[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 110 (Wednesday, July 24, 1996)]
[House]
[Pages H8319-H8329]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
APPOINTMENT OF CONFEREES ON H.R. 3734, WELFARE AND MEDICAID REFORM ACT
OF 1996
Mr. KASICH. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to take from the
Speaker's table 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, with a Senate amendment thereto, disagree
to the Senate amendment, and agree to the conference asked by the
Senate.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Ohio?
There was no objection.
MOTION TO INSTRUCT OFFERED BY MR. SABO
Mr. SABO. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to instruct.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will report the motion.
The Clerk read as follows:
Mr. Sabo moves that the managers on the part of the House
at the conference on the disagreeing votes of the House of
Representatives and the Senate on H.R. 3734 be instructed to
do everything possible within the scope of the conference
to--
(1) eliminate any provisions in the House and Senate bills
which shift costs to states and local governments and result
in an increase in the number of children in poverty;
(2) maximize the availability of Food Stamps and vouchers
for goods and services for children to prevent any increase
in the number of children thrown into poverty while their
parents make the transition from welfare to work;
(3) ensure that the bill preserves Medicaid coverage so
that the number of people without access to health care does
not increase and more children and old people are not driven
into poverty; and
(4) provide that any savings that redound to the Federal
Government as a result of this legislation be used for
deficit reduction.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under rule XXVIII, the gentleman from
Minnesota [Mr. Sabo] will control 30 minutes, and the gentleman from
Ohio [Mr. Kasich] will control 30 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Sabo].
[[Page H8320]]
Mr. SABO. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 2 minutes.
Mr. Speaker, there is no denying that we must make needed changes to
our welfare system to make it more efficient and fair for the American
people. In doing so, we should emphasize personal responsibility, and
we should honor work. But we should not shred the entire safety net in
the process.
It would be unconscionable of this Congress to, in the name of
reform, pass a welfare bill that drives millions of children into
poverty. It would be equally irresponsible to simply push Federal
welfare responsibilities off on State and local governments which may
or may not have the resources to care for those truly in need. That is
why I am offering this motion to instruct conferees today.
House conferees should use this opportunity to negotiate with the
Senate and with the President to ensure that millions of children are
not pushed into poverty because of the welfare changes enacted by this
Congress. We should also ensure that we do not overwhelm the ability of
States and localities to deliver needed welfare services. We must
reform our welfare system, but we must not do it in a fashion that
increases child poverty or increases the burden on State and local
government.
Also, Mr. Speaker, it should be clear that any savings that result
from this legislation should go for deficit reduction, not for other
purposes.
Mr. KASICH. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the
gentleman from Florida [Mr. Shaw].
Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, I have read with great interest the motions to
instruct. I might say, as to each one of these items, in crafting the
welfare bill, we had these objectives in mind. Therefore, I find it
would be most difficult to oppose the motions to instruct because I
think that is exactly what we intend to keep uppermost in our minds.
I think it is necessary to see this as to how we view welfare reform.
We view this as giving a path and a way for people to get out of
poverty. We know that the present system does not work. We know that
people have been paid to stay in a way of life which is self-
destructive and which has totally done away with a future for these
people.
Unfortunately, the poor victims of this current system, which has
been held in place for so many years, are the children. We know that
the children of welfare parents are going to, in all probability, and
statistics prove these to be correct, are more likely to be poor
themselves. They are more likely to fail in school or drop out of
school. They are more likely to have trouble and get in trouble with
the law. It is a self-destructive behavior.
Mr. Speaker, I think the difference in defending the existing system,
to defend the existing system is simply to make somebody comfortable
while they are living in poverty. That is not the way. That is
destructive of the human spirit. The new way, the way of welfare reform
is going to go to the root of poverty. The root of poverty is
joblessness.
We have now found that in the inner cities of this country we have
piled generation upon generation of people who otherwise would, as
their ancestors were, be productive. It is important to remember that
these people who are the descendants, who are on welfare, many of them
are descendants of people who struggled their whole lives, who went to
the cities for a better way of life, and now find that when the jobs
went away, they were paid to stay there and do absolutely nothing.
The answer to welfare reform very clearly is to get people out of
poverty, to get them jobs, to give them incentives, to give them child
care, which we do, to give the States greater flexibility in order to
craft these programs, the welfare programs, in order to help the
people. We are at last going to be measured by the number of people we
get out of poverty, not the number of people that we pay while they are
in poverty. We are going to give the bureaucrats a vested interest in
the solution to poverty, not the question of just how many people they
keep in welfare.
This is a new day. I think yesterday we saw the action that was taken
by the other body as a quantum leap forward in bipartisan cooperation.
I can say that I am looking forward to a bipartisan solution in this
body also.
We had 30 Democrat Members who crossed over and voted with the
Republicans just last week on welfare reform. I am looking forward to
increasing that number, and I would like to almost rival the Senate in
getting as many of the minority party as I possibly can to vote with us
on the final passage of this bill.
Mr. Speaker, there is not one Member of this Congress that is willing
to get up and defend the status quo. Why? Because we all want a better
life for the people of this country. I can say, again, that the four
objectives that are set forth in the motion to instruct, unless
somebody jumps up and says that there is something in here that I do
not see, that there are some fishhooks that I do not anticipate, I
would suggest that perhaps the Members vote yes on the motion to
instruct that sets forth a general path toward getting people out of
poverty. I believe it is a constructive motion to the conferees at this
point.
Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Ohio for yielding me the
time.
Mr. SABO. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas
[Mr. Stenholm].
Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of motion to instruct
the conferees in exactly the same spirit the gentleman from Florida has
just spoken with. I believe when we carefully analyze this amendment,
in the spirit in which was indicated support for, we will find that
this motion ensures that welfare reform will not shift costs to State
and local governments, which I know the gentleman from Florida agrees
to.
The National Governors Association, the National Council of State
Legislatures, the National Association of Counties, the U.S. Conference
of Mayors, and the National League of Cities all have said the bill
passed by the House places unfunded mandates on State and local
governments and restricts the flexibility to administer welfare
programs in their communities.
I am submitting for the Record a letter from each of the latter three
organizations. Members will find that the Senate has made marginal
improvements. The conferees can, if allowed to do our work, make it
much better in the spirit of this motion to instruct.
I was particularly concerned to learn that the bills passed by the
House and Senate would conflict with the reform initiatives being
implemented by Texas, my State, and others States across the country.
State legislators and Governors developed proposals after consulting
with welfare field offices studying local job markets, evaluating the
cost of implementing reforms, and deciding how best to protect children
and other vulnerable populations.
The bill as passed by the House does exactly what the majority party
generally rails against: That is, having Washington dictate to the
States a one-size-fits-all solution. In the spirit of this instruction,
we can work that out in conference and have a much better bill.
The bill would force many States either to apply for waivers from the
mandates, make significant changes in the plans currently being
implemented, or face penalties from the Federal Government.
The second key principle in this motion is protecting children.
Again, I would encourage my colleagues to listen to what the States
decided must be done to protect children. For example, the welfare
reform proposal now being implemented in Texas continues benefits for
children after their parents reach a time limit.
Several other States have followed Texas' lead in protecting children
from the impact of time limits. Unfortunately, the bill passed by the
House substitutes the views of Members of Congress in Washington for
the judgments of State officials on how best to provide for children in
their States by explicitly prohibiting States from using block grant
funds to protect innocent children from being harmed because of the
mistakes of their parents. If these provisions in the bill passed by
the House become law, Texas and other States will be required to change
their plan to apply time limits to children. If you believe that State
and local officials know better than Washington how to provide for the
needs of low-income children in their communities, you should support
the motion to recommit.
Third, the motion to instruct provides that no one should lose health
coverage as a result of welfare reform. I was pleased that both the
House and Senate adopted amendments preserving current eligibility
rules for Medicaid
[[Page H8321]]
coverage. However, I am concerned about reports that this provision may
be dropped in conference. I hope that Chairman Shaw can assure me and
other members concerned about this issue that current Medicaid
eligibility rules will be preserved by the conference committee.
I am also concerned about the impact that denying Medicaid to
noncitizens will have on the health care system. The bill passed by the
House will effectively deny Medicaid to thousands of individuals,
removing $7 billion of Medicaid assistance from the health care system.
However, health care providers will continue to be morally and legally
obligated to provide care to these individuals, resulting in a cost
shift to health care providers that will affect the cost, availability,
and quality of care to everyone in Texas and other States with large
immigrant populations.
In closing, I would say to my colleagues on both sides of the aisle
that this motion reflects a continuation of the spirit of trying to
break through partisanship to find a commonsense middle ground position
on welfare reform. All members who voted for the Castle-Tanner
substitute--and all Members who agreed with the principles of the
Castle-Tanner substitute but who voted against it for whatever reason--
should vote for the motion to instruct. I urge a ``yea'' vote on the
motion to instruct conferees.
Mr. Speaker, I include for the Record the following letters:
National Association of Counties,
Washington, DC, July 12, 1996.
Dear Member of Congress: You may be voting soon on the
Welfare and Medicaid reform bill (H.R. 3507/S. 1795). The
National Association of Counties (NACo) is encouraged that
there were improvements to the welfare section of the bill,
including: increased funds for child care; maintaining
current law for foster care adoption assistance maintenance
and administration payments; and no funding cap for food
stamps nor a block grant for child nutrition. However, there
are not enough improvements to warrant our support. In some
respect, particularly the work requirements, the bill has
become even more burdensome. NACo particularly opposes the
following welfare provisions:
1. The bill ends the entitlement of Aid to Families with
Dependent Children, thereby dismantling the safety net for
children and their families.
2. The eligibility restriction for legal immigrants goes
too far. The most objectionable provisions include denying
Supplemental Security Income and Food Stamps, particularly to
older immigrants. In fact, by changing the implementation
date for these provisions, the bill has become more onerous.
NACo is also very concerned about the effect of the deeming
requirements particularly with regard to Medicaid and
children in need of protective services.
3. The participation requirements have become even more
unrealistic. NACo particularly opposes the increased work
participation rates and increased penalties, the changes in
the hours of work required, and the new restrictions on the
activities that may count toward the participation rates.
As the level of government closest to the people, local
elected officials understand the importance of reforming the
welfare system. While NACo is glad that the bill does contain
language that requires some consultation with local officials
we prefer the stronger language that is contained in the
bipartisan welfare reform bill (H.R. 3266).
NACo also continues to oppose the Medicaid provisions. By
capping the fiscal responsibility of the federal government
and reducing the state match for the majority of the states,
the bill could potentially shift billions of dollars to
counties with responsibility for the uninsured. Allowing the
states to determine the amount, duration and scope of
services even for the remaining populations which would still
be guaranteed coverage, will mean that counties will be
ultimately responsible for services not covered adequately by
the states. While we support the increased use of managed
care and additional state and local flexibility in operating
the Medicaid program, we do not support the repeal of
Medicaid as envisioned in the current legislation.
As it is currently written, the Medicaid and Welfare Reform
bill could potentially shift costs and liabilities, create
new unfunded mandates upon local governments, and penalize
low income families. Such a bill, in combination with federal
cuts and increased demands for services, will leave local
governments with two options: cut other essential services,
such as law enforcement, or raise revenues. NACo therefore
urges you to vote against H.R. 3507/S. 1795.
Sincerely,
Douglas R. Bovin, President.
____
National League of Cities,
Washington, DC, July 18, 1996.
Dear Representative: On behalf of the over 135,000 local
elected officials the National League of Cities represents,
we are writing to urge you to oppose the Welfare and Budget
Reconciliation legislation (H.R. 3734) being considered on
the floor this week. As it is currently written, the Welfare
and Budget Reconciliation bill would cut federal investments
in families and children, shift costs and liabilities, create
new unfunded mandates upon local governments, and penalize
low-income families.
While we find it encouraging that this welfare bill has
some improvements such as increased funds for child care, a
larger contingency fund and smaller reductions in SSI
benefits for low-income disabled children, is still does not
merit our support. In some instances, particularly the
stringent work requirements, the bill has become even more
harsh. NLC is especially opposed to the following provisions:
1. The bill ends the entitlement of Aid to Families with
Dependent Children, thereby dismantling the safety net for
children and their families.
2. The eligibility restrictions for legal immigrants goes
too far. The most objectionable provisions include denying
SSI benefits and food stamps to immigrants, especially older
immigrants. These provisions will shift substantial costs
onto local governments. Local governments cannot and should
not be the safety net for federal policy decisions regarding
immigration.
3. The participation requirements have become even more
unrealistic. NLC is particularly opposed to the increased
work participation rates, the increased penalties, the
changes in hours of work required, and the new restrictions
on the activities that may count toward the participation
rates. Instead of providing more local flexibility, the bill
moves in the direction of ever greater unfunded federal
mandates.
As the level of government closest to the people, local
elected officials understand the importance of reforming the
welfare system. While NLC is happy to see that the bill does
contain language that requires some consultation with local
officials, we prefer the stronger language that is contained
in the bipartisan welfare reform bill (H.R. 3266).
We believe that this budget legislation will sharply reduce
resources in cities for families and children. It proposes a
whole new chapter of unfunded federal mandates. Finally, the
shift of liabilities to local governments will leave local
governments with two options: cut other essential services,
such as law enforcement, or raise revenues. NLC, therefore,
urges you to vote against this bill.
Sincerely,
Gregory S. Lashutka,
President.
____
The United States
Conference of Mayors,
Washington, DC, July 17, 1996.
Dear Representative: The U.S. Conference of Mayors has long
advocated reform of the current welfare system which would
change it from a system of dependency to one of work and
self-sufficiency. We would like to see welfare reform enacted
this year--reform that would be good for our nation, good for
our cities and, most important, good for recipients.
We have, however, serious concerns with the welfare reform
legislation now moving through Congress. Our primary concern
is that the legislation will harm children, increasing the
poverty rate among children and making many children who are
currently poor even poorer.
The Conference of Mayors has a substantial body of adopted
policy on welfare reform. Our basic principles for welfare
reform are: the availability of: jobs which pay an adequate
wage, health care coverage and child care; provisions which
encourage fathers to assume responsibility for providing both
financial and emotional support to their children; welfare
benefits sufficient to maintain a standard of living
compatible with health and well-being, and which remain
available for a period of time determined by the client's
need rather than an arbitrary time limit; a system based on
incentives rather than punitive measures.
While HR 3507 represents an improvement over HR 4, with
increased funding for child care, maintenance of the
entitlement nature of foster care and adoption assistance,
and maintenance of the current mix of child nutrition
programs, the bill does not meet the principles for welfare
reform which we have set. Unless these concerns are
addressed, The U.S. Conference of Mayors must urge you to
vote against HR 3507.
Sincerely,
Cardell Cooper,
Chair, Health and Human Services Committee.
Richard M. Daley,
President.
____
H.R. 3734 Restricts State Flexibility To Implement Welfare Reform
Initiatives
While Congress has been debating welfare reform, states
have begun to implement aggressive welfare reform initiatives
through the waiver process. These innovative state plans
requires greater personal responsibility, place work
requirements on welfare recipients and set time limits on
benefits. State legislatures and governors developed
proposals after consulting with welfare field offices,
studying local job markets, evaluating the costs of
implementing reforms and deciding how to best protect
children and other vulnerable populations. State officials
were able to develop welfare reform initiatives that were
tailored to the conditions in their states so that the
programs would be practical and successful in moving welfare
recipients in the state into work. These state plans
reflected the views of citizens of their states.
The welfare reform bill passed by the House and Senate
would conflict with many of the reform initiatives being
implemented by states across the country. The bill overrules
the judgement of state officials about what is practical and
realistic in work programs by mandating work rules which are
[[Page H8322]]
much more severe than most states have established. The work
requirements mandated by the bill are more severe than most
states believed they could afford or successfully implement.
In addition, the bill would prohibit several states from
continuing provisions protecting children from the impact of
time limits on benefits. Although the bill is intended to
give states flexibility to implement welfare reform plans
without the need for federal waivers, the bill would force
many states to either apply for waivers from the mandates in
the bill, make significant changes in the plans currently
being implemented (absorbing additional costs to meet federal
mandates while federal funding is being frozen), or face
penalties from the federal government.
Among the states that are implementing welfare reform
initiatives that would not comply with the mandates in H.R.
3734 as passed by the House:
Connecticut: Welfare recipients would be required to work a
minimum of 15 hours a week after two years of assistance, 25
hours after three years and 35 hours after four years. The
Connecticut program would fail to meet the work requirements
mandated in H.R. 3734 because most individuals working under
the state plan would not be counted under the rules
established in H.R. 3734. Connecticut imposes a time limit
for a portion of the caseload that applies only to employable
adults. Under H.R. 3734, Connecticut would be required to
apply the time limit to children as well.
Delaware: Private contractors are paid for placing welfare
recipients in private sector jobs of at least 20 hours a
week, recognizing the nature of opportunities in the labor
market for unskilled applicants. H.R. 3734 would not count
individuals placed in private sector jobs of 20 hours a week
as meeting work requirements.
Georgia: Georgia applies a work requirement in ten counties
that require recipients to work up to 20 hours per month at
an assigned in local, state or Federal government or at a
non-profit agency. the Georgia plan does not meet the
mandates regarding either the hours of work required or the
percentage of the caseload that must be working. The Georgia
plan provides that benefits to children are not affected by
the plan. H.R. 3734 would require Georgia to amend its plan
to eliminated benefits for children after the five year time
limit.
Hawaii: The state plan places job-ready recipients in part-
time private sector jobs of up to 18 hours a week. These jobs
would not comply with the mandates in H.R. 3734.
Indiana: The Indiana plan applies the time limit on
benefits to adult benefits only. H.R. 3734 would require
Indiana to amend its plan to apply the time limit to children
as well as adults.
Iowa: Under the state plan, caseworkers are given latitude
to set forth a work plan for recipients based on individual
circumstances, including the individual's work history,
education level, etc. and environmental barriers such as
transportation, child care and the local job market. The work
requirements in the individual agreements range from 20 to 45
hours a week. The work requirements mandated in H.R. 3734
would severely restrict the ability of caseworkers in Iowa to
set work requirements based on individual circumstances.
Missouri: The Missouri plan applies the time limit on
benefits to adults only. H.R. 3734 would require Missouri to
amend its plan to apply the time limit to children as well as
adults.
Montana: The Montana plan requires recipients to perform 20
hours of community service per week after receiving two years
of benefits. This work requirement would not meet the mandate
in H.R. 3734. The Montana plan does not apply the time limit
to children's benefits, as H.R. 3734 would require.
Oklahoma: Recipients in six counties who are not able to
find a job after receiving benefits for three years are
required to work at least 24 hours a week in a subsidized
job. The Oklahoma plan does not meet the mandates regarding
either the hours of work required or the percentage of the
caseload that must be working.
Rhode Island: The bipartisan welfare reform proposal being
considered in the Rhode Island General Assembly with the
support of the Governor would exempt children's benefits from
the time limit. H.R. 3734 would require Rhode Island to
change its plan before it could be implemented.
Tennessee: The Tennessee welfare waiver request would
require welfare recipients to work 25 hours a week, which
would not meet the mandates in H.R. 3734.
Texas: The Texas plan requires individuals who are unable
to obtain private sector employment of 30 hours week to
participate in work activities under the JOBS program of 20
hours a week. The Texas plan is extremely unlikely to meet
the mandates in H.R. 3734. The Texas plan continues benefits
for children after the time limit, which H.R. 3734 would
prohibit.
The list above is only a partial list of states that do not
meet the mandates in H.R. 3734. Several states not listed
above are in the process of developing programs that would
not meet the mandates in the bill. Many other states have
welfare reform initiatives that do not address the issues of
work requirements and time limits mandated in the bill.
Finally, virtually all states that are implementing work
requirements have limited the work requirements to targeted
segments of the caseload which fall far short of the
participation rates mandated by the bill.
Mr. KASICH. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Camp].
Mr. CAMP. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me.
I also have looked at the motion to instruct and do not find anything
too objectionable in it, as well. When we look at the costs, I know it
mentions the costs that have been put on State and local governments,
that they are concerned that costs will be shifted there. What our bill
tries to do is give States more flexibility to design and implement a
welfare program that will free up resources because, clearly, the kind
of welfare system we have had for the last 30 years has been overly
restrictive. Just look at the number of waivers States have applied
for, which has been a long, difficult, bureaucratic process. Some I
think have recently been granted for Tennessee, or that announcement
will be made very soon.
Even the Federal Government recognizes, the administration recognizes
that the current system has not done the job. The whole purpose of our
bill is to try to ease that. The purpose of doing that, of course, is
to help lift children from poverty. I think if we look at the last 30
years, the war on poverty has not been won, and it is very, very
important that we do better at that.
I think the bipartisan nature of this bill that came out of the
Senate, half the Democrat Senators supported the welfare bill. I think
it is a very good, strong signal that the kind of bill we are going to
design will be a very positive change, one that has been needed for a
very, very long time.
{time} 1730
Mr. SABO. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished
gentlewoman from Florida [Mrs. Thurman].
Mrs. THURMAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Minnesota for
yielding me this time.
Mr. Speaker, as we head toward the third conference on welfare
reform, I hope that this time everybody gets it right and focuses on
the children who need to be protected, rather than the political gains
to be made. We have actually come very far over the past year, and the
bill making its way to the conference is a little bit fairer and more
reasonable than the first one.
But there are still loopholes. In other bills, loopholes mean a loss
of revenue or a tax shelter. In this bill, a loophole means thousands
of starving children.
Here are the holes in the conference that must close. First, in the
House bill, children are penalized for their parents' mistakes. If a
parent is irresponsible and does not get a job within the time limit,
kids get cut off, too. Nobody wants starving children in dirty diapers.
That is not welfare reform, but it is what will happen unless the
loopholes are closed, with vouchers for kids.
Second, the House bill contained underfunded optional block grants
for food stamps. The Senate was wise to recognize that these block
grants will be attractive to States, but dangerous for children. When
the money runs out, and it will for many States, there will be no money
for hungry families. For example, what happens when companies downsize
or a recession hits? Families that worked hard, but struggled from
paycheck to paycheck, will look to us to help feed their children, and
we will have to turn them away. The Senate recognized this problem and
we should support their amendment to eliminate the optional block
grants.
Like everyone else in this body, I want to see welfare reform, not
status quo, signed into law this year. But in doing so, let us be
guided by the words of Hubert Humphrey, who considered the moral test
of government to be how that government treats those who are in the
dawn of life, the children. If we, the most plentiful Nation on Earth,
bring harm to our children by passing the wrong welfare reform, we will
have failed this test.
Mr. KASICH. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished
gentlewoman from the State of Connecticut [Mrs. Johnson].
Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I welcome the Sabo
amendment, because it does clarify a number of issues that are
important for the conference to focus on. I personally worked very,
very hard on the Medicaid provisions, and we need to assure
[[Page H8323]]
that they are strong and will provide the kind of health care that
children need.
I personally feel that one of the important things for the
conference, though, is not to be bound by the old thinking. When I hear
the preceding speaker talk about children after the 5 years, I do not
feel that she really sees what the impact of this plan is going to be.
There are just so many opportunities from day 1 to provide day care, to
get into job training, to use those day care dollars so effectively
that women work in day care centers half the day and then they are in
job training half the day, and from the very beginning, day 1, the
whole family comes together to the family center and everybody begins
growing, changing their future. So, I think there is enormous
opportunity here.
Michigan has done a great job with kinship groups. If you see you are
going to have trouble, you can bring kinship groups into it, and the
whole family, the larger family, needs to have the role here, have a
role in planning the solution for this family. So, we need to be sure
to be creative and not to cut off the kinds of initiatives that are
going to develop.
We do have that 20 percent protection. I agree, we do not want any
children disadvantaged by this reform This should offer opportunity and
hope to both women and children. But we do not want our thinking about
the welfare of the next 20 years to be too narrowly fenced in by the
experience of the last 10 years and 20 years when the States were very
limited in what they could do.
In Connecticut, we have a 21-month limit, and one of the biggest
newspaper critics of it wrote a column just the other day saying, you
have to own up when you are wrong, and he was wrong. It is working
great.
Mr. SABO. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from Tennessee [Mr. Tanner].
(Mr. TANNER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. TANNER. Mr. Speaker, I want to compliment the gentleman from
Florida [Mr. Shaw] and the others who worked with us. I certainly want
to thank the gentleman from Delaware [Mr. Castle] and the gentleman
from Texas [Mr. Stenholm] and the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Sabo]
and others who have worked on our side. I think we are very close.
This motion to instruct has really four general, but necessary,
principles I think we all share in this body, Democrat or Republican,
to make sure, as one of the previous speakers said, we get it right. It
talks about the cost shifting to local governments, and we need to
really take a look at that. As the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Stenholm]
said, there is no reason to again demand that States do it our way or
face penalties, and then we all know what happens there.
There is still a part of the House bill that treats a 4-year-old
child like a 34-year-old irresponsible adult. We really can fix that,
and we need to.
We talk also about Medicaid coverage. The Senate took a great step
yesterday in a vote of, I think it was, 95 to 2 to fix that portion of
it, and surely the conference committee can take a look at that.
Finally, we talk about the savings that are achieved here going to
deficit reduction, which directly will affect these children that we
are talking about in the previous parts of the bill.
So we are close. The Senate did some good work yesterday. If we can
just in the conference utilize our imagination, as one of the previous
speakers over there said, to try to get to some closure on these
principles, not harming children, actually making sure that the funding
is there to make the system work. I think we are very close to a
breakthrough and a conference committee report that we can all support
and the President can sign.
Mr. KASICH. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished
gentlewoman from the State of Washington [Ms. Dunn], a member of the
Committee on Ways and Means.
Ms. DUNN of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for
yielding me this time.
I am very pleased today to see us moving toward bipartisanship on
welfare. We are all very concerned about solving this major problem.
Many of us here on the House floor who have worked on this issue month
after month, and some people year after year, are worried about what
the current system of welfare has done to children.
I do want to reassure the gentlewoman from Florida that we have
indeed built flexibility into this system, this new bipartisan proposal
that will take care of children, that they will not suffer at the end
of 5 years, that there is a 25-percent exemption number there, that
money can be shifted from child care from title XX to take care of
those children, and they can be transferred within the block grants,
and that there are other State sources that may be used to support the
children after 5 years as well.
But I continue to be very pleased to see how much emphasis both sides
of the aisle are putting on the issues that are most important to me in
this bill, the issues of child care and child support. In the original
welfare bill, we were very thoughtful in how we addressed child care.
We took a great deal of time to work with the governors of the States,
the Members on both sides of the aisle, the administration, to develop
a plan that would fund child care at a level that would be far better
than what exists in the current system today.
So at this point we are something around $4.5 billion more than the
current welfare program provides to the States for child care,
including their funding, and $2 billion more than the President
originally asked for, and I think this is an appropriate level and
shows the concern that we have for those mothers on AFDC who are
wishing to get off welfare and into the work force. We have talked to
these women and we have figured out that this is the most important
piece of this whole legislation that allows them the peace of mind they
need to make this transfer.
Child support is critically important. We spent a lot of time, there
has been a lot of work that has gone into the child support issue, the
issue of deadbeat parents, 30 percent of whom leave the States, Mr.
Speaker, to avoid paying child support. We have provided a nationwide
information service here that will allow States to find those deadbeat
parents, and I must say that today in our Nation, $34 billion is owed
in court-ordered child support to custodial parents. When it is not
paid, those kids go on welfare and the taxpayers become the parent.
So I am here today to commend both sides of the aisle to support the
Sabo motion to instruct and to urge my colleagues to continue the
bipartisan approach to welfare that I hope will continue right through
to the signing by the President in the White House.
Mr. SABO. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished
gentlewoman from California [Ms. Waters].
Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this motion to instruct
the conferees. First, let me make one attempt, one final attempt, to
interject some sanity into this debate about the future of mothers and
their children. We can accomplish welfare reform without abandoning
poor children. If this government cannot agree to that, it will agree
to nothing.
Both the House and Senate versions of this bill would decimate the
food stamps program; both would unduly restrict benefits for legal
immigrants. The proponents of this legislation are clearly driven by
two impulses, neither of which is reforming welfare. First, they are
eager to balance the budget on the backs of poor children rather than
tackle corporate welfare. And second, they are attempting to create a
wage issue, which they know divides Americans, and inject their
divisive spirit into this political season.
This is not how we make sound public policy, Mr. Speaker. The last
bill that was sent to the President's desk would have thrown at least
1.2 million children into poverty. While we do not have a comparable
study on the impact of this bill, I would ask my colleagues, how many
children will this Congress feel comfortable making poor? One million,
2 million, a half million? Where is the job creation? Where are the
incentives to business to stop exporting our jobs to Third World
countries for cheap labor so that we can provide jobs for jobless
Americans here at home?
Mr. Speaker, many welfare recipients want desperately to change their
lives.
[[Page H8324]]
They want to correct the mistakes in their lives. They want help, not
more pain. They want jobs. Let us train them, not starve them.
Mr. Speaker, we should support this motion to instruct the conferees
to keep children out of poverty, preserve Medicaid, maximize food
stamps, provide job training and work opportunities. This is not fun
and games. This issue is about human lives.
Mr. KASICH. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 3 minutes.
Mr. Speaker, I think it is pretty amazing for the American people to
make note of the fact that in the other body, 74 Members of the other
body voted for a significant, the most significant change in welfare
that we have seen in this country since welfare was created, and that
of course enjoins the action of this body to do a number of things.
First, to say that we will take care of people who cannot, simply
cannot take care of themselves. But at the same time, it says for those
people who are able-bodied and find themselves on this welfare system,
that we will provide adequate day care so that the children of people
on welfare will be protected.
Second, that the people who are on welfare are going to be asked to
get trained. We are going to give them a skill. We are going to educate
them. We are going to help them. And at the end of the day, it is also
expected that those folks will be able to leave welfare and find
employment to work.
I think that is what Americans have been calling for in this country
my entire political career, and frankly all of my lifetime. Because in
a Judeo-Christian society, it is wrong not to help people who need
help; but in a Judeo-Christian society, it is also wrong to help people
who need to learn how to help themselves. I do not think there is much
disagreement with this.
Now, there are some starts and some stops in any legislation. There
is always concerns about what happens. But it has been those concerns
that have blocked this Congress, not this Congress, but previous
Congresses from being able to deliver the kind of welfare reform that
taxpayers want, and the kind of welfare reform that taxpayers will
support.
{time} 1745
I would say to the Members of the House today that the gentleman from
Minnesota makes an amendment that I think has a lot of merit. It speaks
to the fact that we do not want unfunded mandates. That is why, in
fact, Governors sit in our deliberations and give us their opinions in
terms of the impact of this legislation on their States. They basically
have one plea, however: ``Trust us, we can do the job. After all, it is
our citizens' money, and we think we can design a program that fits
local solutions to local problems at less cost and will be more
productive and rescue people from poverty.''
At the same time I think it is very important to realize that as we
go through this, we are going to be in a position where taxpayers
finally are going to be able to say, ``I can support this program. It
is fair to those who cannot help themselves, it is fair to those
because we provide the adequate programs to protect their children as
they get skills and get work, and it is fair to me as a taxpayer.''
I am always proud of saying that I think the real American heroes in
this country are not the Shaquille O'Neals who make $125 million or the
Juwan Howards who make $100 million. God bless them for having the
skills to drive the market to make that kind of money but they are not
my heroes.
My hero is that lady who goes to the airport to pour the coffee, puts
her children in day care, and works like the dickens with her husband
to make ends meet, and they do not get anything from the government.
They are not unwilling to help those that cannot help themselves, but
at the end of the day they want to believe it is a system that
encourages people to leave.
We cannot let the concerns that we have had over the years deny the
kind of welfare reform we ought to have. I think the gentleman from
Minnesota [Mr. Sabo] speaks to the issue of the local mandates, the
need to be concerned about children, which all of us are. We believe at
the end of the day this is a compassionate bill that will help the
folks that need the help and help the taxpayers who want to have a
legitimate welfare system.
So we can support the Sabo amendment, move to conference, and, ladies
and gentlemen, I think we are on the verge of truly historic reform of
the system that has needed reform all of my lifetime and I think it is
a day for us to be excited.
Mr. SABO. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 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, we will agree that the welfare system does
not work for taxpayers and it certainly does not work for families on
welfare. That is the easy part.
The challenge and responsibility we face as legislators, however, is
to fix the system so that it helps parents move from welfare to work
while at the same time ensuring that children are safe, healthy and
protected. We have to do that because parents cannot succeed in school,
training or work if their children are not taken care of. They cannot
do their best when their children are home alone or in a car or if they
are sick or hungry.
Take it from me. I was on welfare. Even though I was working, I
needed Aid For Dependent Children for one reason and one reason only,
to give my children the food, the medical care, and the child care they
needed. Without those crucial support services, Mr. Speaker, without
that safety net, I do not know what would have happened to my family.
So, conferees, Members of this body, remember, the lives of millions
of children are in your hands. Take this responsibility very seriously.
If you err, err on the side of our children. Make sure that no child is
left without proper health care, nutrition, or child care. Make sure
that no child is left behind. Remember how the safety net saved my
family. Remember the children. I urge my colleagues, protect our
children.
Mr. KASICH. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the very distinguished
gentleman from Delaware [Mr. Castle], the former Governor.
Mr. CASTLE. I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time.
Mr. Speaker, I would just like to share some thoughts I have on
welfare reform. I support all the concepts of the motion to instruct
conferees. I think the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Sabo] has done a
good job here, but I would just like to point out where we have gone in
the welfare reform package.
We had it coming out of committee, we took it to the floor of the
House, we made some amendments to it which I think made it a better
bill. It went over to the Senate, they acted on it. I think they have
added some aspects to it or reaffirmed what we have done in the House,
which makes it a better bill. Hopefully the conferees can sit down and
meet and also make some of the improvements along some of the lines
that have been discussed here to make it an even better bill.
I think we are going to have welfare reform in the United States. I
think we need to be very serious about what is going to be in it. Quite
frankly, I think we have worked hard to actually make this a very good
piece of legislation.
I could not agree more, we should not have unfunded mandates. We have
now preserved Medicaid coverage almost completely in this bill. We need
to protect that. That is a very important point which is made here. I
also believe we need to deal with the vouchers for goods and services,
and I think maybe we are a little further long that line than even I
thought after some further research. Hopefully we can develop that a
little bit more too, as well, as we look at this.
Obviously I believe we should have whatever savings we can possibly
have, but the bottom line is right. So many people have spoken here
today and before on welfare reform. We need to put into place a system
which will change it. There are job opportunities being created in
America. The President of the United States says that constantly. Our
economy shows that. We think these individuals ought to have the
opportunity to go out and work where they can. We believe some should
be protected, the 20 percent who cannot work.
I think this is all coming together. I congratulate all the Members
of the House. Sometimes we do not listen to one another. I think in
this instance
[[Page H8325]]
we have been listening to one another. Hopefully we will listen to this
motion to instruct conferees, go to conference and have a good welfare
reform package.
Mr. SABO. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from North
Dakota [Mr. Pomeroy].
Mr. POMEROY. I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time.
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to follow the preceding speaker who has
worked so hard to make certain that a bipartisan welfare reform package
is possible. The issue before us is not whether we should reform
welfare. It is how we reform welfare in the correct way. I think the
Senate took a major step forward in showing that true bipartisan reform
is possible. Sbustantial changes were made in the Medicaid and in the
food stamp areas, resulting in a much more bipartisan vote than was
achieved in the House.
What other changes can be made in conference to get a stronger
bipartisan House vote? The motion before us lays them out. Do not shift
costs to localities, do not harm children, particularly as parents make
that critical transition into the work force, preserve Medicaid
coverage so that people without health care access does not increase,
and, finally, if there are savings, let us apply them on the deficit.
We can do better than the bill that came out of the House in reaching
bipartisan agreement. If the conferees adhere to these points, we will
have a bipartisan welfare reform proposal.
Mr. KASICH. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SABO. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
California [Mr. Becerra], and I ask unanimous consent to yield the
balance of my time to the distinguished gentleman from New York [Mr.
Rangel] and that he have authority to yield to others.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Knollenberg). Is there objection to the
request of the gentleman from Minnesota?
There was no objection.
Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this
time.
Mr. Speaker, if there is one clarion call that we should hear in this
Congress when it comes to reforming welfare, it should be: Hold our
children harmless. We can disagree on a lot of things, but I think one
thing is clear: None of us intends to put children in worse condition
by reforming welfare. Yet we still have an issue. The Republican
welfare bill that passed in this House would send 1.5 million children
into poverty. It would increase the level of poverty for those children
already existing without enough. Why would we want, as this bill does,
to deny a child who lives in a home where there is domestic violence
the opportunity to escape that home? Why would we want to deny more
than 300,000 children who exist with a disability the opportunity to
try to have the same opportunity as any other child? Why would we want
to deny a child who is hungry the opportunity through food stamps to be
nourished? I do not think we want to do that, and I believe on a
bipartisan basis we can get there. We are getting closer. There are
still some disagreements. But certainly we can get there. Let us not
fool ourselves. If we do not give through the Federal Government some
assistance through food stamps or other services to that child, no one
in the community in Los Angeles where I live or any community where you
live will say, ``We're going to leave that child on the street.'' We
are going to care for that child one way or the other because we are
very humane in this country. But let us not shift costs to the local
governments and claim that we have saved welfare. Let us do it the
right way and let us remember, in the end, the clarion call should be:
We will hold our children harmless.
Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
(Mr. RANGEL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, my dear friend Clay Shaw who has worked so
hard to protect the children of our great Republic and who made so many
attempts to make this a bipartisan effort closed his remarks by saying,
``And who would want to be in a position of defending the status quo?''
Mr. Speaker, the gentleman has no idea what a powerful political
statement he made. Because the answer should be, ``Nobody.''
There is widespread feeling in this Congress and in the United States
that anybody that can work should be working, and anybody who freeloads
is inconsistent with the ideas and the ideals that made our country the
great country it is. Nothing gets to a taxpayer more than seeing a
freeloader living at their expense and not making any attempt to pay
their own way with the dignity that a job brings to them.
Having said that, if I understand this bill, this is not just reform
because you call it reform. President Clinton said you can put wings on
a pig but it does not make it an eagle. Why should I accept the fact
that just because it is different, it is reform?
``Trust the States.'' I trust the States. Give them the Federal
money, they are closer to the problem. Put in a safety net. Make
certain the children are protected. We are not talking about aid to
dependent mothers. We are talking about children. Whether you are
Democrat, conservative, liberal, or Republican, OMB says 1 million kids
are going to be pushed into poverty. Why? Because people have
arbitrarily said, ``Trust the Governors.'' After 2 years they decide if
the mother is not working, kick the kid off.
Well, I do not know what would have happened in the manger at
Christmastime if that attitude had prevailed, but I think that Mary and
Joseph would have had a harder time under today's bill than they had
2,000 years ago.
The fact remains is, if you say go to work, is there not a
responsibility to have a job? If someone plays by the rules, makes a
mistake, the boyfriend got killed, they were on their way to the
church, they looked for the job, they took the training, but there were
no jobs.
{time} 1800
Oh, the Governors will work out something. If we are providing
Federal funds and for the first time in 60 years are saying we wash our
hands of this problem, it is now a State problem and you, Rangel, trust
the Governors, you have been there for 40 years, that is a heck of a
thing to tell to a child that is being denied food stamps, that is
being denied health care because we have a problem with the mother. But
if you do not have a problem with the mother and she has worked hard
and there is no job for her to find, you say if it is 2 years, 3 years,
4 years, 5 years, it is OK with you that she has not got a job.
I say if we want to turn it over to the States, I think it is wrong,
but I would support it. But we have an obligation as a Congress, as a
Nation to put a safety net there for those kids. They have not hurt
anybody. But it is not there in any of these bills.
What has really happened is that the question before us as we adopt
the resolution that the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Sabo] has is not
whether or not this is a good or bad bill. It is the question that the
gentleman from Florida [Mr. Shaw], my friend, raised: Who is prepared
before this election to protect the status quo? It is not me, but that
does not mean that this flying pig is an eagle. It means that we have
to do something before the election.
Democrats have to have a vote on something and so do the Republicans,
unless, of course, which I know never entered the minds of my friends
in the majority, unless we can make the President look worse by having
to veto it. So now good-thinking people are wondering in the Congress
do they really want a bill or do they really want to embarrass the
President. And that is what we are talking about today. The urgency to
get this bill out is based really to get it out before we go to the
election.
All I am saying is, if the bill is so good, why does Catholic
Charities say it is so bad? Are they dealing with such a higher
authority that they cannot reach the Christians outside of the
Christian Coalition? If the bill is so good, why is it my Jewish
friends who take care of kids every day in the Jewish Council Against
Poverty, which every year, the gentleman from New York [Mr. Gilman], my
good friend, and I are there saying that poverty is not black or white
or Catholic or Protestant or Jew or gentile, hey, they are against the
bill. And the Muslims
[[Page H8326]]
are against the bill. The Protestant Council said it may be a good
concept but it is bad for children.
I tell my colleagues one thing, this is the best medicine we can find
to have food for an election. So I retain my time to yield to other
Members, but I really wish that we could hurt the people that should be
hurt and provide the jobs and the opportunity for those people who
played by the rules; but there is no provision there to protect them.
One day when we are talking about welfare reform, we will concentrate
on education and dreams and training and have people that have more
time to be prepared to get married and to get the picket fence and to
have the same dreams as other people. But I realize that that issue is
a local issue. We will leave that to the local school boards, and we
will tackle the big ones like welfare reform and let the Governors tell
us how well they are doing.
Mr. KASICH. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from Florida [Mr. Shaw].
Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, I would like to respond very briefly to my
good friend from New York. On this floor we often use the word good
friend in referring to somebody right before we slap them upside the
head, but Charlie and I are good friends; we really are, both on the
floor and off of the floor. I would like to say to the gentleman from
New York, next year I think we all anticipate he would be the ranking
member on the Committee on Ways and Means.
My colleague may try to make the argument that he is going to be
chairman, but it is not going to happen next year. But in any event he
is going to be the top Democrat on the Committee on Ways and Means. In
that position, as I have said to him in the past that I would hold out
to him my hand to work in cooperation with him once welfare reform gets
in place to be sure it is going to work, there are going to be problems
with welfare reform.
Anyone in this body that feels that we have washed our hands of the
problem is kidding themselves. The Federal Government, by defense of a
welfare system that has not worked and has built up layer after layer
of generations on poverty, we have a responsibility as a Federal
Government to go in and clean up this mess and to get people where the
jobs are or get the jobs where the people are. I know, I say to my
friend and colleague, that this is something that he is interested in,
and I will tell my colleague tonight that I would be happy to go to his
district and to work with him because I know of his concern for the
people he represents. I also have concern for them.
Now, one quick response to the question as to whether we are trying
to rush something in before the election, we are trying to give this
President the opportunity to deliver on a promise he made 4 years ago
during the campaign on which he mentioned right below where the speaker
is standing here tonight in telling us during the State of the Union
Address that he wants a welfare bill that he can sign. We intend to
deliver him a welfare bill that hopefully he will sign.
It got great support in the Senate. I hope we take the momentum that
they came out of the Senate onto the House Floor and that we send him a
bipartisan bill and he will sign it.
Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I am certain that the President will make
note of this contribution that we are making to his campaign and the
great opportunity that we have given to him. I would like to yield 2
minutes to the gentlewoman from Connecticut [Mrs. Kennelly].
Mrs. KENNELLY. Mr. Speaker, Democrats and Republicans have agreed
from the very beginning of this session on welfare reform, the need for
welfare reform. We agreed that one title of the welfare reform bill
should be there, child support enforcement. It was placed in, we worked
together and it stayed that way.
Other than that, there were many disagreements. There were many
debates. There were many arguments. We come to this point where we have
the motion before us that will put people to work and protect children.
We look at this motion. It says yes to welfare to work programs and
no to unfunded mandates. We look at this motion that says yes to strict
time limits on adults and no to driving additional children into
poverty. The motion says yes to reforming welfare but no to increasing
the number of people without health coverage.
So the motion is a good motion. This bill can become a better bill. I
remember the other day last week when we were voting on final passage
in the House, on the welfare bill. One of my colleagues on the other
side of the aisle came down and said: Barbara, I thought you said, if
we made this bill better, you would vote for it. I said yes, I said
that, but I think it can be better.
Yesterday it was made better. Yesterday Medicaid language was much
better in the Senate. Yesterday no block grant for food stamps. Let us
use the surplus agriculture supplies we have for nutrition for the
children. Yet there were other ways that the Senate bill very
definitely made this a better bill.
We have this motion, a commonsense blueprint for welfare reform that
will work and that President Clinton can look at so he can decide if he
is going to sign it.
I say to my colleagues on the other side of the aisle this is a much
better bill that we continue to talk about. Tomorrow there will be a
conference, where we will meet. The gentleman from Florida [Mr. Shaw]
has been a leader on this and has been patient, unbelievably patient.
I say let us still consider that safety net for children. Let us
still make it a better bill so that we can all vote for it and the
President can sign it and we can all say we did welfare reform.
Mr. KASICH. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from
Connecticut [Mrs. Johnson].
Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, certainly it is the
tradition of the Congress that going to conference is a time when House
Members and Members of the other body think together anew about
legislation, and the best ideas from both sides are merged. So, there
is no doubt in my mind that what comes out of conference will be a bill
we will all be proud of.
I do want to go back to something that my friend from New York said,
and that is jobs; what are we going to do if there are no jobs? And why
do all these religious groups oppose the bill? Well, I would say to my
colleagues that welfare reform is not just about welfare. Welfare
reform is about system change in America. Those groups do not
understand that. They do not see the possibilities.
I think we are missing the understanding of the new opportunities
this bill creates. For example, it has always been unfair for local
taxpayers, and we know how terribly, terribly stressed people are at
the level of local property taxes. Those people are paying their local
government people, and they are participating in paying welfare
benefits.
Through attrition, without anybody who is employed losing their job,
there is not any level of government that cannot open up entry-level
jobs for welfare recipients so right off the bat they get real wages
for real work. They make contacts and then the local governments can
use that money to up the salaries of some of their people to do
supervision and to do coordination.
So I believe in the long run we are going to use our public dollars
better as a result of welfare reform because we are going to open up
jobs. We are going to build job training into our Federal, State and
local bureaucracy, and people will have opportunities right off the bat
they never dreamed of. So I think using the resources of the employment
base that government provides with taxpayer dollars, our community
colleges and our adult education resources, we are going to create
opportunity with this bill that we are going to be proud of.
Mr. RANGEL. 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, the basic foundations of welfare reform have
been clear for some time: moving people on welfare into productive work
with time limits and State flexibility, protecting the child who will
be a main beneficiary of breaking the cycle of dependency.
While I have believed that there was a mainstream cutting across the
parties to build a new structure on these foundations, and I have been
actively engaged along these very lines, early
[[Page H8327]]
Republican bills veered sharply in an opposite direction and as a
result the President vetoed them.
In direct response, the majority moved and there have been some
significant improvements in the proposed legislation, moving from no
specific provision for health care and woefully inadequate day care to
assurance of health and day care as parents move off of welfare to
work, better ensuring that States who meet their responsibilities and
maintain their effort, not simply substituting Federal dollars for
their own, canceling the punitive program cuts for severely handicapped
children, restoring the safety net for foster care and child nutrition
and creating a structure, though still very inadequate, to protect
people who want to work from the ravages of a major recession.
The bipartisan Tanner-Castle bill, which I actively supported, and
several amendments in the Senate point to several key areas where there
is a serious need for further change, especially those relating to the
protection of health and welfare of children who are legally in this
country, and to really achieving what is most needed for the parent on
welfare, for their benefit, for the child and for the taxpayer; that
is, work.
This motion instructs the conferees to do everything possible to
achieve the stated objectives on a bipartisan basis. The conference can
be an important step forward on a bipartisan basis toward welfare
reform or a backward step on a partisan one leading to further
gridlock. This Nation badly needs and wants the former. We must strive
to achieve it.
Mr. KASICH. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 2 minutes.
I want to say to my friend from New York I was amazed the other day
in talking to some of my friends on the Democratic side of the aisle.
They were wondering about our economic program. I think what my
colleagues have to understand, they may not like our program, but our
program balances the budget and lowers interest rates.
One of the major ways we do it is to shift power and money from this
city back home so that people can solve local problems with local
solutions, I would say to the gentleman. I want my local housing
authority administrators to set the rules for the people that live in
the housing in my community. I do not want to come to Washington for
the rules. I want to do it in the neighborhood.
Our program is to provide tax incentives, we believe, and lower taxes
on risk-taking. We think that will create jobs, and my good friend Bob
Garcia joined with Jack Kemp to create enterprise zones to give tax
relief so we can create jobs. The day is going to come, in my judgment,
where the poorest Americans are going to support lowering capital gains
taxes so that people will risk money to create jobs.
I would also say to the gentleman that our view of deregulation, of
unshackling businesses that cannot get started in communities because
they got to hire lawyers and accountants and Lord knows how much.
Instead of treating those people with great respect, we make it
difficult for them to create a job and hire people. That is why we
support deregulation.
{time} 1815
That is why we support less Federal involvement, because we believe
we need to reclaim our communities and our neighborhoods and our
families.
So this plan cannot be divorced from our economic plan. The gentleman
may not agree with our economic plan, but we are sincere in our efforts
to try to bring greater prosperity to this country, and we think we are
on the right track. The gentleman believes we are not. But we cannot
divorce welfare from the need to provide economic growth. We believe we
have the better way to do it, and I want the gentleman to understand
that is our approach.
Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the
gentlewoman from California [Ms. Pelosi].
(Ms. PELOSI asked and was given permission to revise and extend her
remarks.)
Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the motion to instruct
and reject the idea of putting more children into poverty.
Mr. Speaker, we can all agree that the welfare status quo is
unacceptable. But the Republican welfare reform proposal will make the
problems of poverty and dependence much worse because it refuses to
make work the cornerstone of welfare reform.
Real welfare reform is about work. Opportunities for work, jobs that
pay a living wage, job training opportunities to provide skills
necessary to earn a living wage are long term solutions for a permanent
and productive reform in our welfare system.
Real welfare reform must emphasize the importance of work. Real
welfare reform must also aid rather than punish children. In the United
States, 14 million children live in poverty. Passage of this
legislation would add millions more to that statistic. This welfare
bill is punitive and unrealistic.
Abolishing the safety net for children, imposing family caps, denying
legal immigrants benefits, imposing arbitrary time limits and failing
to provide adequate child care, health care, education, job training,
and work opportunities for people in need will thrust millions more
into poverty.
This bill cuts almost $60 billion from the poor in this country.
These cuts will affect children whose parents are on welfare. These
cuts will trap countless women in abusive relationships, with nowhere
to turn--without a realistic way to gain independence, gain work, and
provide for their children.
Welfare reform must be about education, job training, and work. We
must keep families together, rather than ripping them apart. We cannot
simply reduce the deficit at the cost of our poorest Americans. This
proposal has little wisdom, conscience, or heart.
Some of my colleagues will vote for this bill and then wash their
hands of welfare reform, saying they have done their job. But the job
of welfare reform is more complex and dire. People living in poverty
are not cardboard cutouts: they do not have the same stories, they do
not need the same services. This bill treats everyone alike, with
unrealistic time limits and no real lasting and effective plan to move
welfare recipients to work at a living wage.
The denial of benefits to legal immigrants in this legislation will
do great harm to children and have a devastating impact on the health
care system in our country. Only 3.9 percent of immigrants, who come to
the United States to join their families or to work, rely on public
assistance compared to 4.2 percent of native-born citizens. According
to the Urban Institute, immigrants pay $25 billion more annually than
they receive in benefits. Yet the myth persists that welfare benefits
are the primary purpose for immigration to the United States. Instead
of appreciating legal immigrants for their signficant contributions to
this, their adopted country, this bill blatantly punishes them,
especially young children and the elderly. It bans SSI and food stamps
for virtually all legal immigrants. It tosses aside people who pay
taxes, serve our country, and play by the rules. This lacks compassion
and common sense.
If we want to achieve real welfare reform, we need to offer some
long-term solutions to help people move up and out from the cycle of
poverty. The current welfare system is not adequate, but this bill
makes it far worse.
I urge my colleagues to oppose the Republican bill and work together
for meaningful reform that puts people to work and pulls them out of
poverty for good.
Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Massachusetts [Mr. Neal].
(Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts asked and was given permission to revise
and extend his remarks.)
Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman
from New York [Mr. Rangel] for yielding me this time.
Let me offer a statistic this evening that I think is the most
compelling number that has surrounded this debate for the better part
of 18 months. There are 12.8 million people in America who receive
AFDC. Of that number, between 8 and 9 million of those recipients are
children.
That is the issue that we can never lose focus on. That is the issue
that ought to motivate, and that is the issue that ought to drive these
deliberations. And yet after 18 months there has only been one
bipartisan initiative that deals with welfare. The authors having been
the former Governor of Delaware, Mike Castle, and the Congressman from
Tennessee, John Tanner. Only one bill had the support of Democrats and
Republicans alike in this institution, and it was the piece of
legislation that Bill Clinton said ``I will sign if you put that on my
desk.''
But the posturing that has taken place over this issue has delayed
getting to a bill that withstands the scrutiny that we all know welfare
reform deserves. Let me just read one sentence from a letter that was
sent by the Speaker of the House to the members
[[Page H8328]]
of the Republican Conference. He said, in suggesting they oppose the
bipartisan bill, the following: ``It is critical that Republicans
maintain the upper hand on this issue by rejecting the Gephardt
substitute.''
That they maintain the upper hand, because that is what this debate
has been about. This debate has been about November. This debate has
been about trying to get a bill down to the White House that they know
the President of the United States cannot sign. That is how policy has
been made, and that is how it has evolved in this institution. And
remember those words, it is important that the Republicans maintain the
upper hand on this issue.
Mr. KASICH. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Louisiana [Mr. McCrery].
Mr. McCRERY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.
Mr. Speaker, just a couple of points. My good friend on the Committee
on Ways and Means, the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Neal], is a
good member of that committee and certainly I listen when he speaks. He
talks about a bipartisan bill that was offered here on this floor, and
he said that was the only bipartisan bill offered. Well, maybe it was
the only bill with a bipartisan list of authors, but the fact is that
that bill only got 9 Republicans to vote for it on the floor. The
Republican bill got 30 Democrats to vote for it on the floor. So the
more bipartisan of those two bills, my colleagues, was not the so-
called bipartisan bill, it was the Republican bill that in fact passed
this House.
Another point. The gentleman from Massachusetts, [Mr. Neal] and the
gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Levin] talked about how far Republicans
have come, and I appreciate their giving us that. We have come a long
way from where we started. But so has the President. To give him some
credit, he has come a long way.
The first bill the President sent to this House increased spending
for welfare programs in this country. The bill that we hope he will
sign now will save somewhere on the order of $60 billion. So that is
coming a long way on the part of the President and the Democrats in
this House. And I appreciate that, too.
Mr. Speaker, I think this is a classic example of negotiators
starting at the far ends, coming to the middle, producing a product
that is a compromise but that will move this country forward, that will
bring families and children out of poverty finally in this country,
give them some hope instead of lives of despair and hopelessness.
So I want to congratulate both sides of the aisle, the Republicans
and the Democrats, for compromising, coming to the middle, producing a
bill that I hope will become law.
Mr. KASICH. Mr. Speaker, I urge Members to support the Sabo
amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from
Connecticut [Ms. DeLauro].
Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the motion to
instruct. Welfare conferees should do all in their power to ensure that
the welfare conference agreement reinforces our basic values of
responsibility and work and protects our Nation's children.
The welfare bill that passed the House last week woefully fell short
on these goals. Instead, the bill is tough on children and soft on
requiring work.
The Republican bill fails to meet the goal of moving people from
welfare to work by underfunding the work program by $10 billion. My
Republican colleague from Connecticut talked about local government
being the source of jobs. I quite frankly do not understand how New
Haven and Hartford and Bridgeport and Stanford, how they provide jobs
without raising the property tax in Connecticut. And those in
Connecticut know that they are being choked by taxes.
Let me just say that I urge the conferees to protect our children.
Without these protections attempts to reform welfare will increase the
number of children living in poverty and fail to move people off the
welfare rolls and into the work force. Protect innocent children, vote
for the motion to instruct.
Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from
California [Mr. Waxman].
Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New York for
yielding me this time.
I am astounded to hear the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Kasich] talk
about a bill that will cut out the safety net under the poor and then
say in years to come the poor will ask us to cut capital gains and
maybe something will trickle down.
We need this motion to instruct. Both the House and the Senate have
protections for eligibility standards for Medicaid. Let us make sure
they do not drop it. That is what they did in the last conference, and
unless we get any assurances to the contrary, let us instruct our
conferees to hold to the provisions that protect the rights of children
at least to get health care, which is both in the House and the Senate
bill.
Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, as we conclude the debate in support of the
motion to instruct by the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Sabo], I would
like to say that I do not think that any Member in this House could
challenge the fact that if we want true welfare reform we have to talk
about education, training, access to jobs and people working with
dignity and with pride so that they do not have time to do the things
that require dependency on the Government.
Maybe one day we will get to those issues instead of talking about
punishment, cutting grants, mandatory sentences, and make this country
as great as she can be with education, jobs, and productivity. One day
when we reach that, that truly will be welfare reform and an
opportunity for this great republic to reach the heights that she can
reach.
(Mr. MYERS of Indiana asked and was given permission to speak out of
order.)
providing for further consideration of H.R. 3816, energy and Water
Development Appropriations Act, 1997
Mr. MYERS of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that
during the further consideration of H.R. 3816, in the Committee of the
Whole, pursuant to House Resolution 483, the bill be considered as
read, and no amendment shall be in order except for the following
amendments, which shall be considered as read, shall not be subject to
amendment or to a demand for a division of the question in the House or
in the Committee of the Whole, and shall be debatable for the time
specified, equally divided and controlled by the proponent and a Member
opposed:
Amendment No. 1 by Mr. Solomon for 10 minutes; amendment No. 2 by Mr.
Foglietta for 10 minutes; amendment Nos. 3 or 4 by Mr. Obey for 40
minutes; amendment No. 5 by Mr. Gutknecht for 20 minutes; amendment No.
6 by Mr. Klug for 20 minutes; amendment No. 7 by Mr. Klug for 20
minutes; amendment No. 8 by Mr. Roemer for 10 minutes; amendment No. 9
by Mr. Roemer for 10 minutes; amendment No. 10 by Mr. Rohrabacher for
10 minutes; amendment No. 11 by Mr. Traficant for 5 minutes; amendment
No. 12 by Mr. Barton of Texas for 10 minutes; amendment No. 13 by Mr.
Bereuter for 10 minutes; amendment No. 14 by Mr. Hilleary for 10
minutes; amendment Nos. 15 & 16 en bloc by Mr. Markey for 20 minutes;
amendment No. 17 by Mr. Petri for 20 minutes; amendment No. 20 by Mr.
Zimmer for 10 minutes; an amendment by Mr. Rogers--regarding the new
Madrid floodway--for 5 minutes; an amendment by Mr. Filner--regarding
the Tijuana River Basin--for 10 minutes; an amendment by either Mr.
Klug or Mr. Schaefer or Mr. Fazio--regarding solar energy--for 30
minutes; an amendment by Mr. Kolbe--regarding the central Arizona
project--for 10 minutes; and an amendment by Mr. Pickett--regarding the
Sandbridge beach project--for 10 mintues.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Knollenberg). Is there objection to the
request of the gentleman from Indiana?
Mr. BROWN of California. Mr. Speaker, reserving the right to object,
may I inquire of the distinguished chairman if this would preclude me
from making the pro forma amendment that I had discussed with him
earlier?
Mr. MYERS of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. BROWN of California. Further reserving the right to object, I
yield to the gentleman from Indiana.
[[Page H8329]]
Mr. MYERS of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, by unanimous consent, the
gentleman can address the Committee for 5 minutes during which we will
have a colloquy for that period of time and we will not object.
Mr. SKAGGS. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will yield, I believe the
colloquy that was just had answered my question as well, because I was
anticipating a colloquy with the chairman.
Mr. MYERS of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield under
this reservation?
Mr. BROWN of California. Further reserving the right to object, Mr.
Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Indiana.
Mr. MYERS of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, I would say to the gentleman that
I think we have taken care of all those. We have an understanding that
there are some of these in controversy or in misunderstanding which
require further consideration and we will have a dialog and a colloquy
and we will yield for that purpose and there will no objection.
We would like to hold that to a minimum, however, I must say to each
of the gentlemen. I hope we hold it to just 5 minutes, because we want
to expedite this and get finished tonight. Here in Washington it is
6:30 and we hope we can finish by no later than 11, give or take an
hour.
Mr. BROWN of California. Mr. Speaker, I understand the problem and I
will do my best to accede.
Mr. SKAGGS. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will yield further, I was
expecting to be long-winded, but given what he has said, I will try to
be succinct.
Mr. BROWN of California. Mr. Speaker, I withdraw my reservation of
objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Indiana?
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to instruct
offered by the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Sabo].
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
recorded vote
Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 418,
noes 0, not voting 15, as follows:
[Roll No. 353]
AYES--418
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allard
Andrews
Archer
Armey
Bachus
Baesler
Baker (CA)
Baker (LA)
Baldacci
Ballenger
Barcia
Barr
Barrett (NE)
Barrett (WI)
Bartlett
Barton
Bass
Bateman
Becerra
Beilenson
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
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Canady
Cardin
Castle
Chabot
Chambliss
Chapman
Chenoweth
Christensen
Chrysler
Clay
Clayton
Clement
Clinger
Clyburn
Coble
Coburn
Collins (GA)
Collins (MI)
Combest
Condit
Cooley
Costello
Cox
Coyne
Cramer
Crane
Crapo
Cremeans
Cubin
Cummings
Cunningham
Danner
de la Garza
Deal
DeFazio
DeLauro
DeLay
Dellums
Deutsch
Diaz-Balart
Dickey
Dicks
Dingell
Dixon
Doggett
Dooley
Doolittle
Dornan
Doyle
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Durbin
Edwards
Ehlers
Ehrlich
Engel
English
Ensign
Eshoo
Evans
Everett
Ewing
Farr
Fattah
Fawell
Fazio
Fields (LA)
Fields (TX)
Filner
Flake
Flanagan
Foglietta
Foley
Forbes
Fowler
Fox
Frank (MA)
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
Gutierrez
Gutknecht
Hall (OH)
Hall (TX)
Hamilton
Hancock
Hansen
Harman
Hastert
Hastings (FL)
Hastings (WA)
Hayworth
Hefley
Hefner
Heineman
Herger
Hilleary
Hilliard
Hinchey
Hobson
Hoekstra
Hoke
Holden
Horn
Hostettler
Houghton
Hoyer
Hunter
Hutchinson
Hyde
Inglis
Istook
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jacobs
Jefferson
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (SD)
Johnson, E. B.
Johnson, Sam
Johnston
Jones
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kasich
Kelly
Kennedy (MA)
Kennedy (RI)
Kennelly
Kildee
Kim
King
Kingston
Kleczka
Klink
Klug
Knollenberg
Kolbe
LaFalce
LaHood
Largent
Latham
LaTourette
Laughlin
Lazio
Leach
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (GA)
Lewis (KY)
Lightfoot
Linder
Lipinski
Livingston
LoBiondo
Lofgren
Longley
Lowey
Lucas
Luther
Maloney
Manton
Manzullo
Markey
Martinez
Martini
Mascara
Matsui
McCarthy
McCollum
McCrery
McDermott
McHale
McHugh
McInnis
McIntosh
McKeon
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek
Menendez
Metcalf
Meyers
Mica
Millender-McDonald
Miller (CA)
Miller (FL)
Minge
Mink
Moakley
Molinari
Mollohan
Montgomery
Moorhead
Moran
Morella
Murtha
Myers
Myrick
Nadler
Neal
Nethercutt
Neumann
Ney
Norwood
Nussle
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Orton
Owens
Oxley
Packard
Pallone
Parker
Pastor
Paxon
Payne (NJ)
Payne (VA)
Pelosi
Peterson (MN)
Petri
Pickett
Pombo
Pomeroy
Porter
Portman
Poshard
Pryce
Quillen
Quinn
Radanovich
Rahall
Ramstad
Rangel
Reed
Regula
Richardson
Riggs
Rivers
Roberts
Roemer
Rogers
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Roth
Roukema
Roybal-Allard
Royce
Rush
Sabo
Salmon
Sanders
Sanford
Sawyer
Saxton
Scarborough
Schaefer
Schiff
Schroeder
Schumer
Scott
Seastrand
Sensenbrenner
Serrano
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Shuster
Sisisky
Skaggs
Skeen
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Solomon
Souder
Spence
Spratt
Stark
Stearns
Stenholm
Stockman
Stokes
Studds
Stump
Stupak
Talent
Tanner
Tate
Tauzin
Taylor (MS)
Tejeda
Thomas
Thompson
Thornberry
Thornton
Thurman
Tiahrt
Torkildsen
Torres
Torricelli
Towns
Traficant
Upton
Velazquez
Vento
Visclosky
Volkmer
Vucanovich
Walker
Walsh
Wamp
Ward
Waters
Watt (NC)
Watts (OK)
Waxman
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
White
Whitfield
Wicker
Williams
Wilson
Wise
Wolf
Woolsey
Wynn
Yates
Young (AK)
Zeliff
Zimmer
NOT VOTING--15
Buyer
Coleman
Collins (IL)
Conyers
Davis
Ford
Gibbons
Hayes
Lantos
Lincoln
McDade
Peterson (FL)
Rose
Taylor (NC)
Young (FL)
{time} 1846
Messrs. SKEEN, FLAKE, and BLILEY changed their vote from ``no'' to
``aye.''
So the motion to instruct was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Knollenberg). Without objection, the
Chair appoints the following conferees: Messrs. Kasich, Archer,
Goodling, Roberts, Bliley, Shaw, Talent, Nussle, Hutchinson, McCrery,
Bilirakis, Smith of Texas, Mrs. Johnson of Connecticut, Messrs. Camp,
Franks of Connecticut, Cunningham, Castle, Goodlatte, Sabo, Gibbons,
Conyers, de la Garza, Clay, Ford, Miller of California, Waxman,
Stenholm, Mrs. Kennelly, Messrs. Levin, Tanner, Becerra, Mrs. Thurman,
and Ms. Woolsey.
There was no objection.
____________________