procedures, the 
Rules Committee would have to either waive all the Budget Act points of 
order or allow them to be raised on the floor. Under the unusual 
procedure being used for this bill, the Rules Committee was able to 
avoid the Budget Act without granting any explicit waivers.
  The Budget Act rules serve an important purpose. We should not be 
evading those rules on such an important piece of legislation.
  Mr. Speaker, the reason we have a Budget Act is to help us think 
through legislation before we pass it. Yet, this is the sixth time this 
year we have been asked by the new majority to ignore that act.
  The version of the welfare bill made in order by this rule contains 
several violations of the Congressional Budget Act.
  Among other things, H.R. 1214 makes a direct appropriation for the 
new Food Stamp Program in fiscal year 1996. This appropriation breaches 
the Agriculture Committee's spending allocation and thereby violates 
section 302(f) of the Budget Act.
  In addition, the bill provides both budget authority and entitlement 
authority effective in fiscal year 1996. As a result, it violates 
section 303(a) of the Budget Act, which prohibits consideration of 
bills providing new spending in years for which a budget resolution has 
not yet been adopted.
  Further, the bill sets up a new lending program--the so-called rainy 
days fund. This new program violates section 402(a) of the Budget Act, 
which prohibits creation of new Federal lending programs that are not 
controlled through the appropriations process.
  These and other problems with this bill are symptoms of the haste in 
which it was assembled and considered. Issues as important as welfare 
reform deserve far greater care and deliberation.
  If this bill were taken up under normal procedures, the Rules 
Committee would have to either waive all the Budget Act points of order 
or allow them to be raised on the floor. Under the unusual procedures 
being used for this bill, the Rules Committee was able to avoid the 
Budget Act without granting any explicit waivers.
  The Budget Act's rules serve an important purpose. We should not be 
evading these rules on such an important piece of legislation.
  Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Tennessee [Mr. Clement].
  (Mr. CLEMENT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. CLEMENT. Mr. Speaker, I understand probably why the Rules 
Committee did what it did, because it is obvious the Republican bill on 
welfare reform surely does not have the votes, and we are going to 
continue with perfecting amendments until they come to a level where 
they do have the votes. I think that says something about the 
legislation already because the Republicans are not excited about their 
welfare reform measure, and I do not blame them.
  A number of us, including me, put this Deal substitute together. It 
is a good one, and it makes a lot of sense. It is called the Individual 
Responsibility Act of 1995. It replaces the failed welfare system. It 
ends welfare as we know it. It requires people to work for benefits. It 
offers a hand up, not a handout. It imposes a time limit on benefits. 
It makes sure that welfare is a safety net and not quicksand. It 
ensures welfare, but it is not a way of life.
  Mr. Speaker, it is time to pass the Deal substitute. It works.
  Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Texas [Mr. Doggett].
  Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, it is not only the Members of this Congress 
but the children of America who are being gagged today--the voices of 
children, the children who need a healthy start, the children who 
should have smiling faces instead of empty stomachs, the children whose 
voices I heard 2 weeks ago in Austin, TX, the children who say, ``Cut 
waste, don't cut kids. Put people to work. Don't pull lunch trays out 
of the hands of school children,'' as this legislation would do.
  This ought to be a time for this body to come together to deal with a 
problem that has been neglected for too long. But extremists dominate 
this debate. Indeed, to call it a debate is to pick a name that has no 
appropriateness to what is happening here, because the ideas of all 
this body are being excluded from the course of this debate. With 
extremists in control, we do not have any genuine debate.
  This bill, like others in the contract, cannot withstand debate. It 
is so extreme, it is so mean-spirited that they cannot afford to have a 
real debate with bipartisan solutions to these problems.
  Mr. Speaker, it is the voices of the children that are being gagged 
today, and America is the loser.
  [[Page H3443]] Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to a very 
distinguished Member of the body, the gentleman from Oregon [Mr. Bunn].
  (Mr. BUNN of Oregon asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend his remarks.)
  Mr. BUNN of Oregon. Mr. Speaker, it is with reluctance that I need to 
stand and rise and encourage opposition to this rule. I want to focus 
on one fairly narrow part of the rule, and that is this:
  The Rules Committee had a choice between the Talent amendment and the 
Bunn amendment. They chose the Talent amendment, and I want to talk 
about the differences between those two, because there are only two 
differences. The Bunn amendment requires that in order to receive 
support, one must stay in school. Now, when we want to reduce 
dependence upon public assistance and we want to help people get off 
welfare, they need to stay in school, and we need to provide the tools 
so they can get off welfare. Why this bill denies that requirement, I 
do not know. It makes no sense to me, because we need to require girls 
to stay in school and we need to help them to stay in school with day 
care and other things.
  The second provision is one that equally perplexes me, and that is 
that with the Talent amendment we take away any incentive for a girl to 
stay in her home.
  As a Republican, I am proud of our party and I am proud of the things 
we stand for, but I am embarrassed today to stand here and admit that 
our party that talks about family values is saying, ``We don't value 
keeping the family together,'' because, in fact, there is no incentive 
under Talent to say, ``Stay in the home. Stay with your family.''
  The Bunn amendment says that if a girl will stay in school and stay 
with her family, we will provide the adult supervision, whether it is a 
foster parent or the parents, the ability to meet her needs with cash 
assistance for day care and other things, but we have taken that all 
away with Talent. We do not even have the opportunity to vote on that 
on the floor, and because of that, Mr. Speaker, I must oppose the rule.
  Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman 
from California [Ms. Woolsey].
  (Ms. WOOLSEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend her 
remarks.)
  Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this rule.
  As a mother who was forced to go on welfare 27 years ago because my 
family never received, not once, the child support we were owed, I am 
outraged by this rule. I am outraged because it prohibits debate on 
what Henry Hyde, Steve Largent, myself, and over 80 other Democrats and 
Republicans know is the most effective way to collect over $5 billion 
of the child support that goes uncollected each year, federalization of 
our pathetic State-by-State child support system.
  The Federal Government spends $1 billion a year on a State-based 
child support system that has shameful collection rates, with some 
States having rates as low as 9 percent. Even more alarming is the fact 
that $9 of every $10 owed in interstate child support is not collected.
  By putting the IRS in charge of collecting support, the Hyde-Woolsey 
amendment would move 300,000 mothers and over half a million children 
off the welfare rolls immediately.
  For that reason, Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote against 
this rule.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I would say to the gentlewoman from California [Ms. 
Woolsey] that if I had known she was going to oppose the rule, we would 
not have made her amendments in order. It is generally understood that 
we would like to have a return give-and-take.
  Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman from New York [Mr. 
Solomon] will yield, let me say that you did not put our amendment in 
order.
  Mr. SOLOMON. I am looking at it right now. It relocates the authority 
of the clearinghouse and hotline for missing and runaway children back 
to the agency where the credit exists. I think that is your amendment, 
is it not?
  Ms. WOOLSEY. No, I would say to the gentleman from New York [Mr. 
Solomon] that I am talking about the Hyde-Woolsey amendment to collect 
and federalize child support.
  Mr. SOLOMON. That is not the gentlewoman's amendment, the one I just 
read?
  Ms. WOOLSEY. Yes, but that is not the same amendment. That is an 
entirely different thing.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I would say to the gentlewoman that there 
were 161 amendments filed. Let me read Mr. Gephardt's statement now. 
Just a minute. I would ask the gentlewoman to not interrupt. We 
followed the rules of the House.
  Mr. Gephardt appeared before the Rules Committee, and he said:

       I do not want any amendments made in order, Democrat or 
     Republican, other than 2 Democrat substitutes under the name 
     of Deal and under the name of Mink.

  We did not abide by what he requested. We made a number of amendments 
in order. We took one of yours, and the gentlewoman from New Jersey 
[Mrs. Roukema] had five or six amendments, and we took one of hers. We 
tried to distribute them out of fairness.
  I just call that to the gentlewoman's attention because in time she 
will have to come back to the Rules Committee, and we do like to give 
credit when Members are supportive. And the next time I would like to 
ask the gentlewoman to tell me she is going to vote against the rule 
even though we make her amendment in order.
  Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, let me yield to my friend, the gentleman 
from Massachusetts, although we are running out of time and he has 
plenty of time.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Actually, since it was the Hyde-Woolsey amendment, I 
would ask the gentleman, why did he not make Hyde in order?
  Mr. SOLOMON. Because there were 75 other Republican amendments we 
could not make in order either. We have a time frame of 2\1/2\ days, 
and we made 31 amendments in order.
  Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SOLOMON. I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. May I continue? Actually, you said you would not have 
allowed her amendment if you knew she was going to vote against the 
rule.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman has reserved the balance of 
his time.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman is out of order.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I thought the gentleman was yielding to me.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman reserves the balance of his 
time.
  Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, 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. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to the rule.
  Last week I took two amendments to the Rules Committee which would 
guarantee that any net reduction in outlays resulting from this act 
would be used for deficit reduction, not spent for tax cuts. I felt 
fairly cynical and redundant then as I did so, because my understanding 
of the base bill, H.R. 1214, was that deficit reduction would be the 
highest priority when it came to net savings. But I had a gnawing 
suspicion that an effort would be made to remove this fiscally 
responsible provision. Indeed, we now see that Chairman Archer will be 
offering a routine technical amendment which does precisely what I 
feared, striking section 801(a) of the base bill.
  This, coming on top of the admission last week the Republicans had no 
intention to maintain the lock box in the rescission bill that passed 
by a vote of over 400 to 15, is nothing but outrageous. It now appears 
the will of the overwhelming majority of the House counts for nothing 
when it comes to savings being dedicated to deficit reduction. In fact, 
today we do not even have an opportunity to vote the will of the House 
regarding how the deficit savings should go, for cuts or for deficit 
reduction.

[[Page H3444]]

  Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to the rule allowing for the 
consideration of H.R. 1214, the Personal Responsibility Act. I do so 
for numerous reasons, including the rejection of my amendments ensuring 
deficit reduction, the rejection of two pro-life amendments, and the 
inclusion of a highly confusing procedure which, rather than laying out 
a predictable order for consideration of amendments, seems to permit 
Chairman Archer to move at any time to bring up the Deal substitute.
  Mr. Speaker, last week I took two amendments to the Rules Committee 
which would guarantee that any net reductions in outlays resulting from 
this act would be used for deficit reduction, not spent for tax cuts or 
other increased spending. I felt fairly cynical and redundant as I did 
so because my understanding of the base bill, H.R. 1214, was that 
deficit reduction would be the highest priority when it came to net 
savings. But I had a gnawing suspicion that an effort would be made to 
remove this fiscally responsible provision. Indeed, we now see that 
Chairman Archer will be offering a ``routine technical amendment'' 
which does precisely what I feared, striking section 801(a) of the base 
bill. This, coming on top of the admission last week that Republicans 
had no intention to maintain the lock box in the rescissions bill, even 
though it had passed 400-15 is nothing less than outrageous. It now 
appears the will of the overwhelming majority of the House count for 
nothing when it comes to savings being dedicated to deficit reduction. 
In fact today we cannot even vote on it. I urge opposition to the rule.
  Second, as a pro-life Member, I have noted that the National Right to 
Life Committee stands in opposition to
 this rule which prevents any consideration of either the Bunn 
amendment or the Stark-Volkmer amendment. Like the committee, I am 
opposed to having our welfare reform efforts lead to a greater number 
of abortions.

  Third, I see no reason for allowing the unusual order of business by 
which Chairman Archer can randomly bring up for consideration the Deal 
substitute, the Mink substitute, and then the Republican substitute. I 
understand there is confusion about interpreting the language of the 
rule but to my reading, it certainly seems that Chairman Archer could 
have such an option. This closed rule outlines the specific amendments 
made in order and sets the boundaries for time consideration. There is 
no reason to set up unpredictability when it comes to the three 
substitutes.
  I am pleased that the rule made in order the Deal substitute and I 
have every intention of supporting this amendment. I believe that this 
substitute is far more reasonable in its reform of welfare programs, 
balances compassion with fiscal imperatives, does a better job of 
reinforcing individual responsibility, and is far more honest when it 
comes to deficit reduction.
  Inclusion of the Deal substitute, however, is insufficient to rectify 
the other shortcomings of this rule and I urge its defeat.
                              {time}  1345

  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Texas [Mr. Armey], the very, very distinguished majority leader of this 
House, to impart some of his wisdom on this rule.
  Mr. ARMEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Ladies and gentlemen, this is a good rule. It is a rule that has been 
worked through after an extraordinarily long and arduous process 
covering several years, where so many of us have worked on welfare 
reform. There are so many things we agree on.
  We all agree that House Republicans, many of the House Democrats, 
certainly the President, who has spoken so eloquently on so many 
occasions, agrees with the proposition the current welfare system does 
not work. It is harmful, it is hurtful, it destroys the lives of young 
children. It is frightening what is happening in the lives of young 
children, now sometimes all too often in their second or third 
generation, and the President, quite rightfully, even in the campaign 
of 1992, said we must address this issue.
  Clearly we are going to try to do something different. If we can 
begin with the certain knowledge that what we have been doing in the 
past does not work, can we not take from that knowledge the certain 
courage to try something new, something different, something better, 
with a whole different set of incentives and a whole set of messages to 
our young people in this country? That is what we are doing with this 
bill made in order by this rule.
  Then we need to understand that so many scholars have demonstrated to 
us that it is illegitimacy and childbirth, fatherless children, that is 
so much at the heart of the distress that seems to be unending and 
growing worse and larger each year. So we insist we must have a new 
welfare approach that brings down illegitimacy, and quite rightly so 
many of us say, yes, bring down illegitimacy, but not through increased 
abortions. And we have struggled with this issue. We have struggled 
with this rule.
  Now we have illegitimacy language and a ratio in the bill that by the 
person who wrote the initial language, Michael Schwartz, is declared to 
be this, and I quote, ``This illegitimacy ratio is abortion neutral. I 
strongly support the bill in its current form.''
  Let me say, ladies and gentlemen, rather than to believe that by 
bringing down illegitimacy we must necessarily with abortion neutral 
language encourage abortion, let us take a greater realization that 
illegitimacy and abortion go hand-in-hand because in both instances the 
message is that children, that life, is a commodity. And I promise you, 
I declare that you change that mindset, you force a reduction in 
illegitimate births, and there will be an ensuing reduction in 
abortion. Because the fact of the matter is, ladies and gentlemen, life 
is not a commodity. Life is precious. Life is precious in the womb, and 
life is precious on the streets and the schools and the playgrounds of 
this country. We must make our children safe. We must make our children 
safe.
  I believe this bill will do that. I believe this rule makes it 
possible for us to craft this bill in its final stages in such a way as 
to guarantee the safety of our children, both in the womb and on the 
streets and in the playground and in their schools. And, yes, they will 
be well fed as well.
  So disregard the fiction from those who would have us do nothing but 
defend and protect the status quo. The status quo, ladies and 
gentlemen, is literally killing our children. We cannot tolerate it.
  Mr. ROEMER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. ARMEY. I yield to the gentleman from Indiana.
  Mr. ROEMER. I would say to the gentleman, I am a pro-life Democrat, 
not a pro-birth Democrat, but a pro-life Democrat. If this is so family 
friendly, if this is so child friendly, why are the Catholic church and 
pro-life organizations such as Right to Life opposed to this rule, 
where the Committee on Rules did not even make in order the ability to 
address many of these concerns?
  Mr. ARMEY. If the gentleman asks me, I will tell the gentleman, they 
oppose the rule because their judgment is incorrect on this matter. I 
regret that.
  Mr. ROEMER. Their judgment is incorrect.
  Mr. ARMEY. There is room always for anyone to have a mistake in 
judgment, and I just disagree with their judgment on this matter.
  Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman 
from New York [Ms. Slaughter].
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, none of us like the status quo, but all 
Americans agree in their considered opinion that this bill goes too 
far. This bill is too extreme. Americans oppose this plan that hurts 
poor women and children in order, and this is the most important part, 
in order to pay for a tax cut for the most wealthy.
  I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to vote against the 
rule and hold out for some fairness in the debate. Americans know that 
the best way to cut down on dependency is to encourage economic self-
sufficiency and end welfare as we know it is to get people into jobs.
  The Republicans legislation does nothing to further that goal. It 
concentrates all of its attention on punitive cuts to programs that 
provide food, shelter, and clothing to poor children. It does nothing 
to help the poor children's parents to get into the jobs that they not 
only badly need, they badly want.
  One fatal flaw is it removes any obligation for the State to provide 
job placement and job skill training. In fact, if they just get them 
off welfare, that is considered a success. But if they are kicked off 
welfare and into the street and into homelessness, we do not consider 
that a success.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge everybody to vote against this rule.

[[Page H3445]]

  Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Illinois [Mr. Gutierrez].
  (Mr. GUTIERREZ asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)
  Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Speaker, I submitted three amendments to this bill 
that were all ruled out of order. In my effort I was not simply trying 
to appeal to the good nature of the members of the Committee on Rules 
nor to their sense of charity. My amendments spoke to other values, 
hard work, paying taxes, playing by the rules. Those you understand are 
not partisan values, or so I thought until I read the Republican 
written rule.
  Two of my amendments would have ensured that those legal immigrants 
who pay Federal taxes for at least 5 years would remain eligible for 
benefits.
  I wanted to raise one issue that gets drowned out by the red-hot 
rhetoric in this body and on the radio talk shows, that have become the 
national outlet for passing along blame. The fact is, Mr. Speaker, 
legal immigrants pay taxes that we all use, and they follow the laws of 
this country that they have come to call home.
  This bill is called the Personal Responsibility Act. Many legal 
immigrants who work hard, play by the rules, already exhibit a level of 
responsibility that this House will do well to emulate. We can do so by 
defeating this rule.
  Mr. Speaker, during the welfare debate, I have heard the Republicans 
cite as their goal, the demolition of the Great Society.
  Well, with this rule, I think they've gone well beyond that.
  As I see it, the question now seems: Do the Republicans even want 
America to be a good society?
  In my mind, a good society protects the most vulnerable.
  A good society does not slash programs for those whose well-being has 
been put in jeopardy in so many other ways.
  Now, I have heard it said that the punitive measures contained in 
this bill are not simply there for the sake of injuring the poor or the 
weak.
  No--the Republicans tell us that these measures are supposed to 
change behavior.
  Denying benefits to young unwed mothers, I am told, is not simply a 
way to penalize them--but to change their behavior.
  Well, if that is the logic of this bill, then what am I to make of 
those provisions that are aimed at denying benefits to legal 
immigrants?
  I have to assume that your goal is to alter the behavior of those 
around the world who would otherwise think about coming--legally--to 
the United States.
  And that's a shame, because I thought that a good society opened its 
doors to others.
  It was out of that concern that I submitted three amendments to the 
Rules Committee for consideration.
  In so doing, I was not simply trying to appeal to the good nature of 
the members of the Rules Committee, nor to their sense of charity. My 
amendments spoke to other values--hard work, paying taxes, playing by 
the rules.
  Those aren't partisan values. Those are values that we all share.
  Or, so I thought until seeing this Republican-written rule.
  Let me briefly describe my amendments.
  The first would have made any legal alien who has paid 5 years of 
Federal income taxes eligible for the services that this bill would 
otherwise deny them--Medicaid, SSI, food stamps, Temporary Assistance, 
and social service block grants.
  A second, which I envisioned as an alternative, would grant the same 
eligibility to those immigrants who paid 5 years of taxes during a 10-
year period. I thought that this amendment was certainly reasonable to 
all parties involved.
  I felt it was important to raise these issues because it speaks to 
facts that get obliterated by the red-hot rhetoric raised in this body.
  These facts get drowned out by the talk radio shows that have become 
the national outlets for ranting and raving and passing on blame to 
others.
  These two amendments point out that--yes--legal immigrants pay taxes, 
taxes that we all use.
  Just like anyone else in America, they follow the rules and laws of 
the country that they now call home.
  The third amendment that I have drafted addresses the considerable 
expenses that will be passed along to the States when these services 
are obliterated at the Federal level.
  Under my amendment, the Federal Government could not exclude legal 
immigrants from eligibility for these services if it is found that this 
leads to a cost of $50 million or more to a State.
  Pretty interesting timing, don't you think? Today, the unfunded 
mandates bill is being ceremoniously signed into law.
  Tell me--especially my friends on the other side of the aisle who 
pressed so hard for the unfunded mandates bill--what happens if, or 
when, we find that the welfare reform bill fits your definition of an 
unfunded mandate?
  I was pleased that, even though these amendments did not receive 
bipartisan support here inside the beltway, at least they did outside 
of Washington. The Republican Governor of Illinois, Jim Edgar, wrote to 
the Speaker recommending that these amendments be ruled in order.
  Isn't it the Republican Party that keeps saying they are supposedly 
on the side of the States?
  Then why ignore the wishes of a State like Illinois which will be 
severely burdened by the steps that you want us to take today?
  It's not an exaggeration to say that this bill, and the rule, that we 
are debating today changes--in my mind--what America represents.
  In the minds of many, America always held magic because it not only 
was a Nation that stood up to other superpowers around the world, but 
that it also stood up for the powerless who came here from around the 
world.
  After today's action, I don't think you can quite say the same thing.
  This bill is called the Personal Responsibility Act
  I urge all Members to remember their public responsibility and to 
vote no on this rule.
  Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Massachusetts [Mr. Kennedy].
  Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong 
opposition to this rule. What has come to this country where we now 
consider poor vulnerable children and mothers the root cause of the 
evil that America faces?
  We had one fellow come before the House Committee on Banking and 
Financial Services, Michael Milken, who stole $5 billion, a third of 
the AFDC budget, and he gets a wink and a nod. Yet welfare mothers are 
the scourge of America, if you listen to the rhetoric that takes place 
on this House floor.
  If people are really concerned about the family values of this 
country, why then does the bill cut $2.7 billion out of foster care and 
adoptive services? If we are truly opposed to the number of abortions 
that take place in America, why can we not create a policy in America 
that allows families to adopt and provide foster care services?
  These are abused children, children that have sexual and other issues 
that they have been subjected to that are horrendous in America, and 
the Republicans cut $2.7 billion out of the budget to serve those 
vulnerable children. We ought to be ashamed.
  Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman 
from North Carolina [Mrs. Clayton].
  (Mrs. CLAYTON asked and was given permission to revise and extend her 
remarks.)
  Mrs. CLAYTON. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the rule. More 
than 150 amendments were filed timely on this rule, but yet there are 
only 26 Republicans and only 5 Democrats that have amendments that were 
allowed.
  I must ask, what is the majority afraid of? Why must they deny 
thoughtful proposals that would improve this bill? Are they trying to 
muzzle discussion? Perhaps they are afraid because among the amendments 
that they did not allow are those that would have restored nutritional 
programs for those who need it. Among the amendments they did not allow 
are those that would have prevented the destruction of School Lunch 
Programs. Perhaps they are afraid because they know that this bill will 
harm women, infants and children, and they do not want the American 
people to know about that. Perhaps they are afraid because they know 
that the money they say they are saving will be shifted out of those 
programs and will go to aid the rich through tax cuts.
  Mr. Speaker, this is most misguided. I urge a vote of no, no 
confidence in this rule, and also no on the bill itself.
  Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman 
from Texas [Ms. Jackson-Lee].
  (Ms. JACKSON-LEE asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
her remarks.)
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE. Mr. Speaker, I thought we came to the U.S. Congress 
to represent all of the people of the United States of America, but 
what we have come simply to do is pass the 
[[Page H3446]] mother of all bad rules. I do expect and appreciate the 
long hours that the Committee on Rules spent on the rules' resolution 
but I cannot imagine that they did not accept the many amendments that 
were offered to ensure that all of the people of the United States of 
America were in fact covered by welfare reform and not covered by 
welfare punishment.
  Mr. Speaker, I tried to offer amendments that would ensure child 
care, that would ensure job training, and, yes, to ensure that we had 
jobs. You know, it is interesting, it is very interesting, that in fact 
as we begin to make alot of noise about working, everybody is talking 
about the Government providing those jobs, that can not be. There is 
nothing in the Republican bill that talks about job creation. And yet I 
attempted to bring corporate America into this debate, because as they 
engage in the discussion about welfare reform and about welfare mothers 
and children on lunch programs, I believe corporate America has alot to 
contribute to job creation. But yet that particular amendment was not 
accepted.
  My question is, this is not an issue for African-Americans, Hispanic-
Americans, Asian-Americans, White-Americans; it is for all Americans. 
This is not a time to bash our mothers and our children. This is a time 
to raise our voices, to pass legislation that will be welfare reform 
and not welfare punishment. This is welfare punishment.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I would just tell the gentlewoman from Texas [Ms. 
Jackson-Lee] and the gentlewoman from North Carolina [Mrs. Clayton], 
who spoke before, that they were not here in 1987. Believe me, this is 
not the mother of all bad rules. The mother of all bad rules was in 
1987, the last time we debated welfare. That is when the gentleman from 
Massachusetts [Mr. Moakley], the gentlewoman from New York [Ms. 
Slaughter], the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Kennedy], and the 
gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Sabo] all voted for a rule that was so 
closed down it allowed for one Republican substitute instead of three 
different alternatives that we are allowing today. That rule allowed 
for one Democrat amendment and no Republican amendments, instead of 31 
amendments being allowed today.
  Those are the kinds of gag rules we used to have on the floor. Now we 
are opening up the process.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to my very good friend, the gentleman 
from California [Mr. Cunningham].
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, for 4 years I sat in this body. In 30 
years only one Republican motion to recommit passed. No Republican 
king-of-the-hill rule ever passed on this House floor under the 
Democratic rules. I watched here on a tax bill where the clock stayed 
open for 45 minutes until you twisted arms and passed a bad tax bill by 
one vote. So do not complain about rules and closed rules.
  But first of all I would like to speak about what is cruel. Let us 
take a look at the children's nutrition program. Who are we trying to 
feed? We are trying to feed the kids that their parents are in poverty. 
For my friends on the other side of the aisle, I would say it is cruel 
to support the current system.
  You say that you all think well, it can be fixed. You had 40 years to 
fix it. The gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Gephardt] will stand up and 
talk about oh, the lady in the red dress and the poor children. Well, 
what is really sad and what is discriminatory is the children that we 
are not allowing out of the poverty level with their families. Let us 
encourage the deadbeat dads by legislation to support those kids; $34 
billion. Let us encourage fathers to come live with a welfare mother, 
that we do not take that check away, and have one of them work, so that 
we can empower that family to support those children so they do not 
have to qualify economically.
  What is really cruel? Look at the Federal housing projects that we 
just keep dumping money into. They are crime ridden. We have drug 
addiction. We have in the black community two out of every three 
children are illegitimate. In some of our inner cities, up to six or 
eight of the children are illegitimate.

                              {time}  1400

  That is what is cruel, is to perpetuate that sadistic system. And 
what you are really upset at is we are killing your controlled big 
bureaucracy. We have provided for the nutrition programs and added, but 
we have cut you bureaucracy and you cannot stand it.
  Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
American Samoa [Mr. Faleomavaega].
  Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Mr. Speaker, the rule before us today is for what 
is called the Personal Responsibility Act. This proposed bill will 
alter drastically the welfare system in our Nation. One of the problems 
of this bill is that it does not even mention the 1.2 million Native 
Americans or the 553 federally recognized American Indian tribes.
  To remedy the situation, Members from both sides of aisle worked 
together to come up with an amendment to allow Indian tribes access to 
the block grant provisions of this bill. Unfortunately, the Committee 
on Rules did not accept this and it will never be heard on its merits 
on the floor.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to remind my colleagues that Indian tribes are 
not subunits of State governments. Their relationship is on a 
government-to-government basis with the Federal Government. Currently 
tribes are eligible for direct funding under numerous Federal laws to 
the same extent as the 50 States. What a travesty, Mr. Speaker, that 
this is happening.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. 
Moakley].
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman. Now I would like 
to----
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Oxley). The time of the gentleman from 
American Samoa [Mr. Faleomavaega] has expired.
  Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman 
from Massachusetts [Mr. Moakley].
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, the chairman of the Committee on Rules said 
that we had gagged rules in the past. I never said I never gagged 
rules. But he said he was going to, he said he was going to come out 
with a new style, open rules. One of the most important pieces of 
legislation right here on the floor, we are gagged. The United States 
of America is gagged. Every student looking for a warm meal is being 
gagged. This is a gag rule that nobody will ever forget.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds.
  I say to my good friend, the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. 
Moakley], what I said was, I would be three times as fair as he ever 
was, and I am living up to it. The reason that he does not think it is 
fair is because of his minority leader, the gentleman from Missouri 
[Mr. Gephardt]. I suggest the gentleman go see him. I will go with him, 
if he likes.
  Mr. HALL of OHIO. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Alabama [Mr. Bevill].
  (Mr. BEVILL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. BEVILL. Mr. Speaker, I have always advocated workfare over 
welfare. Most people I know would rather have a paycheck than a welfare 
check. Unfortunately, our current welfare system actually discourages 
and breeds dependency on the government. It fosters a cycle of poverty 
that many families fail to break away from.
  Clearly, we need a new system that requires parents to shoulder the 
responsibilities of their families.
  We need to break this cycle of welfare dependency, but we must do it 
in a way that makes sense. If we require welfare parents to work as we 
should, we must provide job training. Many people on welfare have no 
job skills and many do not know how to look for a job.
  And if we require welfare parents to work, as we should, we must 
provide for child care. Someone has to look after the children while 
the parents are working.
  If we go to the block grant system proposed by the committee's 
version of this bill, Alabama stands to lose $828 million over 5 years, 
according to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.
  Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman 
from Colorado [Mrs. Schroeder].
  [[Page H3447]] Mrs. SCHROEDER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding time to me.
  I have been trying to get in on this debate but Members keep saying, 
``We don't have the time; we don't have the time.''
  Why do we not have time for children? Why are we rushing out here and 
doing this to children? So we can get the crown jewel of the contract, 
to quote the Speaker. What is that crown jewel? It is more tax cuts for 
the fat cats to pay for this.
  I find this absolutely outrageous. I was trying to point out to one 
of the prior gentlemen that if you really want to be tough on and you 
really want to do child support enforcement, you ought to vote for the 
Democratic bill because it is much tougher. I hope the amendment to the 
Republican one does pass, where we go after licenses of people who are 
in arrears, but one of the most important things we can do is welfare 
prevention, which is making both parents be responsible.
  There are so many things here we should be discussing. To see this go 
roaring through and to see us taking things away from young children to 
pay for the crown jewel for those who do not need anymore jewels, thank 
you very much, is outrageous.
  Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Michigan [Mr. Levin].
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I asked for two amendments and they were 
turned down. By the way, I do not think it is very appealing to come 
here and say you have to bargain with the Committee on Rules to get an 
amendment, you have to say you are going to vote for the rule to get an 
amendment. I thought we were acting here on a matter of urgency and a 
matter of principle.
  Let me just make two points. You turned down two amendments. One was 
close to the Bunn amendment. I do not know why you keep on turning your 
back on this issue. If you punish mothers, you are going to affect 
their kids and also you, I think, arguably could increase the chances 
of abortion. You turned it down. We have been trying for weeks to get 
this amendment accepted.
  Second, you turned down an amendment on SSI for kids.
  I just want to emphasize what is involved. You are cutting $14.8 
billion and restoring only $3.8 billion in the block grant. You talk 
piously; you act punitively.
  Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I have one remaining speaker.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the very 
distinguished gentleman from Atlanta, GA [Mr. Linder], a member of the 
Committee on Rules.
  Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I find this debate fascinating on the rule, 
because for all of the honing and carping which has been raised to an 
art form on this side about the inability to perfect our bill, no one 
cares about the inability to perfect the Deal substitute or the Mink 
substitute, two substitutes which are miles apart in philosophy and 
intent and direction. You do not care to perfect those bills. You only 
want to perfect this bill?
  The fact of the matter is, you would like to have 150 amendments made 
in order on the majority's bill. You do not really care to amend those, 
and we gave you gagged, closed rules on those two substitutes at your 
request.
  My colleagues, there are some victims in this debate, but it is not 
children and it is not school lunches. The victims in this debate are 
candor and honest public discourse. The big-lie theory has just taken 
over the debate on this bill, and we have so much more to do after 
this. We have to direct America's attention to a crushing national 
debt, an economic crisis in a dozen years of humongous proportions. If 
we cannot begin to discuss these things with some degree of candor and 
some degree of honesty and public discourse, all of America, including 
the children, will suffer.
  Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to 
the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Fields].
  (Mr. FIELDS of Louisiana asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend his remarks.)
  Mr. FIELDS of Louisiana. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this 
rule.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this rule.
  This rule will not allow my two amendments in order.
  My two amendments are aimed at ensuring that the changes proposed by 
this bill for the school meals program will not result in reduced 
quality of school meals. States have enormous pressure to squeeze 
funding from programs, especially education programs. My amendments 
limit the discretion to squeeze school meals programs too much.
  The first amendment requires that school-based nutrition block grant 
funds are actually used for school based meals, not other purposes. The 
bill allows States to transfer up to 20 percent of the school nutrition 
funds to other block grant purposes--for example, a State could spend 
20 percent of the school lunch funds on its food stamps program.
  I am convinced it is unwise to give States this discretion. When 
faced with difficult budget choices or a fiscal emergency, State 
legislatures would quickly seize upon the available 20 percent.
  It is important to remember that children are not able to protect 
their own interests in the legislative process, while others have 
strong advocates. Furthermore, there are good reasons why the school 
lunch program was brought to the Federal level in the first place--when 
States did have complete control over school meals, many defaulted on 
their obligation to children.
  While there are reasonable arguments that States should have the 
ability to decide how best to spend funds, this is a very difficult 
point the full House should decide.
  The second amendment I offered simply ensures that school meals 
comply with minimum nutritional standards. Why give States the 
discretion to serve school lunches that do not meet basic nutritional 
standards? With minimum nutrition standards, States are free to develop 
their own standards for more healthful meals.
  The bill calls for a National Academy of Sciences study to recommend 
minimum nutritional standards, but does not require States to meet 
those standards. My amendment requires States to meet the current 
nutritional standards set by the Secretary of Agriculture, or the 
standards of the required National Academy of Sciences study. 
Currently, the standards set by the Secretary are that meals must meet 
one-third of the daily requirement of certain nutrients.
  Reducing the nutritional standards is an easy way for States to 
reduce the cost of school meals. Guaranteeing a minimum level of 
nutrition is a statement by Congress that the health of children is a 
national concern. Furthermore, our other investments in education are 
ineffective if children do not have adequate nutrition. Promoting the 
health of school children is wise all around.
  Even if one believes States can operate this program more 
efficiently, we can provide the guarantee that, at the least, school 
meals will be healthful.
  Of course whether or not funds for this important program should go 
to States with certain minimum conditions is a question on which 
reasonable people can disagree, and it is important enough to be 
decided by the full House. I believe these amendments should be 
considered and decided by the full House of Representatives.
  Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to our 
leader, the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Gephardt].
  (Mr. GEPHARDT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. GEPHARDT. Mr. Speaker, in the coming hours and days, the Members 
of this body face a clear and crucial choice. We can vote for a 
Republican welfare proposal that will throw millions of innocent 
children out on the street without doing anything to move people from 
welfare to work, or we can choose one of the two outstanding Democratic 
proposals, both of which would help millions of struggling Americans to 
break the cycle of dependency and despair.
  Mr. Speaker, when we talk about welfare reform, we should be talking 
about one thing and one thing only: work, how to encourage it, how to 
reward it, how to ensure that every able-bodied American can lift 
themselves out of poverty and into work.
  That is why Democrats are fighting for a welfare plan that gives 
States all the flexibility they need and deserve but sets one broad 
goal and requirement: they have got to move people from welfare to 
work. If they want to spend Federal tax dollars, they have got to offer 
the training programs and the job opportunities that make welfare a 
road to work and not a dead end.
  The plan the Republicans are passing off as welfare reform does not 
even come close to that. In essence, they 
[[Page H3448]] want to just throw money at the States, cross their 
fingers and hope the problem goes away, as if it were that simple.
  At the same time they want to pillage welfare programs to pay for tax 
cuts for the privileged few. They want to fund their tax giveaways by 
slashing school lunches for children who would literally go hungry 
without them and cutting food and nutrition programs for pregnant women 
and babies that save more than three times what the programs cost.
  At this point, Mr. Speaker, we have to wonder whether the Republicans 
really want to reform welfare at all. We have to wonder whether they 
really care about the child whose life could be devastated, about the 
single mother who could lose every dime of help and support but never 
get a chance at a real job to support herself.
  Of course, it is time to insist on work and responsibility. Of 
course, it is time to end a status quo that perpetuates poverty and 
destroys our most cherished values. But how can people lift themselves 
up by their boot straps, if the Republicans are busy taking away their 
boots?
  Are the Republicans even interested in promoting
   work? Or are they looking for just another way to pay for trickle-
down tax giveaways for the privileged few?

  The Republicans do not seem to understand that Americans just do not 
want a smaller welfare system, they want a system that works. They want 
real results for their hard-earned tax dollars.
  When you are trying to move people from welfare to work, there is 
only one result that matters: a job. And that is why Democrats have 
developed a wholly different approach to reform. In fact, the two 
Democratic alternatives are the only proposals that even do justice to 
the words ``welfare reform.'' They are tough on work, because they 
insist that the States move people from welfare to work and give people 
the help they need in finding and preparing for jobs. And they are good 
to kids because they recognize that our children are our most precious 
resource, not a partisan punching bag.
  There is a bigger principle at stake in this debate. Rather than 
rewarding the richest Americans for doing nothing, we should fight to 
promote work to reward it and to make sure that it pays more than 
welfare. The Republicans are not even engaging in this debate, and it 
is a bitter irony that this mean-spirited, shortsighted proposal would 
only make a flawed welfare system even worse.

                              {time}  1415

  Do we believe in a Nation of dignity and decency? Do we believe in 
protecting our children from arbitrary punishment and unnecessary 
deprivation? Do we believe in putting people to work and not simply 
pushing these problems back to the State level?
  If we are truly committed to these goals, we have no choice but to 
support the Democratic alternatives to this flawed Republican proposal. 
Now is the time to turn back a Republican proposal that is weak on work 
and tough on kids. Now is the time to really reform welfare and put the 
American people back to work.
  This is a crucial decision of this body, and I urge Members to vote 
for one of the Democratic alternatives, to refuse the Republican 
alternative, to be tough on work, and not tough on kids. This is our 
moment to make that great statement.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of our time.
  Mr. Speaker, I will not criticize the minority party and question 
their motives, because they are all good Americans. However, the 
question before us today is whether we are going to continue the status 
quo or not, and how we go about it.
  I have been here for a long time, and I have watched this Congress 
try to micromanage the lives of the American people from here inside 
the beltway. Mr. Speaker, it has not worked. We have a failed welfare 
system that we are operating under now. Let us try something else. Let 
us change that status quo. We can do it with the legislation we have 
before us.
  There was a great American once that lived up the road here on 
Pennsylvania Avenue. His name was Ronald Reagan. He taught me a lesson 
when I first came here. Nobody was more focused and more visionary than 
Ronald Reagan. Yet he learned the one important thing, how to 
compromise. That is what we are doing here today. We have tried to, in 
this rule, we have tried to recognize that there are Republicans and 
Democrats, that there are liberals and conservatives.
  We have tried to recognize that.
  My good friend, the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Hall] had two amendments 
dealing with school lunches and with WIC. I said to the gentleman from 
Ohio ``Why did you not offer that as a substitute? That is what your 
Democrat leader would have asked for.'' We would have made it in order 
and considered it. We would have been as fair as we possibly can.
  There are some things that I do not like about this rule. I spoke 
with Cardinal O'Connor about them. There was another amendment very 
important to people that share a belief, as I do, and as the gentleman 
from Ohio does, and others do, but we could not make them all in order. 
We managed to get three out of the four. The one other, you can deal 
with it, or we could, in a motion to recommit.
  This is a fair rule. It treats everybody fair. Please vote for this 
rule. It is hard for me to say that, because I did not get everything I 
wanted, but I am going to vote for the rule. It is the right thing. It 
is fair. It is fair to every Member of this body. Please vote for it.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Oxley). All time has expired.
  Without objection, the previous question is ordered on the 
resolution.
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the resolution.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the noes appeared to have it.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a 
quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not 
present.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Evidently a quorum is not present.
  The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 217, 
nays 211, not voting 7, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 255]

                               YEAS--217

     Allard
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baker (CA)
     Baker (LA)
     Ballenger
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Bass
     Bateman
     Bereuter
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bliley
     Blute
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Brewster
     Brownback
     Bryant (TN)
     Bunning
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth
     Christensen
     Chrysler
     Clinger
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins (GA)
     Combest
     Condit
     Cooley
     Cox
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cremeans
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Davis
     Deal
     DeLay
     Doolittle
     Dornan
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     English
     Ensign
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fawell
     Fields (TX)
     Flanagan
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fowler
     Fox
     Franks (CT)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frisa
     Funderburk
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Gingrich
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Goss
     Graham
     Greenwood
     Gunderson
     Gutknecht
     Hancock
     Hansen
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Heineman
     Herger
     Hilleary
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hoke
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Inglis
     Istook
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kim
     Kingston
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lazio
     Leach
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Lightfoot
     Linder
     Livingston
     LoBiondo
     Longley
     Lucas
     Manzullo
     Martini
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McKeon
     Metcalf
     Meyers
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Molinari
     Moorhead
     Morella
     Myers
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Neumann
     Ney
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Oxley
     Packard
     Paxon
     Petri
     Pombo
     Porter
     Portman
     Pryce
     Quillen
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Riggs
     Roberts
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Roth
     Roukema
     Royce
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaefer
     Schiff
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shuster
     Skeen
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Solomon
     Souder
     Spence
     Stearns
     Stockman
     Stump
     Talent
     Tate
     Taylor (NC)
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Torkildsen
     Upton
     Waldholtz
     Walker
     [[Page H3449]] Walsh
     Wamp
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     White
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Zeliff
     Zimmer

                               NAYS--211

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Andrews
     Baesler
     Baldacci
     Barcia
     Barrett (WI)
     Barton
     Becerra
     Beilenson
     Bentsen
     Berman
     Bevill
     Bishop
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boucher
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Bryant (TX)
     Bunn
     Canady
     Cardin
     Chapman
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Coleman
     Collins (IL)
     Collins (MI)
     Conyers
     Costello
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Danner
     de la Garza
     DeFazio
     DeLauro
     Dellums
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doyle
     Durbin
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fazio
     Fields (LA)
     Filner
     Flake
     Foglietta
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Frost
     Furse
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Geren
     Gibbons
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hamilton
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Hayes
     Hefner
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Holden
     Hoyer
     Hyde
     Jackson-Lee
     Jacobs
     Jefferson
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnston
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     King
     Kleczka
     Klink
     LaFalce
     LaHood
     Lantos
     Laughlin
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lincoln
     Lipinski
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Luther
     Maloney
     Manton
     Markey
     Martinez
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy
     McDade
     McDermott
     McHale
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Menendez
     Mfume
     Miller (CA)
     Mineta
     Mink
     Moakley
     Mollohan
     Montgomery
     Moran
     Murtha
     Neal
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Orton
     Owens
     Pallone
     Parker
     Pastor
     Payne (NJ)
     Payne (VA)
     Pelosi
     Peterson (FL)
     Peterson (MN)
     Pickett
     Pomeroy
     Poshard
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reed
     Reynolds
     Richardson
     Rivers
     Roemer
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rose
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanders
     Sawyer
     Schroeder
     Schumer
     Scott
     Sensenbrenner
     Serrano
     Shays
     Sisisky
     Skaggs
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (NJ)
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stenholm
     Stokes
     Studds
     Stupak
     Tanner
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Tejeda
     Thompson
     Thornton
     Thurman
     Torricelli
     Towns
     Traficant
     Tucker
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Volkmer
     Vucanovich
     Ward
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Williams
     Wilson
     Wise
     Woolsey
     Wyden
     Wynn
     Yates
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--7

     Browder
     Edwards
     Meek
     Minge
     Nadler
     Seastrand
     Torres

                              {time}  1435

  Mr. TRAFICANT changed his vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
  Mr. KIM and Mr. LIVINGSTON changed their vote from ``nay'' to 
``yea.''
  So the resolution was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
  

                          ____________________