[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 106 (Thursday, July 18, 1996)]
[House]
[Pages H7784-H7796]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
PROVIDING FOR FURTHER CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 3734, WELFARE AND MEDICAID
REFORM ACT OF 1996
Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call
up House Resolution 482 and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 482
Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this
resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 1(b) of rule
XXIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the
Whole House on the state of the Union for further
consideration of the bill (H.R. 3734) to provide for
reconciliation pursuant to section 201(a)(1) of the
concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 1997. All
time for general debate under the terms of the order of the
House of July 17, 1996, shall be considered as expired.
Further general debate shall be confined to the bill and
amendments specified in this resolution and shall not exceed
two hours equally divided and controlled by
[[Page H7785]]
the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on
the Budget. After general debate the bill shall be considered
for amendment under the five-minute rule. An amendment in the
nature of a substitute consisting of the text of H.R. 3829,
modified by the amendment printed in part 1 of the report of
the Committee on Rules accompanying this resolution, shall be
considered as adopted in the House and in the Committee of
the Whole. The bill, as amended, shall be considered as the
original bill for the purpose of further amendment and shall
be considered as read. No other amendment shall be in order
except (1) the further amendment printed in part 2 of the
report of the Committee on Rules, which may be offered only
by the chairman of the Committee on the Budget or his
designee, shall be considered as read, shall be debatable for
the time specified in the report equally divided and
controlled by the proponent and an opponent, shall not be
subject to amendment, and shall not be subject to a demand
for division of the question in the House or in the Committee
of the Whole; and (2) a further amendment in the nature of a
substitute consisting of the text of H.R. 3832, which may be
offered only by the minority leader or his designee, shall be
considered as read, shall be debatable for one hour equally
divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent, and
shall not be subject to amendment. All points of order
against the further amendments are waived. At the conclusion
of consideration of the bill, as amended, for amendment the
Committee shall rise and report the bill, as amended, to the
House with such further amendments as may have been adopted.
The previous question shall be considered as ordered on the
bill, as amended, and any further amendments thereto to final
passage without intervening motion except one motion to
recommit with or without instructions.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Florida [Mr. Goss] is
recognized for 1 hour.
Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, for the purposes of debate only, I yield the
customary 30 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Texas [Mr.
Frost], pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During
consideration of this resolution all time yielded is for the purpose of
debate only.
(Mr. GOSS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks and to include extraneous material.)
Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, this is a modified closed rule providing for
the consideration of H.R. 3474, the Personal Responsibility Act of
1996, a major reform measure. As Members know, this has twice attempted
to reform welfare only to be stopped dead by a Presidential veto. It is
my hope that three times will prove to be the charm and we can actually
succeed in ending welfare as we know it.
This rule waives all points of order against consideration of the
bill and provides 2 hours of additional general debate equally divided
and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the
Committee on the Budget.
As Members know, a unanimous consent agreement was reached to allow
Members to proceed last night with 2 hours of general debate so today's
time will bring to 4 hours the general debate time.
{time} 0915
This legislation is brought to the House under the procedures of
reconciliation as provided by the budget resolution we adopted earlier
this year. For that reason, the time is controlled by the Committee on
the Budget, although I know members of the Committee on Ways and Means
and agriculture committees will have time to comment on the bill's
provisions.
The rule provides for the adoption in the House and the Committee of
the Whole an amendment in the nature of a substitute consisting of the
text of H.R. 3829, as modified by the amendment printed in part 1 of
our committee on Rules report. This amendment makes this complex bill
better and broadens its support.
It includes a review of State work requirements, limits on transfers
into title XX programs, an assurance that States may spend their own
money even after the 5-year Federal limit is reached, a compromise on
the so-called maintenance of effort requirement that States have, and
Medicaid contingent for cases where work requirements are not
satisfied. These provisions are highly technical but also extremely
important to the ability of our States to make the best use of these
reforms.
In addition, the amendment incorporated by this rule addresses the
issue of child support and the allocation of fees, ensuring that a
percentage of such funds are dedicated to local child support offices.
The rule further provides that the text of H.R. 3829, as modified by
the amendment I have just described, shall be considered as original
text for the purpose of amendment. In that regard, the rule provides
for consideration of an amendment printed in part 2 of the Committee on
Rules report, if offered by the chairman of the Committee on the Budget
or his designee, which shall be debatable for 20 minutes, equally
divided and controlled by a proponent and an opponent. This amendment
shall not be subject to amendment and all points of order against it
are waived. It provides for a more stringent work requirement for able-
bodied adult food stamp recipients who have no dependents.
In addition, the rule provides for consideration of a second
amendment printed in part 2 of the Committee on Rules report if offered
by the minority leader or his designee. All points of order against
this amendment, which consists of the text of H.R. 3832, are also
waived.
This amendment shall be debatable for 1 hour, with the time equally
divided and controlled by a proponent and an opponent. This amendment
shall not be subject to amendment. It is my understanding that this
amendment reflects the bipartisan proposal put forth by the gentleman
from Delaware [Mr. Castle] and the gentleman from Tennessee [Mr.
Tanner]. Some Members know of this as the Castle-Tanner amendment.
Finally, the rule provides for a motion to recommit, with or without
instructions.
Mr. Speaker, it is a somewhat complicated rule, as I have just
described, but it is fair, it is comprehensive, and it does the job
very well. This is an extremely complicated subject. Welfare reform has
been one of the most vexing issues in modern times. Our majority has
made it a priority to address the root causes of the failure of the
current welfare system.
I think everyone now agrees that the welfare system is, indeed,
failing us as Americans. Thirty years and more than $5 trillion after
it began, welfare programs we know today have very little to show for
all of the good intentions they had; they have very little to show,
tragically, except a self-perpetuating cycle of dependency. We have
more children and families than ever before trapped today by the very
same programs that were designed to set them free from poverty.
It is a devastating fact that more than three-quarters of those folks
currently on welfare will stay on for more than 5 years. In fact, the
average family on welfare stays on for 13 years.
Mr. Speaker, the bill we consider today and hopefully send to the
President, and receive his signature this time, is a bold break with
the failed policies of welfare as we know it. This bill says that we
are committed to moving people off welfare into productive jobs. This
bill says we trust our State and our local officials to make crucial
decisions about solving their own welfare problems.
This bill says that if you are able to work, we will help you get
training and show you the way. But we expect you to go to work in
exchange for cash benefits. This bill says if you are on welfare and
you have more children, your benefits will not increase unless your
State votes to allow it.
This bill says States can enforce some tough love policies when it
comes to requiring unmarried teenagers who have children to live with
an adult and stay in school. This bill cracks down on deadbeat parents
and boosts child support enforcement.
Mr. Speaker, let me emphasize what this bill does not do. This bill
does not take away the safety net for children. In fact, this bill has
increased levels of funding for child care programs so parents can make
the transition from welfare to work. This is not a small matter. It is
in excess of $4.5 billion, so I am told.
This bill also ensures that families will continue to receive food
stamps, nutrition assistance, and health care. Even if they lose their
cash benefits they will still be able to get these emergency needs met.
This bill also grants States the flexibility to exempt up to 20
percent of their caseload from the 5-year limit, to deal with those who
cannot make the transition from welfare to work. And there will be
some, and they are provided for.
[[Page H7786]]
The bottom line is that we have tried the one-size-fits-all,
Washington-knows-best approach to welfare, and it has failed. It has
failed tragically. It has failed miserably. It has failed pathetically.
Our States and localities are asking for opportunity to do better.
Under this bill, welfare reform programs such as Wisconsin Works and
Florida's WAGES initiative will no longer be derailed by the Federal
bureaucracy. Under this bill States will utilize on-target, creative
solutions within a flexible and responsible Federal framework.
Mr. Speaker, this legislation is also a budget saver. It does provide
for an increase of $137 billion of the taxpayers' dollars over the next
6 years as compared with what we spent on welfare in the last 6 years,
but it meets our budget targets.
We are demonstrating that we can invest in our people, provide new
opportunities to better deliver necessary services, and to still meet
our budget targets. That is what we mean by ending welfare as we know
it. We are offering something better, much better. It is true reform.
Mr. Speaker, I include for the Record a document entitled ``The
Amendment Process Under Special Rules.''
The material referred to is as follows:
THE AMENDMENT PROCESS UNDER SPECIAL RULES REPORTED BY THE RULES COMMITTEE,\1\ 103D CONGRESS V. 104TH CONGRESS
[As of July 17, 1996]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
103d Congress 104th Congress
Rule type ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Number of rules Percent of total Number of rules Percent of total
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Open/Modified-Open \2\.............. 46 44 79 59
Structured/Modified Closed \3\...... 49 47 37 28
Closed \4\.......................... 9 9 17 13
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total......................... 104 100 133 100
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ This table applies only to rules which provide for the original consideration of bills, joint resolutions or
budget resolutions and which provide for an amendment process. It does not apply to special rules which only
waive points of order against appropriations bills which are already privileged and are considered under an
open amendment process under House rules.
\2\ An open rule is one under which any Member may offer a germane amendment under the five-minute rule. A
modified open rule is one under which any Member may offer a germane amendment under the five-minute rule
subject only to an overall time limit on the amendment process and/or a requirement that the amendment be
preprinted in the Congressional Record.
\3\ A structured or modified closed rule is one under which the Rules Committee limits the amendments that may
be offered only to those amendments designated in the special rule or the Rules Committee report to accompany
it, or which preclude amendments to a particular portion of a bill, even though the rest of the bill may be
completely open to amendment.
\4\ A closed rule is one under which no amendments may be offered (other than amendments recommended by the
committee in reporting the bill).
SPECIAL RULES REPORTED BY THE RULES COMMITTEE, 104TH CONGRESS
[As of July 17, 1996]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Disposition of
H. Res. No. (Date rept.) Rule type Bill No. Subject rule
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
H. Res. 38 (1/18/95)........... O................ H.R. 5........... Unfunded Mandate A: 350-71 (1/19/
Reform. 95).
H. Res. 44 (1/24/95)........... MC............... H. Con. Res. 17.. Social Security....... A: 255-172 (1/25/
H.J. Res. 1...... Balanced Budget Amdt.. 95).
H. Res. 51 (1/31/95)........... O................ H.R. 101......... Land Transfer, Taos A: voice vote (2/
Pueblo Indians. 1/95).
H. Res. 52 (1/31/95)........... O................ H.R. 400......... Land Exchange, Arctic A: voice vote (2/
Nat'l. Park and 1/95).
Preserve.
H. Res. 53 (1/31/95)........... O................ H.R. 440......... Land Conveyance, Butte A: voice vote (2/
County, Calif. 1/95).
H. Res. 55 (2/1/95)............ O................ H.R. 2........... Line Item Veto........ A: voice vote (2/
2/95).
H. Res. 60 (2/6/95)............ O................ H.R. 665......... Victim Restitution.... A: voice vote (2/
7/95).
H. Res. 61 (2/6/95)............ O................ H.R. 666......... Exclusionary Rule A: voice vote (2/
Reform. 7/95).
H. Res. 63 (2/8/95)............ MO............... H.R. 667......... Violent Criminal A: voice vote (2/
Incarceration. 9/95).
H. Res. 69 (2/9/95)............ O................ H.R. 668......... Criminal Alien A: voice vote (2/
Deportation. 10/95).
H. Res. 79 (2/10/95)........... MO............... H.R. 728......... Law Enforcement Block A: voice vote (2/
Grants. 13/95).
H. Res. 83 (2/13/95)........... MO............... H.R. 7........... National Security PQ: 229-199; A:
Revitalization. 227-197 (2/15/
95).
H. Res. 88 (2/16/95)........... MC............... H.R. 831......... Health Insurance PQ: 230-191; A:
Deductibility. 229-188 (2/21/
95).
H. Res. 91 (2/21/95)........... O................ H.R. 830......... Paperwork Reduction A: voice vote (2/
Act. 22/95).
H. Res. 92 (2/21/95)........... MC............... H.R. 889......... Defense Supplemental.. A: 282-144 (2/22/
95).
H. Res. 93 (2/22/95)........... MO............... H.R. 450......... Regulatory Transition A: 252-175 (2/23/
Act. 95).
H. Res. 96 (2/24/95)........... MO............... H.R. 1022........ Risk Assessment....... A: 253-165 (2/27/
95).
H. Res. 100 (2/27/95).......... O................ H.R. 926......... Regulatory Reform and A: voice vote (2/
Relief Act. 28/95).
H. Res. 101 (2/28/95).......... MO............... H.R. 925......... Private Property A: 271-151 (3/2/
Protection Act. 95).
H. Res. 103 (3/3/95)........... MO............... H.R. 1058........ Securities Litigation .................
Reform.
H. Res. 104 (3/3/95)........... MO............... H.R. 988......... Attorney A: voice vote (3/
Accountability Act. 6/95).
H. Res. 105 (3/6/95)........... MO............... ................. ...................... A: 257-155 (3/7/
95).
H. Res. 108 (3/7/95)........... Debate........... H.R. 956......... Product Liability A: voice vote (3/
Reform. 8/95).
H. Res. 109 (3/8/95)........... MC............... ................. ...................... PQ: 234-191 A:
247-181 (3/9/
95).
H. Res. 115 (3/14/95).......... MO............... H.R. 1159........ Making Emergency Supp. A: 242-190 (3/15/
Approps. 95).
H. Res. 116 (3/15/95).......... MC............... H.J. Res. 73..... Term Limits Const. A: voice vote (3/
Amdt. 28/95).
H. Res. 117 (3/16/95).......... Debate........... H.R. 4........... Personal A: voice vote (3/
Responsibility Act of 21/95).
1995.
H. Res. 119 (3/21/95).......... MC............... ................. ...................... A: 217-211 (3/22/
95).
H. Res. 125 (4/3/95)........... O................ H.R. 1271........ Family Privacy A: 423-1 (4/4/
Protection Act. 95).
H. Res. 126 (4/3/95)........... O................ H.R. 660......... Older Persons Housing A: voice vote (4/
Act. 6/95).
H. Res. 128 (4/4/95)........... MC............... H.R. 1215........ Contract With America A: 228-204 (4/5/
Tax Relief Act of 95).
1995.
H. Res. 130 (4/5/95)........... MC............... H.R. 483......... Medicare Select A: 253-172 (4/6/
Expansion. 95).
H. Res. 136 (5/1/95)........... O................ H.R. 655......... Hydrogen Future Act of A: voice vote (5/
1995. 2/95).
H. Res. 139 (5/3/95)........... O................ H.R. 1361........ Coast Guard Auth. FY A: voice vote (5/
1996. 9/95).
H. Res. 140 (5/9/95)........... O................ H.R. 961......... Clean Water Amendments A: 414-4 (5/10/
95).
H. Res. 144 (5/11/95).......... O................ H.R. 535......... Fish Hatchery-- A: voice vote (5/
Arkansas. 15/95).
H. Res. 145 (5/11/95).......... O................ H.R. 584......... Fish Hatchery--Iowa... A: voice vote (5/
15/95).
H. Res. 146 (5/11/95).......... O................ H.R. 614......... Fish Hatchery-- A: voice vote (5/
Minnesota. 15/95).
H. Res. 149 (5/16/95).......... MC............... H. Con. Res. 67.. Budget Resolution FY PQ: 252-170 A:
1996. 255-168 (5/17/
95).
H. Res. 155 (5/22/95).......... MO............... H.R. 1561........ American Overseas A: 233-176 (5/23/
Interests Act. 95).
H. Res. 164 (6/8/95)........... MC............... H.R. 1530........ Nat. Defense Auth. FY PQ: 225-191 A:
1996. 233-183 (6/13/
95).
H. Res. 167 (6/15/95).......... O................ H.R. 1817........ MilCon Appropriations PQ: 223-180 A:
FY 1996. 245-155 (6/16/
95).
H. Res. 169 (6/19/95).......... MC............... H.R. 1854........ Leg. Branch Approps. PQ: 232-196 A:
FY 1996. 236-191 (6/20/
95).
H. Res. 170 (6/20/95).......... O................ H.R. 1868........ For. Ops. Approps. FY PQ: 221-178 A:
1996. 217-175 (6/22/
95).
H. Res. 171 (6/22/95).......... O................ H.R. 1905........ Energy & Water A: voice vote (7/
Approps. FY 1996. 12/95).
H. Res. 173 (6/27/95).......... C................ H.J. Res. 79..... Flag Constitutional PQ: 258-170 A:
Amendment. 271-152 (6/28/
95).
H. Res. 176 (6/28/95).......... MC............... H.R. 1944........ Emer. Supp. Approps... PQ: 236-194 A:
234-192 (6/29/
95).
H. Res. 185 (7/11/95).......... O................ H.R. 1977........ Interior Approps. FY PQ: 235-193 D:
1996. 192-238 (7/12/
95).
H. Res. 187 (7/12/95).......... O................ H.R. 1977........ Interior Approps. FY PQ: 230-194 A:
1996 #2. 229-195 (7/13/
95).
H. Res. 188 (7/12/95).......... O................ H.R. 1976........ Agriculture Approps. PQ: 242-185 A:
FY 1996. voice vote (7/18/
95).
H. Res. 190 (7/17/95).......... O................ H.R. 2020........ Treasury/Postal PQ: 232-192 A:
Approps. FY 1996. voice vote (7/18/
95).
H. Res. 193 (7/19/95).......... C................ H.J. Res. 96..... Disapproval of MFN to A: voice vote (7/
China. 20/95).
H. Res. 194 (7/19/95).......... O................ H.R. 2002........ Transportation PQ: 217-202 (7/21/
Approps. FY 1996. 95).
H. Res. 197 (7/21/95).......... O................ H.R. 70.......... Exports of Alaskan A: voice vote (7/
Crude Oil. 24/95).
H. Res. 198 (7/21/95).......... O................ H.R. 2076........ Commerce, State A: voice vote (7/
Approps. FY 1996. 25/95).
H. Res. 201 (7/25/95).......... O................ H.R. 2099........ VA/HUD Approps. FY A: 230-189 (7/25/
1996. 95).
H. Res. 204 (7/28/95).......... MC............... S. 21............ Terminating U.S. Arms A: voice vote (8/
Embargo on Bosnia. 1/95).
H. Res. 205 (7/28/95).......... O................ H.R. 2126........ Defense Approps. FY A: 409-1 (7/31/
1996. 95).
H. Res. 207 (8/1/95)........... MC............... H.R. 1555........ Communications Act of A: 255-156 (8/2/
1995. 95).
H. Res. 208 (8/1/95)........... O................ H.R. 2127........ Labor, HHS Approps. FY A: 323-104 (8/2/
1996. 95).
H. Res. 215 (9/7/95)........... O................ H.R. 1594........ Economically Targeted A: voice vote (9/
Investments. 12/95).
H. Res. 216 (9/7/95)........... MO............... H.R. 1655........ Intelligence A: voice vote (9/
Authorization FY 1996. 12/95).
H. Res. 218 (9/12/95).......... O................ H.R. 1162........ Deficit Reduction A: voice vote (9/
Lockbox. 13/95).
H. Res. 219 (9/12/95).......... O................ H.R. 1670........ Federal Acquisition A: 414-0 (9/13/
Reform Act. 95).
H. Res. 222 (9/18/95).......... O................ H.R. 1617........ CAREERS Act........... A: 388-2 (9/19/
95).
H. Res. 224 (9/19/95).......... O................ H.R. 2274........ Natl. Highway System.. PQ: 241-173 A:
375-39-1 (9/20/
95).
H. Res. 225 (9/19/95).......... MC............... H.R. 927......... Cuban Liberty & Dem. A: 304-118 (9/20/
Solidarity. 95).
H. Res. 226 (9/21/95).......... O................ H.R. 743......... Team Act.............. A: 344-66-1 (9/27/
95).
[[Page H7787]]
H. Res. 227 (9/21/95).......... O................ H.R. 1170........ 3-Judge Court......... A: voice vote (9/
28/95).
H. Res. 228 (9/21/95).......... O................ H.R. 1601........ Internatl. Space A: voice vote (9/
Station. 27/95).
H. Res. 230 (9/27/95).......... C................ H.J. Res. 108.... Continuing Resolution A: voice vote (9/
FY 1996. 28/95).
H. Res. 234 (9/29/95).......... O................ H.R. 2405........ Omnibus Science Auth.. A: voice vote (10/
11/95).
H. Res. 237 (10/17/95)......... MC............... H.R. 2259........ Disapprove Sentencing A: voice vote (10/
Guidelines. 18/95).
H. Res. 238 (10/18/95)......... MC............... H.R. 2425........ Medicare Preservation PQ: 231-194 A:
Act. 227-192 (10/19/
95).
H. Res. 239 (10/19/95)......... C................ H.R. 2492........ Leg. Branch Approps... PQ: 235-184 A:
voice vote (10/
31/95).
H. Res. 245 (10/25/95)......... MC............... H. Con. Res. 109. Social Security PQ: 228-191 A:
H.R. 2491........ Earnings Reform. 235-185 (10/26/
Seven-Year Balanced 95).
Budget.
H. Res. 251 (10/31/95)......... C................ H.R. 1833........ Partial Birth Abortion A: 237-190 (11/1/
Ban. 95).
H. Res. 252 (10/31/95)......... MO............... H.R. 2546........ D.C. Approps.......... A: 241-181 (11/1/
95).
H. Res. 257 (11/7/95).......... C................ H.J. Res. 115.... Cont. Res. FY 1996.... A: 216-210 (11/8/
95).
H. Res. 258 (11/8/95).......... MC............... H.R. 2586........ Debt Limit............ A: 220-200 (11/10/
95).
H. Res. 259 (11/9/95).......... O................ H.R. 2539........ ICC Termination Act... A: voice vote (11/
14/95).
H. Res. 262 (11/9/95).......... C................ H.R. 2586........ Increase Debt Limit... A: 220-185 (11/10/
95).
H. Res. 269 (11/15/95)......... O................ H.R. 2564........ Lobbying Reform....... A: voice vote (11/
16/95).
H. Res. 270 (11/15/95)......... C................ H.J. Res. 122.... Further Cont. A: 249-176 (11/15/
Resolution. 95).
H. Res. 273 (11/16/95)......... MC............... H.R. 2606........ Prohibition on Funds A: 239-181 (11/17/
for Bosnia. 95).
H. Res. 284 (11/29/95)......... O................ H.R. 1788........ Amtrak Reform......... A: voice vote (11/
30/95).
H. Res. 287 (11/30/95)......... O................ H.R. 1350........ Maritime Security Act. A: voice vote (12/
6/95).
H. Res. 293 (12/7/95).......... C................ H.R. 2621........ Protect Federal Trust PQ: 223-183 A:
Funds. 228-184 (12/14/
95).
H. Res. 303 (12/13/95)......... O................ H.R. 1745........ Utah Public Lands..... PQ: 221-197 A:
voice vote (5/15/
96).
H. Res. 309 (12/18/95)......... C................ H. Con. Res. 122. Budget Res. W/ PQ: 230-188 A:
President. 229-189 (12/19/
95).
H. Res. 313 (12/19/95)......... O................ H.R. 558......... Texas Low-Level A: voice vote (12/
Radioactive. 20/95).
H. Res. 323 (12/21/95)......... C................ H.R. 2677........ Natl. Parks & Wildlife Tabled (2/28/96).
Refuge.
H. Res. 366 (2/27/96).......... MC............... H.R. 2854........ Farm Bill............. PQ: 228-182 A:
244-168 (2/28/
96).
H. Res. 368 (2/28/96).......... O................ H.R. 994......... Small Business Growth. Tabled (4/17/96).
H. Res. 371 (3/6/96)........... C................ H.R. 3021........ Debt Limit Increase... A: voice vote (3/
7/96).
H. Res. 372 (3/6/96)........... MC............... H.R. 3019........ Cont. Approps. FY 1996 PQ: voice vote A:
235-175 (3/7/
96).
H. Res. 380 (3/12/96).......... C................ H.R. 2703........ Effective Death A: 251-157 (3/13/
Penalty. 96).
H. Res. 384 (3/14/96).......... MC............... H.R. 2202........ Immigration........... PQ: 233-152 A:
voice vote (3/19/
96).
H. Res. 386 (3/20/96).......... C................ H.J. Res. 165.... Further Cont. Approps. PQ: 234-187 A:
237-183 (3/21/
96).
H. Res. 388 (3/21/96).......... C................ H.R. 125......... Gun Crime Enforcement. A: 244-166 (3/22/
96).
H. Res. 391 (3/27/96).......... C................ H.R. 3136........ Contract w/America PQ: 232-180 A:
Advancement. 232-177, (3/28/
96).
H. Res. 392 (3/27/96).......... MC............... H.R. 3103........ Health Coverage PQ: 229-186 A:
Affordability. Voice Vote (3/29/
96).
H. Res. 395 (3/29/96).......... MC............... H.J. Res. 159.... Tax Limitation Const. PQ: 232-168 A:
Amdmt.. 234-162 (4/15/
96).
H. Res. 396 (3/29/96).......... O................ H.R. 842......... Truth in Budgeting Act A: voice vote (4/
17/96).
H. Res. 409 (4/23/96).......... O................ H.R. 2715........ Paperwork Elimination A: voice vote (4/
Act. 24/96).
H. Res. 410 (4/23/96).......... O................ H.R. 1675........ Natl. Wildlife Refuge. A: voice vote (4/
24/96).
H. Res. 411 (4/23/96).......... C................ H.J. Res. 175.... Further Cont. Approps. A: voice vote (4/
FY 1996. 24/96).
H. Res. 418 (4/30/96).......... O................ H.R. 2641........ U.S. Marshals Service. PQ: 219-203 A:
voice vote (5/1/
96).
H. Res. 419 (4/30/96).......... O................ H.R. 2149........ Ocean Shipping Reform. A: 422-0 (5/1/
96).
H. Res. 421 (5/2/96)........... O................ H.R. 2974........ Crimes Against A: voice vote (5/
Children & Elderly. 7/96).
H. Res. 422 (5/2/96)........... O................ H.R. 3120........ Witness & Jury A: voice vote (5/
Tampering. 7/96).
H. Res. 426 (5/7/96)........... O................ H.R. 2406........ U.S. Housing Act of PQ: 218-208 A:
1996. voice vote (5/8/
96).
H. Res. 427 (5/7/96)........... O................ H.R. 3322........ Omnibus Civilian A: voice vote (5/
Science Auth. 9/96).
H. Res. 428 (5/7/96)........... MC............... H.R. 3286........ Adoption Promotion & A: voice vote (5/
Stability. 9/96).
H. Res. 430 (5/9/96)........... S................ H.R. 3230........ DoD Auth. FY 1997..... A: 235-149 (5/10/
96).
H. Res. 435 (5/15/96).......... MC............... H. Con. Res. 178. Con. Res. on the PQ: 227-196 A:
Budget, 1997. voice vote (5/16/
96).
H. Res. 436 (5/16/96).......... C................ H.R. 3415........ Repeal 4.3 cent fuel PQ: 221-181 A:
tax. voice vote (5/21/
96).
H. Res. 437 (5/16/96).......... MO............... H.R. 3259........ Intell. Auth. FY 1997. A: voice vote (5/
21/96).
H. Res. 438 (5/16/96).......... MC............... H.R. 3144........ Defend America Act.... .................
H. Res. 440 (5/21/96).......... MC............... H.R. 3448........ Small Bus. Job A: 219-211 (5/22/
Protection. 96).
MC............... H.R. 1227........ Employee Commuting .................
Flexibility.
H. Res. 442 (5/29/96).......... O................ H.R. 3517........ Mil. Const. Approps. A: voice vote (5/
FY 1997. 30/96).
H. Res. 445 (5/30/96).......... O................ H.R. 3540........ For. Ops. Approps. FY A: voice vote (6/
1997. 5/96).
H. Res. 446 (6/5/96)........... MC............... H.R. 3562........ WI Works Waiver A: 363-59 (6/6/
Approval. 96).
H. Res. 448 (6/6/96)........... MC............... H.R. 2754........ Shipbuilding Trade A: voice vote (6/
Agreement. 12/96).
H. Res. 451 (6/10/96).......... O................ H.R. 3603........ Agriculture A: voice vote (6/
Appropriations, FY 11/96).
1997.
H. Res. 453 (6/12/96).......... O................ H.R. 3610........ Defense A: voice vote (6/
Appropriations, FY 13/96).
1997.
H. Res. 455 (6/18/96).......... O................ H.R. 3662........ Interior Approps, FY A: voice vote (6/
1997. 19/96).
H. Res. 456 (6/19/96).......... O................ H.R. 3666........ VA/HUD Approps........ A: 246-166 (6/25/
96).
H. Res. 460 (6/25/96).......... O................ H.R. 3675........ Transportation Approps A: voice vote (6/
26/96).
H. Res. 472 (7/9/96)........... O................ H.R. 3755........ Labor/HHS Approps..... PQ: 218-202 A:
voice vote (7/10/
96).
H. Res. 473 (7/9/96)........... MC............... H.R. 3754........ Leg. Branch Approps... A: voice vote (7/
10/96).
H. Res. 474 (7/10/96).......... MC............... H.R. 3396........ Defense of Marriage A: 290-133 (7/11/
Act. 96).
H. Res. 475 (7/11/96).......... O................ H.R. 3756........ Treasury/Postal A: voice vote (7/
Approps. 16/96).
H. Res. 479 (7/16/96).......... O................ H.R. 3814........ Commerce, State A: voice vote (7/
Approps. 17/96).
H. Res. 481 (7/17/96).......... MC............... H.R. 3820........ Campaign Finance .................
Reform.
H. Res. 482 (7/17/96).......... MC............... H.R. 3734........ Personal .................
Responsibility Act.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Codes: O-open rule; MO-modified open rule; MC-modified closed rule; S/C-structured/closed rule; A-adoption vote;
D-defeated; PQ-previous question vote. Source: Notices of Action Taken, Committee on Rules, 104th Congress.
Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, welfare reform is a very serious issue.
There is probably not a person in this country who thinks we should
leave our welfare system as it is.
But there are also about a million suggestions out there as to how to
fix it.
Unfortunately, my Republican colleagues have taken the wrong
suggestions.
This Gingrich welfare bill, Mr. Speaker, is tough on children, weak
on work, and soft on deadbeat parents.
Luckily, this rule will allow the House to vote on another, much
better, bipartisan welfare bill.
Mr. Speaker, the American people have said time and time again that
they want us to work together. They have said that they want us to put
politics aside and work for the benefits to the entire country.
They have also said that they want to see fewer people on welfare and
more people out there working for a living.
And today, Mr. Speaker, we have a chance to give the American people
what they asked for.
We have a bill crafted by Republicans and Democrats alike. We have a
bill President Clinton believes he can sign. And we have a bill that
takes some serious steps toward helping parents find and keep work
without punishing their children for their parents' poverty.
And today we will have a chance to vote for either that bill or the
Gingrich bill.
It's question of priorities.
And, on the subject of priorities, Mr. Speaker, I want to take this
opportunity to remind my colleagues of something I think is very very
important--when we talk about welfare, when we talk about food stamps--
we are talking about children, about 15 million American children who
live in poverty in this country today. And Mr. Chairman, as far as I'm
concerned this Congress has no greater responsibility than to those
children.
About two out of every three people on welfare is a child, Mr.
Speaker. A fact that I think is too often overlooked.
So when we talk about welfare, let's remember that its full name is
Aid to Families With Dependent Children--and those children are
depending on us to take care of them, regardless of who their parents
are or whether they have a job. For that reason, this Republican
welfare proposal is woefully inadequate.
The Republican welfare bill will cut food stamps for families of
three earning $6,250 a year. Most families with children will lose $470
a year in food stamp benefits.
[[Page H7788]]
The Republican welfare bill will push over 1 million children into
poverty.
It will decrease the likelihood that poor children get the medical
attention they need by failing to guarantee Medicaid eligibility.
The Republican welfare bill actually weakens current law and
increases Federal costs in updating child support orders.
And the Republican bill has an extremely weak work program which will
not help parents get jobs to support their families but will more
likely leave poor children, and their parents, out in the street.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues, when you think about welfare
reform, remember: The majority of people on welfare are poor children
who need every single bit of help this Congress and this country can
give them.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to note that apparently we have
received the approbation of the minority with the rule. We may not
agree on all of the exact bits and tenets of the different versions of
the welfare bill, but we apparently have a good rule on the floor. I am
pleased that everybody agrees with that.
Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman
from New York [Mr. Solomon], chairman of the Committee on Rules.
Mr. SOLOMON. I thank the gentleman from Sanibel, FL, for yielding me
the time. I will not take that much time, because this is a good rule.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in very strong support of the rule and the very
vital underlying legislation it brings to the floor. I concur with the
gentleman from Florida, with everything he has said about the failed
welfare system in this country. The status quo, Mr. Speaker, must go.
This bill guarantees that it will go.
Mr. Speaker, the welfare reform issue at the national level I think
is very difficult for the American people to track, as President
Clinton's position seems to twist and contort with each new development
that the States bring forward, the States who know how to deal with it.
As many Members are aware, it is the States, our laboratories of
democracy, that have pioneered welfare reform, which attempts to
grapple with the problem of poverty at the local community level, and
that is where we need to deal with it, not inside this beltway here.
The Clinton administration, through bureaucratic inertia, has blocked
these bold efforts at the State and local levels. They have blocked it
time and time again right in my own State of New York by not giving us
the States' rights ability to deal with these problems.
The recent experience of the State of Wisconsin, attempting to
receive Federal waivers through the Federal bureaucracy, just like my
State of New York has tried to do, and the overwhelming endorsement of
this program on this floor by a vote of 289 to 136, that is
overwhelming, is a compelling argument that the waiver process should
be junked. The fact that imaginative and creative local officials must
traipse to Washington and get down on their hands and knees and beg for
approval to implement reforms that their constituents want, Mr.
Speaker, is an absolute disgrace.
This bill provides local flexibility to deal with these important
problems. My constituents in upstate New York want to help lower income
families and single moms with kids, but they want to do it in their own
communities with their own solutions, not with Washington solutions,
which have failed so miserably by creating second- and third- and now
fourth-generation welfare recipients.
Most importantly, this Personal Responsibility Act of 1996, the
welfare bill before us, requires work for able-bodied people. It
imposes time limits on benefits that recipients may receive.
Twice this week, at around midnight, I have an apartment over across
the river in Virginia, and when I left here at 11 or 12 o'clock at
night I went into a chain grocery store called the Giant grocery store.
And as I was shopping there, getting some food to go home and eat at
midnight, which you should not do, Mr. Speaker, I watched the people
going through those checkout lines. They were very, very young people,
I think 19, 20, 21 years old, I do not think they were parents. One
fellow was drunk as a skunk and he had a whole handful of food stamps,
and he could not even count them. The things they were buying were not
nutritious food.
Those are the things that we deal with in this bill. In other words,
we cannot let people like that continue to be second-, third-, and
fourth-generation welfare recipients. We want to help them. We want to
establish a work program and let them get off this welfare and become
meaningful citizens.
Mr. Speaker, it is about time for the President to become a player in
this debate, especially in light of his ambitious promise on this
subject in his 1992 campaign. If one were to listen to his recent
speeches on this subject, one might think that he is an individual who
truly supports welfare reform. A casual observer may forget that it was
President Clinton, as the gentleman from Florida has said, who has now
twice vetoed compassionate welfare reform in this body.
{time} 0930
Mr. Speaker, I could go on, but I think we all understand the issue.
We need to get this bill on the floor, we need to pass it, and we need
to get it to the President's desk so that he can sign it.
I urge strong support of the bill and I urge the President to make
the compassionate public policy choice and to sign this bill.
Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
We all hear stories about abuse of welfare, but all I want is for
everybody in this Chamber to realize that 2 out of every 3 people on
welfare are children. I think that is a fact that we overlook too
often. We hear all the stories about food stamps and the people buying
all kinds of things. I remember President Reagan brought some abuse of
welfare to light and when it was investigated it could never have
happened and it did not happen. Let us not look at some of the false
stereotypes we fall into and just remember the full name of welfare is
Aid to Families with Dependent Children. They are dependent upon us. I
think we should remember that.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes 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 thank the ranking member for
yielding me this time.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this rule to H.R. 3437, a
rule that is designed to protect this fatally flawed bill.
There are two main problems with this legislation as I see it. First
of all, we need to separate politics and bipartisanship from the lives
of children in this country. Until we do that, we will see this kind of
report coming before the Congress. We were elected to represent the
people and not any particular political party. Let us put the children
in the middle of this and let our influence start out from there.
One is the harsh treatment of legal U.S. residents in this bill.
Children are in that minority of legal immigrants you are talking
about. You want to ban food stamps from these people and these
children, you want to ban SSI from them, and you want to keep them from
becoming what they could, and, that is, true American citizens as you
have become. The bill even bans nonemergency medical care under
Medicaid for new legal immigrants.
Mr. Speaker, I want to tell Members a little bit about these people
that the Republican majority wants to cut out in this rule. They have
played by the rules. They meet every requirement of the law. They live
and they work hard. They pay taxes. They serve in the military. You are
going to say to me that you are not going to protect their children?
This rule does that. So you want to be sure to look at these flaws.
The other one is the costs that were paid by the Federal Government
for care, AFDC and welfare to these children will now be paid by the
States. You keep talking about States rights but you are not giving
them that much money to do the job you want them to do. All of this is
going to be shifted to the counties and the States. This is an unfunded
mandate, if you ask me, because what they are going to do is make the
States and the counties provide the medical care which they cannot
provide wholly. So we are going to
[[Page H7789]]
have a 2- or 3-tier system of health care for these people.
Let me give a concrete idea of how unfair this rule is in protecting
this bill. My own State of Florida estimates it will lose almost $600
million a year in Federal funds because of this bill. What are they
going to do with these funds? They were designed to protect the
children. Now what you are doing, and let no one fool us, this
particular rule is there just to protect this bill.
The second thing it does, it takes away the earned income tax credit
which is saying we are going to help you on one hand and then we are
going to take it away on the other. Every time I come to this floor I
talk about the earned income tax credit because it is for the working
poor to protect their children. I want to say to this Congress, there
is no reason why you should let this flawed rule take care of a flawed
bill. The best thing to do is to vote against the rule. That will put
some stops on this bill.
Mr. Speaker, I want the American public to know that what the
Republicans are doing is taking away the safety net for children.
Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I would just note for the record that this is
H.R. 3734. I think it has been misspoken a few times this morning as
H.R. 3437, for those Members who are watching and tracking. It is H.R.
3734.
Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman
from San Dimas, CA [Mr. Dreier], the distinguished vice chairman of the
Rules Committee.
(Mr. DREIER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend for yielding me this time.
Let me begin, as many of my colleagues have this morning, in extending
our heartfelt thoughts and prayers to those loved ones of the victims
of the tragic TWA Flight 800 crash that took place off Long Island last
night.
Mr. Speaker, let me say that I strongly support this rule. I do so
because we have been struggling for years and years and years to try
and reform the welfare system. From our side of the aisle, there have
been a wide range of proposals over the past several years designed to
do just that, to try and end welfare as we know it.
We were all very enthused in 1992 with the commitment that President
Clinton made to end welfare as we know it, and I have to say that right
after that election in 1992, I had the privilege of writing an article
for my home town newspaper, the Los Angeles Times, in which I stated
that I looked forward to working with the President on issues like
reforming welfare, because when he said that he was committed to ending
welfare as we know it, we all took him at his word.
Now I believe that we have put together a product that I hope he will
be able to sign. We know that he has twice vetoed the welfare reform
package that we have moved out of this Congress, and it has been very,
very difficult for us to face the fact the President who wanted to end
welfare as we know it would veto welfare reform legislation, but I hope
and pray that this will do it.
Why? Because we are not only concerned about those U.S. taxpayers who
are saddled with perpetuating the cradle-to-the-grave welfare system
that we have had over the past three decades, but we are equally if not
more concerned with those people who have been subjected to the welfare
state for years and years and years and have seen the perpetuation of
this cycle, generational cycle, of dependence.
My friend from Sanibel, Florida [Mr. Goss] talked about the fact that
we have seen the average use of the welfare system, 13 years. We also
know of extreme examples where it has gone on for generation after
generation. We looked at the poverty rate as it existed in the mid
1960's when the Great Society began and the War on Poverty began, and
the poverty rate was about 14.7 percent.
Beginning with the Great Society programs, we started spending
billions and billions of dollars, and we have now spent $5.3 trillion
on subventions combating the welfare problem. What is it that we have
seen? Well, the poverty rate has gone from 14.7 percent up to 15.1
percent.
Mr. Speaker, there is bipartisan recognition, Democrats and
Republicans alike. Democrats who represent constituents who are on
welfare and subjected to this generational cycle of welfare, they
acknowledge that the welfare system that we have today has failed. That
is why I believe that we are taking a very positive step in finally
moving forward with this.
My friend from Glens Falls, I am told, just mentioned a situation
that he encountered last night when he was in a grocery store looking
at someone who was obviously abusing the Food Stamp Program. just a
couple of hours ago I was running here on Capitol Hill and I was around
one of the parks, and I was over at one of the benches and had seen a
number of people who obviously rely on food stamps for their survival,
and what was on the ground but cracked crab legs.
It seems to me that when we have people who are abusing the Food
Stamp Program and living extraordinarily well off the Food Stamp
Program, it obviously is a system that has failed. That is why looking
at creative approaches, as the Committee on the Budget and the
Committee on Ways and Means have done, and allowing the amazing
proposals that have come from States like Massachusetts under Governor
William Weld and Wisconsin under Governor Tommy Thompson, my State of
California, Governor Pete Wilson's action allowing creativity for
dealing with poverty and the welfare structure, to come from those
States is, I believe, a very positive sign.
Mr. Speaker, I am encouraged by the fact that we, I believe, have
legislation which President Clinton will be able to sign, and I am
pleased that also it is very bipartisan. I hope we will be able to move
ahead as expeditiously as possible to get this measure to his desk so
that we can all be part of ending welfare as we know it.
Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, once again we all hear horror stories, but
as far as the definition of food, I think crab legs is a healthy diet.
It is not ketchup. I think it is something that could be bought with
stamps. I think that that is not a bad diet.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from California
[Ms.Woolsey].
(Ms. WOOLSEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend her
remarks.)
Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, for certain it is getting closer to
election day. I understand that my friends on the other side of the
aisle want to take credit for getting tough on welfare. But what they
are really doing is getting tough on children. You see, when I look at
the welfare reform bill, it leaves me asking, What about the children?
Two out of three welfare recipients are children. Have they forgotten
about the children? Apparently so. Because, Mr. Speaker, this bill
demands that mothers go to work but fails to provide the education, the
training, and the support that these mothers need to take care of their
children so that they can get off welfare permanently.
When a mother is kicked off the welfare rolls, there is no safety net
for her children, no guarantee that her children will receive food and
shelter, no guarantee that they will have any medical care, no
guarantee that they can survive. In fact, this bill says to poor
children, ``Don't get hungry, don't get sick and for heaven's sake,
don't get cold, because your time is up and we don't think you're
important enough to protect you.''
Mr. Speaker, no other Member of this body knows better than I do how
wrong this is. This is the wrong way to fix the welfare system. When I
was a single working mother with three small children, my children were
1, 3, and 5 years old, I could not have stayed in the work force
without the safety net of health care, child care, and food for my
children. That safety net was provided by the welfare system.
I urge my colleagues, do not take this vote lightly. Do not vote for
this rule. This bill is not about helping welfare recipients, about
helping people get off welfare and into jobs that pay a livable wage.
Rather, it is a vote for making poor children even poorer despite the
political hoopla, despite all this rhetoric around the debate. Your
vote today is a matter of life and death for millions and millions of
children. Make no mistake, your vote will have consequences for
children long after election day.
[[Page H7790]]
Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, we hear the tales about generation after
generation of people on welfare. The statistics as I have heard them is
that the average stay on welfare is 2 years, single female, white. I
would just like to clarify that.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr.
Pallone].
Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the rule because I
do not believe it allows for sufficient amendments that would change
this terrible Republican leadership bill. I do want to say, though,
that I am pleased that the Castle-Tanner substitute is in order because
I think that that does make things better, if you will, for the two
major problems that I see with this Republican legislation. One is that
it really does not do anything to get people to work or provide the
resources so that the States can get people off welfare and get a job.
{time} 0945
Second, because this Republican legislation also is very tough on
kids and basically takes away almost all the protections for children
that exist in the current system, the Castle-Tanner substitute would at
least provide sufficient or at least more resources to get people to
work and, also, I think, protect that safety net for children.
I was listening to what the gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon]
said about the need for a compassionate public policy, and that that is
why this Republican bill has been brought forward, but I would say this
does just the opposite.
If we want to get people to work, if we want to protect kids in a
situation where we are changing radically the nature of the welfare
system, then we cannot move forward with this Republican bill.
I wanted to mention two things, because I listened to what some of my
colleagues said on the other side. The gentleman from California [Mr.
Dreier] talked about the fraud in the welfare system. He mentioned the
crab legs. The gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon] talked about
people waiting in line who he did not think needed welfare. Well, do
not give us these examples, which are a small percentage of the people
that are on welfare.
In addition to that, this Republican bill does not do anything to
curb fraud or to end benefits for people who fail to comply with work
requirements or to reduce administrative costs in the welfare program.
The largest share of this Republican welfare bill's cuts or savings
would come from across-the-board cuts in the food stamp benefit
program.
What that means is that the average person who gets food stamps now
is not going to be able to continue to have a sufficient level of food.
Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume
to say that if the Republican welfare bill goes through, this pushes 1
million children into poverty, and this is from a family that already
has one parent working.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Connecticut
[Mrs. Kennelly].
Mrs. KENNELLY. Mr. Speaker, I was very dismayed yesterday because I
thought that we were going to bring this bill to the floor and that a
bill, the Castle-Tanner bill, would not be allowed to be debated and
voted on, and I found out I was wrong. That is why I am going to vote
for this rule and speak for this rule because it allows Castle-Tanner
to come to the floor.
The Castle-Tanner bill answers the Republican demand for State
flexibility at the same time that it looks to the concerns of Democrats
for protecting children. Most important, the bill addresses the
bipartisan desire to make welfare to work, the transition and the main
point.
I am not suggesting Castle-Tanner is prefect, because no compromise
is, and the men and women that worked on this bill worked very hard to
bring about a bill that I think, under the right circumstance, we all
could vote for. The Castle-Tanner bill would require work after 2 years
and it would pose a 5-year limit, like the majority bill does. However,
unlike the majority's bill, the legislation would not prevent States
from helping children at the point where their parents get cut off.
Second, food stamps. The Castle-Tanner bill would reform the food
stamp program, but it would not threaten the nutritional safety net
established by an optional food stamp block program.
We have heard talk this morning about food stamps. Of course we all
know of situations where there has been abuse of food stamps, but what
many of us who come from cities know about is the need, the absolute
importance for food stamps for young children and for their nutritional
futures and for their health in their future.
I know, having worked with food stamps for years, that crab is
nutritional and crab certainly is under the guidelines, and what gets
us off the track is when we start getting into these anecdotal
situations.
Third, unlike the majority legislation before us, Castle-Tanner has
mandatory funding needed to make tough work requirements a reality. All
of us have read the Congressional Budget Office letter that has already
predicted that many States will not meet the majority's work
requirement because the bill does not have adequate funding in it.
Finally, the bipartisan Castle-Tanner bill does not consider State
accountability incompatible with State flexibility. The bill has a
strong maintenance-of-effort requirement, and I salute the majority for
increasing their maintenance-of-effort requirement just very recently,
but Castle-Tanner still has the best, and that is 85 percent.
Mr. Speaker, I do not agree with every policy decision in the Castle-
Tanner bill, but I do commend the people for getting together from both
sides of the aisle to make this bill a bill, as I said, that we can all
vote for because it represents a good faith effort to find the common
ground on welfare reform.
Welfare reform is an issue we all agree on. Welfare reform is
something that has to be done. The status quo is not working. So I urge
all my colleagues to vote for a bill that would demand responsibility,
reward work, protect children, and I thank the chairman of the
Committee on Rules for letting Castle-Tanner come to the floor.
Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume
to say that the CBO has said that most States cannot meet the work
requirements, given the resources the Republicans wanted to vote to the
cause of work. In fact, the Republicans, according to CBO, their bill
is $10 billion short of what the CBO said is needed for the work
program.
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, welfare reform is essential. It is about
getting people off welfare into work and helping, not hurting, the
child; in a word, tough on work, protective of children. That is the
American value.
When this process started last year, the Republican proposals were
weak on work, tough on kids, not providing any additional resources to
States to help move welfare recipients into work, causing people to go
without health care if they went to work, providing no or inadequate
day care for children, hitting severely handicapped kids, and raising
taxes on low- to moderate-income working families.
The Republicans have moved away in some areas from extreme or
inadequate positions, but they have considerably further to go. Castle-
Tanner is much stronger on work and providing resources to the States
to get people to work, in requiring States to use Federal moneys for
welfare to work, not for other purposes, and in making sure that if a
recession hits, people who want to work or kids who are innocent
bystanders do not get hurt.
Taking food from kids is not welfare reform, whether the parent is a
citizen or other legal resident. The Republican bill does far too much
of this. Tanner-Castle is more protective of children.
Tanner-Castle has been the only bipartisan effort in the House. We
need more, not less of such effort. The only way to achieve more is to
vote for Tanner-Castle and against the Republican bill. That is the
best hope that in the end welfare reform will be what it must be, not a
political football but an instrument to break the cycle of dependency
for the sake of parents, surely of their children, and for taxpayers
who foot the bill.
[[Page H7791]]
Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Maryland [Mr. Wynn] who knows something about crab cakes.
Mr. WYNN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the ranking member for yielding me
this time.
Mr. Speaker, I rise to oppose this rule. It supports a very bad
welfare reform bill. That is unfortunate, because in point of fact we
ought to put people to work.
The welfare system should be reformed, and we ought to set time
limits for people receiving welfare. The problem is the Republican bill
hurts children and does not do a lot about putting people to work. It
hurts innocent children because there are no vouchers in the program.
What happens at the end of the period for benefits? The children are
hurt because there are no provisions made after the benefits are
exhausted. Three hundred thousand legal immigrant children will be
harmed because they will be ineligible for food stamps. Why is that?
Why are we hurting children? Let us just put people to work; 1.2
million women and children will lose Medicaid benefits. They will not
have health care. Why are we doing that? That does not have anything to
do with putting people to work.
The bill is weak on work. Fortunately, we have an alternative. The
Castle-Tanner bill makes provisions. It provides vouchers for when
benefits are exhausted. It provides continued Medicaid coverage so
children can get health care. It provides food stamps for legal
immigrant children so that they will not starve.
The Republican proposal is weak on work. According to the CBO, the
bill is $12 billion short of what is needed to meet the work
requirements. It is an unfunded mandate on the States. The CBO, one of
their favorite authorities, also says they do not provide adequate
child care. They are $800 million short in terms of adequate child care
benefits.
On the other hand, the bipartisan Castle-Tanner alternative provides
additional funds for work. They provide an additional $2 billion to
provide child care so that people can go to work.
We are not debating whether we ought to reform the welfare system; we
are debating what makes sense and whether we ought to punish children
as the price of welfare reform.
Mr. Speaker, I urge rejection of the Republican proposal.
Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, could you inform my dear friend, the
gentleman from Florida [Mr. Goss], and myself how much time is
remaining?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr.
Moakley] has 11\1/4\ minutes remaining, and the gentleman from Florida
[Mr. Goss] has 13 minutes remaining.
Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from
Delaware, Governor Castle.
Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished gentleman for
yielding me this time.
I would like to address my comments this morning strictly to this
rule, rather than either to Castle-Tanner or to the bill itself,
because the rule is a little bit different than some of the rules we
normally take up here on the floor, in that it has a self-enacting
amendment in it that has some substantive concerns that I think we
really need to at least bring forth.
Let me just say first and foremost, and I think this is vitally
important, I very much appreciate the very good work which the
Committee on Rules has done. They have allowed, in a freestanding way,
the Castle-Tanner legislation, which is the Gephardt substitute in this
rule, to come to the floor.
There will be no objections as to dollars. There is a dollar
differential; it is $53 billion versus $60-some in the Republican bill,
but it will be allowed to be considered. That was a concern of mine,
and it was a concern of a number of my contemporaries on the other side
of the aisle, and I am very pleased that was able to be worked out.
That is important, I think, for the whole process of hearing and voting
in this Chamber. And, of course, I am supportive of that legislation.
I want to point out, however, that there are some changes in the rule
that we should pay some attention to, and there are five that I have
singled out here that we need to look at.
One is the review of the implementation of the State work programs.
It would be an understatement to say that this is going to be simple.
When we require people to work for a number of hours, and we require up
to 35 hours a week, when we require a percentage of the population, up
to 50 percent of the welfare population, to be able to go to work, we
have to keep track of that. We have to determine what work is. We have
to go through definitional phases. Benefits can be lost or whatever it
may be.
I think it is extremely important that we make sure that is going to
be able to work. And one of the amendments here states that 3 years
after enactment, the Committee on Ways and Means and the Committee on
Banking and Financial Services shall conduct hearings and other
appropriate activities to review the status of these areas. And that is
before they get into the greater demands, because it is on an
incremental basis. That is a very important change.
Another important change is the limitation on amounts which can be
transferred to the title XX programs. This is a social service block
grant. There are several block grants being set up; most of them deal
with welfare: The TANF, the transitional aid to needy families, the
child care, and the child welfare.
We are all for transferring to child care where necessary. It allows
the 30-percent transfer. But when we get into social services, there
are certain areas that are not as welfare oriented, and it also points
out that all funds so transferred into the social service block grant
must be services for children or their families, so that it keeps that
money in welfare, so that States cannot all of a sudden fund other
programs away from welfare. We thought that was a very significant
change to make, and we did get it.
It also states very clearly there will be no limitations on State
spending beyond the 5 years. I am not totally happy that some of the
Federal benefits are going to be eliminated all together, although I am
an absolute believer that welfare should cease after 5 years, but I
think there are certain vouchers and other things that should be
continued. They are not going to be, but I want to make sure that
States would have the ability to do that with their own money, and it
does state that very clearly.
The maintenance of effort has been raised by what the States have to
do. I am also concerned the States are going to step back, and we have
raised that to 80 percent in this legislation, or 75 percent if the
States do a good job. So that what they have done starting in 1994, in
terms of funding, would have to continue as far as the future is
concerned.
{time} 1000
We have made in the modifications to the legislation in this rule,
specifically in this rule, not as a separate amendment to come up, we
have made some positive changes which makes the bill more palatable
even to those who might object. I understand that some may object
otherwise. At least there has been consideration of various areas that
I think needed to be examined if we were going to be able to support
the legislation.
I think with the combination of being able to allow Castle-Tanner to
come to the floor to be debated, with the changes which are here, the
rule is a good rule. That does not mean you have to agree with the
underlying legislation. That is up to everyone here. I happen to be
very supportive.
Obviously, it is Castle-Tanner and I will support the Republican
proposal, too. But it does mean that we will have the opportunity for
full and open debate. I also appreciate the fact that there are 2 extra
hours so that everyone's views can be aired. This is a very, very
important subject. It is not simple. This legislation is not simple.
The interactions with these families and these children are very
complicated. Putting the programs in place in the States is also very
complicated, and we need to do this very carefully. I think this rule
at least gives us that opportunity. I support the rule and would urge
everybody to do so.
Mr. MOAKLEY. 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.)
[[Page H7792]]
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I thank very much the
gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Moakley].
I rise this morning to consistently repeat what I have already said,
that I enjoy and appreciate the need for real welfare reform. I would
hope, however, that we as Americans would focus on ensuring that our
children would fare well. The Republican bill cuts some $60 billion
from our children.
I rise this morning to support this rule because I want us to discuss
on the floor of the House today a real way to reform welfare. I want
the American public to understand that many times welfare goes to those
families who in economic recessions or depressions lose the opportunity
to work and, therefore, food stamps are a necessity for survival. The
Republican plan block grants, puts a certain small amount of money for
food stamps; and when a crisis occurs in a community and there is need
for the bridge for those families once they can find work, we have no
resources in the Republican plan.
The Castle-Tanner bill does answer that question. In fact, even when
there is a cutoff time, the Castle-Tanner bill allows States to provide
vouchers. The Castle-Tanner bill recognizes that legal immigrants pay
taxes and they are in fact contributors to this community and they have
children. It provides a bridge for those children so that we do not
become a burden on local communities. The Republican bill cuts off
those who work hard in this country. Then I offered an amendment
yesterday evening to respect work and to respect the women in my
district on welfare who have said to me: Congresswoman, we want to
work. But we need child care, job training, health care and, yes, jobs.
I offered an amendment that would provide transitional child care
once a parent gets a job and needs to work. The Republican bill does
not offer sufficient child care. Then with the idea of Medicaid, who in
their right mind would not want children to have good health care?
I will support this rule because I want real welfare. I want
Americans to fare well. I would hope that we would defeat ultimately
the Republican plan.
Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from
New York [Ms. Velazquez].
Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to the
welfare budget agreement. Once again, a far-right, out-of-touch,
radical minority is pushing for welfare reform that eliminates survival
programs that millions of poor children desperately depend on.
The cuts in this bill are vicious. H.R. 3734 would block grant AFDC
benefits and arbitrarily throw thousands of children and families off
the welfare rolls after 2 years--even if they cannot find a job.
Genuine welfare reform must help poor people gain the skills and
resources needed to become self-sufficient. Yet this short-sided bill
includes work requirements without providing jobs. In fact, according
to the CBO, most States will not be able to satisfy the work
requirements included in H.R. 3734.
This bill also gives legal immigrants the shaft. Most of us here
today descended from immigrant roots. Yet H.R. 3734 calls for an
unprecedented denial of benefits for legal immigrants who, despite
their contributions by working hard and paying taxes, fall on hard
times.
I support real welfare reform, but not by hurting children, not on
the backs of legal immigrants and not without real job creation. The
main target of any welfare legislation ought to be poverty, not
children.
This bill is an outrage. I implore my colleagues, on both sides of
the aisle, to support fairness and basic decency and reject this
heartless legislation.
Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman
from Texas [Mr. Doggett].
Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, Americans realize that the welfare system
is working neither for the taxpayer nor for those it is designed to
help. But the question is not whether to change the system but how to
change it.
The question is, will we provide the means to escape welfare or will
we simply be plain mean to poor people? Like most every other problem
that this Gingrich Congress has faced, the best way to solve the
problem is with a bipartisan approach. I have not found any party or,
for that matter, any individual who has got a perfect answer to this
challenge.
Unfortunately, like strengthening Medicare, like trying to get a
balanced budget, like trying to avert these costly Gingrich Government
shutdowns, when some of us have said, let us work together and find a
common moderate approach, others have replied, it is Newt's way or no
way.
That is where we are this morning. Do we pursue a bipartisan approach
such as that advanced by Governor Castle and by the gentleman from
Tennessee, Mr. Tanner, and try to place the emphasis not on targeting
poor kids but targeting what is wrong in this system, or do we take an
extreme approach that is more designed to address the political welfare
needs of those who have failed again and again in this Congress rather
than repairing the real welfare reform system?
I believe we have got an approach that will work, imperfectly, to get
us out of the welfare problems we have today. Let us get about adopting
it in a bipartisan way.
Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Oregon [Mr. Blumenauer].
Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, we have reached a point where there is a
national consensus that is emerging that our No. 1 priority in social
welfare is to protect poor children. There is a consensus that welfare,
in fact, tracts children in poverty, and the key is to allow families
to work to escape.
Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, the Republican bill hinders that progress
that is so critical and undercuts that national consensus.
I come from a State, Oregon, that is actually moving people off
welfare into gainful employment. The bill that we have looming before
us is going to undercut the progress of my State.
First of all, by having inflexible work participation requirements,
you will actually penalize the successful State as it ratchets down
into the next century. By having all child support in a centralized
bureaucratic system, which my State tried in the 1970's, found to be
unnecessary, found to be expensive and found that we had better ways,
we will be forced back into that unnecessary bureaucracy, unnecessary
expense.
By having a 5-year arbitrary limit on child care, we deal with the
ironic situation of having some successful families who are fighting to
remain employed to be forced back into poverty. This is lunacy.
I appreciate at least having the Tanner-Castle amendment being put
before us as an alternative. We need to keep this progressing so that
the President and the Senate can work with people of good faith to have
a bill that will work so poor children do not pay the price for our
inability to square rhetoric with reality.
Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I include for the Record the statement of the
gentlewoman from Ohio, Ms. Deborah Pryce, a member of the Committee on
Rules, who is unable to be here.
Ms. PRYCE. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in strong support of
this fair rule and the underlying Welfare Reform Act.
Mr. Speaker, a generation ago, President Lyndon Johnson launched his
much-celebrated War on Poverty with the hope of creating a Great
Society here in America. Well, here we are in 1996, 30 years and more
than $5 trillion later, ready to launch a new war. Only this time, the
war is not so much against poverty itself, but against a failed welfare
system that has trapped the less fortunate in our society in a
seemingly endless cycle of poverty and despair.
The bill that we will soon consider under the terms of this
structured, but very fair and balanced rule, takes welfare in an
entirely new direction--one which replaces strict Federal control with
increased flexibility and more room for innovation at the State and
local level.
Instead of promoting dependency and illegitimacy, this bill seeks to
replace a failed system with one based on the dignity of work and the
strength of families. Most importantly, this legislation promotes
creative solutions closer to home and offers a real sense of hope to
the truly needy and less fortunate among us.
Unfortunately, we'll hear some complaints from those who prefer to
keep the status quo in place. But, Mr. Speaker, there is nothing wrong
with a welfare reform plan that advocates commonsense principles like
requiring welfare recipients to find work, or even cutting
[[Page H7793]]
off benefits for parents who refuse to cooperate with child support
authorities.
And speaking of children, who are often the most vulnerable in our
society, I've seen the effects of generational welfare in my courtroom,
and I can say that the current welfare system takes a terrible toll on
the well-being of children. That's why I am very pleased that this bill
looks out for the best interests of children by emphasizing child care,
protection, and nutrition.
So, Mr. Speaker, I would urge my colleagues to vote for this fair
rule and to support putting an end to the status quo in our welfare
system. It takes courage to vote for change, but change is exactly what
is so badly needed if we are to transform welfare into a temporary
helping hand in times of trouble, and not a hand-out that becomes a way
of life. Vote ``yes'' on the rule and ``yes'' on the Welfare Reform
Act.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from
California [Mr. Dreier], vice chairman of the Committee on Rules, from
greater San Dimas, CA, and surrounding areas.
(Mr. DREIER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend for yielding me this time.
This has been a very interesting debate over the past few minutes,
Mr. Speaker. My friend, the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Doggett], said it
is Newt's way or no way. The fact of the matter is, the Democrats did
not come up with any proposal whatsoever to deal with welfare reform,
and we are still giving them two opportunities with, first, the
substitute which they said they requested, which is the Castle-Tanner
substitute and, second, a motion to recommit. So without coming up with
proposals, they call it Newt's way or no way. We are giving them two
opportunities to offer alternatives to this package.
Second thing I heard during this debate is that the system, this
proposal, would be vicious and heartless. I am told that my friend, the
gentlewoman from New York [Ms. Velazquez], just said that.
Mr. Speaker, what is vicious and heartless about doing what we can to
encourage opportunity for those who are at the lower end of the
economic spectrum?
A few moments ago I was talking with my friend, the gentleman from
South Boston, MA [Mr. Moakley], who said that it is true that we so
often hear about the extreme cases of abuse of the welfare system. The
fact of the matter is, the average welfare recipient out there is that
single mother who is struggling to make ends meet with two or three
children. We do not want to do anything possible, we do not want to do
anything at all that would jeopardize the opportunity for that mother
to be able to benefit from this program as long as we continue to do
everything possible to ensure that she has opportunity there.
We can improve this economy so that we can have the chance for that
mother to get off of that cycle of dependence, which has been
generational, and back onto a running of that economic ladder so that
she can see improvement. We want to end the cycle which has created
drug dependence and alcohol abuse and the crime problem that exists.
Most everybody who has looked at the welfare system has said that we
have seen the crime as a byproduct of the welfare system.
We do not know that any of the proposals that we are going to be
voting on are the panacea. James Q. Wilson from Harvard University has
said that no one has the guaranteed solution, but we have looked at the
situation that has existed for the past three decades and we all know
that it has failed. We are moving ahead again with a package that I
believe will create the opportunity for us to improve the system. The
President should sign this measure as we move forward. I thank my
friends who have worked in a bipartisan way on this.
I again thank my very distinguished friend from Sanibel, FL, for
yielding the time to me.
Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Minnesota [Mr. Vento].
{time} 1015
Mr. VENTO. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the Republican
initiative that is being presented before us by this rule. Obviously,
there are some changes in the rule, to in fact, eliminate some of the
most egregious positions in the Republican bill. That is good, but I
think that my Republican colleagues should be moving further to a
center position on the matter of welfare reform.
In the first instance, I think if we take away the bumper strip
welfare reform label and look behind it, we find much more than simply
welfare reform. We find significant cuts in food and nutrition
programs, we find significant, an attack really; half the savings in
this bill are extracted from the legal immigrants in this country,
whether it be California, New York, or my home State of Minnesota.
In my State of Minnesota in my school district in St. Paul, nearly a
quarter of the kids come from Southeast Asia, families and their
parents and those kids would be denied significant benefits that are
today available. The legal immigrants, Southeast Asians are working,
they are paying taxes. If they become disabled, if they become unable
to make ends meet, they would be denied the benefits simply because
they did not pass the citizenship test by the policies within this
Republican bill.
Now, this bill is wrong because it does not protect kids. Seventy
percent of those on welfare are children, 8.8 million persons of the
12.8 million that collect AFDC are children. That is not the way we
need to deal with our budget problems; we need to protect children and
the vulnerable. We ought to empower people so they can go back to work.
That costs money in terms of training and education. But this measure
pays lip service to those needs.
There are other issues that need to be addressed. In our State we
reduced the welfare load because we provided health care for those that
needed it. That substantially reduced the need for welfare in our State
of Minnesota.
We should not be targeting the legal immigrants. As and I said, half
the dollar savings in this measure is cut from legal immigrant benefit
programs. Illegal immigrants are not eligible for much of anything
today, so let us not confuse the two.
Plus, we ought to maintain the State effort. I trust my State will
maintain their effort, but I do not know, given the pressures that
Minnesota will go through and be under. We should be requiring them to
at least do what we are doing today. Not just 175 percent or 80 percent
of the effort that the Republican bill requires.
And we need to deal with the economic cycle in terms of downtown so
that we do not leave people out in the cold. Our Nation doesn't need
more homeless, we do not need that type of problem in the name of
welfare reform. We need to address our concerns and help State and
local communities respond to the needs of the vulnerable in our
communities.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this bill, H.R. 3734.
Instead of helping people out of poverty and off the welfare rolls,
this Republican measure simply ignores the needs of poor families and
children. H.R. 3734 does include work requirements, which I agree
should be a part of the effort to reform welfare. However, this bill
does not provide welfare recipients with essential services, such as
child care, health care, education and training, that would help them
down a successful path to the world of work. These expenses can
devastate a poor family's income and throw them back into the welfare
system, and in this bill, these types of support are grossly
inadequate.
The underlying measure mandates work, however, it eliminates the
guarantee to one of the key services that give parents the ability to
go to their jobs, child care. While this bill does take a significant
step forward regarding child care programs by adding extra dollars for
child care initiatives, it eliminates the guarantee of that assistance,
making these services dependent on the availability of State resources
to continue funding such programs. These funds are also given to States
as a block grant, a funding mechanism that would not allow funding
levels to rise along with need. At the same time, the measure reduces
funds targeted for increasing the quality of child care.
For many poor families, a single medical emergency or health problem
can push them into poverty and onto welfare. This is one reason why
access to adequate medical care is an essential element in the struggle
to get welfare families off the rolls and out of poverty as well as
keeping other families from entering this cycle of poverty and welfare.
This Republican measure, however, ignores this logic by eliminating the
guarantee
[[Page H7793]]
for some families to Medicaid, the main provider of medical care to the
poor. With two out of every three welfare recipients being children, we
cannot afford to abandon this type of assistance. Having adequate,
affordable health care is also vital to parents, directly impacting
their health and ability to work. At one time in Congress, we were
talking about expanding health care coverage so no American would be
denied adequate medical care. Now, this 104th Congress has designs to
take medical coverage away from our most vulnerable and poorest
residents. In fact, about half the cuts in the Republican's budget
proposal are in the Federal health care programs, Medicare and
Medicaid.
Conveniently, this bill simply takes the criteria of need out of
welfare eligibility requirements. State budgets replace that
characteristic to become the determining factor in whether our poorest
families and children receive essential food, shelter, and medical
assistance. The unrealistic part of this scenario is that the needs of
these poor families and their children do not conveniently disappear
when funding to provide such assistance runs out.
While this bill dramatically reduces spending on welfare programs at
the Federal level, the bill also allows States to follow suit and
reduce their funding of welfare-related programs. In this bill,
irregardless of need, States will only be required to spend 75 to 80
percent of the amount they spent in fiscal year 1994 on welfare
programs. While I understand that States and local public officials
care about the well-being of their citizens, the funding shortfall
included in this bill will force them to do more with less, and that
willingness to maintain the social safety net provided in current law
will be greatly strained. State and local officials may benefit by the
flexibility provided but this measure, but flexibility cannot make up
for such an inadequate level of funding provided by this bill, which
will hamper States' abilities to meet the expensive work requirements
in the bill without endangering the health and well-being of America's
poorest residents. The Congressional Budget Office has pointed out that
the Republican bill's spending provisions fall far short of the
necessary funds needed to meet the work requirements. In addition, in
some instances, funds can be moved out of the program for which they
are allocated and be expended on unrelated programs.
One provision in this measure, which claims big cuts and savings,
would deny benefits to legal immigrants, noncitizens who pay taxes and
contribute to our economy. Half the funding cuts in this bill come on
the backs of these hard-working members of our communities. Such is the
case with the Southeast Asians, especially the Hmong, 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 under this bill.
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. Cutting off assistance to
those who are trying to lift themselves out of poverty and off of
welfare is not sound public policy. Unfortunately, that is exactly the
policy that this bill puts forth. We must help those in need help
themselves. I urge my colleagues to oppose this underlying measure and
renew our efforts for real welfare reform so that those dependent can
truly achieve self-sufficiency.
The Tanner-Castle substitute offers the basis for true compromise and
real welfare reform. And, while I have misgivings about the measure,
which would abandon the entitlement commitment, the provisions of this
measure are generally funded adequately. Also, the issue of expansion
of need during economic downturns is addressed. The required State
commitment is greater, and children as well as other vulnerable
populations are protected. This measure, the Castle-Tanner bill, isn't
perfect, but it is a sound foundation and format to transition from
today's welfare system to a welfare program with greater State
flexibility with a reasonable prospect of meeting the problems of those
who are in need in our society.
Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from Florida [Mr. Shaw].
Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding this time
to me.
I think we are, and I sense that we are, right here in one of the
finest hours of this Congress. We are taking one of the thorniest, most
difficult political issues for all of the Members on both sides, and we
are opening up the rule to this extent. I think it is truly remarkable
and speaks very well of the leadership in this Congress and the faith
that the Republicans, as the majority, has in the Democrats as the
minority. We are not only allowing a second bill to be introduced and
we are not only allowing the motion to reconsider, but also we are also
relaxing the dollar figure because this is a reconciliation process.
Under the rules the minority party could have been absolutely shut
out of this process by simply saying, ``Adhere to the rules, and the
rules means you've got to save $60 billion.'' This was not done, and I
think that is absolutely in the absolute tradition of fairness.
Now we are going to be faced with a bill that is a substitute.
Interestingly enough, both the Republican bill and the substitute that
is going to be offered here today in the entitlement of welfare; that
is a quantum leap. It shows confidence in the States in block granting
them to the States. That is a quantum leap for this Congress, and I
think that it speaks very well of those that support either one of
those issues.
And then those that do not really believe that the States should take
over the welfare system, the Democrats are given the opportunities on a
motion to recommit. So, if they want to hold on to much of the status
quo and hold on to the Federal grip on welfare, they will have the
opportunity to do so and put it forth in a Democrat process, and that
is absolutely amazing, and it is wonderful that this is happening,
particularly in these days where we see that there are so many gotchas
and oneupmanships going on in this House.
So I want to compliment all of the people, to very briefly that one
might say, ``Well, if the Castle-Tanner bill and the Republican bill
both block grant welfare, then what is the difference?'' Well, there
are two, really two, basic differences that we are going to be asked to
consider ourselves and to decide between. Those of us who are going to
oppose the Castle-Tanner bill, those of us on the Republican side who
oppose that particular bill, we do not believe that American taxpayers
should simply still be required to shell out their money to pay welfare
to noncitizens. This is a growing, growing area where the alien
population on welfare is growing at a much higher percent than the U.S.
citizen group. So we feel that Castle-Tanner is going the wrong way on
that.
We also feel that in the area of time-limited welfare, to put out
vouchers after the 5 years is counterproductive to what we want to do.
But we are compassionate, we do say that 20 percent of the case load
can be made an exception, and if the States want to go ahead and pay
that amount out after 5 years, they can, and we also explicitly state
in the bill that the States that want to use their own dollars to pay
out after 5 years, they simply can do that too. We are not strapping
the States, we are not limiting the States, in that regard.
But I look forward to a very healthy debate, one in which we will
voice very honest differences of opinion today. I think this is going
to be one of the finest hours that we will have in this Congress, and
we are now given the tremendous opportunity to end the stagnation of
welfare that has destroyed so many lives, and that is the important
thing, and that is what we have got to accomplish.
And after we get through with this democratic process, I hope that
the President will follow suit, not play politics, and sign this bill.
Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield all my remaining time to the
gentleman from Tennessee [Mr. Clement], my last speaker.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Kolbe). The gentleman from Tennessee is
recognized for 1\3/4\ minutes.
Mr. CLEMENT. Mr. Speaker, since I have been a Member of Congress, 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. America was built on the
principles of hard work, determination, and individual initiative. In
effect these are the same values our current welfare system penalizes.
Today we are called upon to enact a meaningful welfare reform. We
must not struggle to establish a Democratic or Republican reform plan,
but rather we must strive for a compromise that results in an American
resolution of this most difficult problem.
Mr. Speaker, I feel that the Castle-Tanner welfare reform bill
achieves this effect as a bipartisan proposal that strikes a balance
between the welfare reform plans advocated by the two parties. The
Castle-Tanner alternative
[[Page H7795]]
provides tough welfare reform that protects children and moves able
welfare recipients to work.
This bipartisan substitute provides $3 billion in mandatory funding
that States can access for work programs. Consequently, if mothers and
fathers trying to escape welfare to work, they must have an adequate
funding for child care. Castle-Tanner contains $4.5 billion more than
the current law for child care assistance to families that leave
welfare for work. In effect, this proposal provides States with the
flexibility to develop successful work programs tailored to the needs
of local communities.
Support this legislation. Let us pass welfare reform this year.
Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the
distinguished gentleman from Kentucky [Mr. Bunning].
Mr. BUNNING of Kentucky. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the
rule and also in support of H.R. 3734, the Republican welfare reform
bill.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote for the Republican welfare
reform bill before the House today. I supported it in both the Ways and
Means Committee and the Budget Committee, and I am going to vote for it
today.
The case for welfare reform is pretty clear. The system that we have
now just does not work. Period. During the last 30 years, we have spent
over $5 trillion on antipoverty programs, but we have not reduced the
percentage of Americans who actually live in poverty. In fact, the
poverty rate has slightly risen during that time.
It's time for some tough love, and I think that this legislation fits
the bill.
If we are going to help people escape poverty, we have to encourage
personal responsibility. The welfare system that we have now is
supposed to act as a safety net to help people when they need a hand,
but instead it acts to trap them in poverty and ends up becoming a way
of life.
We simply say that if you are able, you should work. If you are
noncitizen, you should not come to the United States expecting a
handout. And if you are a felon, you are going to be kicked off the
dole.
All of the recent innovation in welfare has taken place in the
States. They have raced ahead of Washington in attacking poverty with
new, inventive approaches and we should give them the latitude they
need to craft programs at the local level that really work and help
people. Our bill does that.
Very important to me, our proposal also attacks the problem of
illegitimacy. Welfare now actually encourages out-of-wedlock births and
induces single, teen mothers to move out on their own to try to raise
their children. We think that this is absolutely wrong-headed, and
that's why our bill ends the practice of subsidizing out-of-wedlock
births and tells teen mothers that they have to live with their
families if they want to continue to get public assistance.
Mr. Speaker, I am also compelled to speak about the transracial
adoption section in this bill. I deeply appreciate my Chairman, Mr.
Archer, agreeing to add to it the base bill.
We know that many children, mainly minority kids, are left to
languish in foster care because of the skin. The practice of race-
matching that prevails in the adoption community is discriminatory, and
we have to stop it if we are going to give these kids a chance and get
them into permanent, loving homes.
In the past 18 months, the House has twice passed legislation that
penalizes adoption agencies that continue to race-match, but the
President vetoed our first effort and the other bill's future in the
Senate is up in the air because of the gridlock in that body. By
including the transracial section in this bill, we are only improving
our chances at actually passing legislation this year and bettering the
lives for the half a million children who are stuck in foster care
today.
Mr. Speaker, I commend the bill before us today to my colleagues. It
takes welfare in a new direction and I believe that it will give hope
and expand opportunity to millions of Americans who are trapped in
poverty.
Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I want to respond to a few of the remarks that were
made.
First of all, one of the speakers from the other side said this bill
is tough on welfare. This bill is tough on welfare abuse. We all know
that there is a lot and we need to deal with it. We are dealing with
it.
Others have said that we have not provided enough for children. I
would add that in the areas of child support, child nutrition, child
care, we have added more than there is now under the existing system.
In child care alone I understand there is an additional, beyond what we
have today, $4.5 billion provided for, and I frankly believe it is in
both versions that we are going to have an opportunity to consider.
I also need to point out that compared to the last 6 years, which has
been a time when we have been spending maximum dollars on welfare, in
the next 6 years we are going to spend $137 billion more. I do not
think that means we are dodging the issue. We are targeting the money
better, and we are going to take care of more people with true need and
stop the waste, fraud, and abuse in this program that President Clinton
has asked us to deal with.
I would also point out in the options that we have today the two that
we are going to be voting on frankly are more similar than they are
different. The point is they both bring substantial reform. I obviously
prefer H.R. 3734, but others have spoken to the fact that there are
great differences. Actually there are not that many differences.
I would point out that we are giving in this rule two bites of the
apple to the other side, which has not always happened in the past when
the other side was in the majority under the reconciliation process.
There was some statement made that we are having some cuts in the
EITC. One of the speakers mentioned that. No; there are not cuts. There
are some attempts to reduce fraud and abuse in the EITC, again as the
President has asked.
Mr. Speaker, I have run out of time. I urge strong support for this
rule. It is an excellent rule.
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 SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the resolution.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the grounds 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 358,
nays 54, not voting 21, as follows:
[Roll No. 327]
YEAS--358
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allard
Andrews
Archer
Armey
Bachus
Baesler
Baker (CA)
Baker (LA)
Baldacci
Ballenger
Barcia
Barr
Barrett (NE)
Barrett (WI)
Bartlett
Barton
Bass
Bateman
Bentsen
Bereuter
Berman
Bevill
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop
Bliley
Blumenauer
Blute
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bonior
Bono
Borski
Boucher
Brewster
Browder
Brown (CA)
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Brownback
Bryant (TN)
Bryant (TX)
Bunn
Bunning
Burr
Burton
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Canady
Cardin
Castle
Chabot
Chambliss
Chapman
Chenoweth
Christensen
Chrysler
Clayton
Clement
Clinger
Coble
Coburn
Collins (GA)
Combest
Condit
Cooley
Costello
Cox
Cramer
Crane
Crapo
Cremeans
Cubin
Cummings
Cunningham
Danner
Davis
Deal
DeLauro
DeLay
Deutsch
Diaz-Balart
Dickey
Dicks
Dingell
Dixon
Doggett
Dooley
Doolittle
Dornan
Doyle
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Durbin
Edwards
Ehlers
Ehrlich
English
Ensign
Eshoo
Evans
Everett
Ewing
Farr
Fawell
Fazio
Fields (LA)
Fields (TX)
Flanagan
Foley
Ford
Fowler
Fox
Franks (CT)
Franks (NJ)
Frelinghuysen
Frisa
Frost
Funderburk
Furse
Gallegly
Ganske
Gejdenson
Gekas
Gephardt
Geren
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gilman
Gonzalez
Goodlatte
Goodling
Gordon
Goss
Graham
Green (TX)
Greene (UT)
Greenwood
Gunderson
Gutknecht
Hall (TX)
Hamilton
Hancock
Hansen
Harman
Hastert
Hastings (FL)
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Hefner
Heineman
Herger
Hilleary
Hobson
Hoekstra
Hoke
Holden
Horn
Hostettler
Houghton
Hoyer
Hutchinson
Hyde
Inglis
Istook
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jacobs
Johnson (CT)
Johnson, E. B.
Johnson, Sam
Johnston
Jones
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kasich
Kelly
Kennedy (MA)
Kennelly
Kildee
Kim
King
Kingston
Kleczka
Klink
Klug
Knollenberg
Kolbe
LaFalce
LaHood
Lantos
Largent
Latham
LaTourette
Laughlin
Lazio
Leach
Levin
[[Page H7796]]
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (GA)
Lewis (KY)
Lightfoot
Linder
Lipinski
Livingston
LoBiondo
Longley
Lowey
Lucas
Luther
Maloney
Manton
Manzullo
Markey
Martini
Mascara
Matsui
McCarthy
McCollum
McCrery
McHale
McHugh
McInnis
McIntosh
McKeon
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Metcalf
Meyers
Mica
Millender-McDonald
Miller (FL)
Minge
Moakley
Molinari
Mollohan
Montgomery
Moorhead
Moran
Morella
Murtha
Myers
Myrick
Neal
Nethercutt
Neumann
Ney
Norwood
Nussle
Obey
Ortiz
Orton
Oxley
Parker
Paxon
Peterson (MN)
Petri
Pickett
Pomeroy
Porter
Portman
Poshard
Pryce
Quillen
Quinn
Radanovich
Rahall
Ramstad
Reed
Regula
Richardson
Riggs
Rivers
Roberts
Roemer
Rogers
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Rose
Royce
Sabo
Salmon
Sanford
Sawyer
Saxton
Scarborough
Schaefer
Schumer
Scott
Seastrand
Sensenbrenner
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Shuster
Sisisky
Skaggs
Skeen
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Solomon
Souder
Spence
Spratt
Stearns
Stenholm
Stockman
Studds
Stump
Stupak
Talent
Tanner
Tate
Tauzin
Taylor (NC)
Tejeda
Thomas
Thornberry
Thornton
Thurman
Tiahrt
Torkildsen
Torricelli
Traficant
Upton
Vento
Volkmer
Vucanovich
Walker
Walsh
Wamp
Ward
Watts (OK)
Waxman
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
White
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson
Wise
Wolf
Zeliff
Zimmer
NAYS--54
Becerra
Beilenson
Clay
Clyburn
Coleman
Collins (IL)
Conyers
Coyne
DeFazio
Dellums
Fattah
Filner
Flake
Foglietta
Frank (MA)
Gibbons
Gutierrez
Hilliard
Hinchey
Jackson (IL)
Jefferson
Johnson (SD)
Kennedy (RI)
Lofgren
McDermott
Meek
Menendez
Mink
Nadler
Olver
Owens
Pallone
Pastor
Payne (NJ)
Pelosi
Rangel
Roukema
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Sanders
Schroeder
Stark
Stokes
Thompson
Torres
Towns
Velazquez
Visclosky
Waters
Watt (NC)
Williams
Woolsey
Wynn
Yates
NOT VOTING--21
Collins (MI)
de la Garza
Engel
Forbes
Hall (OH)
Hunter
Lincoln
Martinez
McDade
Miller (CA)
Oberstar
Packard
Payne (VA)
Peterson (FL)
Pombo
Roth
Schiff
Serrano
Taylor (MS)
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
{time} 1045
Messrs. SOLOMON, CUMMINGS, and BONIOR changed their vote from ``nay''
to ``yea.''
So the resolution was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
____________________