[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 206 (Thursday, December 21, 1995)]
[House]
[Pages H15501-H15533]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




 WAIVING POINTS OF ORDER AGAINST CONFERENCE REPORT ON H.R. 4, PERSONAL 
                       RESPONSIBILITY ACT OF 1995

  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I 
call up House Resolution 319, and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 319

       Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall be 
     in order to consider the conference report to accompany the 
     bill (H.R. 4) to restore the American family, reduce 
     illegitimacy, control welfare spending and reduce welfare 
     dependence. All points of order against the conference report 
     and against its consideration are waived. The conference 
     report shall be considered as read.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Torkildsen). The gentleman from New York 
[Mr. Solomon] is recognized for 1 hour.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, for the purposes of debate only, I yield 30 
minutes to the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Hall], pending which I yield 
myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, during consideration of this resolution, of course, all 
time yielded is for the purposes of debate only.
  Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 319 waives points of order against the 
conference report accompanying H.R. 4, the Personal Responsibility and 
Work Opportunity Act of 1995; that is, the Welfare Reform Act, and 
against its consideration. The resolution provides, further, that the 
conference report shall be considered as read.
  Mr. Speaker, this is a traditional rule for conference reports and I 
know of no controversy about the rule. It was voted out of the 
Committee on Rules last night around midnight by a voice vote.
  Mr. Speaker, today this rule will allow the House to vote on 
legislation which literally overhauls the Nation's dilapidated and 
failed welfare system. When I opened the debate on this measure back on 
March 21 of 1995, many months ago, I suggested then that the American 
people should measure welfare reform proposals based on how they would 
affect the status quo. That is what this debate is all about here 
today: the status quo. Do we want the status quo? Has it worked, or do 
we want to change it?

  Mr. Speaker, most everyone in this country agrees the current system 
has failed. It has failed our families. It has failed our children. And 
they also agree it has not been for a lack of spending.
  Mr. Speaker, over the last 35 years, taxpayers have spent $5.4 
trillion in Federal and State spending on welfare programs. This 
welfare reform bill honestly and compassionately addresses the key 
problems of poverty in America, and that is illegitimate births, 
welfare dependency, child support enforcement, and putting low-income 
people back to work. That is one of the basics of this legislation, 
putting welfare people back to work; giving them the work ethic that 
literally is what built this great country of ours over all the years.
  Mr. Speaker, not only does this legislation encourage responsibility 
and work among single mothers that are the vast majority of welfare 
recipients, and that is the saddest thing in the world, but this bill 
contains tough measures to crack down on these deadbeat fathers who 
have deserted their families.
  The conference agreement before us today establishes uniform State 
tracking procedures for those who owe child support and refuse to pay 
it. It promotes automated child support procedures in every State of 
this Union; contains strong measures to ensure rigorous child support 
collection services; and, according to the testimony in the Committee 
on Rules last night by the very able gentleman from Texas [Mr. Archer] 
and the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Shaw], the child support title of 
their conference agreement enjoys broad bipartisan support in this 
Congress and, incidentally, in the Clinton administration as well, 
which is why this President ought to sign this bill.
  Mr. Speaker, on this particular title of the bill, I would like to 
relate a conversation I had recently with a constituent of mine to 
emphasize its importance. A member of my district office staff informed 
me that she had received a call from a woman who explained, in between 
sobs, she was literally crying, that she desperately needed to speak 
with me.
  Mr. Speaker, I have been tied up down here for several weeks and have 
not been able to get home. But when I went back to my office late that 
night, I reached my constituent by telephone and she explained to me 
that she was holding down two jobs to support an 8-year-old son who had 
a learning disability. She told me public schools do not provide her 
son with adequate attention to that particular disability and he needed 
the care of a special tutor, but, she said, that her two small salaries 
that she has worked at, and she has never taken 1 day or taken 1 

[[Page H15502]]
penny of welfare payments, she said that her two small salaries do not 
allow her to pay the additional expense for her young son, who is now 
beginning to fall behind all of his peer in the third grade.

  Mr. Speaker, the problem, of course, is that the boy's father 
provides no child support whatsoever and her efforts to track him down 
and force him to pay his share were to no avail.
  Mr. Speaker, the sad part about all of this is the father is a 
college graduate. He lives in a nearby State. He holds down an 
excellent job, and he refuses to pay child support at all. Not a 
nickel. This is an absolutely heart-wrenching story, Mr. Speaker, and 
it is typical of the lack of responsibility that many men have 
demonstrated in our society today.
  In an age in which some in our society find it fashionable to blame 
anyone but themselves, this bill, and my colleagues ought all to pay 
particular attention to it, this bill truly emphasizes responsibility 
among fathers. It is going to hold them responsible.
  The child support title in this bill will help ensure that all 
persons are held responsible for the consequences of their actions. As 
we close a year-long debate on this subject today, let us ask the 
President of the United States a question that this House and this 
Senate has already courageously answered in this legislation: Which is 
the truly compassionate public choice for the children trapped in 
poverty today? To sign this landmark reform legislation, or to do 
nothing at all and leave the status quo, a failed status quo?
  Mr. Speaker, I urge the President to uphold the promise he made to 
the American people in the 1992 election campaign, which is written in 
his book, in which he pledged to reform welfare as he knows it today.
  Mr. Speaker, this is a very serious matter. It is the most important 
piece of legislation that will come before this body this year. It 
truly will help the people in this country who have been saddled by 
welfare all these years to recuperate, to return to the work ethic, and 
to be good citizens in this community. That is why I urge support of 
this bill.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

                              {time}  1200

  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, as Chairman Solomon explained, this 
resolution, 319, makes it in order to consider the conference report on 
H.R. 4, the Personal Responsibility Act. It waives all points of order 
against the conference report.
  Mr. Speaker, I object to the way the Republican majority has handled 
this bill. Members of the Committee on Rules were given about an hour's 
notice after the text of the bill was received by the committee, and 
that is 60 minutes to look at this enormously complex and important 
piece of legislation.
  The bill will have an enormous effect on millions of needy Americans. 
It will cut into the safety net that provides basic food and nutrition 
services, assistance to children, and school lunches. It makes sweeping 
changes that roll back 6 decades, years of welfare laws, and for some 
it will be truly a matter of life and death. Sixty minutes, sixty 
minutes is all we had to read this stack of paper and get prepared to 
vote on such a critical bill.
  Mr. Speaker, it is the height of irony that we are about to debate 
something called the Personal Responsibility Act when the majority 
party has handled this bill so irresponsibility. The process has also 
violated the rights of the minority. The Democrats on the Committee on 
Ways and Means and the Committee on Economic and Educational 
Opportunities were not given copies of this report until last night.
  We will recognize the need to move quickly on welfare reform. But 
this breakneck speed increases the risk of mistakes and simply is 
wrong, and I think we are going to be sorry for it.
  The conference agreement makes deep reductions in basic programs for 
low-income children, families, elderly, and disabled people. Is that 
really what the American people want?
  Earlier this week, a Nielson poll showed that 95 percent of Americans 
consider hunger and poverty issues as important as balancing the 
Federal budget and reforming health care.
  I would like to read that again. That is a very interesting poll.
  Earlier this week, a Nielson poll showed that 95 percent of Americans 
consider hunger a poverty issues as important as balancing the Federal 
budget and reforming health care.
  The U.S. Department of Agriculture estimates 14 million children and 
2 million elderly people will be affected by reductions in the food 
stamp program, and it is wishful thinking to believe that private 
charity can absorb the deep cuts that are made by this bill.
  A recent study by the U.S. Conference of Mayors showed that 18 
percent of Americans requesting emergency food assistance this year 
were not fed, due to lack of resources, and almost two-thirds of these 
requests came for parents and children. Emergency shelters and feeding 
centers have to turn away hungry and homeless people because the demand 
is already greater than the resources.
  Let us talk about the contract with America. No; I am not talking 
about the Republican contract that was trotted out for the last 
election. I am talking about the 60-year-old bipartisan contract that 
guarantees that every low-income child in America will eat a good 
breakfast or lunch as part of his or her schoolday.
  The cuts in this bill will affect human lives. The cost we are 
scoring are real human costs. These people do not have a line on any 
CBO ledger or an item in the OMB budget.
  It is 4 days until Christmas, and this bill is the gift that Congress 
is giving to the poor and the needy of this Nation. They need more than 
the bah humbug that this bill says to them.
  Mr. Speaker, I oppose this rule, and I oppose this mean-spirited, 
shortsighted bill.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from 
Claremont, CA [Mr. Dreier], who serves with me on the Committee on 
Rules, my vice chairman, and is someone who has worked diligently for 
many, many years on welfare reform.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time.
  I would like to at this very festive time of year extend 
congratulations to him for his fine leadership on our committee.
  I rise in strong support of this rule and the conference report. We 
all know that back in 1992, when Bill Clinton was a candidate for 
President of the United States, he used a term which has been widely 
stated here in the Congress and throughout the country and the media. 
His statement was that we would end welfare as we know it. Those were 
the President's words, and he made that very strong commitment that he 
would pursue it.
  Unfortunately, if you look back at the work of the 103d Congress, we 
failed to do it. We are here today trying to help the President keep 
the commitment that he made when he was a candidate.
  I have said it on a lot of legislation. This is another very clear 
example of an item that needs to be addressed.
  Let us talk about the important benefits of this conference report. 
One of the most onerous burdens that has been placed on the States has 
been the mandates, the mandates which have said to State governments 
that they are required to provide a wide range of things.
  Now, take my State of California, for example; under the provisions 
of the present law, we see the Federal Government tell the States that 
they have to expand State dollars, their own State dollars, to continue 
to provide welfare to those who are flagrantly abusing drugs and 
alcohol.
  We feel very strongly that the States should have the flexibility to 
make a determination as to how they are going to expend those dollars. 
Roughly $475 million in my State of California has gone to those 
abusers of alcohol and drugs, not to say that we are not compassionate, 
not concerned about them, but to continue that flow of cash to those 
people who are engaging in that 

[[Page H15503]]
kind of abuse is obviously a terrible misuse of those taxpayer dollars.
  Where should those dollars go? They obviously should go to the women 
and the children, the impoverished who are struggling, not to those who 
are out there abusing drugs.
  This legislation allows the States the opportunity to make a 
determination as to how they will best use those dollars. That 
flexibility is key. It is very important.
  We all know that the 535 of us who serve in the United States 
Congress do not have a corner on compassion. We have seen the 
creativity for welfare reform emanate from States, like mine of 
California under Governor Wilson, Massachusetts, where Governor William 
Weld has done a phenomenal job, as the gentleman from Massachusetts 
[Mr. Moakley] has pointed out.
  On the issue of welfare reform, look at Governor Tommy Thompson of 
Wisconsin, John Engler of Michigan. That is where the creativity has 
come from, and that is why it is key that we eliminate the mandates 
that are imposed, and that is exactly what this legislation does.
  There is a very important other item that tragically this President 
has failed to address, but it is one that he has indicated that he 
would address, as we look at this issue of welfare reform. It has to do 
with the problem of illegal immigration, a very serious problem in 
California, and we found most recently in a wide range of other States 
from concern that has come forward from Members from around the 
country.
  Let me take just a moment, Mr. Speaker, to look at the record that 
this President has had on the issue of illegal immigration. He opposed 
Proposition 187, strongly opposed that legislation. Two weeks ago he 
vetoed legislation that would have provided $3.5 billion to keep open 
the California hospitals that have been swamped by illegal immigrants.
  Just this week he vetoed funding to put 1,000 new INS guards on the 
border and provide over $280 million to California prisons swelled by 
illegal immigrant felons.
  If he vetoes this bill, Mr. Speaker, he will ensure that illegal 
immigrants continue to qualify for Federal and State welfare programs. 
It is a very sad record on the issue of illegal immigration.
  He has an opportunity, by signing this bill, to end welfare as we 
know it and, in fact, reverse his record on the issue of illegal 
immigration.
  I urge support of this rule, and I urge support of this conference 
report so that we can, in fact, end welfare as we know it.
  Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman 
from California [Ms. Pelosi].
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time.
  I want to also commend him for his leadership for children in our 
country and throughout the world. His approach to this problem has been 
effective and, indeed, even saintly, in keeping with the words of the 
Bible, to feed the hungry, in the words of Matthew, to provide for the 
least, I'd rather say, the poorest of our brethren. I thank him for 
that leadership.
  I thank the gentleman from New York for bringing this to the floor.
  I rise in opposition with the greatest respect for the chairman of 
the committee, the gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon]; I rise in 
opposition to the rule and in opposition to the bill. I rise in 
opposition to the conference report because I think this legislation 
will devastate the working poor, children, legal immigrants, the 
elderly, and the disabled.
  I listened attentively to the remarks of our colleague, the gentleman 
from California [Mr. Dreier], about welfare reform, and indeed we all 
stipulate to the fact that the welfare system in our country must be 
reformed.
  I served as a cochairman of the Democratic platform committee with 
Gov. Roy Roemer of Colorado in the election year of 1992, and, yes, 
indeed, we had strong language making changes in the welfare system so 
that it better meets the needs of our people and gets them from welfare 
to work.
  This bill, this conference report, is weak on work and tough on 
children. I consider it a heartless proposal and completely 
irresponsible in its intent to cut off families and children from the 
help they so desperately need.
  I was helping some people collect gifts for poor children and one of 
the children said, ``Doesn't Santa come to the homes of poor 
children?'' Even little children know of the unfairness and of the 
inequity when small children have to be dependent on the largess of 
others. We must have public policy that enables people to take charge 
of their lives and to go to work.
  The bill cheats our most vulnerable citizens. Our Nation's most 
vulnerable, poor children, two-thirds of welfare recipients are 
children, as a result of this bill, 1.2 million, as many as 2 million 
more children, could be pushed into poverty.
  Our children are our future. We all say that, but we have to do 
something about it. This bill jeopardizes their health, safety and 
education. We are giving them far less than they need and certainly 
less than they deserve.
  This bill, as I have said, is weak on work. One of the main problems 
of the current welfare system is the lack of sufficient funding for 
work programs. This bill does not even begin to provide adequate 
resources for work programs. It punishes parents who want to work by 
offering no reasonable and long-term solution to child care dilemmas 
faced by working families.
  Lack of funding for work programs provides stronger incentives to 
States to cut families off the welfare rolls. Then where will these 
people go? What will these people do? This bill does not answer those 
questions, because it does nothing to promote effective programs for 
moving larger numbers of families off welfare and into work.
  This bill cruelly discriminates against legal immigrants, punishing 
those who contribute to our economy and volunteer to serve in our 
military and whom we require to pay taxes. The overwhelming majority of 
legal immigrants support themselves without any government assistance. 
They contribute $25 billion more in annual taxes than they receive in 
benefits. Their goal is not to arrive in this country to be supported 
by it but to contribute to this country.
  The so-called welfare reform bill fails to fulfill a promise by 
moving people from welfare to work. This is not the way to reform our 
welfare system.
  I urge my colleagues to defeat this very harmful legislation. Vote 
``no'' on the rule, vote ``no'' on the conference report, vote ``yes'' 
on the motion to recommit.
  Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman 
from Florida [Mr. Gibbons], the ranking minority member, former 
chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means.
  Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Speaker, where is everybody? I look around the floor 
today, and this is about the paltriest guard I think I have ever seen 
in the place. I am not talking about the quality of the people here. 
There is nobody here. There are far more staff here than there are 
Members.
  This is a very important piece of legislation that we are taking up. 
I know Members hated to be reminded of this, but 70 percent of all the 
people we are talking about today are infants and children who had 
nothing to do with being brought into this world, have been cast in 
dysfunctional environments. I started to say families, but they really 
are not families. They have a mother they can probably identify, 
probably identify, and most of them cannot identify their father.

                              {time}  1215

  These are really pitiful people we are talking about, and yet this is 
a cruel bill. It reduces the amount of money we are going to spend on 
them for health care, for food, and for shelter. It puts the money 
under the block grant system, where the problem used to be. It does not 
put it under an entitlement system, where the problem is today.
  All of us know that the poverty figures and the dependent children 
figures vary around the United States, having to do mainly with the 
economy of that particular area of the country. My own State was 
blasted a couple of years ago, a few years ago, with a huge increase in 
welfare. It had nothing to do with our morals, nothing to do with 
anything else. It is just the jobs were not there and the people had to 
turn to welfare to exist.
  Mr. Speaker, I guess at Christmastime, shame on us. It is a horrible 
excuse of people here, and it is a horrible 

[[Page H15504]]
excuse of attention we are giving to this subject. This bill is cruel, 
it is mean, and it is hurting the least viable part of our whole 
American family that we have, the infants and the children. We are 
taking away food, we are taking away health care, and we are taking 
away shelter from the people that need it most.
  I guess Scrooge had it right. It is a Merry Christmas for some 
people, but not for the ones who need the help.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, we just heard from the gentleman from 
Tampa, FL, and I now yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from 
Sanibel, FL [Mr. Goss], a member of the Committee on Rules, so we can 
now hear the other side of the story.
  (Mr. GOSS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I am not feeling paltry today, Mr. Speaker. I 
admit to being a little fatigued, but not paltry.
  Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from Glens Falls, for yielding me this 
time.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this rule to allow us to consider 
the conference report on H.R. 4, the welfare reform bill.
  Despite the conspicuous lack of consistent leadership from the White 
House, Congress has carried this bill through. There are two reasons we 
need this legislation. The first is that the current system is riddled 
with waste and abuse of tax dollars, and I am pleased that H.R. 4 will 
save taxpayers some $58 billion over 7 years. But more important than 
money, we need this reform because the existing system simply does not 
work for those who need it.
  Instead, we have designed a new system that will identify and protect 
Americans in their times of real need but will eliminate the never-
ending cycle of dependency and illegitimacy that the current status quo 
system has fostered.
  With the help of the States, we are going to encourage people to 
work, to make them productive contributors to American society, giving 
them the dignity and sense of worth that a job provides.
  For our children, this bill makes two key changes. It encourages 
parents to work, and it aims to break the vicious circle of teenage 
pregnancy by unwed mothers. These reforms, along with our efforts to 
reform education and public housing should help us make progress in our 
efforts to renew our cities and save our at-risk children.
  Finally, Mr. Speaker, let us look at what H.R. 4 does not do. The 
President says funds for child care are being cut. Not true. They are 
going to go up faster under this bill than under current law. The 
President says that disabled children will not receive Social Security 
Income benefits. Not true. We are eliminating Social Security Income 
checks for kids that are hyperactive, but not for disabled children in 
need of special care.
  This bill is a good bill and it is a promise that we made as part of 
the Contract With America. Once again we are keeping our promises.
  I urge adoption of the rule and passage of this important bill.
  Mr. Speaker, I will say that the status quo does not work. It is bad 
government. We know that. Everybody knows the system is broke. We know 
that scaring Americans with skewed statistics is bad governance, it is 
not the way to do it. The gentlewoman from California before me spoke 
and she said just say no to this rule; just say no to this bill.
  There is a time to just say no, but this is not the time to just say 
no. This bill has been through the process. We are at the conference 
report process. Both houses have had a chance to work on it. I urge 
adoption. It is a good bill, it is a good rule, and there is no reason 
to say no.
  Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman 
from Colorado [Mrs. Schroeder].
  Mrs. SCHROEDER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me 
time.
  Mr. Speaker, I must say everybody knows the politically popular 
applause line is to come down and bash people on welfare. But let me 
tell you, this welfare bill, if this passes, it will bring a whole new 
meaning to the phrase ``suffer the little children,'' because that is 
exactly what this welfare bill will do. It will be little children that 
suffer.
  Now, people will stand up and tell you all sorts of things that we 
could do, and I would agree. I see the gentlewoman from New Jersey. She 
and I have worked forever trying to get some of these things done. But 
they are not being done.
  We just saw the Health and Human Services report on how much child 
support is being collected in States. The State that is doing the best 
job is Minnesota, and they are collecting 38 percent. The gentleman 
from New York's State is getting about 15 percent. Florida is getting 
about 15 percent. You know, all these people are saying this, but they 
do not go out and do anything about it.
  Car payments seem to be made in this country at a percentage of over 
90 percent, and yet here these children are, and we blame the mother 
for struggling and trying to make ends meet. We do not do anything 
about the father. I am sorry, I hope all of you took biology class. 
None of these children got here with just the mother, and we let the 
father walk. Then, of course, other people who are working get angry 
that they are supporting that child. But constantly blaming the mother 
and blaming that child is the wrong thing to do. So saying to that 
child, ``Oh, we are going to show you; we will take your health care, 
we will cut back the aid to your family,'' is just not the right thing 
to do.
  Real reform is terribly important. I am all for real reform. But the 
thing this body does not want to hear is that real reform takes a lot 
more money, because you have got to do job training, you have got to 
get the mothers up with a better skill base, and you have got to spend 
the money to enforce the child support payments that are not being 
done, and that is a shame.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I am glad the gentlewoman agrees with us 
that the main focus of this is so that all those male parents that left 
my State of New York and went to Colorado, now we can go after them and 
get them. We are going to.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to a very distinguished 
gentlewoman from New Jersey [Mrs. Roukema].
  Mrs. ROUKEMA. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the rule and the 
bill. This is landmark legislation and it has my support. We must enact 
it now. The American people are demanding that we restore the notion of 
individual responsibility and self-reliance.
  The system is currently out of control. Above all else, I want to 
stress, and here I find myself in contradiction to one of my closest 
colleagues, the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Hall], he and I have worked 
together on numbers of issues regarding children, but I want to say 
that I not only want to restore self-reliance and responsibility, but 
we will not let innocent children go hungry and homeless. I believe 
that this conference report meets that test.
  First, the bill requires welfare recipients to work, as have already 
been stated. It also places time limits on them. That has been talked 
about. The third thing this bill does is put a family cap in place, 
which means that mothers will not get extra cash benefits for having 
babies.
  Here I want to report that New Jersey already has this policy in 
place, and it is working. It was initiated in New Jersey by Democrats, 
developed bipartisan support, and was enthusiastically signed by a 
Democrat Governor, and it is working.
  Fourth, this bill has strong and effective child support enforcement. 
My colleague from Colorado, I have got to disagree with her. The heart 
of this bill is that it enacts the strong interstate child support 
enforcement measures that she and I have worked on for more than 10 
years. It specifically requires interstate cooperation, and it gets to 
the heart of that issue that has been vexing us. It is strange how as 
soon as you threaten to remove a driver's license or a professional 
license, the money that was never there strangely shows up.That reform 
is in here. It is the Roukema amendment, it was retained, and it is in 
here.
  Let me just say one more point, because it is very important, on the 
nutrition aspects. I opposed the House position on school lunches and 
WIC. I am pleased to say the Senate got it right. The Senate protects 
the school lunch program and keeps the WIC program, as the gentleman 
from Ohio [Mr. Hall] and I both desired.

[[Page H15505]]

  Mr. Speaker, I would say that the President promised to end welfare 
as we know it. This is the bill where we can do that.
  Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman 
from Tennessee [Mr. Ford].
  Mr. FORD. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague from Ohio for 
yielding me this time.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the rule on the conference 
report on welfare today. Mr. Speaker, Democrats on the Committee on 
Ways and Means and on this side of the aisle, we tried over and over 
and over again to work with the Republicans to fashion a welfare reform 
package that would respond to the needs of poor children in this 
country. We know that the Republicans who have reported this bill and 
this conference report, we have seen letters go from five Members of 
the Senate and from their side of the aisle that have indicated this is 
not what the Senate voted on and the Senate passed in their welfare 
package.
  We look and see that since 1935 we have protected our poor children 
in this country through an entitlement program with AFDC. Two-thirds of 
the welfare recipients are in fact poor children in this Nation. It is 
sad to know that here on Christmas Eve, we would send a message to more 
than 1.5 to 2 million children who will drop right into the poverty 
thresholds with this welfare reform package that is before us today.
  The Republicans talk about them being tough on work. This program is 
due to fail. It will fail. We ought to make sure that a welfare package 
in the recommittal motion by the Democrats will say to poor children 
that we will provide the protection you need. Yes, we want a strong 
work program as Democrats. The President wants a strong work program 
for the welfare recipients. Those who are able to work should work. We 
are in agreement with that. But when you see a work program that is due 
to fail, as we know that that which is in this Republican conference 
report that we will vote on today will, it suggests very strongly that 
this is a bad bill. The Republicans ought to be ashamed of a bill that 
is so cruel to our poor children in this country, and I would urge my 
colleagues to vote no on this rule.
  Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman 
from Tennessee [Mr. clement].
  Mr. CLEMENT. Mr. Speaker, 2 years ago five House Democrats, including 
myself, set out to end welfare as we know it. Mr. Speaker, I am 
disappointed today that the House and Senate conferees have presented 
the American people with welfare as we would never want to know it.
  Ever since coming to Congress in 1988, I have been a strong advocate 
of a tough but reasonable welfare reform bill that empowers rather than 
punishes; one that calls for responsibility rather than dependence. The 
House Democrats and one Republican voted unanimously in support of our 
bill in March. Now we are given a conference report which is 
fundamentally different from that bill.
  I want to highlight some of the differences. Our bill preserved the 
basic guarantees of assistance for poor, hungry, ill, disabled, abused, 
and neglected children and women. the conference report makes these 
guarantees optional. Our bill would retain the cash assistance 
entitlement, but the conference agreement eliminates this guarantee. 
Our bill maintains the AFDC program and the State match, while making 
needed reforms to AFDC. The conference agreement block-grants AFDC, 
allowing States to use the Federal funds as they wish.
  Our bill would provide $8.6 billion over 5 years for work programs. 
The conference report is weak on work, providing no additional funds to 
states for work programs. If mothers or fathers are trying to escape 
welfare to work, they must have adequate funding for childcare. Our 
bill provides that increased Federal match for childcare. The 
conference agreement is at least $20 billion short in childcare 
funding. Our bill makes no changes to the successful school lunch and 
WIC programs. The conference report works toward eliminating this basic 
guarantee for low income children.
  Vote ``no.''

                              {time}  1230

  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume 
to say that the gentleman is right, his bill is the status quo and ours 
is welfare reform.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Kansas [Mrs. 
Meyers] one of the most outstanding women ever to serve in this body. 
She will be leaving here next year. She will not seek reelection. She 
is from Overland Park, KS, and truly a compassionate Member and we will 
miss her.
  Mrs. MEYERS of Kansas. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding me this time and for his leadership and everyone who has been 
responsible for bringing this issue to the floor.
  I rise in strong support of this rule and of this bill. My principal 
concern has been AFDC. I believe that one look at the statistics shows 
that what started as a program to help people has become an incentive 
to join the system.
  In 1988, when we reformed welfare, we said that there would be 5 
million families on welfare by the year 1988. Well, we hit that target 
in 1993. The system is out of control. In just 4 years, by the year 
2000, if we do not make changes, 80 percent of minority children and 40 
percent of all children in this country will be born out of wedlock.
  There is a tremendous human cost to this. Statistically, we know that 
children who get a kind of a chaotic start in life, and many of these 
children do, not all of them, but many, without a father, without a lot 
of structure in their lives, they have more trouble throughout their 
lives with education, health and with crime. This bill has time limits 
and work programs and it ends the entitlement nature of AFDC.
  Mr. Speaker, I believe that it will end the incentive to join 
welfare. The current entitlement system has been very difficult for 
Congress and the taxpayer because a child out of wedlock usually means 
that the Government pays for that child and supports the child until he 
or she is 18. A young woman who has two children out of wedlock can 
receive cash and benefits of $18,000 annually. In the cash grant of 
AFDC, the portion of Medicaid and food stamps attributable to the AFDC 
population, housing, WIC, Head Start, college, day care, 
transportation, the cost to the taxpayer annually is $70 billion a 
year.
  Mr. Speaker, we must insist for both human reasons and money reasons 
that we get control of this entitlement and control of the cost. 
Support the rule and the bill.
  Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman 
from California [Ms. Lofgren].
  Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this rule. Until 
this year, I was a member of a local government, and we actually had 
the responsibility to make AFDC work; and I ran for Congress wanting to 
change welfare as we know it. We do need to make changes.
  As I listen to the debate here, I am mindful that many of the people 
in this Chamber have never had to actually make these programs work at 
a local level. It is not the Governors who make this work, it is the 
counties and cities throughout our country.
  I have here a letter I received today from the League of Cities, the 
National Association of Counties, and the U.S. Conference of Mayors, 
urging us to vote ``No'' on the welfare reform conference report. They 
understand that block granting in their words, ``dismantles the 
critical safety net for children and families.''
  They point out that without an individual entitlement they will not 
have sufficient funds to provide child protective services. They say 
the restrictions on legal immigration go too far and will transfer 
costs to local government. They point out that the block granting of 
child nutrition programs is wrong in that a child's educational success 
is essential to the economic well-being of our Nation's local 
communities. And, they say the welfare reform conference agreement 
would shift costs and liability and create new unfunded mandates for 
local governments, leaving them with two options: cut other essential 
services, such as law enforcement, or raise revenues.
  Earlier this week I called two people upon whose advice I rely: a 
friend who is an administrator of my county and a Catholic priest, and 
they both urged me to vote against this conference report for similar 
reasons. It does not adequately emphasize the well-being of children. I 
came here to reform welfare, not to dismantle it for a simple 

[[Page H15506]]
budget cut. This bill does not achieve reform, it just achieves a cut.
  Finally, I wanted to say that I saw an article in my local paper 
today by Governor Pete Wilson urging that we support this legislation 
and suggesting that he has exhibited creativity. Do not make me laugh. 
All he has done is taken local governments' property taxes, and 
unloaded the problems on them.
  I would urge a ``no'' vote and hope that we get back to a real reform 
of welfare.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, yielding myself 30 seconds, I would point 
out to the gentlewoman that, first of all, she should speak to her 
Democratic Members of the Committee on Rules. They all support this 
rule, as they should, because it is an ordinary customary rule.
  Second, having serving as a town mayor, a county legislator and a 
State legislator, and 17 years in this Congress, I assure the 
gentlewoman this is a step in the right direction and we are going to 
pass this bill and get true welfare reform in this country.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Ocala, FL, Mr. 
Cliff Stearns, another Floridian who is an outstanding Member of this 
body. He has done more to help us balance this budget than anyone I 
know.
  (Mr. STEARNS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the rule and this 
bill. Let me say to the people on this side of the aisle, no one party 
has a corner on compassion. For 30 years we have had this program and 
we have spent $5 trillion. It has become obvious to the Democratic 
Party and obvious to our party that this program, as it is configured 
now, does not work and we have to change it.
  For some of my colleagues to come on the floor all the time and say 
they have all the compassion, really the compassion comes when we try 
to take away, when we take an individual and take away their incentive 
to work. What happens is they do not want to work. We have doomed their 
life to continued dependency. That is not being compassionate, and that 
is what the debate is about. To show compassion is to give individuals 
incentive.
  We must instill in our young people a sense of pride that can only be 
realized through hard work and personal achievement. What is wrong with 
that? This country was founded on the work ethic. Passage of this 
legislation sends a clear signal that we are no longer going to 
subsidize and reward individuals who have chosen to take a check 
instead of a job.
  Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman 
from Michigan [Mr. Levin].
  (Mr. LEVIN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, let it be clear that the status quo on 
welfare is dead. It needs to be changed. The House Democrats put 
together a proposition to change it. The key is getting the parents off 
of welfare into work and not punishing the kids. Punishment of children 
is not welfare reform, it is getting their parents off of welfare into 
work.
  Here is the problem with the conference report, it is weak on work. 
The CBO estimates in the year 2002 that this conference report will be 
$7.5 billion short in terms of assistance to get people into work and 
child care. It is weak on work and it is tough on kids.
  Just read the letter signed by four, I think more than that, 
Republican Senators, and they pick out the food stamp cuts of $30 
billion, the SSI benefit cuts of 25 percent for 650,000 kids, the 
foster care changes, the legal immigrant provisions. These are extreme 
provisions.
  Here is what the Republican Senators say. ``We are dismayed at what 
is in the conference report. We have our strong reservations about this 
agreement.''
  Mr. Speaker, we have not worked here on a bipartisan basis. We have a 
highly partisan bill here that aims at a political message, but misses 
the key to welfare reform, moving parents off of welfare into work and 
not punishing their kids. We Democrats stand for that. Once this bill 
is turned down, and the President has said he will veto it, we will 
then turn and together work for true welfare reform that gets the 
parent into the work force without, as the Republicans do, punishing 
their children. Let us vote no on this conference report.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Florida, Mr. Clay Shaw, who, as chairman of the subcommittee, along 
with Chairman of the full committee, the gentleman from Texas, Bill 
Archer, is one of the two outstanding Members that have had so much to 
do with this. I yield to him to respond and to give Members the 
straight story.
  Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time.
  Mr. Speaker, the last speaker, the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. 
Levin], on the floor, I have enjoyed working with him in the 
subcommittee and he and I have had a lot of conversations on and off 
the floor, in the subcommittee. We all want to do the right thing, and 
I applaud him for putting forth the fact that the welfare system that 
we have today is archaic, it is wrong, and it is bad.
  But I want to point out a couple of things that I do not think the 
Senators were aware of that wrote the letter he referred to, and that I 
am not sure the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Levin] is aware of.
  Under the new baseline, we are spending more in this bill on Aid to 
Families with Dependent Children than we do under existing law. With 
the funding level that we have in child care, an area that I have 
spoken to the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Levin] about several times, 
and I know he is very concerned about, there is an additional billion, 
which puts us way above, over a billion dollars over the Senate bill, 
which is the one the four Senators that he referred to voted for.
  The question of the cuts in SSI. They were only for those children 
who are not seriously afflicted and it is recognizing that we need to 
keep full funding for those children who are truly disabled. It is a 
compassionate bill, a good bill, a good rule. I encourage the House to 
vote for the rule and for the bill.
  Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman 
from Maryland [Mr. Wynn].
  Mr. WYNN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time.
  I rise today to oppose this rule because it is a bad rule supporting 
a bad bill. I am for welfare reform and I am for work requirements. The 
problem is that this bill fails in the commonsense department.
  Let us turn to the CBO, their sacred cow for fiscal analysis. CBO 
says this bill cannot fund the work program. It cannot provide the 
training necessary. It says it falls $5.5 billion short in the year 
2002. Over the 7 years, this bill is $14 billion short in what is 
needed to provide adequate employment and training.
  In fact, their original Contract on America had $10 billion in it for 
employment and training. What happened? That is not in the bill.
  Let me tell Members what the people of Maryland think. My Governor 
has already spoken on the subject, and he says, quite frankly, the idea 
is good, but the funding is grossly inadequate to support employment 
and training. We cannot take people who are out of work, who are low-
skilled and expect them to go into the work force without training. 
There is no employer around, no matter how willing this person is to 
work, that will hire them without some level of training.
  If we are serious about welfare reform and work requirements, we 
ought to put in the necessary funds for the training programs and not 
pass the buck on to the States.
  What else is wrong with this bill? The child care is inadequate. That 
is the second component. We cannot expect women with two and three 
children to go to work without adequate child care. Right now States 
provide funds for the working poor. But with these new people coming 
onto the rolls, the States will not be able to afford to pay adequate 
child care. This bill falls $6 billion short in terms of providing the 
necessary child care programs.
  Again, we go back to the CBO. CBO figures show that the legislation 
will force States to choose between maintaining current levels of child 
care assistance for working poor families and providing child care 
resources for these new families that are coming on.
  So Mr. Speaker, the issue is not defending the status quo. We on the 

[[Page H15507]]
  Democratic side do want welfare reform, we just want to make sure it 
works, and that requires common sense, something that is sorely lacking 
in the Republican approach.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
Jacksonville, FL, Mrs. Tillie Fowler, another outstanding woman Member 
of this body.
  (Mrs. FOWLER asked and was given permission to revise and extend her 
remarks.)
  Mrs. FOWLER. Mr. Speaker, I strongly urge passage of the rule for 
consideration of the conference report on H.R. 4. This historic 
legislation will fix a welfare system which has become so badly broken 
that it perpetuates dependence, illegitimacy, and hopelessness.
  H.R. 4 reduces the intrusiveness of the Federal Government and 
provides flexibility for States and localities to meet the greatest 
needs.
  It contains several provisions which discourage illegitimacy and 
encourage family responsibility, including one which allows States to 
deny additional benefits to parents who have additional children while 
on welfare. It provides for the creation of a nationwide tracking 
system for child support payments which will crack down on deadbeat 
parents.
  In encourages independence by requiring adults who receive cash 
benefits to work or attend school and limiting their benefits to 5 
years.
  It also saves $58 billion in outlays over 7 years--while continuing 
to maintain a safety net for those in our society who are the most 
vulnerable.
  This legislation is long overdue, and I urge passage of the rule and 
of the conference report.

                              {time}  1245

  Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman 
from New Jersey [Mr. Pallone].
  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I have two children who are very young, and 
they were actually on the floor the other day. I also served in the 
State legislature in New Jersey for 5 or 6 years, and I mention that 
only by background because I am very concerned about the policy impact 
of this conference agreement and what it means for children in this 
country and my home State and other States.
  Mr. Speaker, I am concerned particularly about the elimination of the 
entitlement status. What I see happening in this conference report, and 
in many ways it is a lot worse than the bill that originally passed 
this House, is that we are making it a policy, essentially on AFDC, on 
Medicaid, to some extent also on some of the other programs, that it 
will be up to the States to decide who is eligible and what kind of 
cash benefits children get.
  Mr. Speaker, I think that because we are dealing with such a 
vulnerable population, particularly with AFDC recipients, the tendency 
always is if there is a budget crunch, to cut back on the vulnerable 
amongst our population because they do not have the political clout. 
They are not the ones who can go to the State legislature and say, ``We 
are not going to vote for you, or vote one way or another, because of 
your position on these benefits.''

  Mr. Speaker, if we look at the statement that some of the Senators 
made, that some of the Republican Senators made in the letter that they 
sent to Senator Dole, they pointed out, for example, with regard to 
Medicaid, that unlike the House and the Senate bills, Medicaid no 
longer is an entitlement under this bill. They estimate, the Republican 
Senators, that we could be denying Medicaid eligibility to millions of 
women and to children over the age of 13.
  Mr. Speaker, the same thing is true with SSI benefits, that due to 
significant changes in the definition of disability, the conference 
agreement would create a new 2-tiered system of eligibility which would 
result in a 25-percent reduction in SSI benefits.
  Mr. Speaker, my concern here is that if we do not provide the 
entitlement status for some of these programs, whether it is Medicaid 
or AFDC, and then as the gentleman from Maryland said, we actually cut 
the amount of money that is available by as much as $14 billion, where 
are we going? A lot of people who are now receiving these benefits will 
not receive them. It is unconscionable and we have the obligation to 
ensure that the guarantee is there.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, how much time is remaining on either side?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Torkildsen). The gentleman from New York 
[Mr. Solomon] has 7\1/2\ minutes remaining, and the gentleman from Ohio 
[Mr. Hall] has 6 minutes remaining.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, there are 73 new Members on our side of the 
aisle, new Members of this body. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Iowa [Mr. Ganske], one of the outstanding new Members.
  Mr. GANSKE. Mr. Speaker, not too long ago I was a physician taking 
care of young women and their children who are on welfare. My heart 
would go out to them, because very rarely would there be a dad with 
them. One of the reasons that I so enthusiastically support this rule 
and this bill is because it has significant improvements in the child 
support enforcement.
  Mr. Speaker, it requires States to have automated case registries of 
child support ordered. It requires States to establish automated State 
directories. It allows States to use information for establishing 
paternity and forcing child support obligations and tracking. It 
establishes an automated Federal case registry of child support orders. 
It requires States to have specific laws related to paternity 
establishment, including a single civil process for establishing 
paternity. It requires States to tighten laws preventing the transfer 
of income or property for the purpose of avoiding child support 
payments.
  These are all good things, long overdue, that this bill will 
significantly help.
  Mr. Speaker, I have also been very concerned about nutrition, and I 
am happy that the conference report adds back $1.5 billion in child 
nutrition programs. The School Lunch Program continues to grow, as 
under current law. There are no cuts from the CBO baseline. The 
reimbursement rate for school lunches and breakfasts remains the same 
as under current law. The savings in the child nutrition program come 
mainly from setting up a 2-tiered system. This was proposed by 
President Clinton himself.
  Basically, the 2-tiered system says that if communities have child 
care in low-income areas, they continue to get a higher reimbursement; 
but, if they have child care for families that are not poor, then they 
have to pay a little bit more in those areas. But, Mr. Speaker, if they 
can establish that the majority of the children in that child care 
program are from poor families, then they get the higher reimbursement. 
This is reasonable and I support the rule and the bill.
  Mr. Hall of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman 
from Massachusetts [Mr. Kennedy].
  Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, there is a lot of 
controversy that takes place about who ought to get credit for 
reforming welfare. It is almost as though this is a new issue. But I 
remember as a boy growing up hearing my father, Robert Kennedy, talk 
about the fact that welfare was a program in dire need of reform; that 
it has created a whole cycle of dependency; that we had a situation 
that had developed in so many of our Nation's cities that people had 
grown used to welfare as a way of life; and, that we had to break that 
cycle of dependency.
  Mr. Speaker, I remember great speeches by Franklin Delano Roosevelt 
talking about people on the Government dole and the devastating and 
debilitating effects of being on the Government dole for the way of 
life and self-determination of those individual families. This is not a 
new issue.
  But, Mr. Speaker, there is a sense that there is a lot of common 
ground between Democrats and Republicans about the fact that we need 
welfare reform. We do need welfare reform. We ought to tell people 
clearly that we do not want a system where they are rewarded and given 
something for nothing; that they can expect to have welfare without 
going out and getting a job; that we want to create any kind of signal 
that says that recipients ought to go out and have children on the 
welfare system.
  Mr. Speaker, those are the areas of commonality. That is not what the 
difference is between what the Democrats have stood for in the bill 
that I voted for, and that many of my colleagues have voted for, and 
the bill that is before us today.

[[Page H15508]]

  Mr. Speaker, the bill that is before us today is a mean-spirited 
attempt not to put people to work, but is a mean-spirited attempt to go 
out and gut the very programs that provide for our children with 
cerebral palsy, that provide for our children with Down's syndrome, 
that go out and cut the SSI Program, cut the Food Stamp Program.
  My Republican colleagues sit there under the guise of welfare reform 
and try to hurt little children in America. They call that reform. Mr. 
Speaker, it is not reform. It is the mean-spirited dollars necessary to 
provide a tax cut to the wealthiest people in this country at a time 
when we ought to be looking out after how to break the cycle of 
dependency and not create one for the wealthy.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I am tempted to yield myself some time 
right now to respond to the gentleman from Massachusetts, but I will 
withhold until I conclude.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Stephensburg, KY 
[Mr. Lewis], an outstanding Member of this body.
  Mr. LEWIS of Kentucky. Mr. Speaker, it seems we keep hearing the word 
``extreme'' and ``mean-spirited'' and that we are ``gutting'' the 
welfare program, but I just want to address that just for a minute.
  Mr. Speaker, I am holding an editorial by one of the fine newspapers 
in Kentucky, the Owensboro Messenger-Inquirer. In a Tuesday editorial 
they say, ``The Republicans have a sensible idea in moving decision-
making authority closer to the frontlines,'' but then they make the 
mistake so many on the left do when describing our plan, just as the 
previous speaker, they suggest that it will fail because it spends less 
money than the current system. Wrong, wrong, wrong.
  The Republican welfare reform will increase spending by one-third 
over the next 7 years from $83 billion to more than $111 billion. So, I 
say to my friends on the left, and to the Messenger-Inquirer for whom I 
have a great deal of respect: If you like moving power back home and 
want more welfare spending, you have got it. True, we may not be 
spending as much on welfare as you would like but $5 trillion over the 
last 30 years shows just throwing money at the problem is not the 
answer .
  Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman 
from North Carolina [Mrs. Clayton].
  Mrs. CLAYTON. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this rule, and I 
rise in opposition to the rule because it is not really about reform. 
We need welfare reform, but this bill actually is a taking away of 
opportunity. In fact, it has been estimated that 1.3 million children 
will be denied opportunity through this bill.
  Mr. Speaker, this is not the way we should talk about family values. 
Some of us feel that as we talk about family values we can scapegoat 
the poor. We can say that those children who happen not to be born in 
the prescribed way of a family, we should deny them food, deny them 
health care. That is unthinkable; unthinkable especially in the season 
of Christmas. Twenty-five percent of SSI benefiting kids with severe 
disability will be denied that opportunity. Is that reform? Is that 
taking?
  Consider also AFDC children on Medicaid, that eligibility will now be 
determined by each State. Each State will decide as they proceed. 
School lunch, we would deny even feeding children, the least among us. 
This is not reform. This is taking from America's children.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
Utah [Mrs. Waldholtz], another outstanding freshman woman, a member of 
our Committee on Rules, who has had so much input in dealing with 
absent fathers.
  Mrs. WALDHOLTZ. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to stand in support of this 
rule and this bill. One of the fundamental principles of this bill is 
that people should be encouraged and rewarded for work, and this bill 
gives them that chance.
  But parents cannot reasonably be expected to work their way out of 
dependency if their children are not safely cared for. So Mr. Speaker, 
I am glad that the conferees added additional funds for childcare even 
above the House-passed amendment sponsored by the gentlewoman from 
Connecticut [Mrs. Johnson], the gentlewoman from Ohio [Mr. Pryce], the 
gentlewoman from Washington [Ms. Dunn], and I, that added more money 
for child care for low-income working parents.
  Mr. Speaker, I also want to commend the conferees for including our 
provisions to make interstate enforcement of child support orders 
easier and less expensive. It is important that parents meet their 
obligations to their children, and this bill will help us require that 
of parents in divorce situations.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this bill and this rule.
  Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman 
from Texas [Ms. Jackson-Lee].
  (Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise 
and extend her remarks.)
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I hope that we can engage my 
colleagues to the right in an intelligent, quiet, reasonable, and 
respectful dialog. Could my Republican colleagues do me a favor today? 
Stop painting those children and welfare recipients as bad people. Can 
we not come together to recognize that they cry out for a helping hand, 
not a handout?
  Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Hall] has been a fighter 
for hungry children. Welfare reform is about hungry children. And 
Mickey Leland, a predecessor in the 18th Congressional District, as I 
stand here remembering his spirit, he reached out for hungry children. 
This welfare reform is not that.
  Mr. Speaker, it is a bad rule, it is a bad bill, because it does not 
provide an entitlement. Yes, America; I am going to say that. Not 
because I have not gone on record for welfare reform. I am proud to be 
part of 14 Democratic freshmen who came in on reform. But, Mr. Speaker, 
when I talk to my Republican colleagues, they tell me they want people 
to work.
  Mr. Speaker, this bill does not have a working provision. I am less 
eloquent than my colleagues in county government, city government, and 
the U.S. Conference of Mayors who have said to me today there is no 
safety net. They are on the ground at home.

                              {time}  1300

  They represent you Republicans and Democrats and independents alike. 
It is not me on the House floor. My colleagues at home have said, 
``Help us.''
  This is a bad rule, a bad bill. There is no work.
  And, yes, 350,000 children, Down syndrome, cerebral palsy, muscular 
dystrophy, cystic fibrosis, and suffering from AIDS, they will lose 
their SSI, excuse me, 650,000. Can we stop calling these people bad? 
Can we insist upon the kind of collegiality that knows that your bill 
is bad because it does not help people who want to transition?
  I cry out on behalf of Mickey Leland and others who believe that 
hungry children should be fed. Vote this rule down and vote this bill 
down.
  Mr. Speaker, I am inserting at this point in the Record a letter from 
the National League of Cities, National Association of Counties, and 
the U.S. Conference of Mayors, as follows:

                                                December 19, 1995.
       Dear Representative: On behalf of the nation's local 
     elected officials, we are writing to urge you to oppose H.R. 
     4, the conference agreement on the Personal Responsibility 
     Act. Although the conferees agreed to some changes in the 
     areas of foster care and consultation with local governments, 
     we cannot support the final conference agreement which fails 
     to address many of the other significant concerns of local 
     governments. In particular, we object to the following 
     provisions:
       1. The bill ends the entitlement to Families with Dependent 
     Children, thereby dismantling the critical safety net for 
     children and their families.
       2. The bill places foster care administration and training 
     into a block grant. These funds provide basic services to our 
     most vulnerable children. If administration and training do 
     not remain an individual entitlement, our agencies will not 
     have sufficient funds to provide the necessary child 
     protective services, thereby placing more children at risk.
       3. The eligibility restrictions for legal immigrants go too 
     far and will shift substantial costs onto local governments. 
     The most objectionable provisions include denying 
     Supplemental Security Income and Food Stamps, particularly to 
     older immigrants. Local governments cannot and should not be 
     the safety net for federal policy decisions regarding 
     immigration.
       4. The work participation requirements are unrealistic, and 
     funding for child care and 

[[Page H15509]]
     job training is not sufficient to meet these requirements. One example 
     of the impracticality of these provisions is the removal of 
     Senate language that would have allowed states to require 
     lower hours of participation for parents with children under 
     age six.
       5. We remain very concerned with the possibility of any 
     block granting of child nutrition programs. A strong federal 
     role in child nutrition would continue to ensure an adequate 
     level of nutrition assistance to children and their families. 
     School lunch programs are necessary to ensure that children 
     receive the nutrition they need to succeed in school. 
     Children's educational success is essential to the economic 
     well-being of our nation's local communities.
       6. The implementation dates and transition periods are 
     inadequate to make the changes necessary to comply with the 
     legislation. We suggest delaying them until the next fiscal 
     year.
       As the level of government closest to the people, local 
     elected officials understand the importance of reforming the 
     welfare system. However, the welfare reform conference 
     agreement would shift costs and liabilities and create new 
     unfunded mandates for local governments, as well as penalize 
     low income families. Such a bill, in combination with federal 
     cuts and increased demands for services, will leave local 
     governments with two options: cut other essential services, 
     such as law enforcement, or raise revenues. We, therefore, 
     urge you to vote against the conference agreement on H.R. 4.
           Sincerely,
     Gregory S. Lashutka,
       President, National League of Cities, Mayor, Columbus, OH.
     Douglas R. Bovin,
       President, National Association of Counties, Commissioner, 
     Delta County, MI.
     Norman B. Rice,
       President, The U.S. Conference of Mayors, Mayor, Seattle, 
     WA.
  Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  I would just conclude by saying that the U.S. Catholic Conference, 
Bread for the World, Lutheran Social Services, they oppose the bill. 
The National League of Cities, the National Association of Counties, 
the U.S. Conference of Mayors, they oppose the bill.
  I think many of us, probably all of us in the Congress, we ran on the 
campaign, part of our issue was on welfare reform. We never expected 
welfare reform to be taking money away from children relative to food, 
shelter, and medical expenses. And I guess this bill is OK, I guess 
this bill is OK if you are a healthy person or you are a healthy child. 
But if you are going to eat a couple of meals a day or less, this bill 
is going to hurt you.
  So we really ask, on this side, that you oppose this bill and oppose 
this conference report.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Speaker, my good friend, the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Hall], for 
whom I have great respect, has said he did not expect us to do what we 
said we were going to do. Ladies and gentlemen, we are here today doing 
exactly what we said we were going to do. This is part of the Contract 
for America.
  I just have sat here patiently for an hour listening, and I have kept 
track of all the speakers, I say to the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Hall], 
from your side of the aisle, and every speaker without exception that I 
could find appears on the National Taxpayers' Union list of big 
spenders.
  Almost every speaker from that side of the aisle has talked about 
maintaining the status quo. Ladies and gentlemen, what is compassionate 
about maintaining the status quo? It is a total failure.
  I have heard the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Kennedy] stand up 
and talk about people in poverty. Let me tell you something friends, I 
was born 65 years ago into poverty. My dad walked out on my mother and 
me the day I was born. We never saw him again.
  Ladies and gentlemen, we went through hell for 10 years. There were 
no jobs, and my mother would not take a nickel of welfare, and we 
fought our way out of it. That is what this bill does.
  This bill changes that status quo, and God knows we need it. Let us 
give the poor people the work ethic. Let us put them back to work so 
there is no need for all of this kind of welfare.
  Compassionate is balancing the budget, lowering this deficit so that 
our children and grandchildren have a chance to buy a home, to buy a 
car, to be able to afford it and not pay all of the increased interest 
that is there because of our fiscal irresponsibility over all of these 
years.
  Let us just try something different. This bill, when it left the 
House, had $100 billion in savings. You know what it has today now that 
it is back here in the conference report? Only $58 billion. Everyone on 
your side of the aisle ought to say, OK, this is a compromise; it is 
not as tough as it was when it went out of here, like I want it to be.
  So come over here, vote for this rule. It is a normal, customary 
rule, nothing unusual about it. It passed on a voice vote with all 
Democrats voting for it last night at midnight. Come over here and vote 
for the rule. Use your good judgment, but vote for something that is 
different. Vote for change.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the 
previous question on the resolution.
  The previous question was ordered.
  The resolution was agreed to.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
  Mr. ARCHER. Mr. Speaker, I call up the conference report on the bill 
(H.R. 4) to restore the American family, reduce illegitimacy, control 
welfare spending, and reduce welfare dependence.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Linder). Pursuant to House Resolution 
319, the conference report is considered as having been read.
  (For conference report and statement, see prior proceedings of the 
House of today, Thursday, December 21, 1995.)
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Texas [Mr. Archer] will 
be recognized for 30 minutes, and the gentleman from Florida [Mr. 
Gibbons] will be recognized for 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Archer].
  Mr. ARCHER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania [Mr. Goodling], the chairman of the Committee on Economic 
and Educational Opportunities.
  (Mr. GOODLING asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Speaker, I rise to talk about a portion of the bill 
that should make everyone happy, I mean everyone should be happy about 
the portion I am talking about, and that deals with school lunches and 
school breakfasts.
  The House position was maintained as far as the reimbursement issue 
is concerned. We said no reduction in reimbursement without great 
flexibility for the provider. We kept the present reimbursement rates 
for school lunches and breakfasts.
  Second, we make the school food service people very, very happy, and 
we do that by streamlining and eliminating the piles of rules and 
paperwork that they have to deal with every year. When they come here 
to testify before our committee each year, they say, ``We could feed 
more youngsters and we could do a better job if you would just get rid 
of some of the paperwork.'' So we have taken care of that and made the 
school food service people very, very happy.
  At the same time, we allow the schools to use the old meal pattern as 
long as they meet the dietary guidelines.
  Now, we do a third thing that should make everyone happy. Fifty 
percent of the youngsters who are eligible for free and reduced prices 
meals are not participating; I repeat, 50 percent who are eligible, 
free and reduced-price youngsters are not participating. That means in 
all probability we are trying to educate them on empty stomachs because 
I do not imagine they had money for breakfast. I do not imagine they 
had money for lunch. So we are going to try to do something about that 
50 percent.
  I am not worried about the 54 percent who are paying customers that 
do not participate, because I assume they have money. But we must do 
something about the 50 percent eligible for free and reduced-price 
meals who are not participating. What we do, we allow a 7-State 
demonstration program to see if those States can increase the 
participation, particularly for those most in need.
  We keep the same nutrition guidelines. They must serve the same 
people. The same guidelines are in place, 

[[Page H15510]]
but we give them an opportunity to see whether they cannot do something 
about bringing the 50 percent who positively need the program into the 
nutrition program.
  So, again, I repeat, everyone should be happy with the portion that 
deals with breakfast and lunch because I think we have tried to satisfy 
every need that is out there.

  Mr. Speaker, today marks a milestone in our efforts to reform, 
repair, redo the current system by which assistance is provided to many 
of our needy citizens. The current system has too often failed to truly 
help. It has encouraged dependence rather than independence. And it has 
failed the test of fairness to those who pay for it, the taxpayers.
  This conference report comes at the end of a long and often difficult 
process. I want to express my appreciation of my colleagues who have 
not only worked so hard to achieve a conference agreement but stood 
firm in helping us negotiate with the other body to achieve a final 
agreement. I especially want to express my appreciation to the Speaker 
and to the majority leader, as well as to Chairman Archer and Chairman 
Shaw for their leadership during the conference with the Senate. Our 
committees have worked extremely close and extremely well together to 
bring this conference agreement to the floor.
  Mr. Speaker, the American people have rightfully demanded change in 
the welfare system. This conference report delivers change. It is a 
good package, and it deserves the support of the House and of the 
Senate, and the signature of the President.
  The conference report reflects the principles which we set out at the 
beginning of this process, and which, overwhelmingly, the American 
public supports. First of all, it reflects the recognition that no one, 
including those of us in Washington, has all of the answers as to what 
works best. One-size-fits-all mandates do not work well. States and 
communities must be given flexibility to meet their needs and the needs 
of those who require assistance.
  Second, the conference report emphasizes that the purpose of welfare 
should be a temporary stop on the road back to independence, and the 
best way off welfare is a job. The work requirements under this 
legislation, spearheaded by Mr. Talent and Mr. Hutchinson, will have a 
profound impact on the nature of welfare. Under this legislation, 
individuals on welfare for more than 2 years will be required to 
participate in a State work program. In addition, States will be 
required to meet strict Federal work participation rates, starting at 
15 percent of their caseload and increasing to 50 percent by the year 
2002.
  The legislation allows for up to 20 percent of the State's 
participation to be met by vocational educational programs. The 
remainder must work at least 20 hours per week in actual work settings. 
By the year 2002, those hours are increased to 35 hours per week.
  One of the problems with past work efforts has been the lack of 
effective sanctions for failing to participate. Under the conference 
report, individuals failing to work the required number of hours will 
have their benefits reduced accordingly.
  I have maintained along that in order for welfare reform to work, 
there has to be sufficient provision for child care. I am pleased that 
we have been able to do that in this conference report. The conference 
report makes major improvements to child care. It provides more federal 
money for child care, it allows for a more efficient system for helping 
parents pay for child care, and it expands parental choice in child 
care providers.
  The conference agreement streamlines 8 separate child care programs 
into a single program. This consolidation eliminates conflicting income 
requirements, time limits, and work requirements among the various 
current programs. These conflicting requirements have in too many cases 
become obstacles to independence from welfare, rather than programs 
assisting in reaching independence.
  Under the conference agreement, child care funding is increased to 
$18 billion over 7 years. According to CBO, this increases the amount 
of child care funding over current law by $2.3 billion. The conference 
agreement simplifies child care programs by reducing Federal mandates, 
while ensuring that States provide for quality improvement activities 
and consumer education. Additionally, States must certify that 
procedures are in effect to ensure child care providers comply with all 
applicable State and local health and safety requirements and must 
certify that licensing standards for child care are in effect in the 
state.
  We have worked hard, with the Ways and Means Committee, to improve 
and streamline the terribly fragmented and ineffective and inefficient 
array of programs that are supposed to help some of our most vulnerable 
people, children caught in abusive families and families that have 
otherwise been destroyed. It was with the best of intentions, I am 
sure, that all of these separate programs have been created. But the 
result is a maze of programs and a mountain of paperwork for States 
trying to make their child protection systems work. The legislation 
reduces the current maze of 18 different child protection programs into 
a streamlined system aimed at protecting children and reducing 
paperwork imposed on States.
  Among other changes, the conference report combines numerous separate 
categorical programs which have been under our committee's jurisdiction 
into a new ``Child Protection Block Grant.'' The block grant will give 
States more flexibility in how they can best use these funds. At the 
same time, we maintain Federal oversight as to how these funds are 
used, and seek to insure, through certifications which the State must 
make in order to receive funds, that States will have effective child 
protection systems.
  As my colleagues know, the child nutrition provisions of this bill 
were amongst the most difficult to resolve. Specifically, with regard 
to the school lunch and breakfast programs, I have maintained all along 
that, contrary to the claims of some of those who have demogogued one 
this issue, all is not well with the current programs. That is pretty 
obvious from the fact that only about 50 percent of the children who 
are eligible for free and reduced price meals even bother to take them. 
They'd rather pay for other food, or not eat, I guess, than take the 
meals that we offer for free or low cost.
  The House position has been that any reduction in the rate of 
spending for these programs must be accompanied by greater flexibility 
for States and schools. Otherwise we simply make the situation even 
worse.
  The conference report maintains the House position in that regard. It 
makes no changes in reimbursement rates for school lunches and 
breakfasts. At the same time, we have created a demonstration program, 
to allow up to 7 states to test the idea that if we give States a set 
amount of money, they can do a better job of serving low-income 
children than in the case with current program dictated from 
Washington.
  While not reducing reimbursement rates, we have improved the current 
program by eliminating a number of obsolete and unnecessary provisions 
and streamlining some of the piles of rules and paperwork that have 
burdened schools is running the nutrition programs.
  I want to mention specifically the issue of nutrition standards, 
which are provided for in the legislation, both in the existing school 
lunch program and in the demonstration program. No one is in a better 
position to determine what methods school food authorities should use 
to ensure that school meals adhere to the Dietary Guidelines for 
Americans than the school food authority itself. The changes which the 
conference committee has made to section 9(f) of the National School 
Lunch Act, with identical language carried over to the demonstration 
program, are intended to give school food authorities the ability to 
use the method they determine is best suited to their individual needs. 
This includes the meal pattern regulations in effect during the 1994-95 
school year, in addition to the methods described in the National 
School Lunch Act.
  In addition, the conference agreement achieves savings by targeting, 
for the first time, funds under the family day care food program toward 
more needy families. Currently there is no means testing of this 
program. While I would prefer to go further, and fully means test this 
food program like we do all other food programs, at least we made some 
headway in targeting funds toward more needy families.
  Mr. Speaker, as I said at the beginning of my comments, this is a 
good bill. It makes major changes, and at the same time addresses the 
concerns which the President and others have had, such as sufficient 
funding for child care. We have listened to these concerns, and 
addressed them. The question now is, Will President Clinton have the 
courage to stick by his pledge to the American people to end welfare as 
we know it, or will he cave in to those who demand to keep the current 
failed welfare system? I urge my colleagues to vote for the conference 
agreement, and I urge the President to join with us in truly reforming 
the failed welfare system.
  Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds, and before I 
begin to speak, I would ask unanimous consent that I be allowed to 
yield my time to the gentleman from Tennessee [Mr. Ford], the ranking 
minority member on the Committee on Human Resources, and that he be 
granted authority to yield time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Florida?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Speaker, this is a lousy bill. The President is 
going to veto it so it will not ever become law.
  The idea of giving block grants for this is like putting the money 
where the problem was a couple of years ago, not where the problem is 
today.

[[Page H15511]]

  This bill is mean to children. Children are 70 percent of this bill, 
infants and children. It is mean to sick children, and it just should 
never become law.
  We need welfare reform. Let us start over again, though, on this.
  Mr. FORD. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds.
  I would just like to point out the National League of Cities and the 
National Association of Counties and the U.S. Conference of Mayors, 
they have all indicated that this bill ends entitlement for Aid to 
Families with Dependent Children, thereby dismantling the critical 
safety net for our children and our families.
  We have a letter also from five Senate Members addressed to the 
majority leader in the Senate praising the Senate for their work on the 
vote of 87 to 12 in passing the welfare package. But they wrote a 
letter saying that they have strong reservations about this agreement 
that is before the House today in this conference report, and I would 
urge all of my colleagues to take a look at this to see that this is a 
bad bill for children in this Nation and the welfare population.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York [Mr. 
Rangel].
  (Mr. RANGEL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, my colleagues, this is the night before 
Christmas, and history will record that the majority of the Members in 
this House decided that their priority before we go home for the 
holidays is to cut taxes by $245 billion. Sixty billions of those 
dollars will come out of the welfare program, and 70 percent of those 
dollars would normally go to children.
  It has not been that many years ago we used to go to countries in 
South America and see people sleeping and living in the streets, and we 
said, ``Oh, how disgusting.'' and now in every major city throughout 
these great United States we find those homeless children and homeless 
people.
  In some of the countries the families just kicked the kids out into 
the street to rob, to steal, to beg, and we say, ``Never in this 
country,'' and yet right now we are saying that this Federal Government 
will have no obligation to those children, that it would be left up to 
the Governors to decide what they should do. If the Governors decide 
that they cannot or will not do it, then they say, ``Well, let the 
mayors do it.'' The mayor says, ``For God's sake, don't give us that 
responsibility.'' But all of the Republicans say, ``It is part of the 
contract, that just because you are poor and blind and disabled, you 
are not entitled. The only thing you are entitled to is to go to the 
charities.''
  And so, my brother and sister, what do they say? The National 
conference of Catholic Bishops say, ``Don't retreat from the Nation's 
commitment. Protect the poor children.'' The churches of the U.S.A., 
the American Jewish Congress, the National Councils of Churches, the 
United Church of Christ say, ``Don't appeal to affluent people at the 
expense of the poor children.''
  This is the night before Christmas. Who would you want to listen to? 
Wall Street or our spiritual leaders?
  Mr. ARCHER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 4 minutes.
  Mr. Speaker, this is truly an historic day. With this vote we arrive 
at a defining moment in our Nation's welfare reform debate.

                              {time}  1315

  At long last, the Congress and this President have an opportunity to 
show that we mean what we say.
  We bring forward today a great bill, which includes participation and 
input from many Members on both sides of the aisle and the White House, 
a bill that after too long in waiting does truly reform our Nation's 
failed welfare system; not by rhetoric, but by substance. It turns 
today's welfare trap for the needy into a trampoline to self-
sufficiency.
  With this bill, we fulfill our promise to replace the failed welfare 
state, so that America's poor can achieve independence and enjoy 
successes that come from work. This bill achieves long overdue welfare 
reform by stressing work, personal responsibility, and the return of 
power and flexibility to the States.
  Under this bill, welfare spending will continue to grow, by an 
average of 4 percent per year over the next 7 years.
  The agreement provides more funds for childcare than under current 
law, but because the overall rate of growth in welfare spending is 
moderated, the conference report contributes to the goal of balancing 
the Federal budget by providing about $58 billion in total 
savings, relief for hard-working, tax paying Americans, who bear the 
load.

  Finally, this agreement reflects a reenergized partnership with the 
States. For too long the needs of the poor have floundered on the 
flawed belief that Washington alone has all the answers; that 
Washington alone can provide for every need. It cannot, and it 
certainly cannot do so efficiently.
  Local officials exercising local judgment can best determine how the 
poor can most help themselves and be helped where they need help. 
Helping America's poor was our goal when we began the process of 
reforming the failed welfare state, and this vote marks an historic 
step in what direction.
  Mr. Speaker, with this vote we will have the opportunity to let our 
constituents know if we are for or against real welfare reform.
  Earlier today 30 governors signed a letter to the President calling 
on him to sign this bill, to keep his word, to put his name, William 
Clinton, on the line. But if he does not, he will demonstrate that when 
it comes to welfare reform, this President is all talk and no action. 
He said he would end welfare as we know it. If he vetoes this bill, he 
will be remembered as the very liberal President who kept welfare as we 
have it.
  Mr. Speaker, this is a great bill and a great opportunity to solve 
one of our Nation's most vexing problems. The previous Congresses 
ignored the cries of Republicans and conservative Democrats by refusing 
to take action. For years, Republicans and conservative Democrats 
worked together to achieve welfare reform.
  With this vote, our efforts will be put to the test. This is a bill 
that only an extreme liberal could oppose. I urge all my colleagues to 
fix welfare and vote for his conference report.
  Mr. FORD. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Matsui], who serves on the Committee on Ways and Means, 
and who has been in the forefront of welfare reform for many, many 
years in this Congress and who has spoke very eloquently on this issue 
for the children of this country for a long time.
  Mr. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the ranking member of 
the Subcommittee on Human Resources of the Committee on Ways and Means 
for yielding me time.
  Mr. Speaker, I have to say that I am astonished that this bill has 
finally reached the floor of the House in the shape it finally is in. 
it is somewhat ironic, because the Republicans have indicated that this 
will get people on welfare off welfare and into the work force.
  In fact, there is a requirement by the year 2000, 5 years from now, 
that 50 percent of those people currently on welfare will be either in 
jobs or through a job training program. That sounds wonderful, and if 
you just think of the goals and the vision, we all as Americans support 
that goal and that vision. The problem is, they do not provide the 
resources.
  I think anybody who has thought this issue through knows that before 
a woman can go off welfare into the work force, she has to have some 
kind of training. Because of the economy in America today, we do not 
have that kind of opportunity for a lot of people who have not 
graduated from high school or college.
  For example, we do not have file clerks in America today who file 
papers alphabetically. I remember when I was a kid going through 
college, I would come back home and work as a file clerk for the State 
of California. All those people around me that were working full-time 
were women who had minor children. That job does not exist anymore, 
because we are a computerized society in America, so those women today 
are probably on welfare, AFDC. So you have to provide some kind of 
training for them. You also have to provide some kind of transportation 
for them. But, most of all, because by the law anybody on AFDC has 
minor children, you have to provide daycare for these people. 

[[Page H15512]]

  This bill does not have any of those provisions. They block grant 
generally AFDC and say okay, States, figure it out. You want to give 
this issue to the States. Think about it for a minute. The States, this 
is a group of States, 50 States, that have in fact messed up the 
education system of this country. Now you want to put AFDC and welfare 
in that mess as well.
  This bill is mean spirited. It will put 2 million people into 
poverty, children into poverty. We need to vote down this conference 
report.
  Mr. ARCHER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from 
Georgia [Mr. Deal] who spent so much time this year in developing an 
alternative welfare reform plan, one that was offered as the Democrat 
substitute earlier this year and received all of the votes on the 
Democrat side.
  Mr. DEAL of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, let me at the outset say that I 
recognize that my colleagues on the other side of the aisle now are 
sincere in their concerns about welfare reform. There is one issue that 
should not be partisan in this House, it is not partisan with the 
American people, and that is that the current system does not work. So 
as we measure this bill today against a standard, it maybe should not 
be the standard of what each of us in our individual point of view 
might prefer, but against the standard of where we are and where we are 
headed.
  Mr. Speaker, I would say that by all of those measurements, the 
conference committee report is a substantial step in the right 
direction. Many of us worked together on parts of the bill that we 
voted for earlier this year, and I would say that if you look at this 
conference committee report, it has moved substantially toward the 
version that we worked for. It is substantially toward the version. In 
fact, it exceeds our version that we voted for earlier this year in the 
critical area of work requirements. All of the first 7 years the work 
requirements are in excess of the bill we voted for, and we criticized 
the House-passed version for being weak on work. This takes it even 
beyond where we were.

  In terms of childcare, and I agree with the previous speakers that 
childcare is an important component of this, childcare funding has been 
substantially increased.
  I would urge us to look at the bill compared with the system that is 
broken. I commend the conferees. I urge the adoption of this conference 
report.
  Mr. FORD. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from 
Massachusetts [Mr. Neal], who has cochaired the Democratic Task Force 
on Welfare and served on the Committee on Ways and Means and who has 
worked with all Democrats and tried to work with the Republicans as 
well on welfare reform.
  Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, the essential point to 
remember here today, as the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Deal] has 
accurately said, in March of this year 204 Democrats came together to 
offer a tough and fair alternative. I helped to convince the Democratic 
caucus that this debate had shifted and we should move it to the 
center.
  But the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Deal] is also correct, and I 
disagree with my friend, the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Archer], this 
proposal that we are being asked to vote on today is indeed extreme. 
Now, do not take it from me as one who has been immersed in the detail 
of the welfare legislation debate for the last year. Take it from Arlen 
Specter, take it from John Chafee, take it from Bill Cohen, from 
Olympia Snowe and Jim Jeffords, who have said in a letter to Senator 
Dole dated yesterday, ``We are therefore dismayed at the significant 
changes made to the Senate bill in conference and are writing to let 
you know of our strong reservations about this agreement.''
  The bill that the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Deal] offered here 9 
months ago was a good strong piece of basic legislation. It involved a 
work requirement, it involved a time limit, but it also offered 
transitional assistance in the amount of $10 billion to women who were 
trying to get into the work force.
  Yes, this debate has shifted, but it has shifted to an extreme 
element that is trying to change the contours of this debate. The truth 
is that the bill that this Democratic caucus voted for was the right 
bill, that was in the center, where all Americans are on this debate.
  Mr. FORD. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Missouri [Mr. Clay], the ranking member of the Committee on Economic 
and Educational Opportunities, one who has been active in this debate 
on welfare reform.
  Mr. CLAY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise to oppose this conference report. Descriptions of 
the Republican welfare plan have exhausted nearly every pejorative term 
found in Webster's Dictionary. ``Heartless,'' ``Cruel,'' 
``Meanspirited,'' ``Disgraceful''; take your pick because each 
description is tragically accurate.
  Under the guise of welfare reform, this bill would swell the ranks of 
the poor by more than 1 million children. How can our Nation be called 
civilized when the majority party in this Congress comes up with a 
proposal that would visit such dire, chaotic consequences on poor 
children?
  For reasons totally unrelated to welfare reform Republicans want to 
experiment with programs which for decades have fed millions of 
children in schools and childcare centers. It is one thing to tinker 
with the names of Federal buildings, but another to tamper with the 
daily bread of little children.
  Five million poor children were served a nutritious breakfast at 
school this morning, free of charge. Twenth-four million children will 
receive a nutritious school lunch this afternoon. Nearly half of these 
lunches are provided to poor children free of charge, and nearly 2 
million lunches to low-income children at reduced prices.
  Mr. Speaker, under the guise of eliminating bureaucracy and giving 
Governors flexibility, this conference report allows hunger prevention 
programs to be block granted. To experiment with these highly 
speculative block grants for nutrition and health programs is like 
playing Russian roulette with the lives of our young people.
  For the past month, the Senate and House Republican conferees have 
had a food fight over school lunch block grants. They delayed final 
consideration of this conference report for months over an issue that 
has very little to do with welfare. Now, they have reached an agreement 
that would allow seven States to eliminate the Federal guarantee that 
every poor child will receive at least one solid meal a day.
  I urge defeat of this heartless conference report.
  Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Kansas 
[Mr. Roberts], the distinguished chairman of the Committee on 
Agriculture.
  (Mr. ROBERTS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. Speaker, we all know that welfare reform has become 
a front-burner topic in this town and throughout the Nation. Last 
November the American public spoke decisively on wanting change. 
Welfare reform was a central theme in last fall's election. The House 
of Representatives has responded to the American public and I believe 
that real welfare reform can be found in the conference report before 
the House today.
  The changes incorporated in the conference report on H.R. 4, the 
Personal Responsibility Act, represent real change. I congratulate 
members of the Committee on Agriculture and all Members who worked 
diligently on reforming the Food Stamp Program and the present welfare 
system.
  The very first hearing held by me in the committee was on enforcement 
in the Food Stamp Program. Following that hearing, the chairman of the 
subcommittee held four hearings on the Food Stamp Program. From the 
testimony received in these hearings the committee formulated the 
principles that guided its reform. The conference agreement reflects 
these principles.
  First, keep the Food Stamp Program as a safety net so that food can 
be provided as a basic need while States are undergoing the transition 
to State-design welfare programs.
  Second, harmonize welfare and the Food Stamp Program for families 
receiving benefits from both programs.
  Third, take the Food Stamp Program off automatic pilot.
  Fourth, able-bodies participants without dependents must work in 
private sector jobs.

[[Page H15513]]

  Fifth, tighten controls on waste and abuse and curb trafficking with 
increased penalties.
  The Food Stamp Program provides benefits to an average of 27 million 
people each month at an annual cost of more than $25 billion. For the 
most part these benefits go to families in need of help and are used to 
buy food. There is no question in my mind that the Food Stamp Program 
helps poor people and those who have temporarily fallen on hard times. 
However, there is also no question in my mind that it is in need of 
reform.
  The conference agreement reflects the principle that the Food Stamp 
Program should remain a Federal program. States will be undergoing a 
transition to State-designed welfare programs. During this period the 
Food Stamp Program will remain the safety net program and able to 
provide food as a basic need while this transition is taking place. The 
Food Stamp Program will remain at the Federal level and equal access to 
food for every American in need is ensured.
  Given the hearing record, public support for real reform, and the 
dollars involved, the conference committee could not continue the 
program without significant reforms. The five hearings held in the 
Committee on Agriculture between February 1-14, 1995, dictated the 
course of the changes needed in the Food Stamp Program.
  The agreement in the welfare reform conference adopted these changes. 
The Food Stamp Program is taken off of automatic pilot, except for 
annual increases in the cost of food, and control of spending for this 
program is returned to Congress. The food stamp deductions are kept at 
the current levels instead of being adjusted automatically for 
increases in the Consumer Price Index. Food stamp benefits will 
increase to reflect increase in the cost of food. Food stamp spending 
will no longer grow out of control. Oversight from the Agriculture 
Committee is essential so that when reforms are needed, the committee 
will act.
  States are provided the option of harmonizing their new AFDC programs 
with the Food Stamp Program for those people receiving assistance from 
both programs. Since 1981, the committee has authorized demonstration 
projects aimed at simplifying the rules and regulations for those 
receiving assistance from AFDC and food stamps. States have complained 
for years about the disparity between AFDC and food stamp rules. This 
bill provides them the opportunity to reconcile these differences. It 
is now time to provide all States with this option.
  The conference agreement on H.R. 4 contains a strong work program. 
Abled-bodied persons between the ages of 18 and 50 years, with no 
dependents, will be able to receive food stamps for 4 months. 
Eligibility will cease at the end of this period if they are not 
working at least 20 hours per week in a regular job. This rule will not 
apply to those who are in employment or training programs, such as 
those approved by the Governor of a State. A State may request a waiver 
of these rules if the unemployment rates are high or if there are a 
lack of jobs in an area. Republicans are not heartless, we just expect 
able-bodied people between 18 and 50 years, who have no one relying 
upon them, to work at least half-time if they want to continue to 
receive food stamps.
  It is essential to begin to restore integrity to the Food Stamp 
Program. Incidences of fraud and abuse and losses to the program are 
steadily increasing and the public has lost confidence in the program. 
There are frequent reports in the press and on national television 
concerning abuses in the Food Stamp Program. Abuse of the program 
occurs in three ways: fraudulent receipt of benefits by recipients; 
street trafficking in food stamps by recipients; and trafficking 
offenses made by retail and wholesale grocers. H.R. 4 doubles the 
disqualification periods for food stamp participants who intentionally 
defraud the program. For the first offense the disqualification period 
is changed to 1 year; for the second offense the disqualification 
period is changed to 2 years. Food stamp recipients who are convicted 
for trafficking food stamps with a value over $500 will be permanently 
disqualified.

  Trafficking by unethical wholesale and retail food stores is a 
serious problem. Benefits Congress appropriates for needy families are 
going to others who are making money from the program. Therefore the 
conference agreement limits the authorization period for stores and 
provides the Secretary of Agriculture with other means to ensure that 
only those stores abiding by the rules are authorized to accept food 
stamps. Finally, the conference includes a provision that all property 
used to traffic in food stamps and the proceeds traceable to any 
property used to traffic in food stamps will be subject to criminal 
forfeiture.
  The electronic benefit transfer [EBT] systems have proven to be 
helpful in reducing street trafficking in food stamps and have provided 
law enforcement officers a trail through which they can find and 
prosecute traffickers. EBT systems do not end fraudulent activity in 
the Food Stamp Program; but they are instrumental in curbing the 
problem. Additionally, EBT is a more efficient method to issue food 
benefits for participants, States, food stores, and banks. For all of 
these reasons we include changes in the law to encourage States to go 
forward with EBT systems they deem most appropriate. Also the bill we 
are considering today lifts the restriction placed on State EBT systems 
by the Federal Reserve Board. This restriction is known as regulation E 
and it has hindered State progress on converting a coupon delivery 
system to an EBT system.
  Mr. Speaker, this bill and the Agriculture Committee's contribution 
to the bill represent good policy. We have kept the Food Stamp Program 
as a safety net for families in need of food. We have taken the program 
off of automatic pilot and placed a ceiling on spending. We save $30 
billion over 7 years. Congress is back in control of spending on food 
stamps. If additional funding is needed Congress will act to reform the 
program so that it operates within the amount of funding allowed or 
provide additional funding when necessary. States are provided with an 
option to harmonize food stamps with their new AFDC programs. We take 
steps to restore integrity to the Food Stamp Program by giving law 
enforcement and USDA additional means to curtail fraud and abuse. We 
encourage and facilitate EBT systems. We begin a strong work program so 
that able-bodied people with no dependents and who are between 18 and 
50 years can receive food stamps for a limited amount of time without 
working.
  This represents good food stamp policy. I hope all Members will agree 
with me and support the conference agreement on H.R. 4, the Personal 
Responsibility Act of 1995.

                              {time}  1330

  Mr. FORD. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
California [Ms. Waters], who has been very active with the Democratic 
Task Force on Welfare Reform.
  Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, this conference report is not welfare 
reform. I support real welfare reform. I support transitioning 
recipients from dependency to work, to real jobs. This is simply slash 
and burn, causing 1.5 million more children to fall into poverty. If 
this is supposed to be welfare reform, why can we not assist these 
mothers in getting job training and getting education and transitioning 
into the job market? No, we do not do this.
  This bill cuts job training. It simply block grants it, throws it to 
the States and says you train them. It is a mandate on local government 
and we do not fund it. If this is supposed to be welfare reform, why on 
heaven's earth do we cut child care? It does not take a rocket 
scientist to know that if mothers are to go to work, they must have 
child care.
  To add insult to injury, this bill takes the safety net from child 
care protective services. As a matter of fact, I am shocked and 
surprised. Every time a child is murdered, like little Alicia up in New 
York, little Lisa 2 years ago in New York, we cry and bemoan the fact 
another child has been killed, yet we cut child care protective 
services. This bill is a sham. This is not real welfare reform.
  Finally, Mr. Speaker, let me tell Members, because we block grant, we 
take away the possibility that when the middle-class clients and 
citizens lose their jobs or they are laid off and they want a little 
temporary help, if their State is in a recession, they are not going to 
be able to get it because 

[[Page H15514]]
with this block granting we say when the money runs out, it runs out. 
There is no guarantee. There is no safety net, and so middle-class 
families who find themselves in a little difficulty will not have any 
support from welfare because we are taking away the safety net from 
them.
  Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Missouri [Mr. Talent].
  Mr. TALENT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time. 
I think colleagues refer to the historical context of this bill and 
also talk about the terrible job the States were doing with welfare. So 
I think it may be appropriate to respond a little to that.
  Let us look at the historical context. In the immediate postwar era 
of 1948 the poverty rate in this country was about 30 percent. That was 
when the States and localities were handling welfare. It declined to 
about 15 percent in 1965, when the Federal Government declared war on 
poverty and took over the welfare system. In the last 30 years, the 
Federal Government has spent or mandated in State spending $5 trillion 
in entitlement spending and the poverty rate, which was 15 percent 30 
years ago, is 15 percent today.
  What we have gotten a six-fold increase in the out-of-wedlock- 
birthrate. And the reason is the two best antipoverty programs are 
marriage and work, and the Federal Government has brilliantly 
conditioned welfare assistance on the people doing neither. That is the 
historical context of this bill.
  Mr. Speaker, what we have done is taken away from the lower-income 
Americans in this country the institutions that make them happy, that 
make them secure, family, work, responsibility, and we have given them 
government, and it has been a total failure.
  What does this bill try to do? It changes the welfare system so that, 
among other things, instead of punishing work, we encourage it and, in 
many cases, require it for able-bodied Americans. The bill says to the 
States they must have by about the end of the decade about 50 percent 
of the caseload working, and we mean actual work at actual labor, what 
the average American means by work.
  Is this workable? It has been suggested it is not. Of course it is 
workable, if by work we do not mean we have to train them to be a vice 
president; if by work we do not mean we have to have a bureaucrat work 
out a personal employability program for them that will take 18 months 
before they have to do anything.
  There are States already implementing real work requirements under 
waivers. Gov. Tommy Thompson of Wisconsin, when somebody applies for 
welfare there, if they do not have a small child at home who needs day 
care, he says, OK, go out, get work. And it has shrunk the welfare 
rolls.
  Mr. Speaker, it is a good bill. If individuals are not liberals that 
believe in the failed system, they will be for this bill.
  Mr. FORD. Mr. Speaker, may we inquire as to how much time is 
remaining on both sides?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Linder). The gentleman from Florida [Mr. 
Shaw] has 17\1/2\ minutes, and the gentleman from Tennessee [Mr. Ford] 
has 19\1/2\ minutes remaining.
  Mr. FORD. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
Florida [Mrs. Thurman].
  Mrs. THURMAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to 
me.
  I stand here today as one of those who was the cosponsor of the first 
Democratic bill that we put forth on this floor, and I felt very 
strongly at that time that it was a good bill. Let me just point out to 
the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Deal], who spoke earlier, that we are 
still short in carrying out the work requirements of about $7 billion, 
according to CBO.
  I want to talk about two other issues, Mr. Speaker, that I have heard 
on this floor for the last couple of months. The first one was that we 
had to move this government closer to home, to let those people make 
the decisions, those people that are elected in our local governments 
and our State legislatures.
  Well, let me address the first issue, because these folks are saying 
H.R. 4 is the wrong way to go. They have sent out a letter and 
mentioned six very prominent points of concern that they have in this 
piece of legislation.
  I want to talk about a second part of this letter, however, one that 
I supported on this floor in the beginning of the 104th Congress, one 
of two items in the contract that has gone to the President to be 
signed and that was an unfunded mandate.
  The first time this is being tested these folks are saying we are 
going to create new unfunded mandates for local governments. Do not 
break your contract already.
  Mr. FORD. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Connecticut [Mrs. Kennelly], the real champion of child support 
enforcement in this Congress and our friend.
  Mrs. KENNELLY. Mr. Speaker, 3 days ago the Clinton administration 
approved my home State of Connecticut's welfare reform plan. Under this 
waiver, Connecticut will have the strictest time limit on welfare 
benefits in the country, 21 months, and children born on to welfare 
will have reduced benefits.
  Along with these penalties, the plan will also provide certain 
rewards, including transitional child care and medical assistance for 
those leaving welfare for work.
  I should point out that 34 other States have also had welfare reform 
plans approved by the current administration. So despite what some may 
say, the legislation before us is not necessary to provide States with 
the flexibility to implement their own reforms.
  The main goal of this legislation would truly achieve would be to 
eliminate basic Federal protections for children. I do not think the 
American people believe that should be the central goal of welfare 
reform.
  Americans want people to receive paychecks instead of welfare checks. 
For the life of me, I do not see how much of the bill before us would 
promote that fundamental goal. I do not understand what cutting SSI 
benefits for 1 million disabled children has to do with promoting work.
  I do not understand what reducing food stamp benefits for 14 million 
children has to do with promoting work. I do not understand what 
eliminating the guarantee of services for foster-care families has to 
do with promoting work. I do not understand what block granting school 
lunches has to do with promoting work. And I do not understand what 
throwing 1.5 million children into poverty has to do with promoting 
work.
  I very much want to vote for legislation that reforms our welfare 
system. But the bill before us is not welfare reform. It is merely a 
list of spending cuts on nearly every program designed to help 
children.
  Real welfare reform focuses on how to move people from welfare to 
work. That means training, child care, medical assistance, and a strict 
requirement that you better be working or moving toward work.
  Let us get back to that central goal. Instead of renouncing any 
Federal role in safeguarding children, let us pass legislation that 
demands responsibility, rewards work, and protects children.
  Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Michigan [Mr. Camp], a distinguished member of the Committee on Ways 
and Means.
  (Mr. CAMP asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. CAMP. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding me this 
time.
  Mr. Speaker, today the Congress is presented with a historic 
opportunity to end welfare as we know it. The welfare system we have 
come to know is one that has failed. It has failed those dependent upon 
it. And it has failed the American people who believed it would end 
poverty. Nothing could be crueler or more heartless than the current 
system.
  Our current welfare system imposes excessive bureaucratic regulations 
and guidelines on States. There are more than 340 different Federal 
welfare programs. In my State of Michigan, caseworkers spend 80 percent 
of their time complying with Federal regulations. The other 20 percent 
of their time is spent on personal contact with recipients. It is 
personal contact that often makes the difference between an 
individual's success and failure.
  The Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Act would allow 

[[Page H15515]]
  caseworkers more time to work directly with recipients instead of 
pushing paper. We eliminate unnecessary and duplicative programs. We 
block grant to the States in key areas including AFDC, child protection 
and child care $4 billion more than current levels for greater 
flexibility and effective targeting of critical welfare resources. We 
empower people to take responsibility for their lives so that success 
stories of individuals and families lifting themselves from poverty 
will become the norm instead of the exception.
  Under our bill, Federal, State, and local officials will work in 
concert to move welfare recipients from a life of poverty and 
government dependence to a life of success and self-reliance. It also 
includes the State maintenance of effort requirement supported by 
Democrats and the administration that requires States to maintain 
spending on welfare programs.
  In a bipartisan effort, we also strengthen paternity establishment 
and force dead-beat parents to pay child support. Most importantly, as 
my colleagues on the other side of the aisle and the President will 
agree, our bill not only encourages work, it requires it.
  Support the conference report, end welfare as we know it.
  Mr. FORD. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from New York [Mr. Owens].
  (Mr. OWENS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. OWENS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the conference 
report. The only entitlements being taken away by the Republican 
majority are means-tested entitlements to the poorest people in 
America. I hope we vote ``no'' on this bill.
  Mr. FORD. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minutes to the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Fazio], the distinguished chair of the Democratic 
caucus here in the House.
  Mr. FAZIO of California. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from 
Tennessee for yielding me time.
  Mr. Speaker, like any system its age, the welfare program needs to be 
reformed. The current system hinders self-sufficiency. It chips away at 
recipients personal dignity, perpetuates a cycle of poverty, and 
promote dependency.
  But you can't reform welfare by simply taking away benefits while 
ignoring the basic needs that make people self-reliant--education, job 
training, and child care. Nor can you ignore the need for adequate 
nutrition and health care. You simply cannot mandate work without 
giving people a chance to develop the skills and work habits needed to 
support their families.
  Unfortunately, the Republican bill on the floor does exactly that. 
They're not moving people off welfare to work--where they can take 
responsibility for their families. They're kicking them and their 
children into the streets.
  What have we accomplished if all we do is take away the safety net 
and create a permanent underclass of unemployable people? What happens 
to the children who will grow up hungry, shelter bound, and poorly 
educated? These children deserve more than this bill is prepared to 
offer--they deserve a real future.
  We know from looking at welfare-to-work programs that are successful, 
that there are two key elements that make real reform possible: job 
training and education. The proposal before us today fails miserably in 
both areas. This bill makes no accommodation for young mothers earning 
high school degrees. Instead, it simply mandates that they find a job. 
I don't know about you, but I am not aware of many employers anxious to 
hire teenage mothers without diplomas and without child care for even 
minimum wage jobs in this country.
  As far as health services are concerned, the bill takes away the 
guarantee that those currently on assistance receive Medicaid benefits. 
So when they get sick, the people at the lowest income level in this 
country cannot get medical help.
  The bill cuts food stamps by $35 Billion, and that's not just a 
number--it's 14 million children who are now fed by the program who 
will be removed. Only overwhelming opposition from both the Democratic 
and Republican parties prevented he School Lunch Program from also 
being decimated by this bill. How does taking the food out of the 
mouths of children help to reform the welfare system?
  We have talked a lot about family values in this Congress. Where are 
those values now when we are trying to take people from poverty to 
productivity? How is valuing poor children less than our own children, 
who we have raised and loved, a family value?
  I urge my colleagues to approach welfare reform with a long term view 
towards the future productivity of this country and not just a short-
term goal towards saving a few tax dollars. If we truly hope to save 
money on the cost of welfare over time, we need to provide a transition 
that translates into permanent job responsibility.
  Welfare reform isn't just about saving money--it's about saving 
families. Let's support welfare reform that allows these families to 
become responsible and self-reliant. If we save families, the savings 
in dollars and human lives to this country will be huge.

                              {time}  1345

  Mr. FORD. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas 
[Mr. de la Garza], the distinguished ranking member of the Committee on 
Agriculture.
  Mr. de la GARZA. Mr. Speaker, I regret exceedingly that I cannot vote 
for this conference report for a multiplicity of reasons. I, like many 
of my colleagues, came here willing and wanting to reform welfare as we 
know it, as it is being called here. Unfortunately, this legislation 
does not do that.
  Mr. Speaker, in my estimation, it is used as a camouflage to go after 
programs we do not like. We are using the budget. We are using welfare 
reform to shut down programs that we do not like. I am more concerned, 
and I feel it very sincerely and I feel it in my heart, that we are 
targeting people that we do not like. That is what we are aiming at.
  My colleagues can call it welfare reform, call it what they want. I 
can take my colleagues to the neighborhood; I can take them to the 
State; I can take them to the region; and, I can show them that this is 
targeting at its best people that they do not agree with, areas that 
they are not concerned about.
  Mr. Speaker, I have a lot of need in my district. Everyone I meet 
wants to cut fraud and abuse. This does not give the State the tools to 
reduce fraud and abuse. My Republican colleagues are just shifting it 
over to the State. We took it over because the States had not done 
that.
  Now, Mr. Speaker, a little bit about the conference. I say it with 
frustration and sadness. I never went to a conference committee 
meeting, except the initial meeting. I was not even asked to sign the 
report. I do not know who decided. I do not know where they met. I do 
not know when they met. I do not know when they put it in writing. Mr. 
Speaker, I am the ranking member of the Committee on Agriculture that 
has a section of this bill.
  Mr. Speaker, I wanted to talk, also, about the aliens, legal aliens. 
There is a Congressional Medal of Honor winner, Jose Francisco Jimenez, 
who died serving this country who was not a citizen. Lance Corporal 
Jimenez was a Marine killed in Viet Nam in 1969. He lived in Phoenix, 
was a Mexican citizen, but in the Untied States legally. My colleagues 
on the other side would aim at him and all people like him. Shame on 
those who want to target people that cannot defend themselves.
  Mr. Speaker, House Democrats and Republicans, Senate Democrats and 
Republicans, and President Clinton share a common goal--all agree that 
welfare reform is urgently needed. Reform is needed not only for the 
recipients of welfare, who many times are trapped in a cycle of poverty 
from which they cannot escape, but also for the American taxpayers who 
deserve a better return on their investment in our future.
  Currently, the American people lack confidence that many of our 
welfare programs, as they are currently designed, are really benefiting 
the recipients. This lack of confidence should not be translated into 
the idea that the American public is unwilling to spend any money on 
the needy. In fact, a recent Nielsen survey finds that 95 percent of 
Americans rate hunger and poverty issues equal to the issues of health 
care and a balanced budget. The lack of confidence in our welfare 
programs comes from the perception that waste, fraud, and abuse 
permeates many programs. These allegations need to be addressed in 
order to restore the confidence of the American people. However, we 
must be sure that we are addressing legitimate allegations and not some 
headline catching editorial writer whose hidden agenda is not program 
reform, but program elimination. It should be interpreted as a desire 
by the public to make sure that these programs are effectively designed 
and monitored to be effective and eliminate waste, fraud, and abuse. 

[[Page H15516]]

  We must remember that our goal is to reform welfare in order to move 
people toward self-sufficiency. Reform by itself is a hollow word. 
Reform for reform's sake is meaningless. We aren't OMB, CBO, or GAO. We 
can't work in the vacuum of numbers only. We cannot let the bureaucrats 
with the green eye shades determine what path reform will take. We are 
Members of Congress. It is our responsibility to put faces with these 
numbers. We must interject the human element into the process in order 
to ensure that real need is addressed in welfare reform. We must ensure 
that our children and the aged and disabled are not left unprotected. 
We must remember that a dollar spent now can actually result in saving 
thousands of dollars later, if we help produce a future tax paying 
citizen.
  We must determine the policy that will move people toward self-
sufficiency. This must be a policy-driven bill, not one that is driven 
by empty, faceless numbers that are wrong as many times as they are 
right.
  When we look at these many programs designed to help the poorest of 
the poor, we must have the wisdom to be able to distinguish between 
those programs and policies that are working and filling a legitimate 
need and those that are not. We must not get wrapped up in the idea 
that just any reform is good reform. We must be deliberative and 
compassionate. We must have reform that meets the numbers, and not 
numbers that determine the reform.
  When I go home to the 15th District of Texas every weekend, I am 
returning to one of the poorest areas of our country, an area where 
unemployment is in the double digits and newly arrived immigrants are 
searching for the American dream. Lest anyone think that there is no 
real need for many of these programs, one out of every two children in 
my district is living in poverty. My constituents don't want a hand-
out. They want jobs. They want economic development. They want the 
American dream. These are the people we must help. These are the people 
for whom we must redesign these programs to help them achieve their 
desire of becoming successful citizens.

  I am particularly concerned about what this bill will do to the Food 
Stamp Program, our frontline in the fight against hunger. It will 
jeopardize the nutritional status of millions of poor families because 
of a basic misunderstanding of how the program works. The perception is 
that this program is out of control, that hundreds of thousands of 
families are added to the food stamp rolls every month. The reality is 
something very different. Over the last year, as the economy has 
improved, food stamp participation has actually dropped by over 1 
million people. This vital program is clearly filing a very real need. 
If the need isn't there, the program doesn't continue to expand, but if 
the need is there, the program is there to meet it.
  The block grant provisions in this bill will set funding at levels 
well below that necessary to feed hungry families in times of recession 
or if food prices increase. If block grants had been chosen by all 
States in 1990, the Food Stamp Program would have served 8.3 million 
fewer children.
  The funding cap imposed by this bill will put huge holes in the 
nutritional safety net. A cap takes away the flexibility to accommodate 
a decrease in a family's welfare benefits and the resultant increase in 
food stamp benefits. Efforts to raise the cap in the future by a well-
intentioned Congress will be virtually impossible, requiring an 
offsetting tax increase, a cut in another entitlement, or an emergency 
designation.
  To assure adequate nutrition and the good health of our poor 
families, the calculation of food stamp benefits must take into account 
extremely high housing expenses. The conference report limits this 
calculation, leaving poor families with children who pay more than half 
of their income for housing with less money to buy food. The provision 
will result in more hungry children.
  We all want families on welfare to be self sufficient--they want to 
be self sufficient. But, the way to make families self sufficient is 
not to deny them food stamps after 4 months. Eighty percent of the 
able-bodied recipients between the ages of 18 and 50 receive food 
stamps on a temporary basis already, they leave the program within a 
year. What these people need most is the opportunity to work--job 
training, or a job slot. This bill simply kicks them off the program, 
without a helping hand to find a job.
  Let me say once again, that we must reform these programs without the 
draconian cuts in funding. The goal should be to get more poor people 
into the work force, not to simply cut funding. By the year 2002, this 
bill will reduce benefits to families with children by 15 to 20 
percent. Such cuts are unconscionable.
  Finally, I must express the serious concerns that I share with my 
friends on the Congressional Hispanic Caucus about the provisions 
denying benefits to legal immigrants. Legal immigrants who work hard, 
play by the rules, pay taxes, and contribute greatly to our communities 
and society should not be denied access to social services when they 
fall on hard times, or when their sponsor falls on hard times. By 
denying benefits to legal immigrants, we will be shifting the 
responsibility to the States without any assistance from the Federal 
Government. State health care costs will increase as well as the costs 
to run State general assistance programs. I am shocked and saddened at 
the meaning of these provisions.
  The American people are not mean-spirited. They do not want children 
to be poor and hungry. This bill will push 1 million children below the 
poverty line. How can we allow such a thing to happen? I urge Members 
to remember that we are reforming the programs that impact the most 
vulnerable of our constituents. We must remember the faces of the poor 
and hungry of our Nation. We must vote against this misguided attempt 
at welfare reform.
  Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Washington [Ms. Dunn], a distinguished member of the Committee on ways 
and Means.
  Ms. DUNN of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I am relieved and gratified that 
the Senate and the House have finally agreed on a proposal that will 
end welfare as we know it. I believe everybody in this body would agree 
that the cruelest thing of all, Mr. Speaker, is to limit the ability of 
poor women to seek gainful work and condemn those women and their 
children to a life of hopelessness and dependence, where often in their 
child's life there is never a strong role model, a parent who works and 
provides for the family.
  Nowhere is there a better example of where the current system has 
failed the family than in the area of child support. Mr. Speaker, today 
in our Nation $34 billion is owed in back child support, court-ordered 
child support by deadbeat parents who have walked out on their 
families.
  The new child support provisions in this bill are the toughest ever 
passed by Congress. Under our bill, States will finally receive the 
assistance they need to track down deadbeat parents, especially the 30 
percent who leave the State to escape their responsibilities.
  Child support payments can be the difference between forcing a single 
parent, usually the mother, onto welfare or helping her make it on her 
own. Our bill helps these custodial parents stay off welfare and 
provides them the support they are owed so that they can make a better 
life for themselves and, even more importantly, for their children.
   Mr. Speaker, now is the time for the President and all our 
colleagues to stand up for the Nation's custodial parents and their 
children, and to recognize our efforts to accommodate their concerns so 
that we truly can ``end welfare as we know it,'' as the President 
pledged.
  Mr. FORD. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 10 seconds.
   Mr. Speaker, I would like to respond to the gentlewoman from 
Washington [Ms. Dunn], my colleague on the Committee on Ways and Means, 
and to just say to my Republican colleagues that there would not be a 
single child support enforcement provision in this bill had it not been 
for the Democrats, who insisted upon this provision being in the bill.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Hawaii [Mrs. 
Mink].
  (Mrs. MINK of Hawaii asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend her remarks.)
  Mrs. MINK of Hawaii. Mr. Speaker, there are nearly 10 million 
children who are poor and who are victims of circumstances. These are 
the children that we are attempting to address in this so-called 
welfare reform bill.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today to ask my colleagues to consider their 
circumstances. The only possible reason for voting for a welfare reform 
bill is if we have taken into consideration their circumstances, and 
improved their potential to have a better life in their respective 
communities. I say that this bill falls so far short that it is a 
tragedy to call it welfare reform.
  Mr. Speaker, what we have done is to make an example for everyone to 
believe that we are doing something about the welfare system and trying 
to create a better circumstance for these families so they can get 
jobs. But look at the details of the bill.
  Mr. Speaker, my colleagues on the other side have taken away child 
care. How can anyone go to work if they do not have child care 
opportunities? How could there be a better circumstance 

[[Page H15517]]
for these people if we cut them off of Medicaid support? This bill is a 
tragic example of harming our children, and I urge a ``no'' vote on the 
conference.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise to express my outrage at the welfare reform 
legislation before us which promises harm to the most vulnerable 
Americans--the poor, the elderly, the disabled, and especially the 
children. Under this bill, appalling statistics we already face will 
worsen; 10 million of the 14 million Americans relying on welfare are 
children, and more than 1.5 million additional children could be forced 
into poverty under this bill that abolishes the essential safety net 
for poor families. It is a shame that the new majority in Congress, in 
the richest country in the world, has put such a low priority on 
children.
  We would all like to say that American children are born into happy 
families with two loving parents and a warm home. We want to see our 
children provided with everything they need to grow into productive and 
responsible adults.
  Instead, millions of American children are not this lucky. Many live 
in squalor, in rundown homes with tattered clothing and without food 
because a parent has lost a job or was injured or even killed. These 
are children of unfortunate circumstances. They do not deserve the 
punishment held in this irresponsible and shortsighted welfare bill. 
The new majority in Congress in crafting this bill was ended our 
contract with American children--to provide these children and their 
parents with a break when they are down on their luck.

  During the first debate on this bill in March, every single Democrat 
supported a welfare reform proposal that continued the basic 
entitlement making up the Federal safety net for poor families. This 
bill before us removes the entitlement status and block grants many 
programs in the safety net, assuming that States will be able to make 
up the difference. States will be left vulnerable during recessions, 
when the numbers of those needing Government assistance always 
increase. The end of the entitlement means that no matter how many 
children may come to need cash assistance, child care, food, or 
protection from abuse or neglect, thousands of children per State will 
be without these services--discarded by the new Republican majority.
  The bill fails low-income families who hold tremendous value for the 
work force by underfunding work programs, despite many success stories 
we hear from families who--with jobs paying a living wage--moved from 
poverty to self-sufficiency. Congressional Budget Office [CBO] figures 
show that conference report provisions combining work programs and cash 
assistance into a single block grant to the States falls $14.1 billion 
short of what CBO predicts will be needed over the next 7 years. Tough 
work requirements in the bill will hit States who will be forced to pay 
penalties for failing to comply. Cancelled work programs will deny low-
income families the chance to escape poverty.
  Child care, an essential component of the safety net, is also 
underfunded by $6 billion through fiscal year 1996, according to CBO. 
Neither States nor working poor families can be expected to comply with 
the bill's strict work requirements without providing adequate child 
care. Low-income parents already have very limited choices in this area 
compared to higher-income parents. Cuts in assistance make it virtually 
impossible for working poor families to secure quality child care that 
will assure their child's well-being while they work. Every parent 
should have access to safe, affordable child care.
  The bill robs poor families of vital health care assistance. By 
severing the link between welfare and Medicaid, this Republican bill 
would add 3.8 million children and more than 4 million mothers to the 
scores of Americans without health insurance. This is in addition to 
proposals to block-grant the Medicaid Program which would guarantee 
that only a few children in a handful of States would be vaccinated. 
These so-called Medicaid reforms will put the health status of poor 
Americans children below those in many developing countries.
  The new majority would dare to punish children who face special, 
everyday difficulties as a result of illness or physical impediment. 
The bill would cut by one-fourth Supplemental Security Income [SSI] for 
children with disabilities such as cerebral palsy, Down's syndrome, 
muscular dystrophy, cystic fibrosis, and AIDS. By 2002, 650,000 
disabled children will be unable to receive SSI through harsh new 
eligibility requirements. Children whose benefits are reduced would 
suffer from reductions in assistance from 74 to 55 percent of poverty.
  This bill fails poor Americans in their essential nutritional needs. 
This bill would block-grant the Food Stamp Program to threaten its 
future existence. Cuts of $32 billion in food stamps would hit families 
with a 20-percent reduction in average benefits, decreasing the per 
meal benefit from 78 to 62 cents. In denial of advances of the past 
three decades made in the nutritional safety net for poor households, 
this bill revises food stamps to eliminate all Federal standards, State 
assurances and flexibility to accommodate factors such as inflation, 
population growth or negative economic conditions.
  Not only would this bill deny food to poor families at home, but also 
to children at school and to the country's smallest children. This 
Republican conference report would undermine the school lunch program 
by allowing a number of States to opt for block-grant funding--a move 
that would fail to allow for increasing costs of food faced by most 
schools today.
  Programs which have protected millions of American children have been 
repealed under this bill, disregarding annual reports of child abuse 
and neglect of as many as 2.9 million children. This bill would block-
grant foster care and adoption assistance funds which would cripple the 
ability of these programs to rescue children from abusive or unsafe 
situations, place children in appropriate homes, and recruit and train 
foster parents and parents wanting to adopt.
  Finally, this bill scapegoats legal, taxpaying immigrants in this 
country, despite the fact that immigrants pay the Federal Government 
more than $70 billion in taxes annually--$25 billion more than 
immigrants use in services. The Republican plan unfairly restricts 
immigrant access to the safety net, arbitrarily prohibiting America's 
22.6 million foreign-born residents from receiving food stamps and SSI 
unless and until they become citizens. States would be given the option 
to bar legal immigrants from Medicaid, temporary assistance for needy 
families, and title XX social services block grants. School lunches are 
arbitrarily denied to certain categories of immigrant school children--
an unfunded mandate which would impose massive administrative burdens 
on schools. By denying women, infants and children [WIC] assistance to 
certain categories of pregnant women who are immigrants, this 
legislation ignores clear medical evidence that WIC has contributed to 
lower infant mortality and reductions in the incidence of low birth-
weight babies. It is outrageous to abandon immigrants who have complied 
in every way with U.S. law and who have earned their right to live 
peacefully in this country.
  This Republican welfare reform conference report unrealistically 
looks at poor families as lazy castaways who want to receive welfare 
rather than work. It says if you are poor, you have to find a job but 
don't deserve job training or search assistance. It says if you are 
poor, your children aren't good enough for quality child care or health 
care. It says if you are poor, you are a second-class citizen whom the 
Government has no duty to help.
  The new Republican majority in this bill deserts poor American 
children who need food, shelter, health care, protection, and other 
programs critical to their existence. I very strongly urge my 
colleagues to vote down this egregious legislation for the sake of 
America's children.
  Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from California [Mr. Cunningham].
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, I would like to acknowledge to the 
gentleman from Texas [Mr. de la Garza] my friend, there have been more 
Mexican-Americans win the Medal of Honor than any other group in the 
United States. They were here legally.
  Mr. Speaker, this bill also affects, especially for the border 
States, illegal immigration. If you are here in this country illegally, 
I do not care if you are Irish, I do not want you to get a penny of 
services that the taxpayer pays for.
  Just in the State of California, there are 800,000, we use the term 
400,000 so that the figures cannot be disputed, illegal aliens K 
through 12. At $1.90 a meal, that is $1.2 million a day just on the 
school meals program. At $5,000 to educate a student, it is actually 
$4,750 in California, that is $2 billion to illegals.
  Governor Wilson, $400 million in just emergency services, $400 
million in emergency services just to illegal aliens. This bill 
eliminates services to illegal aliens. Let us focus on legal residents 
of this country that are in need. Take it away from those that do not 
belong here and have come here illegally and focus on what the system 
needs to take a look at.
  Mr. Speaker, I submit the following article for the Record:

           [From the San Diego Union-Tribune, Dec. 21, 1995]

                  Medicaid System Handcuffs California

                            (By Pete Wilson)

       Contrary to what the weather maps indicate, a hot-air front 
     has stalled over the nation's capital. It's hot air in the 
     form of deception and distortion over the transfer of income 
     support programs to the states.
     
[[Page H15518]]

       President Clinton and the congressional Democrats would 
     have us believe that the current Medicaid system protects all 
     vulnerable populations--and that, without the benevolent 
     oversight of the federal government, those populations would 
     be denied needed care and thus devastated by the 
     insensitivity of callous governors. The former governor of 
     Arkansas wants you to believe that current governors can't be 
     trusted with the reins.
       Regrettably, it's the same kind of shabby scare tactics 
     that the White House used in the ``Mediscare'' campaign to 
     hoodwink the elderly into believing that Republicans were 
     cutting the bottom out of their safety net. The truth was, 
     Republicans proposed reducing the increase in Medicare 
     spending to 7.2 percent. In fact, in September 1993, Hillary 
     Rodham Clinton suggested slowing Medicare growth ``to about 6 
     or 7 percent annually.''
       With respect to Medicaid, the White House and liberal 
     Democrats in Congress have been even more disingenuous. They 
     want you to believe that governors who have balanced 
     budgets--even with limited resources--can't be trusted to 
     manage block grants without savaging the poor (as though 
     anyone would want to savage the poor.)
       The truth is, the ``benevolent'' federal government has 
     fostered a Medicaid system that prevents states from helping 
     their own residents. Here in California, for example, many 
     children, families and low-income pregnant women are excluded 
     from eligibility categories established by the Federal 
     Government. Consequently, two-thirds of California's 
     disadvantaged families lack health insurance.
       To try to mend holes in the current system, California has 
     chosen to use state-only money to fill in the gaps in 
     Medicaid coverage created by Washington. We've implemented a 
     program to provide prenatal and well-baby care to low-income 
     pregnant women who do not qualify for Medicaid.
       We've also proposed expanding a package of preventive 
     health-care benefits to low-income children who don't qualify 
     for Medicaid. Why does the Medicaid system hinder such 
     efforts? More importantly, why is the White House 
     defending such a system.
       To add insult to injury, the federal government forces 
     states to cover the health care costs of low-income illegal 
     immigrants. This means that California, which carries nearly 
     one-half of the illegal immigrant burden for the entire 
     nation, must spend $400 million annually to provide health 
     care for illegal immigrants, thus forcing us to reduce or 
     deny benefits for needy legal residents.
       If the White House took a closer look at California, it 
     would see a state where health-care reforms are well under 
     way. We've accelerated the enrollment of Medicaid recipients 
     in managed-care programs. Those enrollees are guaranteed 
     access to quality care, case management by a primary-care 
     physician, and state monitoring of the care being provided.
       California has managed to contain costs and deliver quality 
     health care for about $1,600 per recipient per year (by 
     contrast, some states have a more expensive program costing 
     taxpayers over $4,500 per year, per Medicaid recipient.)
       One would think that a state would be rewarded for such 
     efficiency and innovation. But to the contrary, California is 
     punished by a federal Medicaid funding scheme that fosters 
     runaway growth and rewards inefficiency. States that have run 
     efficient programs and manage costs effectively are penalized 
     by a federal funding formula which results in huge funding 
     inequities that choke state budgets and impede further 
     reforms.
       One might ask: Is there any way for Washington to make the 
     Medicaid system worse? Regrettably, the answer is yes. 
     President Clinton has proposed capping the growth in per-
     recipient expenditures, without giving states like California 
     the tools to slow the growth in overall Medicaid 
     expenditures. This would reduce growth in Medicaid payments 
     by $54 billion over the next seven years.
       As a result, California would have to find an additional $5 
     billion to make up for Washington's shortfall. In other 
     words, we would be forced to keep the current federal system 
     with all the federal rules and requirements--for less money 
     to operate it.
       As long as the current Medicaid system is in place, states 
     will be blocked from implementing reforms that meet the 
     health-care needs of our most vulnerable populations. The 
     Republican MediGrant plan offers a better alternative by 
     providing states with the flexibility they deserve to design 
     more effective and cost-efficient systems of health-care 
     delivery.
       Clinton entered office promising Americans real health-care 
     reform. Back then, he was asking the American people to trust 
     a governor to run the federal government. Now, he won't trust 
     governors to help him better manage federal health care.
       Columnist David Broder has noted this inconsistency. As 
     Broder writes, ``In his former life, Clinton, like every 
     other governor, was complaining that federal Medicaid 
     mandates were wrecking his state budget. Three years ago, in 
     fact, Arkansas was being sued in the federal courts for 
     jeopardizing the health of expectant others by slashing 
     Medicaid spending--a policy Clinton then defended as 
     necessary to save state funds for schools, roads and other 
     important projects.''
       The times have changed. With a former governor in the White 
     House and a Congress willing to give states greater autonomy, 
     Washington has the opportunity to do what's sensible: give 
     states the freedom to enact health-care reform that benefits 
     all Americans, and let Californians help Californians.

  Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Goodling] 
on the Committee on Economic and Educational Opportunities, who held 
firm, and I also thank the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Shaw].
  Mr. FORD. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
California [Ms. Woolsey], the cochair of the Democratic Welfare Reform 
Task Force.
  Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, the weather outside is frightful, but it is 
nothing compared to the welfare bill we are considering today.
  Just in time for Christmas, the new majority is putting the welfare 
reform package under the Christmas tree that will push at least 1.5 
million children into poverty, and almost 4 million children into the 
ranks of the uninsured.
  I cannot help but think of this Dr. Seuss tale, ``How the Grinch 
Stole Christmas,'' when I think about this bill. But this Grinch-like 
welfare bill is not just stealing Christmas from our Nation's most 
vulnerable children; it is stealing their safety net. Basically it 
tells children, if you are poor, do not get sick, do not get hungry, do 
not get cold, because we do not think you are important.
  Mr. Speaker, as the only Member of this Congress who has actually 
been a mother on welfare, my ideas about welfare reform do not come 
from theories or books or movies like ``Boy's Town.'' I know it. I 
lived it, and as cochair of the House democratic task force on welfare, 
my experience was translated into legislation that 100 percent of the 
Democrats in the House voted for, legislation that gets parents into 
work and maintains the safety net for their children.
  Mr. Speaker, that is the type of reform for welfare that American 
people want, and that is why I am urging that we defeat this bill and 
prevent poor children from becoming even poorer.
  Mr. Speaker, let us make sure that the Grinch does not steal our 
children's Christmas. And, Mr. Speaker, in the words of Dr. Seuss, 
``the Grinch hated Christmas, the whole Christmas season. Now please do 
not ask why. No one quite knows the reason. It could be his head was 
not screwed on just right. It could be perhaps that his shoes wee too 
tight. But I think that the most likely reason of all may have been 
that his heart was two sizes too small.''
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Florida has 12\1/2\ 
minutes remaining, and the gentleman from Tennessee [Mr. Ford] has 10 
minutes and 20 seconds remaining.
  Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Emerson].
  (Mr. EMERSON asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. EMERSON. Mr. Speaker, for the past decade this topic, I believe, 
of reforming welfare has been an abiding interest of mine. I have 
worked through three different administrations and many Congresses on 
this subject, and I have always been guided by the words of Abraham 
Lincoln, to the effect that ``The dogmas of the past are inadequate to 
the present. We must think anew and act anew.''
  The present welfare system cannot be defended. It is a disgrace. The 
people who receive the assistance do not like it. The people who run it 
do not like it, and the taxpayers do not like it and are not going to 
stand for a continuation of the present welfare maintenance system.
  Mr. Speaker, there are more programs in existence now for providing 
public assistance to poor families than at any time in the past, 
serving more people and costing more money. There has got to be a 
better way to help low-income people achieve their rightful place in 
our society as taxpayers and as mainstream members of society.
  Mr. Speaker, the current President of the United States in the 
campaign of 1992 said, ``We must end welfare as it now exists.'' This 
conservative-dominated Congress has endeavored to do that, to provide 
some new approaches, to consolidate some programs, and to refine some 
programs. I believe that a good product has been produced here and that 
it would behoove all Members to support the Personal Responsibility 
Act, and I urge their positive vote on this conference report.

[[Page H15519]]

  Mr. Speaker, for the past decade this topic of reforming welfare has 
been an abiding interest of mine. I am guided by the words of Abraham 
Lincoln ``The Dogmas of the past are inadequate to the present. We must 
think anew and act anew.''
  The present welfare system cannot be defended. It is a disgrace. The 
people who receive the assistance do not like it; the people who run 
the system do not like it; and, the taxpayers will not stand for 
continuation of this present welfare maintenance system.
  There are more programs now for providing public assistance to poor 
families than any time in the past, serving more people and costing 
more money. There must be a better way to help low-income people become 
taxpayers.
  We currently have a welfare maintenance system, not one designed to 
provide temporary assistance and help people reclaim or gain a life.
  Most needy families coming in to seek public assistance need help in 
at least three categories: Cash and the accompanying medical 
assistance, food, and, housing. The rules and regulations for these 
programs are different and in many cases conflicting. It does not make 
sense for the Federal Government to set up programs for poor families 
and then establish different rules for eligibility.
  We need one program that provides a basic level of assistance for 
poor families; sets conditions for receipt of that assistance, 
including work; and then limits the amount of time families can receive 
public assistance.
  Over the past 12 years, I have served on the Nutrition Subcommittee 
of the Agriculture Committee or the Select Committee on Hunger. I have 
looked at these welfare programs in depth; I have visited scores of 
welfare offices, soup kitchens, food banks; I have spoken to those 
administering the welfare programs and the people receiving the 
assistance.
  I learned during my years serving on the Select Committee on Hunger 
that any one program does not comprehensively provide welfare for poor 
families; it takes two or more of the current programs to provide a 
basic level of help. When there are two or more programs with different 
rules and regulations people fall through the cracks in the system and 
also take advantage of the system.
  This must stop. How anyone could defend the present structure and 
system is a puzzle to me; unless it is persons who benefit illicitly 
from the fractured welfare mess we find ourselves in today, be they 
welfare recipients who take advantage of the system or advocates who 
thrive on the power derived from establishing new programs. Advocates 
of a humane system, a cost-effective system, an efficient system, a 
system that helps people up, off and out could find little solace in 
the current system.
  It is amazing to me that so many states have sought to change the 
welfare system through the waiver process, thereby recognizing the 
failure of the present system, without any action on the part of 
Congress to change the system as well. How many more States might try 
to institute reforms but for the maze of bureaucracy they must go to 
achieve waivers? What we have now is not a welfare system aimed at 
moving families off of welfare and onto the taxpayers rolls, but a 
maintenance system that thwarts State initiative and diversity and 
poorly helps poor families, exasperates the front line administrators 
running the programs, and is a frustration and burden to the people 
paying for this disastrous system.
  I want to help reform the system; I want to change the way we 
delivery this help to poor families; and, I want to do it in an 
efficient, compassionate, and cost-effective manner.
  The subcommittee that I chair held four hearings last February on the 
issue of reforming the present welfare system. We heard from the 
General Accounting Office on the multitude of programs that are now 
operating. we heard from a Governor who operates a welfare system that 
is dependent upon Federal Bureaucrats for waivers; a former Governor 
who had to devise a system to provide one-stop-shopping for 
participants; and State administrators who must deal with the day-to-
day obstacles that are placed in their way by Federal rules and 
regulations. Witnesses traveled from all over the United Sates to tell 
the subcommittee of their experiences operating programs to help poor 
families. Two of the members of the Welfare Simplification and 
Coordination Advisory Committee told us of the experiences deliberating 
the complexities of the present system. Others provided the 
subcommittee with their ideas on how to improve the system.

  The conference agreement on H.R. 4 improves the USDA commodity 
distribution programs and reforms the Food Stamp Program.
  We consolidate food distribution programs and provide for an increase 
in authorizations for the new program. Remember, food is fundamental. 
The food distribution programs, such as the emergency food assistance 
program or TEFAP, are the front line of defense against hunger for 
needy individuals and families. Food banks, soup kitchens, churches and 
community organizations are always there with food when it is needed.
  The Federal Government provides a portion of the food that is 
distributed through these programs. But it is an essential part and 
acts as seed money for food contributions from the private sector. If 
we did not have food distribution programs we would have to invent 
them. We consolidate programs and increase the money to buy food so 
that these worthwhile organizations, most of which are made up of 
volunteers, can continue the fine work they now do.
  Under the conference agreement we reform the Food Stamp Program and 
it is in need of a lot of reform. The States are provided with an 
option to reconcile the differences between their new AFDC programs 
with the Food Stamp Program for those people receiving help from both 
programs. This has been one of my goals and I believe that we are on 
the road to a one-stop-shopping welfare system. Complete welfare reform 
will come. This is the first step in the long road to reform.
  States are encouraged to go forward with an electronic benefit 
transfer system. EBT is the preferred way to issue food stamp benefits. 
This bill provides States with the ability to implement the EBT system 
they deem appropriate and the problems with the notorious regulation E 
are eliminated. EBT is a means to effectively issue food stamp benefits 
and a means to control and detect fraudulent activities in the program. 
I am especially gratified that EBT can become an integral part of the 
Food Stamp Program and other welfare programs.
  The conference agreement includes provisions that take steps to 
restore integrity to the Food Stamp Program. The agreement provides 
criminal forfeiture authority so that criminals will pay a price for 
their illegal activities in food stamp trafficking. We double the 
penalties for recipient fraudulent activities and we give USDA the 
authority to better manage the food stores that are authorized to 
accept and redeem food stamps.
  We include a strong work program. We say that if you are able-bodied 
and between 18 years and 50 years with no dependents, you can receive 
food stamps for four months. Following that you must be working in a 
regular job at least 20 hours a week--half-time work--or you will not 
receive food stamps. The American people cannot understand why people 
who can work do not do so. We say you will not receive food stamps 
forever if you do not work.
  Unconstrained growth in the Food Stamp Program, due to the automatic 
increases built into the program and the changes made to the program 
over the past years, cannot continue. We restrain the growth in the 
program by limiting the indexing of food stamp income deductions. We 
provide increases in food stamp benefits based on annual changes in the 
cost of food. We place a ceiling on the spending in the program. It 
will be up to Congress to determine whether increases above the limits 
placed on the program will take place. This is the appropriate way in 
which to manage this program. If a supplemental appropriation is 
needed, it will be Congress that decides whether to provide the 
additional money or institute reforms in the program to restrain the 
growth.
  Mr. Speaker, this is a good bill, with sound policy decisions 
incorporated. Remember, we have not ended the process of reforming 
welfare with the action we took last March and continue today. We are 
beginning the process of real reform. I urge my colleagues to support 
the principles of this bill and take this first step along with me. We 
cannot continue as we are today with a welfare system that is despised 
by all involved. The status quo is unacceptable.
  Let us think anew and act anew.
  Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentlewoman from the State of Connecticut [Mrs. Johnson], a member of 
the Committee on Ways and Means.
  Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 
4, the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Act. It is a 
significant improvement on the House-passed bill, and not only will it 
not suffer the children, but will provide women and children in need a 
window of opportunity to regain their independence from welfare.
  I am particularly pleased with two titles of the bill that I have 
worked on for years: child protective services and child support 
enforcement.
  We have 22 States currently under court order because their child 
welfare departments are failing in their mission to protect children in 
grossly abusive or neglectful families. Under the bill's child 
protective services title, foster care and adoption assistance payments 
remain entitlements, current 

[[Page H15520]]
law protection standards are retained, States must maintain their 
spending and may not transfer funds to other programs as they can do 
between other block grants, and spending on this title will increase by 
92 percent--from $3.3 billion to $6.3 billion in the year 2002.
  In addition, the data collection section will allow us, for the very 
first time, to know how many children were in foster care last year, 
how long they stayed, what help they and their families received, and 
basic information we need to truly protect children. For the first time 
States will have to have citizen review boards, which, in States where 
they are well developed, have prevented kids from getting lost in the 
system, and prompted permanent placements and early intervention. And 
because it is new law, we will be monitoring States' performance very 
closely in upcoming years and learning from their experience to improve 
this legislation.
  The child support title of this bill, based on the bipartisan Child 
Support Responsibility Act I was privileged to introduce earlier this 
year, takes giant steps toward enabling us to effectively collect child 
support. This is one area where national uniform law is important, 
since at least one-third of nonsupport cases involves more than one 
State. Immediate reporting of new employees to centralized State 
databanks will allow cross-checking with outstanding child support 
orders on an interstate basis for the first time. This, coupled with 
new power to cross-reference support orders with bank information and 
license information, will help literally millions of children enjoy a 
level of financial security not possible without the support from both 
parents.
  And, finally, this is a families-first bill. For the first time, 
parents and children formerly on welfare will get paid the child 
support they are owed without having to wait for the States to get paid 
first. This families-first provision will help families to regain their 
independence and their hope. This is what welfare reform is all about--
giving families the tools they need to help themselves. I urge my 
colleagues to join me in support of the H.R. 4 conference report before 
us today.
  Mr. FORD. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Foglietta].
  (Mr. FOGLIETTA asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.).
  Mr. FOGLIETTA. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the conference 
report.
  I rise in opposition to the conference report on welfare reform.
  The district that I represent is one of the 10 poorest in America, 
and so the implications of this bill are very real to a lot of my 
people. I oppose this bill because it begins and ends with the intent 
to punish the people on welfare. What we should be doing is working 
with people to help them get a job, and keep a job, help them get off 
welfare, and stay off welfare. Many of us have embraced the idea of 
``welfare to work.''
  But for many people, this bill will mean welfare to homelessness--and 
thus more Federal money will be spent. We're going backwards.
  Because this issue is so important to my constituents, I started the 
year by laying eight principles as a framework for real welfare reform. 
The common idea behind these principles is simple--let's think about 
how people live their lives and help them live that life without 
welfare.
  How can we get parents trained for real jobs, and get them a job? How 
can we keep mass transit viable, safe, and cheap so that people can get 
to their jobs? How can we get parents child care so they can feel 
secure, knowing their children are safe, as they work through the day?
  These are just some of the principles I laid down--and based on those 
principles, I cannot support this conference report.
  Punishment and arbitrariness is not the way to real welfare reform. 
This is especially unfortunate, because the ingredients are here for 
bipartisan agreement on this issue. The President should veto this bill 
and give us the opportunity to get to genuine reform.
  I urge my colleagues to oppose this conference report.

                              {time}  1400

  Mr. FORD. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to our colleague, the 
gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Hoyer].
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the ranking member for his 
generosity.
  Mr. Speaker, the current welfare system is at odds with the core 
values Americans share: work, opportunity, family, and responsibility.
  Too many people who hate being on welfare are trying to escape it 
with unfortunately too little success. It is time for a fundamental 
change. In 30 second obviously I cannot analyze the changes that I 
would be for other than to say I was a strong supporter, and continue 
to support the Deal bill. The Deal bill was sponsored by a Democrat; 
the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Deal] is now a Republican. What more 
bipartisan bill could Members support than the Deal bill?
  Mr. FORD. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from New 
York [Ms. Velazquez].
  (Ms. VELAZQUEZ asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
her remarks.)
  Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to the 
welfare conference agreement. I implore my colleagues on both sides of 
the isle to reject the mean-spirited provisions in this bill that will 
allow States to deny SSI and food stamps to immigrants living in the 
United States legally.
  This conference agreement is an insult to millions of hard-working 
immigrants. it is not only unfair, unjust, discriminatory, and 
prejudicial--it is unconstitutional. Furthermore, It is a shameful and 
vicious attempt to single out and penalize immigrants for the wrongs of 
society.
  In the past when the majority of immigrants looked like most of my 
Republican colleagues--immigration was good. Now that the majority of 
immigrants look like me--the radicals are pushing for laws that serve 
to punish those whose only crime is that they came to this country for 
a better life.
  I ask my colleagues have we forgotten that this is a Nation of 
immigrants? Let's not create laws that will discriminate against people 
who work hard, pay taxes, and serve in the military. Vote against this 
shameful welfare conference agreement.
  Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the most distinguished 
gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. McCrery], a valuable member of the 
Committee on Ways and Means.
  Mr. McCRERY. First of all, Mr. Speaker, let me point out that this 
conference report represents a compromise on the issue of SSI for 
children. Those of us who wanted to replace cash benefits with services 
to disabled children agreed to continue cash. Although I think that 
decision is a mistake, I believe this bill makes other badly needed 
changes to a badly flawed program, so I support the compromise.
  But some defenders of the status quo, having lost the issue of cash 
to cry about, now complain that fewer children will qualify for SSI as 
a result of this bill. That is true. Here's why. As recently as 1989, 
the number of children on SSI was 300,000; today, that number is 
900,000. Clearly, something is wrong with a program that triples in 6 
years.
  Under this bill, caseloads would decline because, after months of 
hearings and expert testimony, Republicans and some Democrats are 
acting to bring some common sense back to this program. Our bill ends 
the IFA and maladaptive behavior standards that allow parents to 
receive more than $5,000 per child in annual benefits--sometime called 
crazy checks--because their children exhibited age-inappropriate 
behavior.
  My Democrat colleagues should be familiar with this policy, because 
they all supported it as part of the House Democratic welfare 
substitute just last spring. Every Democrat voted for a bill that would 
cut the same number of children from the SSI rolls as this conference 
report. According to CBO, the Democrat bill would ``trim approximately 
20 to 25 percent of children from the SSI rolls.''
  Yes, just a few months ago, every Democrat in this House voted, 
rightly, to restrict eligibility for a welfare program gone wild. Yet 
today, in an effort to make cheap political points, some of them 
conveniently change their minds. Well, it won't work--what was sound 
policy then is sound policy now. The SSI provisions of this bill should 
be a good reason to vote for the conference report.
  Mr. FORD. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the 
gentlewoman from New York [Mrs. Maloney].
  (Mrs. MALONEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend her 
remarks.)

[[Page H15521]]

  Mrs. MALONEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition.
  Mr. FORD. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Michigan [Mr. Levin] who serves on the Subcommittee on Human Resources 
of the Committee on Ways and Means and who has really been in the 
forefront of welfare reform for many years and one who has articulated 
the issue very well for the children of this Nation.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his kind words. 
Unfortunately, this is not a historic day. It is a wasted opportunity. 
Instead of a bipartisan bill that the President can sign, this is an 
extreme bill that my colleagues have given the President no choice but 
to vote.
  The House Democratic bill that we presented a number of months ago 
aimed at putting people on welfare into work. It had time limits. It 
had flexibility for the Governors. It had resources to make that 
program work. The gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Deal] comes here and that 
key part is out of the bill and he defends his action.
  The CBO has said very clearly that in the year 2002 the bill is $7 
billion-plus short on getting people to work within the participation 
rates, child care, and the work requirements.
  I want to say something, though. My colleagues are not only weak on 
work, but they punish kids. I want to say this to my colleagues very 
directly, because what was said a few minutes ago is simply wrong. The 
Republican Senators who signed that letter saying that they had deep 
concern pointed out their 58 billion in cuts have nothing to do with 
AFDC and getting parents into work as they should. It cuts food stamps 
mostly for kids. It cuts protective services like foster care for 
children. It cuts Medicaid, the link between welfare and health care.
  For people to get off of welfare, they need a year's transition with 
Medicaid and you eliminate it. You also tamper with SSI. These are kids 
with cerebral palsy, Downs syndrome, muscular dystrophy, cystic 
fibrosis.
  We did eliminate in our bill, it was not this many, 330,000, a 
smaller number who do not deserve to be on the rolls. We need reform, 
but you cut by 25 percent payment, yes, and you do, for kids with 
cystic fibrosis, cerebral palsy, Downs syndrome.
  Mr. McCRRERY. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. LEVIN. I yield to the gentleman from Louisiana.
  Mr. McCRERY. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman is simply wrong. In fact, the 
CBO, I have the statement right here in front of me that the Deal bill 
that was voted for cuts from the roles the same number of children.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, there was no 25-percent cut for these 
severely handicapped children, period. And what Members have done is 
grab $4 billion from severely handicapped kids, from low income, in 
order to pay for a tax cut. That is a crying shame and that is why we 
are going to vote ``no'' on this welfare bill.
  Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Connecticut [Mr. Franks].
  (Mr. FRANKS of Connecticut asked and was given permission to revise 
and extend his remarks.)
  Mr. FRANKS of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of 
H.R. 4. Since my election to Congress in 1990, I have fought hard to 
address a system that to me is akin to one of the most oppressive 
systems and periods in our country's history, slavery. There are strong 
similarities between our current welfare system and slavery. Like 
slavery, welfare recipients feel trapped, have low hope, depend on the 
system as well. The welfare recipients receive food, shelter and health 
care, and so did slaves.
  There are of course some differences. Slaves were black; most welfare 
recipients are white, though a disproportionate number of blacks are on 
welfare. Slaves worked but were not paid. Welfare recipients do not 
work but they are paid. Both practices are wrong. One system would kill 
you with pain via the whip, while the other system would kill you with 
kindness. Both have the same end result, they control people's lives.
  Both systems divide the family, a key element of perpetuating the 
system. Slave owners sold off slaves with little regard to the family 
while in today's welfare system we encourage the flight of the male. We 
encourage the divided family. We ended slavery, Mr. Speaker. The least 
we can do is reform welfare. There is a better way.
  I am also pleased that the electronic benefits transfer, the debit 
card system, has been included in this bill for the disbursement of 
AFDC and food stamps. I introduced this bill, the debit card, in 1993.
  Mr. FORD. 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 strong opposition to 
this bill.
  Mr. FORD. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from Texas [Mr. Bentsen].
  (Mr. BENTSEN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. BENTSEN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of real welfare 
reform as contained in the Deal substitute and the coalition budget and 
in opposition to this conference report.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of real welfare reform as provided in 
the Deal substitute and contained in the coalition's balanced budget 
and in opposition to the conference report for H.R. 4, the Personal 
Responsibility Act. This bill is the wrong answer to the critical 
challenge of reforming our welfare system to encourage more personal 
responsibility and to require welfare recipients to work. This bill is 
weak on work and tough on children, and it fails to keep up with the 
needs of fast-growing States such as Texas.
  Let there be no mistake about it. I strongly support reforming 
welfare to emphasize work. Earlier this year, I voted for the Deal-
Stenholm welfare reform bill, which includes a tough work requirement 
and provides resources to help people on welfare find and keep jobs. I 
voted for it again with the coalition's balanced budget reconciliation 
bill. The Deal-Stenholm plan requires each person on welfare to 
immediately develop a self-sufficiency plan that includes job 
searching, job training, or education. It would cut off benefits to 
individuals who refuse to work or accept a job. But it also provides a 
necessary resources, including child care, job training, health care, 
and nutrition, that make it possible for parents to work without 
hurting their children and that make sure that work pays more than 
welfare.
  H.R. 4 neither requires nor rewards work. Rather, it punishes 
children.
  This bill includes no work requirement whatsoever. It rewards states 
that reduce their welfare rolls, but the reward is the same regardless 
of whether recipients end up homeless on the streets or in good jobs 
and on the road to a better life. In fact, the former is much more 
likely than the latter under this bill because it falls woefully short 
in meeting child care, health care, and other needs. In fact, this bill 
falls $14 billion short of meeting these needs compared to the Senate 
bill approved earlier this year, which itself was barely adequate at 
best.
  The problems in this bill are exacerbated by the Republican proposal 
to cut the earned income tax credit by $32 billion over the next 7 
years. This cut in the EITC amounts to a tax increase for 12.6 million 
working families with 14.5 million children. What kind of a message do 
we send to these families when we tell them that if they work hard, 
they will be penalized with a tax increase and reduced health care, 
child care, and nutritional assistance? It certainly isn't a message 
that we value work.
  It is the children that will suffer, through no faulty of their own. 
For example, this conference report severs the link between welfare and 
Medicaid eligibility. In Texas alone, 321,419 parents and children 
would lose their health coverage. These children and families will lose 
guaranteed health coverage regardless of any other reforms made in 
Medicaid. Without Medicaid coverage, sick children will go without even 
the most basic health care.
  This bill is especially bad for fast-growing States such as Texas. 
The proposal to block grant will welfare benefits would cost Texas $1 
billion over 7-years. Texas is a State with higher than average 
population growth. Block grants are fixed amounts of money that are not 
adjusted for either population growth or recessions. Thus block grants 
will not keep up with Texas' needs. And Texas certainly would not have 
sufficient resources to help our most vulnerable families, therefore 
creating an unfunded mandate which this House is on record opposing.
  In the final analysis, H.R. 4 is the wrong answer to a critical 
problem. The President has vowed to veto this bill in its current form. 
I hope that once the President vetoes this bill, we can work together 
on a bipartisan basis to reform our welfare system. The Deal-Stenholm 

[[Page H15522]]
plan is a constructive compromise that encourages and rewards work 
while protecting our children. This is the common-sense approach we 
need to truly reform welfare.
  Mr. FORD Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from California [Mr. Farr].
  (Mr. FARR asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. FARR. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this bill.
  Mr. Speaker, in Dr. Seuss' beloved story, the Grinch stole Christmas 
from the children in Whooville because he was mean-spirited. While the 
Grinch is a fairy tale and has a happy ending, it is tragic that the 
welfare reform conference report before us today is not.
  While every Member of this institution agrees with me that the 
welfare system is broken and must be fixed, it is unconscionable to me 
that the Republicans can demonstrate such mean-spiritedness by 
proposing a welfare reform bill that will plunge innocent children into 
poverty.
  Every President since FDR has preserved the minimum national 
guarantee of income assistance for poor children. What the Republican 
conference report does is steal the basic guarantees of help for poor, 
hungry, ill, abused, and neglected children much like the Ginch who 
stole Christmas from Whoolville.
  At the same time the Republicans can eliminate the safety net for 
children, they continue to insist on a $245 billion tax cut for the 
wealthy.
  Let me tell you what would happen by the year 2002 if the $245 
billion were allotted to low-income children instead: enroll another 
1.5 million children in Head Start, cost: $42.68 billion; expand child 
care for working parents, cost: $42.20 billion; provide health 
insurance to 10 million children who currently have no health 
insurance, cost: $90.80 billion; provide after-school programs, cost: 
$4.95 billion; and raise 3.65 million children out of poverty, cost: 
$70.67 billion.
  This is true welfare reform--if we allocate $70 billion to give 
jobless parents part-time jobs and provide families with child care, 
wage supplements, and direct cash assistance, we would truly fulfill 
the spirit of Christmas for millions and millions of needy children.
  This is a Grinchie conference report and I urge its defeat.
  Mr. FORD. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to be gentlewoman from the 
district of Columbia [Ms. Norton].
  (Mr. NORTON asked and was given permission to revise and extend her 
remarks.)
  Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, there is no greater disappointment this 
session than this bill. It fails to meet the two mandates the American 
people gave us when we began this exercise across all race and class 
lines: put people on welfare to work; do no harm to children.
  Instead of providing the means to work, we provide an artificial 
percentage who must work which we know will not be met, 50 percent by 
the year 2002. The bill betrays the mandate of no harm to children 
because it removes the entitlement without replacing it with any form 
of safety net. Ending the entitlement and the safety net will not 
reduce the number of desperately needy children who need some means of 
support. Instead of saving children, we put their needy parents in 
competition with one another. The working poor and the welfare poor 
will compete with one another for child care because we eliminate much 
of what we said we would give in child care. If we believe in keeping 
with the priorities our own constituents set for us across race and 
class lines at the beginning of this exercise, we must vote down this 
conference report.
  Mr. SHAW Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman 
from Texas [Mr. Smith], a member of the Committee on the Judiciary.
  Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, one of the most important sections 
in the Personal Responsibility Act stops giving welfare benefits to 
illegal aliens and encourages legal immigrants to become self-reliant. 
Our Nation simply cannot continue to allow noncitizens to take limited 
welfare resources while ignoring our own citizens.
  Many immigrants come to America for economic opportunity. Others, 
though, come to exploit our Government assistance programs. For 
example, the number of immigrants applying for supplemental security 
income has increased 580 percent over the last 12 years. Those who 
agree to financially sponsor immigrants repeatedly fail to honor their 
obligations.
  The provisions in the Personal Responsibility Act that apply to 
noncitizens are estimated to save American taxpayers $16 billion, but 
welfare reform is as much a behavioral issue as a budgetary one. The 
real debate in welfare reform is not over 16 billion, it is over the 
fact that welfare destroys work incentives, encourages the breakdown of 
the family and results in years of dependency.
  Mr. Speaker, all the President needs to do to keep his word to the 
American people to reform welfare is to sign this bill.

                              {time}  1415

  Mr. FORD. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Rush].
  (Mr. RUSH asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. RUSH. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this bill.
  We have sent troops to Bosnia to protect people who cannot protect 
themselves. They were killed and slaughtered because another group felt 
that the region in which they lived needed to be cleansed. I mention 
this because, the provisions in this bill bring to mind the tragedy in 
Bosnia. The motivation behind these provisions which deny Medicaid, 
social services, and welfare for assistance to legal immigrants, 
children, and the disabled reeks of all sorts of machinations.
  I am concerned that the Republican majority feels that this Nation 
needs to be cleansed of those who do not speak English as their native 
language, those who are poor, those who are disabled, those who are 
sick, and those who dare to ask for a helping hand, whatever the reason 
might be.
  Mr. Speaker, this bill sounds like, smells like and is an elitist 
manifesto. Some may characterize this bill as immoral, but I feel that 
would not be accurate. This bill goes further--it is amoral--totally 
devoid and lacking of consideration of laws of human civility.
  We must change the welfare system, however, it must not be done 
without compassion and sensibility. This bill will only harm those who 
are already in need.
  Mr. FORD. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from New York [Mr. Nadler].
  (Mr. NADLER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this terrible 
bill.
   Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to the Republican welfare 
reform conference report being considered today on the House floor.
  This bill is a clear assault on America's children, and on America's 
future. It would cut $48.4 billion from vital family survival programs, 
denying benefits to millions of children who are in desperate need.
  The welfare reform bill rips apart the safety net that so many 
children and families have relied on to help them stay afloat during 
desperate times. The Draconian cuts to essential services for low-
income children, for families, and for elderly and disabled people is a 
clear example of the mean and uncaring spirit which has engulfed this 
Congress.
   Mr. Speaker, the magnitude of the cuts to these programs are 
unprecedented in U.S. history. This bill takes away the guaranty of 
emergency assistance for the very poor. It reduces drastically the 
funding for child protection programs needed to remove children from 
unsafe homes, and to place them in appropriate settings, such as foster 
care and adoption. Under this legislation, families on AFDC, as well as 
children receiving foster care and adoption assistance, would no longer 
be assured of receiving Medicaid as they currently are. Food assistance 
is reduced to ridiculous levels. The food stamp program is cut nearly 
$35 billion over 7 years--cutting benefits about 20 percent. Further, 
this bill reduces Federal supplemental security income benefits for 
large groups of disabled low-income children and also to older 
Americans. This bill also reduces funding for work programs which are 
key to making people personally responsible for themselves and their 
families.
  As a result of these reductions, the legislation would increase 
poverty dramatically among children. An Office of Management and Budget 
analysis found that this conference agreement would add 1.5 million 
children to the ranks of the poor. This study also found that the 
conference agreement would increase the depth of child poverty by one-
third--making large numbers of children who already are poor poorer. 
This too is unprecedented in our Nation's history.
   Mr. Speaker, this bill is immoral and counter to the so-called 
family values which the Republicans constantly tout as necessary to a 
productive society. How this legislation will help to foster family 
values and personal responsibility baffles me. This legislation will 
put more families and children out on the streets; make more families 
and children go hungry; and will take away all of the basic survival 
needs and opportunities which those less fortunate need to be 
productive and contributing 

[[Page H15523]]
citizens. Don't let the Republicans fool you into believing that this 
bill is about reforming the welfare system, because if it were they 
would focus more on job and education opportunities for families with 
children while maintaining an adequate living standard for those in 
need, allowing them to be distinct contributors.
  This bill callously steals the little bit of hope that those in need 
have left to rise up against the odds. Clearly, it is a vehicle to keep 
the poor and disadvantaged down at the benefit of the wealthy status 
quo.
  In this bill, the Republicans destroy hope for personal advancement 
among this Nation's disadvantaged and poor--those who have not been so 
fortunate to have been born into economically stable families.
   Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote against this very damaging 
bill.
  Mr. FORD. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Georgia 
[Mr. Lewis], the distinguished Democratic leader.
  Mr. LEWIS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, in the spirit of the Gingrich 
Christmas, Republicans are giving American children an early Christmas 
surprise.
  During this season, the season of giving, the Republicans have 
instead taken--taken from our Nation's poor children. They are stealing 
the hopes and dreams of millions of children who have little else.
  The Republican plan puts a million and a half children into poverty. 
It takes from school lunches and child care. Poor children are no 
longer guaranteed basic health care.
  The Republican proposal destroys the safety net that protects our 
Nation's children. It is an extreme, mean-spirited and radical 
proposal--devoid of compassion and feeling.
  As your children open their presents Monday morning--as we join our 
families in love and fellowship--take a moment to remember the children 
who will do without, the children that this plan will make do with even 
less.
  Merry Christmas--Mr. Speaker.
  Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Arkansas [Mr. Hutchinson].
  Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. Speaker, my friends, in the midst of this budget 
crisis, the crisis of a generation, we are afforded an historic 
opportunity to transform a flawed welfare system that has been 
destroying families, eroding hope, and shredding the social fabric of 
this country for a generation.
  If you are for welfare reform today, you have an opportunity, a 
chance to prove it. No more excuses, no more demagoguery, no more 
rhetoric about how it is tough on children, no more rhetoric about 
pulling the safety net and all of the rhetoric about it being cruel and 
mean.
  I do not know, I have lost track of how many times the word cut has 
been used from the other side. So let us set the record straight. This 
chart demonstrates it conclusively: Spending in this bill increases, 
increases, increases, at 4 percent a year. Perhaps more importantly, 
spending per person in poverty, the individuals whom we are most 
concerned about, increases to the point that it will be the highest 
ever in the history of this republic.
  I challenge anybody on the other side of the aisle to dispute these 
facts. Spending goes up in this bill. The safety net is secure. This 
bill, in fact, has been so tempered in conference that only the most 
wild-eyed liberal could possibly oppose it. It gives States new, broad 
authority to design their welfare programs.
  You say, well, they might not do it right. And I say they could not 
possibly do it worse. It has real work requirements. It has a real time 
cutoff on welfare benefits.
  I am from Arkansas. I know President Clinton is an advocate for 
welfare reform and, I believe in the end he will do right and he will 
sign this bill. We will have real welfare reform.
  Mr. FORD. Mr. Speaker, I am inserting at this point in the Record 
material expressing opposition to this bill.

           ASFSA Position on Welfare Reform Conference Report

       ASFSA urges the Congress to vote against the welfare reform 
     conference report because in addition to other problems it 
     includes a block grant of school lunch and child nutrition. 
     While the school lunch block grant is limited to seven 
     states, it is a step in the wrong direction. The block grant 
     breaks a fifty year tradition of federal responsibility and 
     commitment to feeding children. (The National School Lunch 
     Act was signed by President Harry Truman on June 4, 1946.)
       The National School Lunch Program works, and works very 
     well. There is no reason to experiment, even in seven states, 
     with how to break the federal commitment to feeding children.
                                                                    ____



                          The School District of Philadelphia,

                              Philadelphia, PA, December 14, 1995.
     Hon. Richard Lugar,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Lugar: On behalf of the students of 
     Philadelphia's public schools and their parents, I extend 
     heartfelt thanks for your staunch opposition to block grants 
     for school nutrition programs.
       The School District of Philadelphia feeds its students over 
     115,000 lunch and 32,000 breakfast meals each day. Eighty-
     five percent of these student's household size and family 
     income make them eligible for free meals. To many of our 
     students these meals are the only source of good nutrition 
     that they may receive. Over the past five years we have 
     increased student participation in the lunch program by 57% 
     and by 128% at breakfast. The block grant concept for 
     nutrition programs would have severely impeded our progress 
     in increasing student participation and maintaining current 
     service levels.
       It is a recognized fact that nutritious meals improve a 
     student's ability to achieve and contribute to long term 
     wellness. Your principled, non-partisan stand on this issue 
     is a true service to the youth of this country.
       Again, thank you.
           Sincerely,
                                              Thomas E. McGlinchy,
                                                         Director.

  Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California [Mr. 
Becerra].
  (Mr. BECERRA asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time.
  When you ask any American what is reform in welfare, they will tell 
you, go after the fraud, be tough on the cheats, require work. But if 
you ask them should we knock 330,000 children who are severely disabled 
off from any assistance whatsoever and you tell them that for the 
650,000 other very severely disabled children who have things like 
cerebral palsy or Down's syndrome, that should we cut their assistance 
by 25 percent, will they tell you that is reform? Will they tell your 
cutting $35 billion out of food stamps that will affect the 14 million 
children in this country who receive some assistance through food 
stamps, that that is reform? They will not tell you yes, but they will 
say you are heading in the wrong direction.
  When you tell them that if you abide by the laws and you pay your 
taxes and you are doing everything this country asks you to, except you 
are not quite yet a citizen, should you be denied assistance if you 
should need it? I do not think they will tell you yes. This bill takes 
$20 billion out of the hide of legal residents to this country, and I 
think that is wrong.
  Let us get some reform. Let us not ravage our children. Let us get 
something on the table we can vote for. This conference report is not 
it.
  Mr. FORD. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from California [Mr. Torres].
  (Mr. TORRES asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. TORRES. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this welfare 
conference report.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the welfare conference report. 
This report is nothing short of a nightmare. What the Republicans call 
reform, I call outright abuse.
  Welfare reform is about helping families help themselves. It's about 
presenting opportunity through job training and child care. It's about 
giving these families a realistic chance at making it on their own.
  More importantly, welfare reform begins with the next generation. 
This conference report ignores this simple fact.
  If we want to end welfare as we know it, let's start with our welfare 
children--all of our welfare children, be they legal residents or not. 
They did not ask for poverty or hunger, so let's recognize their 
innocence with reforms that give them a future.
  Instead, this Congress is leading our poorest, neediest children to 
the edge of a cliff and pushing them off.
  With cuts in nutritional programs, child care and health care, we are 
taking away their future. We aren't encouraging the end of welfare, 
we're cultivating the next generation of recipients.
  I ask my colleagues to vote against this report; these children did 
not create the welfare crises. Don't make them pay for it.
  Mr. FORD. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from Oregon [Mr. DeFazio].

[[Page H15524]]

  (Mr. DeFAZIO asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the conference 
report.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today, just a few short days before Christmas and 
during the observance of Hanukkah, to denounce the welfare reform 
conference report as antifamily, antichildren, and the most dramatic 
illustration of the cruel agenda of the House Republicans.
  In this time of giving and caring, of family togetherness, it is 
simply unconscionable that we are considering legislation that will 
ultimately deprive children, the elderly, and low income families in 
this country of the most basic human needs--food, healthcare, and 
protection from abuse. What has happened to this country's priorities? 
Last month, Congress approved a $245 billion tax cut that primarily 
benefits wealthy Americans and profitable corporations. Just last week 
Congress passed legislation authorizing $260 billion in defense 
spending, including funds for more B-2 bombers, at $2 billion each, 
which the Pentagon does not want. Today the House authorized $28 
billion for intelligence operations.
  I am unalterably opposed to this irresponsible welfare reform 
proposal. The plan punishes our country's poor families and children 
while doing nothing to move them off welfare and into family-wage jobs. 
The conference report pretends that if we punish the poor, the problem 
of welfare dependency will somehow go away. The conference report 
reduces funding for education and job training and provides 
insufficient funding for child care--the very tools that enable people 
to leave welfare and become self-sufficient.
  In a nation facing unemployment rates of 5.6 percent, this 
legislation will not prepare welfare recipients for family-wage jobs 
and self-sufficiency. Instead, it sets an arbitrary time limit of 
anywhere from 2 to 5 years in which people who have been given no 
opportunity to succeed are permanently barred from assistance. Welfare 
needs reform, but we must give individuals real opportunities for 
success.
  The Republican leadership argues that welfare eats up our entire 
Federal budget. In fact, we spend 1 percent of our total budget on Aid 
to Families With Dependent Children--$16 billion. That's about the same 
amount the Republican leadership proposes to spend on foreign aid. By 
conservative estimates, we will spend about $570 billion over the next 
5 years on corporate welfare for large profitable corporations, many of 
which are foreign owned. In contrast, the welfare reform conference 
report will cut anywhere between $60 and $80 billion over the next 7 
years in a variety of public welfare programs--we don't know exactly 
how much, because we haven't been able to see the final report.
  We do know who will feel the burden of these cuts. It is our Nation's 
children, Mr. Speaker. In the United States in 1992 children made up 67 
percent of all welfare recipients. That year, slightly more than 9 
million children received cash assistance from Aid to Families with 
Dependent Children [AFDC]. It is these children who will face the 
terrible consequences if this bill is enacted. What will happen to 
these children if their parents are denied assistance? Will America 
look more like Calcutta in 7 years? Is that what Americans want.

  We have heard that if families are forced off welfare, they will 
still have access to healthcare and food stamps. However, the 
conference report eliminates the current guarantee of Medicaid coverage 
for AFDC recipients, as well as children receiving foster care and 
adoption assistance. In addition, nearly half of the cuts in this bill 
come from the Food Stamp Program. Republicans have been assuring us all 
along that they're maintaining the basic noncash safety net for 
children of food stamps and Medicaid. Now we see the reality behind the 
rhetoric. This is a mean-spirited attack on the poor which will 
increase child hunger and deny children access to health care.
  I would like to close with some passages from that cherished 
Christmas story, ``A Christmas Carol,'' as spoken by the character, 
Ebenezer Scrooge:

       Are there no prisons, no workhouses? . . . I can't afford 
     to make idle people merry. I help to support these 
     establishments and they cost enough and those who are badly 
     off must go there . . . It is enough for a man to understand 
     his own business and not interfere with other people's.

  Sound familiar, Mr. Speaker? You have heard almost identical 
statements from the Republicans throughout the past year. All ends well 
in this story of Christmas past and Scrooge mends his ways. I call on 
my colleagues to follow this example and reject this mean-spirited 
legislation for the sake of our Nation's children.
  Mr. FORD. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the 
gentlewoman from California [Ms. Roybal-Allard].
  (Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend her remarks.)
  Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this 
bill.
  Mr. FORD. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Massachusetts [Mr. Olver].
  Mr. OLVER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time.
   Mr. Speaker, welfare reform is supposed to move people off welfare 
and reward work, but this bill does neither. It not only shreds the 
safety net for the truly poor but it hurts working families as well. 
This bill slashes child care, nutrition, and food stamps for working 
families. It slashes support for disabled children. It slashes child 
abuse protections, the very support that keeps working families whole 
and off of welfare.
  Add to this the Gingrich earned income tax credit cuts, and you truly 
close the door of opportunity for poor working families and their 
children. That is not reform, Mr. Speaker, it is cruelty.
  Mr. Speaker, welfare reform, real welfare reform, is supposed to move 
people off welfare and reward them for their working.
  Last spring, I and every other House Democrats voted for a welfare 
reform bill which would have done just that. It included tougher work 
requirements than the Republican plan and State flexibility in 
improvising welfare policies, while at the same time preserving the 
safety net for this Nation's poor. It also provided adequate funding 
for the tools needed to successfully move people to work: education, 
training, and child care.
  The extremist bill we vote on today, H.R. 4, does neither of these 
things.
  It shreds the safety net for the truly poor in this country, ending 
the 60-year commitment Government has made to the less fortunate.
  It ends the guarantee of financial assistance, health care, and child 
care for poor children. It provides no additional funds for education, 
literacy, and job training to move and keep people off welfare.
  Furthermore, this bill also directly harms the economic well-being of 
working families.
  This bill cuts funding for child nutrition, such as WIC, which 
provides vital prenatal nutrition for women, and food at day care 
centers for low-income families. It cuts both child care and food 
stamps, both of which are essential to struggling, working families.
  This legislation also slashes at nonwelfare programs like financial 
assistance for disabled children and protection for neglected and 
abused children.
  These are the very supports that keep working families whole and off 
of welfare.
  Add to these measures the proposed $30 billion in cuts to the earned 
income tax credit, which benefits 12 million families with incomes 
below $30,000, and you truly close the door on opportunity for the 
working poor.
  That's not reform, that's cruelty.
  Mr. FORD. Mr. Speaker, I yield 50 seconds to our colleague, the 
gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. Rose].
  Mr. ROSE. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the time, and I would like to 
tell my colleagues that at the appropriate time I will offer a motion 
to recommit. This motion to recommit goes in the direction of what our 
distinguished colleagues in another body have urged that be done.
  I urge my colleagues to take a page out of Santa Claus' book and 
realize that this is not a time to be cruel to the youngest and the 
most vulnerable people in our society.
  I urge that the motion to recommit, which I will offer at the 
appropriate time, be adopted by my colleagues.
  Mr. FORD. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the 
gentlewoman from Florida [Mrs. Meek].
  (Mrs. MEEK of Florida asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend her remarks.)
  Mrs. MEEK of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I stand to say to the world to, 
please, revoke this stand by the Republican party against needy 
immigrants and vote against it.
  Mr. Speaker, there are many reasons to oppose this conference report. 
I'll just talk about one that is very important in the part of the 
country I represent: discriminating against legal immigrants.
  The conference report denies Supplementary Security Income and food 
stamps to legal immigrants.
  The Republican majority is destroying the safety net for thousands of 
people who are legal residents in the Miami area. These people are 
hardworking and productive members of society. They pay their taxes. 
But for reasons beyond their control, some of them may need temporary 
financial assistance.

[[Page H15525]]

  Why does the Republican majority discriminate against people who are 
legal residents? We all know the answer. This discrimination cuts 
Federal spending by $20 billion. They want to use these funds to give a 
$245 billion tax cut that is targeted to those earning more than 
$100,000 a year.
  This conference report should be defeated.
  Mr. FORD. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the remainder of my time.
  I would like to make note of the statement by the President today, 
share it with my colleagues on the Republican side as well as the 
Democrats on this side. In a portion of it, he said, ``I am 
disappointed the Republicans are trying to use the word welfare reform 
as cover to advance the budget plan that is at odds with America's 
values. Americans know that welfare reform is not about playing budget 
politics. It is about moving people from welfare to work,'' and he 
said, ``I am determined to work with Congress to achieve real 
bipartisan welfare reform, but if Congress sends me this conference 
report, I will veto it and insist that they try again.''
  I urge the President to veto this bill if it is passed today, this 
conference report, in this House of Representatives.
  Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from Florida [Mr. Mica].
  (Mr. MICA asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. MICA. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this conference report.
  Thomas Jefferson said it best in 3 words, ``Despondency begets 
servitude.''
  Through misguided compassion our welfare system has fostered chaos. 
We have enslaved two generations. The Federal welfare system has 
destroyed family structure, work ethic, and any sense of values and 
smothered opportunity. The Federal welfare system has destroyed hope, 
discouraged personal responsibility, and cast a dark gloom over the 
lives of millions of Americans.
  Today we offer with this welfare reform bill a glimmer of hope. Today 
we offer hope for people to help themselves. Today we offer hope to end 
the cycle of dependency.
  Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the remainder of my time.
  Mr. Speaker, we have come down a very, very long road. Before I get 
into my closing remarks, I want to recognize a staff person who has 
done an unbelievable job in bringing this along, Dr. Ron Haskins, of 
the Committee on Ways and Means, Subcommittee on Human Resources. 
Without him, all of us know that without good hard-working staff 
people, such as Dr. Haskins, we would not be able to formulate 
legislation such as is before us today.
  Mr. Speaker, I think we also, while we are handing out credit today, 
we have to give credit to the President of the United States for 
raising the consciousness of the American people about the corruption 
of the existing welfare system. For it is he that coined the phrase 
that we shall change welfare as we know it today. It took, however, 
this Congress to finally move forward with a bill that all of us today 
should be able to support.
  I wish the podium were right in the middle of this floor because this 
is where it ought to be when we are talking about the future of so many 
millions of American people who have become welfare dependent. 
President Roosevelt referred to welfare as a narcotic. It is an 
addictive narcotic.
  Approaching welfare reform, as many of us did some 5\1/2\, 6 years 
ago, never once did we view it as a vindication of the taxpayer. We 
viewed it as a corrupt system that had sucked people into a way of life 
from which there was no escape, and we have moved substantially 
forward.
  I want to compliment all of the Members on the Democrat side of the 
aisle for their vote the last time this came forward, because each and 
every one of you set aside and said, ``I will not support the existing 
welfare system.'' Each and every one of you today have not, not one 
person in this Chamber has gotten up to support this system that is now 
60 years old and has enslaved so many of our American people.
  Is there one of us that would want to depend upon a 60-year-old car 
for transportation? But we are asking the poorest among us to live with 
a system that is 60 years old. Think back 60 years, think of where the 
place of the woman was 60 years ago and where she is now. Think how the 
American psyche has changed, think about where minorities have gone in 
the protection of the law when the law used to work against them, and 
now it is working with them.
  So what has held so many American people back? A welfare system, a 
welfare system that pays people to stay where they are, not to get 
married, and not to work. We cannot choose that system.
  My colleagues, today we have a choice. On the one side, you can vote 
for the status quo. On the other side, you can come forward with us and 
reach out your hand, and I will commit to you as long as I am chairman 
of the Subcommittee on Human Resources we are going to continue to look 
at welfare reform. We are going to continue to help the poor. We are 
going to move this country forward, and we are not going to leave 
anybody behind this time.
  Vote ``yes'' on this most important bill.
  Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I rise today, somewhat reluctantly, in 
opposition to the welfare reform conference report. I do so because my 
colleagues from the other side of the aisle have left no real choice 
for those Members who want to make smart and reasonable reforms. 
Earlier this year, I supported an alternative bill with work 
requirements, time limits for receiving assistance, and more 
flexibility for States to make their welfare programs work better.
  The bill before us fails any reasonable sense of balance. It singles 
out the harshest cuts for children, such as denying AFDC cash 
assistance to 4 million children. This is not right. Neither is it 
right to out 6 million children from the health care benefits of 
Medicaid.
  As we work to reform welfare, it is important to remember that we do 
not provide welfare assistance purely for altruistic reasons. We 
provide financial assistance to those in need because it is in the best 
interest of our society to do so.
  Helping Americans who are experiencing severe financial difficulties 
get back on their feet, at its most practical level, lowers our crime 
rate and increases our Nation's ability to compete by strengthening the 
quality of our work force. At its loftiest level, it increases the 
quality of many people's lives.
  Our goal is to return people to work--enabling them to support their 
families, and provide for those children, elderly, and disabled who are 
unable to provide for themselves. For the most part, this requires 
funding of the basic necessities--health care, child care, and job 
training. The bill fails to provide to States adequate funding for any 
of these three.
  The bill repeals the current guarantee of Medicaid coverage for AFDC 
families, thus leaving over 4 million mothers without health care. It 
also mandates that 50 percent of welfare recipients participate in work 
programs, yet offers no funding for these programs. This places a $26 
billion unfunded mandate on States to operate job training programs, 
and to care for the children of those enrolled.
  In our rush to try to get home for the holidays, I find it sad that 
our friends on the majority side of the aisle have chosen to mark the 
spirit of the season by pushing through an excessive level of cuts 
disproportionately aimed at the most helpless among us. I am told the 
President will veto this legislation. That is the right choice. Perhaps 
then we can mark the new year by working in a bipartisan manner to 
enact smart and reasonable welfare reform.
  Mr. VENTO. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this measure, H.R. 4. 
This is not welfare reform, rather, it is a measure which short changes 
many essential programs that affect our fellow Americans in need.
  In addition to rewriting policy and cutting funding for the Aid to 
Families with Dependent Children [AFDC] Program, the measure 
substantially cuts nutrition programs, child care assistance, 
Supplemental Security Income [SSI], and other emergency assistance 
programs. Consequently, it undercuts much of the economic safety net 
for people in need in our Nation.
  Major flaws that were inherent in this measure when it left the House 
persist, and, in some instances, have been compounded. This measure 
ends the entitlement status of most essential programs for families in 
need and folds them together. This means that the numbers of families 
and individuals that actually qualify for assistance with today's 
policy will no longer be a factor, they will be irrelevant, in 
determining who gets aid. The policy advanced in H.R. 4 sets reduced 
allocations of funds that are fixed, regardless of the demographics or 
need.
  Furthermore, this measure relieves the States of a full maintenance 
of effort, allowing them to provide substantially less resources to 
meet the needs of their own citizens. While I understand that States 
and local public officials care about the well-being of their citizens, 
the shortfall in funding under H.R. 4 will 

[[Page H15526]]
force them to do more with less, and that willingness to match and 
maintain the same effort that exists under current policy will be 
strained. The State and local officials may benefit from flexibility, 
but it would take a miracle to offset the cuts and exclusions in this 
bill and also achieve the work requirements set forth in it. This 
measure contains inadequate support for training and education and does 
not provide the necessary transitional health care that should be 
present to support the expected participation in the world of work.

  Individuals in our society should be expected to do what they can for 
themselves. But policies should be careful to differentiate between 
those who cannot and those who will not. Many of the benefits of a 
public assistance nature accrue to the welfare of children. Two-thirds 
of the individuals within the welfare system are children. The harsh 
policies advanced in this measure affect kids with disabilities under 
SSI. Funding to aid children with Down syndrome, cerebral palsy, AIDS, 
muscular dystrophy and cystic fibrosis under SSI would be cut by 25 
percent--an estimated 650,000 kids would be affected. An additional 
320,000 kids would lose SSI benefits under different changes in the 
law. Nearly 1 million children would lose under the SSI policy changes 
of H.R. 4 alone.
  Mr. Speaker, one provision on this measure claims big cuts and 
savings by denying benefits to legal immigrants, noncitizens who pay 
taxes and contribute to our economy. Such is the case with the Hmong, 
the natives of Laos who have a concentrated population in Minnesota and 
in other parts of the Nation. Because they have failed their 
citizenship test largely based on language difficulties, they would be 
denied essential and basic public assistance benefits.
  Mr. Speaker, this could affect tens of thousands of individuals 
nationwide and many in my community. Other immigrant groups will also 
be negatively affected by this provision such as the influx of Soviet 
jews who are so prominent in our area. I know of no justification or 
explanation for this policy. Certainly, a more rigorous pursuit of 
deeming, that is sponsor support, for immigrants is appropriate, but 
often this is not applicable or practical.
  Mr. Speaker, this will translate into unacceptable responsibilities 
and burdens on families, communities, and States. H.R. 4 is not well-
thought-out policy. Its claim to reform masks extreme notions of a 
welfare mindset that has little relationship to the real world. Spousal 
support provisions and some of the sensible provisions of this measure 
are completely eclipsed by the negative, punitive, regressive, and 
unworkable policy that is palmed off as reform--deformed policy would 
be a more accurate description. I urge my colleagues to oppose this 
measure and renew our efforts for real reform so that those dependent 
can truly achieve an end goal of independence and positive contribution 
of their talents, for our Nation and our society.
  Mr. STOKES. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 4, the 
Personal Responsibility Act, a bill designed to overhaul our Nation's 
welfare system. Nine months ago, on March 24, many of my colleagues and 
I stood before this body and showed our staunch disagreement with the 
House-passed welfare reform bill by voting against the bill. I wish I 
could say that, since then, some compassion and reason had overcome our 
colleagues on the other side, who were conferees on this measure, to 
reverse some of the mean and devastating cuts made in this legislation. 
Unfortunately, that was not the case.
  Just 1 month ago, on November 14, I joined with 116 of my colleagues 
in writing to President Clinton to urge him to veto any welfare reform 
legislation which eliminates a safety net for our Nation's needy 
children and their families. I appeal to him again to do so with this 
ill-advised measure which abandons the Federal commitment and safety 
net that protects America's children.
  In fulfilling their Contract With America, our Republican colleagues 
assured us that we would have a family friendly Congress. They promised 
us that our children would be protected. It is abundantly clear that 
our colleagues have reneged on that commitment when we examine the 
provisions of this bill. H.R. 4 slashes nearly $80 billion over 7 years 
in welfare programs. This bill guts the AFDC and Medicaid entitlement, 
cuts into the SSI protections for disabled children, and drastically 
cuts food stamps and child nutrition programs.
  Mr. Speaker, I find these reductions in quality of life programs 
appalling. Although they claim to be so concerned about what the future 
holds for our Nation's children, how can my Republican colleagues 
support a bill that cuts $3.3 billion from funding for child care for 
low-income families? How can they stand by a bill that slashes more 
than $3 billion in funding for meals to children in child care centers 
and homes? How can they support a bill that would end Medicaid coverage 
for AFDC recipients, leaving many low-income families with no health 
care coverage? As if that were not devastating enough, this bill would 
cut nearly $35 billion over 7 years from the Food Stamp Program and 
$5.7 billion in the Child Nutrition Program.
  H.R. 4 sends a signal to the rest of the world that the United States 
of America, a world leader, places a very low priority on those 
individuals who have very little. This bill unfairly punishes children 
and their families simply because they are poor. In Cuyahoga County, we 
have a 20-percent poverty rate in a county of 1.4 million people. In 
the city of Cleveland, it is an alarming 42 percent. Throughout 
the county, more than 228,000 people receive food stamps. Further, more 
than 137,000 individuals must rely on Aid to Families With Dependent 
Children. Many of these individuals constitute America's working poor. 
This punitive measure will undoubtedly endanger their health and well-
being.

  Mr. Speaker, I can understand and support a balanced and rational 
approach to addressing the reform of our Nation's welfare system. But I 
cannot and will not support this legislation which would shatter the 
lives of millions of our Nation's poor. The pledge to end welfare as we 
now know it is not a mandate to act irresponsibly and without 
compassion and destroy the lives of people, who, through no fault of 
their own, are in need of assistance. On behalf of America's children 
and the poor, I urge my colleagues to vote against H.R. 4.
  Mr. OWENS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to the conference 
report on welfare reform. The destruction of entitlements. That is the 
goal of the Republican majority. But only the means-tested Aid to 
Families with Dependent Children [AFDC] entitlement is being wiped out 
by these high technology barbarians. Rich farmers and agricultural 
businesses will still retain their entitlement to farm subsidies. 
Entitlements to homeowners and business owners for flood relief, 
hurricane relief, and earthquake relief will remain in place. But 
families and children who experience economic disaster, the neediest 
among us will be denied Government assistance.
  There are many reasons to vote against this phony reform package. But 
the single most important reason is that it sets a precedent by ending 
a means-tested entitlement. A beachhead is established by the 
barbarians. The next target is the means-tested Medicaid entitlement. 
In this bill the automatic right to Medicaid presently available to all 
AFDC recipients is eliminated. In the reconciliation bill of the 
majority, the means-tested Medicaid entitlement is eliminated totally.
  This Christmas 1995 is not a Merry Christmas. Millions of Tiny Tims 
will suffer and die in the years to come as a result of the 
overwhelming meaness of the House Republican majority.
  Mr. MALONEY. Mr. Speaker, this has been an extremely partisan 
Congress--but this is one area where Democrats and Republicans agree. 
Welfare needs reform.
  But the conference report we're considering today would make a bad 
system much worse.
  The bill would worsen poverty and hunger for innocent children by 
making deep cuts in benefits especially during economic downturns.
  It would do far too little to empower welfare recipients to rejoin 
the work force with education and training.
  It would scale back the very child care funding that would liberate 
welfare recipients to go to work.
  This plan is punitive, irresponsible, and cruel to children.
  For example, the 25 percent reduction in SSI benefits will effect aid 
to children with cerebral palsy, Down syndrome, muscular dystrophy, 
cystic fibrosis, and other health concerns.
  The $32 billion in food stamp cuts will force many working poor, 
elderly and disabled to go hungry.
  The block granting of child protection services and oversight will 
force more children to stay in abusive and unsafe homes.
  This is not welfare reform.
  Already millions of children lack health care insurance. Under this 
agreement, up to 2 million more children could be added to the roles 
because they would lose Medicaid coverage.
  Clearly, welfare needs reform.
  Welfare reform should focus on providing real jobs and moving 
recipients into those jobs. Yet all the best work incentives have been 
stripped from the bill.
  This conference agreement is harsh, mean-spirited, and cruel.
  Although, we live in the richest society in human history, this House 
cannot find within its heart or its wallet, the will to make sure the 
no American child goes hungry.
  For this Christmas season, lets not be Scrooge to the poor and 
disabled, Vote ``no'' on the agreement.
  Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the conference 
agreement on H.R. 4, the so-called Personal Responsibility Act.
  It has long been clear that our welfare system is failing the people 
it is meant to help. But the Personal Responsibility Act will make 

[[Page H15527]]
the situation of the poor much worse, not better.
  The main reason Congress has been slow to face welfare reform in the 
past is that everyone knows it takes more spending, not less, to help 
poor mothers get and keep jobs and escape poverty--they need education, 
training, job search assistance, day care for their children, and jobs.
  But this conference agreement saves money, cutting programs that 
sustain our neediest families at the same time it cuts the programs 
that might give them a hand up. And why? To give tax breaks to big 
corporations and the wealthy.
  And what would this conference agreement do to our children? First 
off, it slashes the safety net for poor children and their families. It 
removes the entitlement--the guarantee that some modest assistance will 
be there for those families whose desperate circumstances make them 
eligible. If Federal funds run out in a recession, what recourse will 
these wretched families have?
  Then, although neither House nor Senate voted for this, the agreement 
repeals the current eligibility link between AFDC and Medicaid. It 
throws health care onto the list of necessities families must choose 
among when they cannot pay for all.
  The agreement risks increasing the number of babies born too small to 
thrive. It punishes the neediest children, whose parents' conduct we 
don't approve of. It leaves neglected and abused children in grave 
danger for lack of child protection resources. It cuts benefits to 
hundreds of thousands of poor children disabled by Down syndrome, 
cystic fibrosis, AIDS, and the like. It puts even healthy children's 
nutrition at risk, threatening their ability to learn and grow into 
healthy adults and productive participants in our economy.
  The conference agreement attempts to force more mothers into the work 
force but shortchanges funding for both work programs and child care. 
States will be forced to choose between funding child care for welfare 
recipients in work programs and child care for the working poor. 
Imagine. One welfare family moves into a work program with child care, 
and a working poor family loses its child care and falls onto welfare. 
Talk about a vicious cycle.

  Mr. Speaker, the conference agreement's immigrant provisions are 
unfair and mean-spirited. We know immigrants do not come here for 
public assistance; they come to join family members and to make a 
better life for their children. The work, they pay taxes, they 
participate in community life, and they play by the rules. Why should 
they be denied assistance by this bill? It is certainly not fair to the 
immigrants or to their families and sponsors. The only possible reason 
is to save money.
  If this applied only to future immigrants, who would know the rules 
before they sought to immigrate, I would disagree with the policy but 
it would be fairer. But this conference agreement cuts off people who 
are already here and who face long backlogs when they try to 
naturalize. Again, this makes sense only as a means of saving money to 
offset tax breaks for the rich.
  Mr. Speaker, the Republicans elected in November 1994 never told 
voters that they intended to bring pain to the poor children of our 
country. Yet, these mean-spirited Republicans continue to come up with 
new ways to hurt helpless little children, who are least able to fight 
back. Are children a special interest group Republicans want to muzzle, 
defund, do away with?
  This time, in the middle of this season of family holidays, they have 
gone too far and the American people are aware of the all-out assault 
on children. The Republicans are not going to be able to hide their 
attacks on our children. The voices of the American people are being 
heard. Do not hurt the children.
  Mr. Speaker, this bill is only one part of a Republican assault on 
ordinary Americans that also includes the reconciliation bill and the 
appropriations bills. Poor families, low- and moderate-income working 
families, middle-income families are all being made to pay and pay 
again, so the richest and most powerful corporations and individuals 
can receive large and unnecessary tax breaks.
  Mr. Speaker, this is just wrong. I urge every Member to oppose this 
conference agreement.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the conference 
report on welfare reform which disregards the health and welfare of 
children, the elderly and victims of domestic violence. Amazingly, at a 
time when Republicans claim to be pro-family this conference report 
denies innocent poor children health care and food. And while 
Republicans purport to be pro-work they offer us legislation which 
provides no funding whatsoever for job creation.
  As ranking member of the Judiciary Committee, I also strongly oppose 
the conference report provisions dealing with immigration matters. 
These issues clearly fall within the purview of the Judiciary Committee 
and should be dealt with in the context of the immigration bill, not 
welfare legislation.
  The conference report imposes harsh restrictions on legal immigrants 
by barring them from the Food Stamp Programs and SSI programs until 
they become citizens. Those denied benefits would include legal 
immigrants who have no sponsors to help support them, those who have 
paid taxes for many years, and poor immigrant families with children.
  The conference report also changes the definition of illegal 
immigrants. Under this definition individuals who have temporary 
protective status and are in the United States legally, would be barred 
from receiving any public assistance. This means that individuals who 
have been given permission to stay in this country by the INS would be 
denied assistance. This is mean-spirited immigration bashing and has no 
place in a bill being considered by this body.
  The members know full well the administration will veto this bill. 
What we have is more partisan grandstanding by the majority, rather 
than a good-faith effort to genuinely reform and improve the Nations' 
welfare system.
  I urge my colleagues to vote against this conference report and to 
send this bill back to conference.
  Mr. POSHARD. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to the 
conference report on welfare reform.
  In our debate today, we will universally agree on the need to reform 
the system. However, the question is not whether to reform but how to 
reform the system, to be more efficient with tax dollars and more 
effective in caring for children and moving adults into the workforce.
  I supported what was known as the Deal bill earlier this year because 
of its more acceptable approach to a very difficult problem. The bill 
before us today is unacceptable in a number of key instances:
  The bill lacks categorical Medicaid coverage for low-income families 
with children on cash assistance as well as the aged, blind, and 
disabled. This could result in millions of Americans losing their 
guarantee of Medicaid coverage.
  The optional block grant approach for nutrition and feeding programs 
puts millions of children at risk of losing access to healthy meals.
  This bill does not fund the work activities and child care provisions 
mandated in the legislation.
  The bill Democrats supported earlier this year was much better in 
terms of moving people from welfare to work, eliminating abuses in the 
SSI program, making sure that abused and neglected children will 
receive foster care and adoption services, and fundamentally changing 
the welfare system.
  This bill is tough on children and families in ways it need not be. I 
oppose the bill and urge a presidential veto so that we may reach a 
more bipartisan solution to this very critical challenge.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to strongly 
support H.R. 4, the welfare reform conference report. I believe this 
legislation is a critical first step in overhauling our bloated and 
destructive welfare system. The current welfare system has failed the 
people it was created to help and worse--it has created an unfortunate 
cycle of dependency. The American taxpayer can no longer afford to foot 
the bill for people unwilling to accept responsibility for themselves.
  Congress has no intention of turning its back on the most needy in 
society. Instead, we want to offer a new approach to welfare that gives 
recipients a hand up--not a hand out. By implementing strict work 
requirements, emphasizing personal responsibility, and returning power 
to the States, we will not only provide great benefits to society and 
taxpayers, but most importantly, to welfare recipients themselves.
  The most important change Congress can make in reforming our welfare 
system is to return power to the States and local communities. This 
legislation does just that by reducing the amount of control over 
welfare programs here in Washington, DC, and restoring authority and 
responsibility to where it belongs--to the people.
  H.R. 4 was designed after working with Governors to address their 
concerns of unnecessary Federal regulation and micromanaged 
bureaucratic programs. States have proven to be more successful and 
innovative than the Federal Government in fixing our failed welfare 
system. I want to give States and local communities the opportunity to 
experiment, not shackle them with excessive regulations and costly 
paperwork. It is at the State and local level where welfare program 
managers deal with welfare recipients--and that is where decisions 
should be made. And in order for this to happen, states need 
flexibility.
  This legislation will let the people know we have heard their cry for 
welfare reform. We have listened to welfare recipients and provided 
them opportunities to get off welfare and into work. We have listened 
to the taxpayers and are watching out for their hard-earned tax 
dollars. And, we have listened to the Governors and given them the 
flexibility they need to truly end welfare as we know it.

[[Page H15528]]

  Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Speaker, I strongly support welfare reform--but we 
must not implement policies that hurt children. I am deeply 
disappointed that the final conference report did not incorporate more 
of the provisions that were included in the House substitute bill 
sponsored by Representative Deal.
  Kids do not have the life choices that parents and other adults do. 
Kids are not responsibile for our flawed welfare system and kids should 
not bear the brunt of the impact of this welfare reform package.
  The welfare reform bill on the floor today fails in two areas I 
believe are critical in welfare reform: work and protecting children.
  Welfare must become focused on work. Everyone needs to understand 
that public assistance is a temporary arrangement while steps are taken 
to obtain employment and independence.
  I favor a work requirement which places upon welfare recipients the 
expectation that they find work or begin the training necessary to 
allow them to work. Those who are not willing to make this commitment 
should not be eligible for benefits.
  While H.R. 4 does require recipients to work, the bill does not 
provide adequate funding for job training and child care. Job training 
is crucial in placing parents into jobs that will lift them out of 
poverty and keep them out of poverty. The bill lacks adequate child 
care that must be available to parents and the bill does not meet the 
needs of those who must work. It simple does not provide the necessary 
resources to move from welfare to work.
  The second clear principle of welfare reform is a cautionary one: 
Changes must not hurt the young children. Not even the most irate 
constituent has suggested that the kids of welfare recipients deserve 
to be punished or can simply be forgotten. It's not the kids' fault. 
Unfortunately, the proposals in this bill will hurt millions of 
children.
  To begin, H.R. 4 significantly reduces funding for food stamps and 
other child nutrition programs. These reductions will have a profound 
consequences for the nutrition, health, and well-being of children. The 
optional food stamp block grant in the bill would weaken the national 
nutrition safety net and eliminate the program's ability to expand in 
times of recessions and guarantee displaced workers and their families 
a minimum level of nutrition. These changes will jeopardize the long-
term health of America's children.
  Second, the child protections programs are lumped into block grants, 
and abused and neglected children lose their entitlement to protection. 
Instead, basic emergency services would be forced to compete for 
limited dollars with other less critical programs. When we all can 
recite story after story of how the system has failed abused and 
neglected children, now is not the time to weaken these programs.
  Protecting children from abuse has nothing to do with welfare reform 
and the minuscule savings as a result of block granting these programs 
does not warrant the inherent risk that thousands of kids will be 
facing.
  While these block grants significantly limit funding for child 
protections, they would also limit funding for adoptions services. The 
result would be a significant reduction in adoptions throughout this 
country, denying thousands of children safe, permanent and loving 
families. In particular, special needs and medically fragile children 
will disproportionately suffer.
  As an adoptive parent, I believe I can speak to the importance of 
encouraging our communities to find permanent loving homes for all 
children in need--especially those who might languish in the foster 
care system.
  While the bill would maintain the adoption subsidy as an open ended 
entitlement, this is not enough. The subsidy which helps place special 
needs and medically fragile children will not be worth much if adoption 
staff is not available and well-trained to place children in 
appropriate homes.
  As more children enter the child protection system and are in need of 
adoptive homes, a block grant will prevent many of them from getting 
what they need and deserve--a family of their own. Most children 
affected have special needs: they suffered abuse and neglect, they are 
older, they are prenatally drug exposed or suffer from severe medical 
needs like cerebral palsy or are in need of a respirator.
  The churches throughout our Nation help find adoptive homes for these 
children through an innovative program called One Church-One Child and 
as Rev. Wayne Thompson, the national president explained to me 
yesterday, their work will be severely impeded if there are not 
sufficient adoption staff to assist in this crusade.
  Let us not penalize our children. They deserve what we all hope for 
our own children--a safe and loving home, full of support to allow them 
to become independent and productive citizens. Because of the drastic 
cuts and changes made in these programs, I can not support the final 
version of H.R. 4.
  Mr. SKAGGS. Mr. Speaker, I oppose this conference report. It has many 
serious shortcomings, most of which have been discussed by other 
Members. I won't repeat those criticisms.
  Instead, I would like to highlight a little noticed section in the 
bill, section 112. Section 112 would require any organization described 
in section 501(c) of the Internal Revenue Code receiving any funds 
under the act or amendments made by the act to make a confession as 
part of any public communication intended to affect the debate on 
public issue. That confession would have to state:

       This was prepared and paid for by an organization that 
     accepts taxpayer dollars.

  If a nonprofit group violates this regulation, it will be rendered 
ineligible, apparently forever, to receive any funds under the act, or 
the amendments to it.
  Mr. Speaker, this is just another in a long line of assaults by the 
new Republican majority on the first amendment rights of Americans who 
express views on public policy issues through the organizations they 
join or support. This year the new majority has attempted to restrict 
free speech in America by trying to attach various provisions to 
regulate or suppress political expression to two appropriations bills, 
a continuing resolution short-term funding measure, the lobbying reform 
bill, and now the welfare reform bill.
  While this provision, section 112, is not as far-reaching as some of 
the previous Republican efforts, it is equally misguided. As I 
understand section 112, if the YMCA or some other group receiving funds 
to provide child care, or a veterans group receiving funds to provide 
job training, issues a press release or published an op-ed piece 
designed to influence the public debate on any Federal, State, or local 
government issue fails to include the required disclaimer, it will be 
ineligible to continue its work on programs funded under the act or 
amendments made by the Act.
  Mr. Speaker, the communications, that would be regulated under 
section 112 need not have anything to with any program or policy 
associated with this act; they need not have anything to do with any 
program or policy of the Federal Government at all.
  Mr. Speaker, one such regulated communication regarding any 
government policy that inadvertently goes not without the confession 
statement and a child care or job training provider would be cut off, 
presumably forever, from any participation in the national effort to 
reform this Nation's welfare assistance system.
  This is sheer idiocy--both practically, and constitutionally. Section 
112 unfairly discriminates against nonprofit groups and creates another 
unnecessary regulation that will, if anything, impede the effort to 
provide the services necessary to help Americans move from welfare to 
work.
  Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
  Mr. FIELDS of Louisiana. Mr. Speaker, today I rise to state my 
opposition to the GOP welfare reform conference report on which we are 
about to vote. I am appalled at the way we have addressed welfare 
reform without consideration for the health and well-being of our 
children.
  Welfare reform should be about getting people off welfare and into 
jobs.
  Welfare reform should not be about punishing our children for the 
mistakes and misfortunes of their parents.
  Welfare reform is not about mothers.
  It is about children and making sure they do not go hungry. It is 
about helping the less fortunate.
  Mr. Chairman, I though you would want to know it is estimated in the 
March 5, 1995, Parade magazine cover story: ``Who are Americans in 
Need?'' that over 5 million children already go hungry each month. This 
story further reported that 24 percent of our children live in poverty 
and that almost 46 percent of American children who are hungry live in 
one-wage-earner households.
  This welfare reform conference report should not be about allowing 
children to go hungry if their mother is under 18 years of age.
  This welfare reform conference report should not be about telling a 
child that his mother cannot receive money to feed, cloth, or house him 
because he was born while his mother was already on welfare.
  This welfare reform conference report should not be about denying 
benefits to children if their parents don't have a job after 2 years, 
especially if we are not going to provide desperately needed job 
training.
  How can we reform welfare when we intend to deny 46,000 Louisiana 
children benefits because the were born to current welfare recipients?
  How can we talk about reforming welfare when we are proposing to deny 
100,000 Louisiana children benefits because their parents have been on 
welfare for more than 5 years?
  How can we reform welfare when we expect our children to care for 
themselves while we mandate their parents must work? This bill 
decreases child care services for 400,000 Louisiana children, but 
simultaneously requires their parents to work in order to receive 
benefits.

[[Page H15529]]

  We cannot afford to let our children go unsupervised. In today's 
society our children need all the care they can get. Yet, this plan 
denies them that care.
  It is an absolute shame that today we seek to punish mothers and 
fathers by punishing their children.
  Welfare reform must not be about taking food out of the mouths of our 
children. Capping funds for recipients and offering bonuses to States 
for reaching quotas will only lower the quality of life for our 
children.
  With this welfare reform conference report our children are hit from 
every angle. The first hit comes at home and the second comes in their 
schools. Capping the amount of money our school lunch programs receive 
is going to jeopardize the health of our next generation.
  How many children are we going to let go hungry and unsupervised 
before we realize welfare reform is not about forcing children to 
suffer? When is this body going to realize welfare reform is about 
assisting the less fortunate families in our communities in their quest 
to become productive members of our society?
  I urge my fellow Members to vote ``no'' on the welfare reform 
conference report before us today.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak out 
against a great injustice--an injustice that is being committed against 
our nation's children--defenseless, nonvoting, children. I am referring 
of course to the Republican welfare conference agreement to H.R. 4, The 
Personal Responsibility Act. I do this because I have already voted for 
welfare reform sponsored by the Democrats that was strong on work, 
strong on children, strong on providing a safety net, and strong on 
personal responsibility.
  We speak so often in this House about family values and protecting 
children. At the same time however, my colleagues on the other side of 
the aisle, have presented a welfare reform bill that will effectively 
eliminate the Federal guarantee of assistance for poor children in this 
country for the first time in 60 years and will push at least 1.2 
million more children into poverty, without the entitlement safety net 
that keeps a roof over their head and meager food on the table. In 
addition, at least one-third of children who are already poor would 
fall deeper into poverty under the Republican plan.
  This agreement is antifamily and antichild. It calls for 
unprecedented cuts in programs serving children and would remove the 
basic protections for hungry, abused, disabled, and poor children while 
using the savings to offset tax breaks for wealthy individuals and 
corporations.
  The Republican plan would leave millions of American children without 
health coverage and would eliminate transitional Medicaid benefits for 
parents and their children as they move from welfare to work.
  The agreement cuts $35 billion from the Food Stamp Program and allows 
States to block grant the program. It also includes a cap that cuts 
food stamp benefits across the board if poverty deepens. In my States, 
Texas, the State leadership has said this Republican plan will not work 
in some very important areas--the incentive to work.
  The Republican plan repeals the protections that guarantee an abused 
or neglected child a safe, clean foster care facility and services that 
can promptly resolve a family crisis. Furthermore, the Republican plan 
makes no adjustments in funding if the number of abused children 
increases--or decreases--in a State. This means abused children may be 
left in danger.
  Under the Republican plan, 330,000 low-income, disabled children--who 
would qualify for benefits under current law--would be denied SSI 
benefits. For most children who remain eligible for SSI, benefits would 
be cut by 25 percent--more than 650,000 children. This includes 
children with disabilities such as cerebral palsy, Down syndrome, 
muscular dystrophy, cystic fibrosis, and AIDS. These children would 
lose, on average $1,374 per year, with their benefits falling to 55 
percent of the poverty line for one person.

  The conference agreement fails to provide adequate resources for work 
programs and child care which are critical to effectuate a transition 
from welfare to work. The conference agreement significantly increases 
the need for child care while reducing the resources for child care 
services as well as the funds available to States to improve the 
quality of care.
  This strategy of welfare-to-work, is doomed to fail. Mandatory 
welfare-to-work programs can get parents off welfare and into jobs, but 
only if the program is well designed and is given the resources to be 
successful. The GOP plan is punitive and wrong-headed. It will not put 
people to work, it will put them on the street. Any restructuring of 
the welfare system must move people away from dependency toward self-
sufficiency. Facilitating the transition off welfare requires job 
training, guaranteed child care, and health insurance at an affordable 
price.
  We cannot expect to reduce our welfare rolls if we do not provide the 
women of this Nation the opportunity to better themselves and their 
families through job training and education, if we do not provide them 
with good quality child care and most importantly if we do not provide 
them with a job.
  Together, welfare programs make-up the safety net that poor children 
and their families rely on in times of need. We must not allow the 
safety not to be shredded. We must keep our promises to the children of 
this Nation. We must ensure that in times of need they receive the 
health care, food, and general services they need to survive. I urge my 
colleagues in this the ``Season of Giving,'' to oppose this dangerous 
and heartless legislation. Let us formulate a welfare plan that will 
last--job training, children, and real work incentives.
  Mrs. COLLINS of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, the spirit of Christmas may be 
alive and well in the rest of America but it is clearly nonexistent 
here in the Nation's Capital. Today, 4 days before Christmas, the House 
is about to pass H.R. 4, the Personal Responsibility Act, which means a 
colder, bleaker, and meaner holiday season and New Year for children 
across the country and poor Americans who are struggling to survive.
  Proponents of this bill will stand up today, praise each other and 
congratulate themselves for reforming the welfare system. Well, if 
throwing children and low-income Americans onto the streets is 
successful reform, then I guess the meaning of goodwill toward men has 
really become just a trite expression that is uttered at this time of 
year. In reality, H.R. 4 provides funding for the tax cut for the 
wealthy that Republicans are so eager to give.
  The fundamental flaw of H.R. 4 is that it ignores the basic reason 
that most adult Americans become welfare recipients in the first place 
and second, why some stay on welfare for longer periods than they'd 
like to and that is because there aren't enough jobs available that pay 
a living wage. So instead of improving job training programs, 
increasing the minimum wage, providing affordable health or child care, 
or offering positive alternatives to poverty, H.R. 4 punishes poor folk 
for being poor. It punishes children who are unfortunate enough to be 
born into a needy family. This so-called Personal Responsibility Act 
fails to create a single job and instead creates a whole list of 
irrational reasons to cut financially strapped Americans and their kids 
off the welfare rolls.
  H.R. 4 rips the bottom out of our current Federal safety net for the 
least fortunate among us. It abolishes the entitlement status of Aid to 
Families with Dependent Children [AFDC] and other programs which for 
the past 60 years have ensured that poor kids in America are provided 
with at least a basic source of survival. By block granting most of our 
current welfare programs, with no quality assurances attached, there is 
no guarantee that these youngsters will receive the basic protections 
of shelter, clothing, and nourishment.
  Mr. Speaker, despite tired, old erroneous sterotypes about lazy 
welfare recipients who wouldn't take a job if you handed it to them, 
the truth is that the vast majority of Americans don't want to be on 
welfare and are struggling to support themselves and their families. 
H.R. 4 does nothing for these millions of Americans. It offers no jobs, 
no minimum wage increase, no affordable child care, no job training, no 
education opportunities, no guarantee of affordable health care, and 
worst of all, no hope.
  I urge my colleagues to reject this bill and force the Gingrich 
Republicans to come up with another target for their tax cut for the 
wealthy. Let's make sure that we care for America's children and 
protect them in 1996 and beyond.
  Mr. COYNE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to this 
legislation.
  H.R. 4 would end the Federal guarantee of a safety net for poor 
children that has existed in this country for over 60 years. This 
legislation would end the entitlement status of Federal assistance to 
the poor--and replace it with fixed payments to the States to deal with 
their poor as best as they can.
  Funding for these Federal antipoverty programs will be reduced from 
current program levels by more than $60 billion over the next 7 years. 
The Congressional Budget Office estimates that by the year 2002, 
Federal and State spending on these programs will drop to only 85 
percent of what we spent last year, when the economy was relatively 
healthy. Assistance to the poor under this legislation could not 
possibly meet the level of need that can be reasonably anticipated.
  The policies linked to these funding levels are distressing as well. 
States would be given greater freedom to set certain eligibility and 
benefit standards. This legislation would cut off AFDC assistance to 
adult beneficiaries after an arbitrary period of time without providing 
a level of child care funding that would be necessary for these single 
parents to go to work. It would, in most cases, deny benefits for 
children born to women on welfare. The bill 

[[Page H15530]]
would eliminate the guarantee of health care coverage for millions of 
low-income children, as well as aged, blind, and disabled individuals.
  This legislation may be marketed by the Republicans as reform that is 
targeted at welfare queens and lazy good-for-nothings who don't want to 
work, but such characterizations are at best inaccurate. This 
legislation would cut foster care funding, child care assistance, and 
food stamps for the working poor, the elderly, abused children, and the 
disabled by more than $35 billion. These people deserve our help. It is 
both inhumane and irresponsible to support such cuts.
  Some people see the changes contained in this bill as improvements 
over the current system. Others with longer memories remember both the 
inability and unwillingness of some State governments to provide even 
minimal support for their own citizens and neighbors. Supporters of 
this bill may be right in suggesting that this legislation will result 
in reduced dependence, reduced illegitimacy, and increased 
administrative efficiency in some States. But at what price? Clearly, 
some of the most vulnerable members of our society will bear the burden 
of these cuts. This legislation would punish innocent children for 
situations over which they have no control. How much suffering, 
uncertainty, homelessness, malnutrition, and abuse are we willing to 
risk?
  The current system is clearly in need of serious reform. This 
legislation, however, does not provide the type of reform that is 
needed. Democrats unanimously supported a better alternative for 
welfare reform this spring. On March 23, I joined my Democratic House 
colleagues in voting for an alternative welfare reform bill that would 
have gotten families off the welfare rolls and into the workplace. It 
would have addressed fraud and abuse in the SSI Program without denying 
benefits to individuals with serious disabilities. It would have 
provided States with greater flexibility and more resources to 
undertake welfare reform initiatives. And it maintained a reliable 
safety net for all Americans.
  It is still not too late to adopt such welfare reform. As a first 
step, I urge my colleagues to reject this conference report and to 
begin an earnest, nonpartisan dialog on welfare reform.
  Mr. KLECZKA. Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to 
express my support for the conference report on H.R. 4, welfare reform 
legislation. While this bill is not perfect, it represents a reasonable 
resolve toward addressing a complex problem.
  Congress must act now to overhaul our troubled welfare system before 
another generation enters a culture of dependency. Though well-
intentioned, our current welfare system encourages a cycle of poverty, 
hopelessness, and despair. At the same time, it discourages family 
cohesiveness and self-reliance.
  I have found it unrealistic to hold out for a perfect welfare reform 
bill, especially in light of the partisan markup of Congress today. 
More importantly, it is likely that changes will need to be made as 
States begin to implement their programs and fine-tuning becomes 
necessary.
  This welfare reform package contains a number of provisions critical 
to transforming the welfare system. Welfare recipients must work in 
exchange for benefits. Education and job training will be required, 
with the emphasis on building a work record. This is a key requirement 
in helping people become self-sufficient.
  A 5-year lifetime limit on assistance is put in place, unless States, 
due to their circumstances, decide to do otherwise.
  The compromise agreement maintains the safety net for child 
nutrition. Last March, I voted against the House welfare reform bill 
because it would have block granted child nutrition programs, 
eliminating the assurance that every poor child has at least one 
nutritious meal per day. In my judgment, good nutrition is essential 
for all American children, and this investment is extremely important.
  The proposed changes to the Supplemental Security Income [SSI] 
program are also necessary. Over 2 years ago, I began receiving reports 
from my constituents of abuse taking place in SSI. There were cases 
where children with mild behavioral problems qualified for SSI cash 
benefits. One family then used the money to take a vacation to Florida. 
Taxpayers have a right to expect an end to fraud and abuse in this 
program.
  We must reform SSI to ensure the program serves the truly disabled. 
This welfare bill makes strides in the right direction. One of the most 
important changes is in the definition of disabled. No longer will 
Individualized Functional Assessments [IFA] be used. The IFA is a 
subjective gauge to determine whether or not children can engage in 
``age-appropriate'' activities effectively. This left a lot of room for 
potential abuse. While tightening eligibility criteria, it is important 
to note that this compromise ensures that those children who most need 
assistance will receive it. For example, children with cystic fibrosis, 
cerebral palsy, or Down Syndrome requiring full-time care will get the 
same payment they do now. Those with conditions that are less severe 
and that do not demand round-the-clock attention will be eligible for 
75 percent of benefits.
  However, I am concerned that the resources for States to put welfare 
recipients to work may be inadequate. Many people will require services 
before they are able to enter the workplace. States will also have to 
make reasonable exceptions for cases where people are willing to work, 
but no jobs are available. By most estimates, several thousand entry-
level jobs will have to be created in Wisconsin to accommodate welfare 
beneficiaries entering the job market. States must have the flexibility 
to support welfare recipients who are willing to work, but unable to do 
so.
  Another of my major concerns is that the bill ends the obligation to 
provide health care benefits to families on welfare. Without this 
guarantee, thousands of children and adults could be denied medical 
care unless the States continue services using Medicaid block grant 
funds provided under separate legislation. In my estimation, H.R. 4 
would be a much stronger bill if this linkage has been left intact. If 
States are unable or unwilling to provide adequate health care to needy 
families, this issue will have to be revisited.
  I am voting for welfare reform today, trusting the word of State 
governors who sought control of welfare. The Republican Governors 
Association pledged its support for this agreement, saying, ``We can do 
better, and for our children's sake, we must do better.'' They must 
live up to their promises and do the right thing. Members of Congress, 
including myself, will be watching them closely to ensure that this is 
indeed the case.
  Mrs. MORELLA. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this motion to 
recommit the welfare reform bill to the conference committee to make 
five specific changes. These improvements would ensure an adequate 
safety net protects our most vulnerable populations while States design 
new programs to move welfare recipients into the workforce.
  I voted against the House-passed bill because the cuts were too 
draconian. The bi-partisan Senate-passed bill was a tremendous 
improvement, and I am pleased that this conference report adopted many 
of the Senate's provisions. The conference report, however, fails to 
fully fund improvement programs, and I urge my Colleagues to join me in 
voting to recommit the bill to conference to make these changes.
  I support bold welfare reform that moves recipients from welfare to 
work and encourages personal responsibility. This legislation does 
that, allowing States to try new approaches that meet the needs of 
their recipients. States are already experimenting with welfare reform. 
Nearly 40 waivers have been given to States by the Department of Health 
and Human Services, and the results are encouraging. In giving leeway 
and dollars to States, however, we must continue to protect children 
and the disabled. I strongly support the child support enforcement 
provisions contained in this legislation. We are finally cracking down 
on deadbeat parents by enacting penalties with real teeth and 
establishing Federal registries to help track deadbeats.
  Mr. Speaker, I am pleased that this bill contains substantial 
improvements over the House-passed bill. Unlike the House bill, its 
maintenance-of-effort provision requires States to maintain 75 percent 
of their welfare expenditures, it retains the entitlement status of 
foster care and adoption assistance, it increases child care money from 
the House bill, and it offers States the opportunity to design welfare 
programs that move women into work and encourage responsibility. It 
does not impose a child nutrition block grant on States.
  The conference report, however, contains cuts in critical programs 
that protect children and the disabled. This motion would add a total 
of $14 billion in funding to child care, Supplemental Security Income 
[SSI], child welfare and foster care programs, and programs for 
immigrants. The conference report also severs the link between Medicaid 
eligibility and welfare, a provision I strongly oppose. This motion 
restores Medicaid eligibility for welfare recipients.
  Without adequate child care funding, many women will not be able to 
enter the workforce, and States will be unable to meet their workforce 
participation requirements. The motion to recommit adds child care 
funds to better meet the needs of the States and women entering the 
workforce. The Senate welfare reform bill included $3 billion in 
matching child care funds for States over 5 years. Unfortunately, the 
conference agreement stretched this money over 7 years, resulting in a 
$1.2 billion shortfall in the first 5 years. I urge my colleagues to 
include the entire $3 billion over the first 5 years to provide child 
care for women entering the workforce.
  Current Medicaid law guarantees health coverage to children and 
families receiving welfare, and both the House and Senate-passed bills 
continued this linkage. Despite 

[[Page H15531]]
the House and Senate language, the conference agreement severs this 
linkage, jeopardizing the health of women and their children as they 
are trying to get off welfare and take responsibility for their lives. 
Without Medicaid, one illness could force them back into the cycle of 
dependency.
  While the Senate bill included cuts in the Supplemental Security 
Income program, the conference agreement goes much further. It creates 
a new two-tiered system of eligibility which would reduce SSI benefits 
for 65 percent of the children on the SSI program. This motion to 
recommit contains the Senate's language that would preserve this 
important program. The motion to recommit also maintains the 
entitlement-status of foster care and adoption assistance, a critical 
safety net for our most vulnerable children. As States enter a 
recession and their caseloads increase, we cannot afford to cut these 
programs.
  Please join me in voting for the motion to recommit the welfare 
reform bill to the conference committee. Let's take this opportunity to 
make changes that will protect our children and allow us to pass this 
important legislation to move families off welfare.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Linder). Without objection, the previous 
question is ordered.
  There was no objection.


        motion to recommit offered by mr. neal of massachusetts

  Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is the gentleman opposed to the conference 
report?
  Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I am, in its present form.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion to 
recommit.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Mr. Neal of Massachusetts moves to recommit the conference 
     report on the bill H.R. 4 to the committee of conference with 
     instructions to the managers on the part of the House to 
     insist that--
       (1) the text of H.R. 1267 be substituted for the conference 
     substitute recommended by the committee of conference; and
       (2) the title of H.R. 1267 be substituted for the title of 
     the conference substitute recommended by the committee of 
     conference.


                             point of order

  Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, I raise a point of order that this motion to 
recommit is outside of the scope of the bill that is immediately before 
the House.
  Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, on the point of order, this 
simply would give the Democratic caucus the chance to vote for the bill 
that they voted for last March.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Florida [Mr. Shaw] makes 
a point of order against the motion to recommit offered by the 
gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Neal]. As discussed in chapter 33, 
section 26.12 of the Deschler's Procedure, a motion to recommit a 
conference report may not instruct House conferees to include matter 
beyond the scope of the differences committed to conference by either 
House.
  The motion offered by the gentleman from Massachusetts instructs the 
House conferees on H.R. 4 to bring back a conference agreement 
consisting of the text of the bill H.R. 1267. Since that bill was not 
committed to conference, the issue is whether the text of that bill 
includes matter not contained in either the House-passed version of 
H.R. 4 or the Senate amendment thereto. An examination of H.R. 1267 
reveals that is indeed the case. There are a number of provisions in 
H.R. 1267 which provide for a refundable dependent care tax credit, an 
issue not committed to conference by either House in H.R. 4. Therefore, 
the motion to recommit instructs House conferees to include matter 
beyond the scope of the differences committed to conference by either 
House and is not in order. The point of order is sustained.
  Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I appeal the ruling of the 
Chair.


                  motion to table offered by mr. shaw

  Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Linder). The Clerk will report the 
motion.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Mr. Shaw moves to lay the appeal on the table.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the 
gentleman from Florida [Mr. Shaw] to lay on the table the appeal of the 
ruling of the Chair.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the noes appeared to have it.
  Mr. SHAW. 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 240, 
nays 182, not voting 11, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 875]

                               YEAS--240

     Allard
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baker (CA)
     Baker (LA)
     Ballenger
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bateman
     Beilenson
     Bereuter
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bliley
     Blute
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Brownback
     Bryant (TN)
     Bunn
     Bunning
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Canady
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth
     Christensen
     Chrysler
     Clinger
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins (GA)
     Combest
     Cooley
     Cox
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cremeans
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Davis
     Deal
     DeLay
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     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
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Goss
     Graham
     Greenwood
     Gunderson
     Gutknecht
     Hamilton
     Hancock
     Hansen
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Heineman
     Herger
     Hilleary
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hoke
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Istook
     Jacobs
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, Sam
     Johnston
     Jones
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kim
     King
     Kingston
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaHood
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Laughlin
     Lazio
     Leach
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Lightfoot
     Linder
     Livingston
     LoBiondo
     Longley
     Lucas
     Manzullo
     Martini
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDade
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McKeon
     Metcalf
     Meyers
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Molinari
     Montgomery
     Moorhead
     Morella
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Neumann
     Ney
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Oxley
     Packard
     Parker
     Paxon
     Petri
     Pombo
     Porter
     Portman
     Pryce
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Riggs
     Roberts
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roth
     Roukema
     Royce
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaefer
     Schiff
     Seastrand
     Sensenbrenner
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Shuster
     Skaggs
     Skeen
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Solomon
     Souder
     Spence
     Stearns
     Stockman
     Stump
     Talent
     Tate
     Tauzin
     Taylor (NC)
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Torkildsen
     Upton
     Vucanovich
     Waldholtz
     Walker
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     White
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Williams
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Zeliff
     Zimmer

                               NAYS--182

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Andrews
     Baesler
     Baldacci
     Barcia
     Barrett (WI)
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Berman
     Bevill
     Bishop
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boucher
     Brewster
     Browder
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Cardin
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Coleman
     Collins (IL)
     Collins (MI)
     Condit
     Costello
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Danner
     de la Garza
     DeFazio
     DeLauro
     Dellums
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doyle
     Durbin
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fazio
     Fields (LA)
     Flake
     Foglietta
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Frost
     Furse
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Geren
     Gibbons
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hastings (FL)
     Hefner
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Holden
     Hoyer
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Kleczka
     Klink
     LaFalce
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lincoln
     Lipinski
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Luther
     Maloney
     Manton
     Markey
     Martinez
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy
     McDermott
     McHale
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek
     Menendez
     Mfume
     Miller (CA)
     Minge
     Mink
     Moakley
     Mollohan
     Moran
     Murtha
     Neal
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Orton
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pastor
     Payne (NJ)
     Payne (VA)
     Pelosi
     Peterson (FL)
     Peterson (MN)
     Pickett
     Pomeroy
     Poshard
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reed
     Richardson
     Rivers
     Roemer
     Rose
     
[[Page H15532]]

     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanders
     Sawyer
     Schroeder
     Schumer
     Scott
     Serrano
     Sisisky
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stenholm
     Stokes
     Studds
     Stupak
     Tanner
     Taylor (MS)
     Tejeda
     Thompson
     Thornton
     Thurman
     Torres
     Torricelli
     Towns
     Traficant
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Volkmer
     Ward
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Wilson
     Wise
     Woolsey
     Wyden
     Wynn
     Yates

                             NOT VOTING--11

     Bryant (TX)
     Chapman
     Conyers
     Edwards
     Filner
     Harman
     Jefferson
     Lantos
     Myers
     Nadler
     Quillen

                              {time}  1450

  Mr. BROWDER and Mr. MEEHAN changed their vote from ``yea'' to 
``nay''.
  So the motion to table the appeal of the ruling of the Chair was 
agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


                 motion to recommit offered by mr. rose

  Mr. ROSE. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to recommit.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Linder). Is the gentleman opposed to the 
conference report?
  Mr. ROSE. Yes, I am, Mr. Speaker.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Linder). The Clerk will report the 
motion to recommit.
  The clerk read as follows:

       Mr. ROSE moves to recommit the conference report on the 
     bill H.R. 4 to the committee of conference with the following 
     instructions to the managers on the part of the House:
       (1) Recede from Title VII (relating to child protection and 
     adoption) in the conference substitute recommended by the 
     committee of conference and agree to Title XI of the Senate 
     amendment relating to child abuse prevention and treatment.
       (2) Recede from that portion of section 301 of the House 
     bill that amends subparagraph (E) of section 658E(c)(2) of 
     the Child Care and Development Block Grant Act of 1990 and 
     agree to the portion of section 602 of the Senate amendment 
     that amends such paragraph.
       (3) Agree to that portion of section 602 of the Senate 
     amendment (pertaining to the child care quality set aside) 
     that amends subparagraphs (C) of section 658(c)(3) of the 
     Child Care and Development Block Grant Act of 1990.
       (4) Recede from that portion of section 301 of the House 
     bill that amends subparagraphs (F) and (G) of section 
     658E(c)(2) of the Child Care and Development Block Grant Act 
     of 1990.
       (5) Recede from that portion of section 301 of the House 
     bill that amends paragraphs (5) and (6) of section 658K(a) of 
     the Child Care and Development Block Grant Act of 1990 and 
     agree to that portion of section 602 of the Senate amendment 
     that amends such paragraphs.
       (6) Agree to that portion of section 101(b) of the Senate 
     amendment which establishes a new section 403 of the Social 
     Security Act and relates to State maintenance of effort in 
     lieu of that section of title I of the conference substitute 
     (relating to State maintenance of effort) recommended by the 
     committee of conference.
       (7) Recede from section 602(a) and (b) of the House bill 
     (relating to SSI disabled children) and agree to section 211 
     of the Senate amendment.
       (8) Recede from subtitle B of title III of the House bill 
     (relating to family-based and school-based nutrition block 
     grants) and agree to title IV of the Senate amendment 
     (relating to child nutrition programs) insofar as such 
     amendment does not contain such nutrition block grants.
       (9) Insist on section 104 of the Senate amendment 
     pertaining to continued application of current standards 
     under the Medicaid program in lieu of that section of the 
     conference substitute (relating to Medicaid) recommended by 
     the committee of conference.

  Mr. ROSE (during the reading). Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent 
that the motion to recommit be considered as read and printed in the 
Record.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from North Carolina?
  There was no objection.


                         parliamentary inquiry

  Mr. ORTON. Mr. Speaker, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will state his parliamentary 
inquiry.
  Mr. ORTON. Mr. Speaker, I have a parliamentary inquiry regarding what 
it is we are voting on. Am I correct in saying if we adopt this motion 
that we would be voting to send this back to conference committee with 
instructions to adopt the changes demanded by the Senate Republicans in 
the letter just yesterday?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair advises the gentleman that is not 
a proper parliamentary inquiry.
  Without objection, the previous question is ordered on the motion to 
recommit.
  There was no objection.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the noes appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

  Mr. ROSE. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 192, 
noes 231, not voting 10, as follows:

                             [Roll No 876]

                               AYES--192

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

                               NOES--231

     Allard
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baker (CA)
     Baker (LA)
     Ballenger
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bateman
     Bereuter
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bliley
     Blute
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Brownback
     Bryant (TN)
     Bunn
     Bunning
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Canady
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth
     Christensen
     Chrysler
     Clinger
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins (GA)
     Combest
     Cooley
     Cox
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cremeans
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Davis
     Deal
     DeLay
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     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
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Goss
     Graham
     Greenwood
     Gunderson
     Gutknecht
     Hancock
     Hansen
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Heineman
     Herger
     Hilleary
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hoke
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Istook
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kim
     King
     Kingston
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaHood
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Laughlin
     Lazio
     Leach
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Lightfoot
     Linder
     Livingston
     LoBiondo
     Longley
     Lucas
     Manzullo
     Martini
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDade
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McKeon
     Metcalf
     Meyers
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Molinari
     Moorhead
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Neumann
     Ney
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Oxley
     Packard
     Parker
     Paxon
     Petri
     Pombo
     Porter
     Portman
     Pryce
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Riggs
     Roberts
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roth
     Roukema
     Royce
     Salmon
     
[[Page H15533]]

     Sanford
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaefer
     Schiff
     Seastrand
     Sensenbrenner
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Shuster
     Skeen
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Solomon
     Souder
     Spence
     Stearns
     Stockman
     Stump
     Talent
     Tate
     Tauzin
     Taylor (NC)
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Torkildsen
     Upton
     Vucanovich
     Waldholtz
     Walker
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     White
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Zeliff
     Zimmer

                             NOT VOTING--10

     Bryant (TX)
     Chapman
     Conyers
     Edwards
     Filner
     Harman
     Lantos
     Myers
     Quillen
     Quinn

                              {time}  1513

  The Clerk announced the following pairs: On the vote:

       Ms. Harman for, with Mr. Quinn against.
       Mr. Filner for, with Mr. Quillen against.

  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska changed his vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  So the motion to recommit was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Linder). The question is on the 
conference report.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the noes appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

  Mr. ARCHER. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 245, 
noes 178, not voting 11, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 877]

                               AYES--245

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

                               NOES--178

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

                             NOT VOTING--11

     Bryant (TX)
     Chapman
     Conyers
     Edwards
     English
     Filner
     Harman
     Lantos
     Myers
     Quillen
     Quinn

                              {time}  1529

  The Clerk announced the following pairs:
  On this vote:

       Mr. Quinn for, with Ms. Harman against.
       Mr. Quillen for, with Mr. Filner against.

  So the conference report was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________