[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.

                          ____________________