[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.

                          ____________________