[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 115 (Wednesday, July 31, 1996)]
[House]
[Pages H9392-H9424]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
CONFERENCE REPORT ON H.R. 3734, PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY AND WORK
OPPORTUNITY RECONCILIATION ACT OF 1996
Mr. SOLOMON, from the Committee on Rules, submitted a privileged
report (Rept. No. 104-729) on the resolution (H. Res. 495) waiving
points of order against the conference report to accompany 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, which
was referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be printed.
Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I call up the resolution (H. Res. 495)
waiving points of order against the conference report to accompany 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 and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 495
Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall be
in order to consider the conference report to accompany the
bill (H.R. 3734) to provide for reconciliation pursuant to
section 201(a)(1) of the concurrent resolution on the budget
for fiscal year 1997. All points of order against the
conference report and against its consideration are waived.
The conference report shall be considered as read. The yeas
and nays shall be considered as ordered on the question of
adoption of the conference report and on any subsequent
conference report or motion to
[[Page H9393]]
dispose of an amendment between the houses on H.R. 3734.
Clause 5(c) of rule XXI shall not apply to the bill,
amendments thereto, or conference reports thereon.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Hefley). The gentleman from New York
[Mr. Solomon] is recognized for 1 hour.
Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, for the purposes of debate only, I yield
the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr.
Moakley], pending which I yield myself such time as I might consume.
During consideration of the resolution, all time yielded is for the
purpose of debate only.
Mr. Speaker, this rule waives all points of order against the
conference report to accompany H.R. 3734, the Personal Responsibility
and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996, and against its
consideration.
Additionally, the rule provides that the conference report shall be
considered as read. The rule also orders the yeas and nays on the
adoption of the conference report and on any subsequent conference
report or motion to dispose of an amendment between the Houses.
Finally, the rule provides that the provisions of clause 5(c) of rule
XXI requiring a three-fifths vote on any income tax rate increase shall
not apply to the bill, amendments thereto, or to the conference report
thereon.
Mr. Speaker, this rule is customary for conference reports. I urge
support for the rule in order that we might send this legislation on to
the President swiftly, since he now has decided he is going to sign
this vital piece of legislation.
Mr. Speaker, in March 1995, I called up the rule that provided for
consideration of the first welfare reform bill. Sixteen months, two
bills, and two Presidential vetoes later we stand on the precipice of
enacting real comprehensive, compassionate welfare reform legislation.
Throughout the passionate debate on this subject we have held firm on
our principles to enact a reform to the Nation's welfare system which
requires work, which imposes time limits on benefits for welfare
recipients, and which allows for innovative State solutions to help the
underprivileged in our communities. We have not departed from these
principles throughout the confusing dialog with the President. These
principles are embodied in the conference agreement before the House
today.
Mr. Speaker, these principles are not implemented in a vacuum. The
conference package addresses concerns associated with a radical
overhaul of the Nation's welfare programs.
First and foremost, it should be made perfectly clear that this bill
takes care of unfortunate people who are disabled, and able-bodied
people are taken care of as well on a temporary basis, but the key word
is temporary. After being taken care of on a limited basis, these
people are going to have to go to work.
The legislation contains valuable reforms to the food stamp program,
designed to curb fraud and abuse and requiring work for those food
stamps.
The agreement authorizes $22 billion in child care funding over the
next 6 years, which is more than $3 billion over current law.
Finally, the legislation contains tough measures to crack down on
deadbeat dads who abrogate their moral responsibility to their
children; and, Mr. Speaker, in contrast to the bold and honest
proposals that Congress has put forward to reform welfare, the
President has acted with characteristic temerity.
The alleged welfare reform that the Clinton administration says it
has achieved is in actuality a fraud. It just is not there, and the
savings show it. The President asserts that he has achieved a degree of
welfare reform by granting waivers from his bureaucrats for States to
experiment in this area.
The reality is that we have heard testimony on this floor from State
after State that the waiver process is that thoughtful and experimental
governors must troop to Washington DC, hat in hand, and request
permission to reform low-income programs at home. The waiver request is
then subject to endless debate by bureaucrats and subject to
negotiation and even change by the Federal departments involved.
Mr. Speaker, my State of New York has several waiver requests pending
for low-income programs, and New York certainly needs flexibility for
budgetary purposes, and we are being stonewalled by this administration
because none of those waivers have been granted in a State that is
overburdened with welfare problems today. Thankfully, this Byzantine
procedure will be relegated to the dust bin of history upon enactment
of this legislation. The citizens of the States, in whom I have the
utmost confidence, will be finally free to use local solutions to help
low-income families in their neighborhoods.
Mr. Speaker, I was raised to treat the less fortunate in our society
with compassion, as most Americans are. The way to effect change for
those who suffer in poverty is certainly not additional handouts and
entrapment in the current cycle of dependency that has bred second- and
third- and now fourth-generation welfare recipients. Rather, we should
emphasize welfare as a temporary boost from despair to the sense of
self-worth inherent in work.
Mr. Speaker, that is what we ought to be doing, that is what we can
do here today. This legislation gives the single moms and kids, who are
the vast majority of welfare recipients, an opportunity to escape a
life of relying on government benefits. A vote against this package is
a vote to deny kids on welfare hope to escape a life of welfare
dependency.
Mr. Speaker, this House will today once again pass comprehensive
welfare reform by a wide bipartisan margin. The Senate is likely to do
the same before we recess this Friday. I sincerely hope the President
lives up to his announcement a few minutes ago and agrees with the
bipartisan majorities in both houses of Congress and overwhelming
public sentiment and he signs the legislation into law. If he does, the
status quo goes out the window, and finally, we are going to do
something about this ever, ever-increasing welfare load in our country.
I strongly urge passage of the bill.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from
Washington [Mr. McDermott].
(Mr. McDERMOTT asked and was given permission to revise and extend
his remarks.)
Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, we started this Congress with the
majority indicating that they were going to follow new procedures, and
they made a big show of all the rules changes we were going to have,
but here we are ramming through the biggest change of policy toward
children in this country with a bill that has been in our hands for a
little more than 12 hours.
This 1,200- or 1,500-page bill was delivered to the Members of
Congress last night at 1 o'clock in the morning. All that is being
characterized as partisan fighting out here is basically a resistance
to having something like this rammed through the Congress with a lot of
good rhetoric wrapped around it, but the facts belie what is being
said.
Now, the gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon] has started to debate
the bill and said this is a bill about work, but if my colleagues take
this bill, and they go to page 80 under section 415, it is the section
called waivers, and if my colleagues can wade through this language,
and I will read it for them:
Except as provided in subparagraph (B), if any waiver
granted to a State under section 1115 of this Act or
otherwise which relates to the provision of assistance under
a State plan under this part (as in effect on September 30,
1996) is in effect as of the date of the enactment of the
Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation
Act of 1996, the amendments made by the Personal
Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of
1996 (other than by section 103(c) of the Personal
Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of
1996) shall not apply with respect to the State before the
expiration.
Let me tell my colleagues what that means. That means that in 43
States there is no requirement for work. Every bit of work requirement
in this bill is a fraud because with that waiver on page 80, section
415, we allow any State who has a waiver now in effect, and there are
43 of them in, if they are in effect, they can waive the work
requirements.
{time} 1400.
There are only seven places in the United States making up 5 percent
of the welfare load; that is Alaska, Idaho.
[[Page H9394]]
Rhode Island, Kansas, Kentucky, New Mexico, and Nevada that do not have
waivers. If we read that section further, all they have to do is get a
waiver from the Federal Government and those seven States can be out.
There is no requirement for work in this bill, because they write all
the perfect language, spend 50 pages saying work, work, work, and then
at the bottom, they give a waiver. If there is a waiver, Mr. Speaker,
in their State, their State does not have to provide a job.
Let me tell the Members what it is like in Washington State, because
I know the situation there. We have 100,000 people on public
assistance. We have 125,000 people who have been drawing unemployment
benefits. That is 225,000 people in the State of Washington who do not
have work.
If tomorrow, with this bill passed, every one of them showed up and
said, ``I want a job,'' the State of Washington could say, ``We do not
have any responsibility for you. We have a waiver. The State of
Washington has a waiver.'' Even if they were going to be responsible,
even if the State of Washington said, ``We really care about these
225,000 people and their families,'' last year, and the State of
Washington, Members have to remember, is the fifth most rapidly growing
State economically. We are at the top in this country. In our State
last year we provided 44,000 new jobs.
Mr. Speaker I urge people to vote against this bill. It is bad. It is
a fraud.
Mr. SOLOMON. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I am a little concerned, Mr. Speaker, I want to take just a minute to
tell the gentleman, I think he is on the Committee on Ways and Means.
As a matter of fact, at 12 o'clock last night this report was filed.
There were those of us who were here and saw to it that the report was
delivered to the minority at that hour. However, earlier in the day, in
the morning yesterday, this report was complete and given to the
minority. I do not know why the gentleman from Washington did not see
it. His own staff on the Committee on Ways and Means had possession of
this report, so the gentleman should have done his due diligence and he
would have had that information.
Mr. Speaker, let me just say one thing about the work requirements. I
am a little concerned with the bill, because it has been watered down
so much. As a matter of fact, when the bill left this House we had a
family cap, which meant young girls that continue to have baby after
baby after baby could not just continue to have more and more and more
welfare benefits given to them. Unfortunately, that was dropped. A
phrase was put in that would allow States to opt in, or rather, would
allow States to opt out, as opposed to opting in.
Let me tell the Members what happens in a State like New York State,
where we have had for years now the Cadillac of welfare programs and
the Cadillac of Medicaid programs, whereby New York State has exercised
their option to opt in for all of these various programs above and
beyond the base coverages for welfare and Medicaid.
In our State, we do not stand any chance of being able to change that
law, so if we had arranged to have them be able to opt in, as opposed
to opt out, then we could have expected some real change. So I am
concerned about that, but we will live to fight that battle another
day.
Mr. Speaker, as the gentleman's President is saying, this is a work-
for-welfare program. I am surprised to hear the gentleman from
Washington try to refute that.
Mr. CAMP. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. SOLOMON. I yield to the gentleman from Michigan.
Mr. CAMP. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman of the committee for
yielding to me.
Mr. Speaker, I know there has been some issue raised regarding the
waivers for the work requirement. The waivers are all drawn more
strictly than current law. I think that is an important point to make.
The waivers that have been given by the administration are more strict
than current law. The current waivers do not apply to the percentage
work requirement in the legislation. I think that is another important
point to make. I thank the gentleman for yielding to me.
Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Texas [Mr. Coleman].
(Mr. COLEMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. COLEMAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Massachusetts
for yielding me this time.
Mr. Speaker, I think it is important to point out, regardless of the
politics of welfare reform, the issue ought to be what does the bill
do. Regardless of whether or not a past President or a sitting
President would sign or veto a bill, it should have nothing to do with
the legislative branch priority and prerogative to pass good
legislation.
Mr. Speaker, I know many have worked long and hard on this bill and
others like it over the past year and a half and longer. In fact, the
discussion of welfare reform has been debated since I came here 14
years ago. I need to say, however, to my colleagues that it is not
enough to play the politics with welfare reform that we are attempting
to do today.
I certainly do not intend to support welfare reform and then go home
and applaud myself and tell people, are you not proud we have welfare
reform? We have to look at what we are doing to children. More than 1
million children will be thrown off the welfare rolls.
What kind of Nation is it that says, ``We care about what is in front
of your name: Documented child, undocumented child, poor child, rich
child''? What difference does that make to a great Nation? I submit to
the Members, it should make none. All of us here in this country
understand that we ought to care for children regardless of their
station in life, regardless of the country from which they came. To
suggest that we should do this in this legislation is plain wrong.
I know all of the 50 States are greatly benevolent. By the way, that
reminds me, why did we take over this program in the 1960's in the
first place up here at the Federal level? As I recall, we had a
patchwork, quiltwork of 50 different programs, some good to the poor,
some bad to the poor, some harsh, causing people, of course, to migrate
from State to State, based upon the benefits that they or their
children could receive during tough economic times.
This legislation also does not deal with tough economic issues the
way it should.
Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to yield 5
minutes to the distinguished gentleman from New York [Mr. Rangel].
(Mr. RANGEL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, let me thank the gentleman from
Massachusetts [Mr. Moakley] for giving me an opportunity to speak out
on this. I am going to say what is on everybody's mind. It is just so
close to the election, I suppose, on both sides of the aisle we get
blinded about substance in our concern as to what is it that the
pollsters really want.
A lot of concern has been in the White House and on the Hill as to
whether or not the President would breach his promise to change welfare
as we know it. I would think that the chairman of the Committee on
Rules, notwithstanding how diligently the Committee on Rules has worked
on this legislation, would have to agree that there is no urgency in
terms of Members understanding the work that was done in conference.
This is not an unusual thing, unless it has something to do with the
fact that we are going into recess, and that this will be a political
issue back home.
Other than that, it seems to me if we are talking about millions of
children, children who would be Democrat, Republican, Christians, Jews,
black, white, Americans, and certainly the lesser among us, that all of
us would want to make certain that we are doing the right thing; and
really, not even push the President into making a hasty decision, when
at least the last position he took was that he appreciated the
direction in which the legislation was going and he saw some
imperfections which could be worked out.
But it was he who said that he wanted to change welfare as we know
it. What is welfare? What is this obsession about putting people to
work? Everyone agrees if you are able to work, you
[[Page H9395]]
should be working. Every taxpayer should be angry and annoyed to find
people slipping back on their responsibilities and not working.
Are we talking about just women, or are we talking about women that
have children? I pause, because it is not a rhetorical question. The
bills that I know of say aid for dependent children. I think what we
are saying, I would say to the gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon],
is that that child will be held responsible for any conduct that we
politically do not like about the mother.
We are going even further, not as far as the gentleman would like,
but I think even the President agrees with the gentleman's posture,
that if after 5 years or 4 or 3 or 2 or whatever the Governors decide,
I think the minimum is 2 years, that if for any reason at all, there
are no jobs available, and if the mother played by the rules, signed
up, went into training, did all of the American things in order to show
that she wanted to maintain her dignity, she wanted her family not to
stay on welfare, she wanted to go into the private sector and
contribute, if all of those things are established, it is my
understanding it really does not make any difference. Playing by the
rules does not make a difference, in election years, because we said it
does not make any difference what the heck you have tried to do; the
question is, are you working.
Quite frankly, I believe that the mother could vote with her feet if
she does not like the situation employment-wise. I am mean enough to be
with you. I am a politician, too. My problem is the child. What did the
child have to do with the fact that the mother wanted to work, did not
want to work, jobs were there, jobs were not there? Do Members know
what the political question is? The Republicans will throw 2 million
people, children, into poverty, and my President will only throw 1
million into poverty.
Mr. Speaker, I do not want to get involved in religion around here,
but there is not a denomination of people that do not believe that the
helpless of this country--just being an American means you are supposed
to help them. You do not send a 2-year-old child or a 2-month-old child
out to get a job. Someone has to be responsible. Someone has to be
responsible for that child. Do not ask the child for its
identification, and ask whether or not it is a citizen. Do not ask the
child whether, by choice, the mother is a bum. Do not ask the child
what the unemployment statistics are. As Americans we believe in taking
care of our children.
This is a political bill. It should not be passed into law. It should
not be passed here. The President should not sign it if you do shove it
down his throat.
Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished
gentlewoman from Jacksonville, FL, Mrs. Tillie Fowler, who has been a
real leader in this effort.
(Mrs. FOWLER asked and was given permission to revise and extend her
remarks.)
Mrs. FOWLER. Mr. Speaker, the American welfare system was intended to
be a safety net for those who fall on hard times. Unfortunately, it has
become an overgrown bureaucracy which perpetuates dependency and denies
people the chance to live the American dream.
I am pleased the President has just announced that he would sign the
Republican welfare bill. We knew when it got this close to the election
this President would choose the path of political expediency, as he
always does. But this legislation is not about saving money, it is
about saving hope and saving lives while reforming a broken system and
while preserving the safety net.
This bill encourages work and independence and discourages
illegitimacy. I urge my colleagues to vote for fairness, compassion,
and responsibility, and pass a conference agreement on H.R. 3437.
Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
California, the Honorable George Miller, the ranking member on the
Committee on Resources.
(Mr. MILLER of California asked and was given permission to revise
and extend his remarks.)
Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, today is a serious and sad
day. Not only are we presented with a welfare bill by the Republicans
that for the first time in history does a great deal of harm to
children in this country, but we have learned in the last few minutes
that the President of the United States, Mr. Clinton, now says that he
will sign that bill.
This is a President who, along with the First Lady, have spent much
of their public life trying to help children. Now he says he will sign
a bill that, for the first time, knowingly, he knowingly, he has been
presented the evidence by his own Cabinet, he has been presented the
evidence by the Urban Institute and others, that will knowingly put
somewhere around 1 million children who are currently not into poverty,
into poverty.
Almost half of those children are in families that are working, where
people get up and they go to work every day. But at the end of the
year, they are poor. This bill puts those children into poverty. That
cannot be a proper purpose of the U.S. Congress, and that cannot be a
proper endorsement for the President of the United States.
{time} 1415
It is against the interest of our children. Yes, this program was
started many years ago to try and save the children. For many, many
years we have lifted those children out of poverty, not as well as we
have done for the seniors, but it was a national goal.
This bill now for the first time, again knowingly, the evidence is in
front of us, and yet we are being asked to make a decision to reverse
that trend and to once again put children into poverty. They can lose
their benefits under this with nobody having offered their parents a
chance to work or requiring them to do so, because in the 11th hour
those same Governors who boasted about their desire to put people to
work came in and got loopholes put into this bill so they do not have
to meet the very standards that they said they were prepared to change
this program from welfare to work.
So how did they achieve the budget savings, then? They achieved the
budget savings by going after children, by going after women. I grew
up, and I think most people in this country believe that when you said
women and children first, what you were saying is you wanted to care
for those individuals. This legislation suggests that they will be the
first to be harmed and that is what this legislation allows.
I appreciate all of the theory in the legislation, but the fact of
the matter is every time that the pedal meets the road here, what we
see is that in fact they are sacrificed. These children now pay to
provide the $60 billion in savings that the majority says that they
want. We cannot allow that to happen. this President should be
demanding that this bill simply do no harm to those children. You can
get all of the welfare reform you want and still do no harm to the
children. But unfortunately this President has joined the Republicans
now in making the children the very victims of the system he said he
wanted to reform.
announcement by the speaker pro tempore
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Hefley). The Chair will make a brief
statement in clarification of his response to the parliamentary inquiry
propounded by the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Weldon] during the
consideration of House Resolution 492.
In that response, the Chair merely intended to indicate that, in the
discretion of the Chair, the objection by the gentlewoman from
Connecticut under rule XXX was not then a dilatory motion.
Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, in response to the previous speaker for whom I have a
great deal of respect, he came to this body about 20 years ago and I do
not know what experience he had in previous government, but when he is
critical of the Governors of these States, I look at my own Governor,
Gov. George Pataki. He is probably one of the most knowledgeable people
in America today about what it means about jamming things down the
throats that we do here in Washington, sending it back to the States
and local government.
George Pataki was a town mayor before he became a State assemblyman
in the lower house and then before he became a State senator and now
Governor. Believe me, he knows what unfunded mandates mean to a State
like
[[Page H9396]]
ours where we have seen job after job after job chased out of our State
because we just could not afford to do the things for business and
industry that were necessary because of the terrible welfare burden.
That is all changing now and it will change with the adoption of this
legislation. We are once and for all going to be able to let those
people who have the experience, those people down at the local levels
of government who have to deal with the welfare recipients day in and
day out, let them come up with the solutions. That is what this debate
is all about.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Columbus, OH
[Ms. Pryce], a member of the Committee on Rules.
Ms. PRYCE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished chairman of the
Rules Committee for yielding me this time. I rise in strong support of
this fair rule to bring about real welfare reform.
Mr. Speaker, a generation ago, Americans began a much-celebrated war
on poverty in the hope of creating a Great Society. But nearly 30 years
and more than $5 trillion later, what we are left with is a failed
welfare system that has deprived hope, diminished opportunity, and
literally destroyed precious lives. Our country, and the future
generations of Americans who will lead her, deserve a better system.
Today we will consider a conference report that replaces a welfare
system debilitated by strict Federal control with a system based on
innovation and flexibility at the State and local level. Instead of
promoting dependency and illegitimacy, this conference agreement is
built on the dignity of work and the enduring strength of families. By
taking the Federal bureaucracy out of welfare, this legislation
promotes creative solutions closer to home and offers a real sense of
hope to the truly needy and the less fortunate.
Mr. Speaker, despite the comments we will hear today, this is a
compassionate bill. Helping those who by no fault of their own have
fallen on hard times is the right thing to do. This bill responds to
that in the finest American tradition. But when we help people that are
able-bodied, when we just hand them a check, those people who make
little or no effort to help themselves, we risk destroying the American
spirit and undermining our society at large.
This conference agreement represents a true bipartisan attempt to
change welfare as we know it. I hope the President will not shy away
again from this historic opportunity for change.
In closing, Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to have the courage to
set aside the status quo, to think of the children and families of this
Nation and to embrace real reform. I urge a ``yes'' vote on both sides
of the aisle for this rule and the conference report.
Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman
from Florida [Mrs. Meek].
(Mrs. MEEK of Florida asked and was given permission to revise and
extend her remarks.)
Mrs. MEEK of Florida. Mr. Speaker, both times I have risen, I have
risen in strong opposition to the rule and I will be doing so, I feel,
to the conference report.
Mr. Speaker, I do not think many people in this Congress really
understand the effects of welfare. I think that the system should be
reformed. I am sure that there are many people who still abuse this
system. We have not yet changed to any great extent the enforcement, to
be sure, that people who do not deserve welfare are on it and those who
are abusing it get punished for being so.
Mr. Speaker, I contend that this conference report does not meet the
needs of the people they are hoping that it will meet. We are still
going to have hungry children, children who are not taken care of by
their States. I served as a State legislator. We still did not give
matching funds for the funds that the Federal Government gave us. Now
that we are cutting the funds, are they going to do any better? My
answer is no.
The real world will teach everyone in this Congress that you are
hurting children. It seems to me that you are doing it deliberately
because many of us have said to you and shown you evidence that it is
going to do it. OMB has done it. Several agencies with whom you have
great credibility have shown the same. It permits the States to
experiment with our children in order to save $40 to $60 billion in
Federal funds. Why save it when you are losing your main human
resources, your children?
Almost one-third of these cuts come from mistreating the children of
immigrants. Do you feel that the legal immigrant children in this
country should be treated any less? Would you want your children to be
treated any less than when they go down to get health care and they
tell them they cannot be treated because their parents have been here
16 years or more paying taxes into the American Government, their sons
and daughters have gone to war for this country? Are you going to say
to those children, No, you can't get any more treatment. Go to the
State. Go to the county. When they get to the counties and they get to
the States, there is no money. I have been there and I know there is
none.
The Republican majority is going to ban food stamps and SSI for some
children, particularly those that are disabled and those that are poor.
It bars Medicaid for legal immigrants. Is that going to make them any
less ill because we are barring it in this bill which we are using here
in a vacuum?
We have done perhaps no impact study. We do not know how this is
going to impact on States like Florida and California. I say, Mr.
Speaker, that this is wrong and that the Republican majority should
realize what they are doing. Otherwise in the end the people will
speak, and I hope they do.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to the rule and the
conference report itself. This rule is designed to prevent both the
Members and the public from learning the details of this fatally flawed
bill.
This bill permits the States to experiment with our children in order
to save $60 billion in Federal funds. Almost one-third of these cuts--
$18 billion--come from treating the children of immigrants more harshly
than other children.
The Republican majority bans food stamps and supplemental security
income payments for virtually all legal immigrants. The bill bars
Medicaid for legal immigrants who are elderly or disabled.
These immigrants the Republican majority wants to penalize are
legally here. They played by the rules. They meet every requirement of
the law. They live and work hard; they pay taxes; they serve in the
military. They will not vanish simply because the majority passes this
bill.
What will happen is that these costs now paid by the Federal
Government will be unfairly shifted to States like Florida, and
counties like Dade, that have a high number of legal immigrants.
Let me give the House a concrete idea of how unfair this bill really
is. My own State of Florida estimates that it will lose more than $300
million a year in Federal funds because of this bill.
Who ends up paying? My constituents in Dade County and the State of
Florida.
The bill instructs States to deny school lunches to undocumented
immigrants. The chairman of the Dade County School Board says that one-
quarter of the children in the Dade schools were born in a foreign
country. The Dade County schools would have to collect information from
every single child in order to determine which ones can get subsidized
lunches. The Republican majority is trying to balance the budget and
cut taxes for the wealthy by creating local paperwork and higher local
taxes.
It is wrong and it is unfair for the Republican majority to force
State and local governments--meaning our taxpayers back home--to pay
for legal immigrant residents who are in this country because they
complied with the immigration laws that previous Congresses have
enacted.
I urge my colleagues to vote against this rule and against the
conference report.
Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, one of my colleagues just approached me, and they said
they hope the American people that might be watching on C-SPAN would
ask the question of all of us: Are you satisfied with the status quo?
That seems to be what I hear from the other side of the aisle, even
though the President is going to sign this bill, that they are
satisfied with the status quo. The people I represent are not satisfied
with that status quo.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Erie, PA [Mr.
English], one of the outstanding freshman Members of this body.
Mr. ENGLISH of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of
this rule and in strong support of this conference report, the most
sweeping welfare reform legislation this country has seen since the
Great Society.
[[Page H9397]]
As Franklin Delano Roosevelt warned in the late 1930's, giving
permanent aid to anyone destroys them. By creating an underclass
culture of poverty, dependency, and violence, we have been destroying
the very people we have been claiming to help. How many more families
will be trapped in the current welfare system while we waste time in
Washington?
I am delighted to see that the President has indicated he may support
this conference report, which will require for the first time ever
able-bodied welfare recipients to work for their benefits. Every family
receiving welfare must work within 2 years or lose benefits, and
lifetime benefits are limited to 5 years.
This is a balanced, mainstream approach that links welfare rights to
personal responsible behavior. I urge the House to adopt this rule and
lay the groundwork for passage of this conference report.
Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the
gentleman from Sanibel, FL [Mr. Goss].
(Mr. GOSS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this rule and this
bill because we all know that the era of big government is indeed over.
Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend, the distinguished chairman of the
Rules Committee, for yielding me this time. The wisdom of Solomon has
been in great demand these last few days, and once again he has
delivered a fair and workable rule to this body. Our Rules Committee
labored diligently yesterday evening and this morning to accommodate
both the strong desire of the majority of Americans that we end welfare
as we know it--and the legitimate efforts that have been underway among
Members of Congress and the administration to negotiate a final
product. For that reason, we brought two rules, in order to give the
conferees as much time as possible to complete their work while getting
welfare reform to the President this week. This rule allows the House
to consider a milestone bill--one that lays to rest 30 years of big-
government policies that have cost $5.5 trillion but failed to win the
war on poverty. I must say I am disturbed by the hand-wringing and
demagoguery that is emanating from some members of the minority. Their
assurances that they do want to reform welfare, but they just don't
want to do it in this way, ring quite hollow. Remember that they had
the opportunity when they controlled both Houses of Congress and the
White House for 2 years--an opportunity they refused to capitalize on.
So now, with a President who has pledged to end welfare as we know it,
and a congressional majority committed to dismantling the Big Brother,
Washington-knows-best bureaucracy that has made welfare a dependency
trap--we are finally going to make welfare reform happen. I am sorry
that the ultraliberal wing of the Democrat Party in this House is
having trouble with that result--but it's one the American people are
demanding. If those in the minority succeed in their carefully
orchestrated attempt to delay enactment of this bill, I suspect they
will have to answer to their constituents for denying poor Americans a
fighting chance to break out of poverty and become productive members
of this society. Mr. Speaker, this legislation unleashes the creativity
of our States to solve problems or poverty at home. It unshackles them
from the burdens of costly and micromanaging Federal regulation--while
providing significant resources for children and job programs. It
allows those precious Federal dollars that are so desperately needed by
our Nation's poor to bypass the grossly inefficient Federal
bureaucracy. And it emphasizes work for those who can, along with
compassion for those who can't. This is a balanced bill--and it's time
for the defenders of the status quo to get with the program and heed
the words of the President. Support this rule and the bill.
Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, the chairman of the Rules Committee just said if people
are opposed to this rule and this bill that they are for status quo.
That is absolutely incorrect.
The people who are opposed to this bill are opposed to it because it
puts another 1 million children into poverty and does not go far
enough.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Indiana [Mr.
Roemer].
(Mr. ROEMER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. ROEMER. Mr. Speaker, this bill, this conference report that we
will soon vote on, represents the biggest change to our social policy
in the last 60 years. We have moved from the New Deal to the New
Frontier to the Great Society, and now hopefully to the fair deal.
Where have we gone in this debate over the last year? We started with
H.R. 4, a bill that I think was terrible for this Nation and for our
children, that was mean to our children, that was unfair to the people
that we wanted to give skills to go to work, that was not fair to our
parents who had children home from child care. That bill has been
vastly changed. Just recently we voted for a bill to come out of the
House, and 30 of us Democrats voted to move the process along and
improve the bill in the Senate and House conference, where it has been
improved, and I will vote to support this conference.
President Clinton deserves credit for his willingness to sign this
bill, and he deserves praise for his determination to change previous
bills that were mean to children and that did not give the resources to
our workers to stay off welfare.
Let us move forward in a bipartisan way to continue to modify what
can be a better and better bill, through Executive order, through
legislative change, and through bipartisan work. Let us march forward
together, Democrats and Republicans, to change the status quo and move
to the fair deal for our taxpayers, and for those recipients of welfare
and those children that are being raised from generation to generation
in welfare. We can work together. We can and must work together for the
recipients of welfare and for the taxpayers of this country.
Again, President Clinton will sign this bill, according to all the
reports, and he has indicated a willingness to work in a bipartisan
way. I am glad that the President changed the first bill, H.R. 4. I am
glad that the President vetoed those initial bills that were mean to
children and were not fair to get people permanently off welfare.
I hope to continue to work across this middle aisle, Democrats and
Republicans, reaching out to join hands and to claim back a system for
the taxpayer and the American people and our children, so that we do
have the biggest change in social policy in the last 60 years, moving
from the New Deal to the fair deal for our taxpayers.
{time} 1430
Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume
to say that my good friend from Boston, MA, Mr. Moakley, made the
statement that he is not for the status quo but he is opposed to this
bill. We hear that so many times, but, but, but, but, but. Nobody is
ever ready to put themselves on the line for welfare reform. Today we
have it.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Claremont, CA,
Mr. David Dreier, my good friend and member of the Committee on Rules.
(Mr. DREIER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this rule and
the conference report. The gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon] is
absolutely right when he says that it is very easy to find things in
this measure which we do not all support.
I admit I have some concerns about some provisions as they impact my
State of California. But the fact of the matter is, ending welfare as
we know it is what the President said that he wanted to do when he was
a candidate back in 1992. My friend, the gentleman from Illinois [Mr.
Manzullo], just reminded me that it has gotten to the point where a
Republican Congress has been able to do what a Democratic Congress did
not do in the first 2 years of the President's term, and that is end
welfare as we know it.
So we have finally gotten to the point where we are looking at the
fact that over the last 3 decades we have expended $5.3 trillion on
welfare payments of all kinds and we have seen the poverty rate move
from 14.7 percent to 15.1 percent. So everyone, Democrats and
Republicans alike, as the gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon] just
said, and the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Moakley], our friend
from south Boston, acknowledges he does not want to support the status
quo and we must change the welfare system.
Now, earlier today, when the chairman of the Subcommittee on Human
[[Page H9398]]
Resources, the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Shaw], was before the
Committee on Rules, he talked about the fact that we will most likely,
in the 105th Congress, need to make some sort of modification to this
measure, but if we defeat this conference report there will be no
welfare reform.
We have gotten a measure, and the President has finally gotten to the
point where he has agreed to sign it. That is why, as my friend, the
gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Roemer], said, we need to move ahead with
bipartisan support so we can try our darnedest to address a system
which is broke.
There are many more things that need to be done. Entitlement reform
is something that is important, so that we are not simply, as many are
labeling this thing, attacking those who are less fortunate. We need to
realize that this measure is designed not just to help those taxpayers
who are shouldering the responsibility but also to do everything we can
to help people get out of that generational cycle of dependence.
Support the rule and support the conference report.
Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
It has been referred to some people on my side as being for the
status quo. Two weeks ago we voted for the Tanner-Castle bill, which
was a reform bill. It had much more reform than this. So it is not that
we are for the status quo. We want a real reform bill. This is not it.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from North Carolina
[Mrs. Clayton].
Mrs. CLAYTON. Mr. Speaker, I think that the conference report will
pass and, therefore, there will be reform because the majority of our
Members truly think they are reforming the welfare system. But
reforming the welfare system means that we would have provisions in
there that would ensure we were decreasing dependency, we would
encourage work and we would be supportive to families. Those kind of
structures are not present.
I know everyone has good intentions, and certainly reform is because
we are trying to reduce a big deficit, because we know already the
amount of money we spend on welfare is really insignificant to the
total amount that we spend. If we wanted to reduce the budget, we would
be reforming other things. Like the gentleman has just said,
entitlements would be that issue.
Hopefully, we can understand that those of us who will vote against
this are really making a statement. We care about children too much to
rob Paul to pay Peter. We are not willing to rob children of their
opportunity and their future in order to provide other people an
opportunity to live.
Also we say we are about teenage pregnancy prevention, and yet this
House last month had the opportunity just to appropriate $30 million to
prevent teenage pregnancy. We know over a half million young people
become pregnant every year. We spend annually $6.5 billion, yet we will
not put a small amount of money to encourage young people to do the
positive behavior activity so they will not lead a life of dependency.
We say we want to decrease dependency. We want to give kids stepping
stones, but we put these stumbling blocks in their way. Mr. Speaker,
this is not supportive of children, and I give no bad intents to
anyone, but this conference bill, and I hope I am wrong, I hope I am
wrong. I hope, indeed, millions of children do not suffer, but I could
not vote in good conscience for a bill that I am not assured of that.
Reform means encouraging young people for support, decreasing
dependency and making provisions for work. Vote against this conference
bill.
Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Egan, IL, Mr. Don Manzullo, an outstanding Member.
(Mr. MANZULLO asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. MANZULLO. Mr. Speaker, in the last 31 years this country has
spent over $5.4 trillion on the welfare system, and what do we have to
show for it? We have generation after generation locked in a seemingly
endless cycle of destitution and poverty. They are the lost forgotten
statistics, dependent on the Federal entitlement trap that strips them
of their dignity, destroys families, damages our work ethic, and
destroys the self-esteem of those trapped in the system.
Cruelty is allowing this destructive system to continue. By passing
this welfare reform bill we will restore hope and opportunity by making
work, and not welfare, a way of life.
Our current welfare system has not only failed those in the system,
but it has also failed those who have been supporting it, the hard
working taxpayer. It has failed the forgotten American, the one who
gets up in the morning, packs a lunch, sends the kids off to school.
That person is working harder than ever to make ends meet, and the
typical American family is paying over $3,400 a year in taxes for
welfare payments to perpetuate a failed system.
Mr. Speaker, we should pass this bill and pass it swiftly.
Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman
from Kansas [Mrs. Meyers], one of the truly outstanding Members of this
body, who is retiring at the end of this year. She has been such a
great Member, and we are going to miss her.
(Mrs. MEYERS of Kansas asked and was given permission to revise and
extend her remarks.)
Mrs. MEYERS of Kansas. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for those
comments.
Mr. Speaker, I support this rule and urge my colleagues to support
it. The Personal Responsibility Act is a good start toward reforming
our welfare system. Because of the block grant, the entitlement nature
of the program is ended.
We ask able-bodied people between 18 and 50 who receive food stamps
to do some work for their benefits. We reform the SSI program to help
stop monthly checks from going to prisoners and checks that were going
to healthy children. And we finally tell recent immigrants that the
promise of America does not automatically include a welfare check.
But many issues remain unaddressed, and I believe the most serious is
the ever-increasing illegitimacy rate. In 1994, one-third of our
children were born into homes where no father ever lived. And by the
year 2000, 80 percent of minority children and 40 percent of all
children in this country will be born out of wedlock.
Unfortunately, the conference report does nothing to require that
fathers be identified. States who currently do nothing to identify
fathers can continue to do nothing, and those States who continue to
reward teenage pregnancy can continue to do so.
Finally, there is no effort to enforce a family cap, even though we
know that the family cap has reduced a drop in additional children in
New Jersey, where it is now statewide policy.
To repeat, this bill is a good start, but I believe we cannot reform
our welfare system until we address the growth in illegitimacy. The
link between our ever-increasing illegitimacy rates and the growth in
AFDC rolls are not casual. They are cause and effect. Why is it too
much to ask that children have two responsible adults as parents?
Sadly, we continue to encourage the opposite.
A previous speaker said that the cost of welfare was very modest in
this country. The cost of AFDC alone, I am not talking about SSI or
illegal aliens or legal aliens or anything else, just AFDC, is $70
billion a year because it is $16 billion a year AFDC, it is one-fourth
of Medicaid, half of food stamps, about a third of housing plus all of
the training and day care programs. It is between $70 and $80 billion a
year.
Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Pennsylvania [Mr. Fattah].
Mr. FATTAH. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the rule. This rule
and this bill, this conference committee, is built on the biggest lie
that has ever been told to the American people, and that is that we are
spending too much as a country to help poor people.
There is no calculation that any legitimate analysis of a Federal
budget would tell us that we spent $5 trillion on the war on poverty.
It is all made up out of whole cloth. It includes items like the Pell
grants and all kinds of other programs, and education. The AFDC
payments are about a little more than one penny out of every dollar
that this Government spends to help poor children.
[[Page H9399]]
We have gotten everybody convinced that we are spending just too much
money on poor people, and now we have convinced them that Speaker
Gingrich and the Republican majority are coming to help these poor
children, that this is just a major effort to really help poor
children, and cutting $60 billion is just the best way to help them
find their way to the American dream.
This rule, this conference committee, the Washington Post in its
editorial today said it was a bad idea. They said it was a defining
moment of where this country was headed. And there will be Members who
will come to the floor today, because they want to be reelected and
will vote for it, but out into the future there will be days that they
will truly regret that they did not have the courage to stand up and
oppose this hideous proposal.
Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the former governor of
Delaware, Mike Castle, one of the people that probably knows best about
the real problems or how this ought to be dealt with, and who knows
that one of the reasons the welfare system in this country has failed
miserably is because we inside the beltway have tried to dictate back
to the States and local governments.
Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this
time.
Mr. Speaker, I support the rule and the bill. We stand today at a
historic divide, a defining moment that separates the past from the
future, one which pits personal responsibility, work, and State
flexibility against the largely failed welfare policies and practices
of the past. Today marks a turning point for all of us, the Congress,
our constituents, and perhaps most importantly, those welfare
recipients.
I am pleased that the bipartisan Castle-Tanner reform proposal has
provided some very positive changes and provisions that will help shame
welfare reform for the better. Perhaps the most important provision we
helped retain was current law on guaranteeing Medicaid eligibility to
all welfare recipients and those who may be eligible in the future.
Also, the food stamp optional block grants and the child welfare block
grants were dropped, thus retaining minimum Federal standards and
preserving these national safety nets.
On balance, we have achieved what we can all support. With this
legislation we have finally begun the process by which America's
underclass problem can be solved, and break a generational cycle and
culture of dependency and poverty.
Congress is now the shepherd of welfare reform, not the President,
and it is up to us to review and improve upon this proposal. I, for
one, stand ready and committed to revisit it, if need be, to make sure
welfare reform is going to work.
Mr. Speaker, we stand today at a historic divide, a defining moment
that separates the past from the future; one which pits personal
responsibility, work, and State flexibility against the largely failed
welfare policies and practices of the past. Today marks a turning point
for all of us--the Congress, our constituents, and perhaps most
importantly, those welfare recipients.
Just as our Nation was formed, we stand ready to forward a bold
experiment in reforming our Nation's welfare system. But like most
experiments, we will most certainly have to revisit our decisions.
Though we have tried, there may not be enough resources for children's
care, or to adequately fund the work program that is the centerpiece of
this legislation. There most likely will be economic downturns that
force Governors and the Congress to reevaluate. States may require more
flexibility in meeting the stringent work requirements. There are
innumerable potential pitfalls.
As a coauthor of the bipartisan Castle-Tanner welfare reform
proposal, John Tanner and I have helped forward some very positive
changes and provisions that will help shape reform welfare for the
better.
Perhaps the most important provision I helped retain was current law
on guaranteeing Medicaid eligibility to all welfare recipients, and
those who may be eligible in the future. The food stamp optional block
grant and the child welfare block grant were dropped, thus retaining
minimum Federal standards and preserving these national safety nets.
Protecting children in families that lose cash assistance is a high
priority. Although I would have preferred mandatory in-kind assistance
after a 5-year time limit on cash assistance, I am mostly satisfied
that a provision could be added that would ensure that States can
utilize Federal funds from the social services block grant for the care
of the child. Furthermore, we were successful in ensuring that a higher
State maintenance of effort on State spending could be included in the
conference report. We also were successful in including language that
would require that Congress review in 3 years the work program to
ensure its success. Last, Castle-Tanner has had a moderating impact on
the burdens that the noncitizen provisions will put on our Nation's
future citizens, primarily in the health care area. While Castle-Tanner
included stronger protections for children and families under the cash
block grant, increased funding for the welfare-to-work programs,
significantly smaller food stamp cuts, and less severe immigrant cuts,
its fingerprints can be readily identifiable on this conference report.
Nevertheless, on balance, we have achieved what we all can support:
with this legislation, we have finally begun the process by which
America's underclass problem can be solved, and break a generational
cycle and culture of dependency and poverty.
This is not a perfect experiment, but then experiments usually
aren't. Congress is now the shepard of welfare reform--not the
President--and it is up to us to review and improve upon this proposal.
I, for one, stand ready and committed to revisit this as it is
implemented, and as we gain empirical evidence that our effort can be
successful in making work pay more than welfare. And only then will we
be truly able to say that we have ``ended welfare as we know it.'' It's
worth taking some risks to end it.
Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
South Carolina [Mr. Clyburn].
Mr. CLYBURN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to the
conference agreement. Being a slightly better option than the House
passed version of the bill does not mean this is a good piece of
legislation.
Welfare should be a temporary transition from welfare to work.
Unfortunately this is 1996, an election year, and we have entered the
``silly season.'' Rather than being a constructive debate, the welfare
reform debate has become, for the most part silly talk of budgetary
savings and time limits--not helping those in need of assistance learn
how to help themselves.
I think the designers of this legislation have forgotten a valuable
lesson: If you give a man a fish, you feed him for a day but if you
teach that man how to fish, he can feed himself for a lifetime.
This conference report would consist of a check for 2 years and then
a requirement for work programs for only 50 percent of families
receiving welfare payments--6 years from now.
The Republicans have forgotten the parable about feeding a family for
a lifetime but instead have decided that it is much cheaper to write a
check to a welfare family than provide the necessary training to ensure
that another check never has to be written to that family.
And under the guise of welfare reform even these checks are becoming
smaller. Under the House passed version of this conference agreement
the average annual cut per food stamp household in South Carolina would
be $265, and this cut would grow to $394 by 2002. Under the Senate
version of the bill, food stamp households in South Carolina stand to
lose even more. While it is not clear what the actual cut would be for
South Carolina families under the conference agreement, it is clear
that my State's most vulnerable households would be between the
proverbial rock and a hard place with little or no hope of any training
to help them lift themselves permanently out of poverty.
With the talk of personal responsibility being tossed around, I find
it ironic that at the same time our Nation's most vulnerable families
are being required to do more for themselves, our States are being
asked to do even less.
In this conference agreement, unlike the Tanner-Castle substitute
bill I supported earlier this month, States are required to spend only
75 percent of what they spent in 1994 in return for a block grant check
from the Federal Government. At the same time, it is projected that as
a result of this legislation 8,170 children in my state of South
Carolina will be pushed into pvoerty.
I urge my colleagues not to support this agreement. Although it may
be the lesser of two evils, it is not the best we can do nor is it the
best we can afford to do.
[[Page H9400]]
{time} 1445
Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman
from Texas [Ms. Jackson-Lee].
(Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise
and extend her remarks.)
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, the politic thing to do today
is to get in the well of the House and hit your gavel down and say I am
against the deadbeat on welfare, and I am right with you for welfare
reform. As America watches those of us who have a difference of
opinion, we will get castigated and accused as supporting those who
would not work. But I come today to oppose this rule.
I hope that those who have goodwill and understand what America is
all about will realize that I believe in welfare reform but I do not
believe in putting 1 million children in the streets. I do not believe
in a weak work program where States will not have the work to give to
those who are on welfare. I do not believe in a shortened contingency
fund so that, when the 5 years comes, those who have not been able to
bridge themselves out of welfare will not have the support that they
need.
I do not believe in sending legal immigrants into war, but yet when
they need a helping hand this Nation will say you can fight for us but
we do not have any support for you and your children. I do not believe
in dispossessing the disabled. I do not believe in denying SSI benefits
to 300,000 children.
Oh, we could be politic today and many will do that. But it does not
matter to me because there are people in this country who need our
help. This is a bad welfare reform. Vote against it.
Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, if my colleagues want to take child abuse out of the
welfare families, the best thing to do is to bring these people up out
of the poverty system and given them meaningful jobs. That is what this
legislation is meant to do.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Florida [Mr.
Weldon], someone I am very proud of because he gave up a very lucrative
medical practice to come here and try to do something for America.
Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished
gentleman for yielding, and it has been a pleasure for me to be here
and advocate for the people in my district, who have been calling out
for welfare reform for many years.
Mr. Chairman, they know that the current welfare system is broken.
The people in my district know that the rate of poverty has not
decreased since welfare has been enacted. The average stay on welfare
is 13 years, and today illegitimacy rates among many welfare families
approach 50 percent.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the bill, and strong
support of this rule. H.R. 734 will truly finally end welfare as we
know it.
It did not take a Republican Congress to end welfare as we know it.
This bill makes welfare a helping hand, not a lifetime handout. It
places 5-year limits on collecting AFDC benefits. For hardship cases
States can exempt 20 percent of their case load from the 5-year limit,
and able-bodied people must work after 2 years or lose their benefits.
It cuts taxpayer financed welfare for noncitizens and felons. It
returns power and flexibility to the States. It ends numerous
redundancies within the welfare system by giving block grants to the
States and rewards States for moving families from welfare to work.
It seeks to halt the rising illegitimacy rates. Moms are encouraged
for the first time to identify the father or risk losing benefits by as
much as 25 percent. It increases efforts to make deadbeat dads pay
child support. And these, of course, are men who father children but
then have shirked their financial responsibility for caring for them.
It gives cash rewards to the top five States who make the most
successful improvement in reducing illegitimacy. As we know,
fatherlessness is linked to high juvenile crime rates, high drug abuse
rates, and declining educational performance. Support the rule and
support the bill.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 3734 the Personal
Responsibility and Work Opportunity Act. This historic welfare reform
bill will end welfare as we know it. During the past 30 years,
taxpayers have spent $5 trillion on failed welfare programs. What kind
of return have the taxpayers received on their investment? The rate of
poverty has not decreased at all. Furthermore, the average length of
stay on welfare is 13 years. Today's illegitimacy rate among welfare
families is almost 50 percent and crime continues to run rampant.
Current programs have encouraged dependency, trapped people in unsafe
housing, and saddled the poor with rules that are antiwork and
antifamily. Clearly, those trapped in poverty and the taxpayers deserve
better.
This bill overhauls our broken welfare system. This plan makes sure
welfare is not a way of life; stresses work not welfare; stops welfare
to felons and most noncitizens; restores power and flexibility to the
States; and offers States incentives to halt the rise in illegitimacy.
By imposing a 5-year lifetime limit for collecting AFDC, this bill
guarantees that welfare is a helping hand, not a lifetime handout.
Recognizing the need for helping true hardship cases, States would be
allowed to exempt up to 20 percent of their caseload from the 5-year
limit. In addition, H.R. 3734 for the first time ever requires able
bodied welfare recipients to work for their benefits. Those who can
work must do so within 2 years or lose benefits. States will be
required to have at least 50 percent of their welfare recipients
working by 2002. To help families make the transition from welfare to
work, the legislation provides $4.5 billion more than current law for
child care.
Under this bill future entrants into this country will no longer be
eligible for most welfare programs during their first 5 years in the
United States. Felons will not be eligible for welfare benefits, and
State and local jails will be given incentives to report felons who are
skirting the rules and receiving welfare benefits.
Our current system has proven that the one-size-fits-all welfare
system does not work. H.R. 3734 will give more power and flexibility to
the States by ending the entitlement status of numerous welfare
programs by block granting the money to the States. No longer will
States spend countless hours filling out the required bureaucratic
forms hoping to receive a waiver from Washington to implement their
welfare program. States will also be rewarded for moving families from
welfare to work.
Finally, this bill addresses the problem of illegitimacy in several
ways. H.R. 3734 authorizes a cash reward for the five States most
successful in reducing illegitimacy. It also strengthens child support
enforcement provisions and requires States to reduce assistance by 25
percent to individuals who do not cooperate in establishing paternity.
Lastly, this bill mandates an appropriation grant of $50 million
annually to fund abstinence education programs combating teenage
pregnancy and illegitimacy.
The sad state of our current welfare system and the cycles of poverty
and hopelessness it perpetuates are of great concern to me. I believe
this bill goes to the heart of reforming the welfare system by
encouraging and helping individuals in need become responsible for
themselves and their family. I wholeheartedly support this bill because
it makes welfare a helping hand in times of trouble, not a hand out
that becomes a way of life. I truly believe that this reform will give
taxpayers a better return on their investment in helping those in need.
Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Maine [Mr. Longley], another outstanding new Member of this body. I
particularly like him because he is a former Marine.
(Mr. LONGLEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. LONGLEY. Mr. Speaker, I want to compliment the gentleman from New
York [Mr. Solomon], chair of the Committee on Rules, and also members
of the committee for bringing this important legislation to the floor,
bringing this rule to the floor. This has been delayed far too long.
This is a bill that is about child abuse. It is drug abuse. It is
crime and violence and the fact that, for too many Americans who are
trapped in this system, the American dream has become the American
nightmare.
I do not argue with the fact that the welfare system is a hand in
need to those who need it. But for too many it has become a prison.
This is about women and children who are suffering under this system as
well as the social workers and the law enforcement officers who are
forced to deal with the ramifications of the aspects of the system that
do not work.
Mr. Speaker, for too long we have been delaying this. We have delayed
this vote for most of the day. The fact of the matter is that welfare
reform is at the door. It has been knocking for
[[Page H9401]]
almost 30 years, and it is finally here today. This afternoon,
hopefully, it will be voted on and we will send it to a President who
will endorse it. I think that is a tremendous accomplishment for the
people of this country.
I would also say it is a first step. The system has become so complex
between the different aspects of service and how they are available to
help people, that even the people running the system have difficulty
understanding it, let alone those who have need for assistance. So, it
is a first step in the direction of reform, in the direction of
providing an American dream for more Americans and getting rid of the
American nightmare.
Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Texas [Mr. Smith], an outstanding Member who has dealt with the
immigration problem in this country.
Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the rule
and the Personal Responsibility Act. Welfare has harmed our children,
families, and taxpayers. It has created a culture of dependency that
saps people's desire to better their lives. And welfare has undermined
America's longstanding immigration policy.
America has always welcomed new citizens with the energy and
commitment to come to our shores to build a better future. We've always
ensured that immigrants are self-reliant--not dependent on American
taxpayers for support. Since 1917, noncitizens who have become public
charges after they enter the United States have been subject to
deportation.
Welfare undermines this policy and harms immigrants. Rather than
promoting hard work, welfare tempts immigrants to come to America to
live off the American taxpayer. Noncitizen SSI recipients have
increased 580 percent over the past 12 years, and will cost American
taxpayers $5 billion this year alone.
H.R. 3734 restores America's historic immigrants policy and ends the
cruel welfare trap. It ensures that sponsors, not taxpayers, will
support new immigrants who fall on hard times. Just as deadbeat dads
should support the children they bring into this world, deadbeat
sponsors should support the immigrants they bring into our country.
I urge my colleagues to support this rule and vote for this bill.
Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Savannah, GA [Mr. Kingston].
Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New York for
yielding.
It is interesting we have heard from the Democrats a number reasons
why they are not going to support this bill today. One of their reasons
was they have not had time to look at it. I am a relatively new Member
of Congress. I have been here 4 years. We have been debating welfare
for 4 years. I know that for a fact. I have been here. If they have not
read the bill by now and have not been following the debate, that is
not the fault of the Republican Congress.
The second reason they say that is that welfare does not cost that
much. If you add in all the Federal Government welfare programs, the
cost is $345 billion, which is ore than we spend on defense. I am not
sure what they consider money if $345 billion is not. We spent $5
trillion since LBJ's Great Society programs, and that is enough money.
That is more than we spent on World War II.
The final reason they are saying is that it is cruel to children.
Nothing is more cruel than having a welfare system that traps children
in poverty, that makes children and families break up, that makes them
live in housing projects where the dad cannot be at home, where there
is high drug use, where there are teenage dropout rates and teenage
drug abuse. I do not see why they think that is compassion.
Our program sends $4 billion more on child care than the Democrat
proposal. And that is using their frame of thinking that is more
compassion than what they have. Welfare reform is family friendly.
Welfare should not be a life style. It should be something that society
gives people a temporary helping hand, not a permanent handout, not a
hammock forever to swing in but a temporary safety net so that people
can get back into the socioeconomic mainstream and enjoy the American
dream just like the rest of us.
Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I want to begin by reminding my colleagues of one very
important fact. Today 9 million children depend upon Aid to Families
With Dependent Children for their survival. When we are talking about
reforming welfare, we are talking about these 9 million American
children, and we need to be very, very careful on what changes we make.
Mr. Speaker, this is not to say that I am opposed to welfare reform.
In fact, I am very much in favor of welfare reform. I have seen too
many children growing up surrounded by violence. I have seen too many
fathers completely abandon their responsibilities. And I have seen too
many single mothers too dejected and overwhelmed to look for jobs.
These days being poor is not what it used to be. It used to be that
families stuck together. It used to be if you worked hard enough you
could support your family. But, Mr. Speaker, unfortunately times have
changed.
I agree with the editorial in the August 12 issue of the New Republic
which says that, although our current welfare system may not have
created the current underclass, it certainly sustains it. I agree that
welfare reform is one of the most important issues that we can take up
in this Congress. Today's Boston Globe says that under this bill,
poverty will grow with welfare done on the cheap. We need to be very
careful, Mr. Speaker, how we change AFDC and not do it on the cheap.
This bill, Mr. Speaker, is not the way to do it. I hoped that after
this bill came out of conference, I would be able to support it. But
after looking at it, I cannot because, Mr. Speaker, I cannot vote for a
bill that will push 1 million additional children below the poverty
level. I cannot vote for a bill that may not guarantee health care to
poor children and a conference committee that cuts food stamps. I
cannot vote for a bill that will provide no protection for bad times.
If there is a recession, millions of people will be completely
destitute. And, Mr. Speaker, I cannot vote for a bill that allows
States to take at least one-half of their Federal money and spend it on
something other than children.
This Gingrich welfare bill, Mr. Speaker, is too tough on children. It
is weak on work, and it is soft on deadbeat parents. Mr. Speaker, as I
said, two out of every three people on welfare is a child, and we have
a responsibility to those children. We have a responsibility to make
sure that under no circumstances whatsoever will they be hurt. We have
a responsibility, Mr. Speaker, to make sure that their health and their
safety is placed far above any jockeying for political advantage.
So I urge my colleagues to oppose this rule and oppose the conference
committee bill and I yield back the balance of my time.
{time} 1500
Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, did I hear the gentleman right when he said, the
Gingrich welfare bill? Is that not strange? I thought it was the
Gingrich-Clinton welfare bill, because the President has just announced
he is going to sign the bill. Mr. Speaker, colleagues, I would just say
to you, what is compassionate about locking poor people into a lifetime
of welfare dependency? That is what this debate is all about. If you
are really sincere, if you really care about poor people in America, do
something for them. Change the status quo which has failed miserably.
I see my good friend, the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Stenholm],
sitting over here, came here with me 18 years ago. He came before the
Committee on Rules about an hour or so ago and he said, Jerry, this a
bipartisan bill. He said, we Democrats have had input to it. It is a
compromise. It is a step in the right direction.
Mr. Speaker, what I was hearing is, no more ifs, ands and buts. This
is the compromise. This is the step in the right direction we need to
move in.
Let us vote for this bill now. Vote for the rule and the bill and let
us get on with trying to change the welfare system in America for the
good of the poor.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the
previous question on the resolution.
[[Page H9402]]
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Riggs). The question is on ordering the
previous question.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a
quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not
present.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Evidently a quorum is not present.
The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.
Pursuant to clause 5 of rule XV, the Chair will reduce to 5 minutes
the minimum period of time within which a vote by electronic device, if
ordered, will be taken on the question of agreeing to the resolution.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 259,
nays 164, not voting 10, as follows:
[Roll No. 381]
YEAS--259
Allard
Archer
Armey
Bachus
Baesler
Baker (CA)
Baker (LA)
Ballenger
Barr
Barrett (NE)
Bartlett
Barton
Bass
Bateman
Bereuter
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop
Bliley
Blute
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bono
Brewster
Browder
Brownback
Bryant (TN)
Bunn
Bunning
Burr
Burton
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Canady
Castle
Chabot
Chambliss
Chapman
Chenoweth
Christensen
Chrysler
Clinger
Coble
Coburn
Collins (GA)
Combest
Condit
Cooley
Cox
Cramer
Crane
Crapo
Cremeans
Cubin
Cunningham
Davis
Deal
DeLay
Diaz-Balart
Dickey
Dicks
Dooley
Doolittle
Dornan
Doyle
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Ehlers
Ehrlich
English
Ensign
Everett
Ewing
Fawell
Fields (TX)
Flanagan
Foley
Forbes
Fowler
Fox
Franks (CT)
Franks (NJ)
Frelinghuysen
Frisa
Funderburk
Gallegly
Ganske
Gekas
Geren
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gilman
Goodlatte
Goodling
Goss
Graham
Greene (UT)
Greenwood
Gutknecht
Hall (TX)
Hamilton
Hancock
Hansen
Hastert
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Heineman
Herger
Hilleary
Hobson
Hoekstra
Hoke
Holden
Horn
Hostettler
Hunter
Hutchinson
Hyde
Inglis
Istook
Johnson (CT)
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Kasich
Kelly
Kim
King
Kingston
Kleczka
Klug
Knollenberg
Kolbe
LaHood
Largent
Latham
LaTourette
Laughlin
Lazio
Leach
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Lightfoot
Lincoln
Linder
Lipinski
Livingston
LoBiondo
Longley
Lucas
Manzullo
Martini
McCollum
McCrery
McDermott
McHugh
McInnis
McIntosh
McKeon
Metcalf
Meyers
Mica
Miller (FL)
Molinari
Montgomery
Moorhead
Morella
Myers
Myrick
Nethercutt
Neumann
Ney
Norwood
Nussle
Orton
Oxley
Packard
Parker
Paxon
Payne (VA)
Peterson (FL)
Peterson (MN)
Petri
Pickett
Pombo
Porter
Portman
Poshard
Pryce
Quillen
Quinn
Radanovich
Ramstad
Regula
Riggs
Roberts
Roemer
Rogers
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Rose
Roukema
Royce
Salmon
Sanford
Saxton
Scarborough
Schaefer
Schiff
Seastrand
Sensenbrenner
Shadegg
Shays
Shuster
Skeen
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Solomon
Souder
Spence
Stearns
Stenholm
Stockman
Stump
Talent
Tanner
Tate
Tauzin
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Thomas
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Torkildsen
Traficant
Upton
Vucanovich
Walker
Walsh
Wamp
Watts (OK)
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
White
Whitfield
Wicker
Wolf
Young (AK)
Zeliff
Zimmer
NAYS--164
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Andrews
Baldacci
Barcia
Barrett (WI)
Becerra
Beilenson
Bentsen
Berman
Bevill
Blumenauer
Bonior
Borski
Boucher
Brown (CA)
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Bryant (TX)
Cardin
Clay
Clayton
Clement
Clyburn
Coleman
Collins (IL)
Collins (MI)
Conyers
Costello
Coyne
Cummings
Danner
de la Garza
DeFazio
DeLauro
Dellums
Deutsch
Dingell
Dixon
Doggett
Durbin
Edwards
Engel
Eshoo
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Fazio
Fields (LA)
Filner
Foglietta
Frank (MA)
Frost
Furse
Gejdenson
Gephardt
Gibbons
Gonzalez
Gordon
Green (TX)
Gutierrez
Hall (OH)
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Hefner
Hilliard
Hinchey
Hoyer
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jacobs
Johnson (SD)
Johnson, E. B.
Johnston
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy (MA)
Kennedy (RI)
Kennelly
Kildee
Klink
LaFalce
Lantos
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lofgren
Lowey
Luther
Maloney
Manton
Markey
Martinez
Mascara
Matsui
McCarthy
McHale
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek
Menendez
Millender-McDonald
Miller (CA)
Minge
Mink
Moakley
Mollohan
Moran
Murtha
Nadler
Neal
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Owens
Pallone
Pastor
Payne (NJ)
Pelosi
Pomeroy
Rahall
Rangel
Reed
Rivers
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Sabo
Sanders
Sawyer
Schroeder
Schumer
Scott
Serrano
Sisisky
Skaggs
Skelton
Slaughter
Spratt
Stark
Stokes
Studds
Stupak
Tejeda
Thompson
Thornton
Thurman
Torres
Torricelli
Towns
Velazquez
Vento
Visclosky
Volkmer
Ward
Waters
Watt (NC)
Waxman
Williams
Wilson
Wise
Woolsey
Wynn
Yates
NOT VOTING--10
Flake
Ford
Gunderson
Houghton
Jefferson
McDade
Richardson
Roth
Shaw
Young (FL)
{time} 1521
Mrs. KENNELLY and Mr. JOHNSON of South Dakota changed their vote from
``yea'' to ``nay.''
So the previous question was ordered.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Riggs). The question is on the
resolution.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 281,
nays 137, not voting 15, as follows:
[Roll No. 382]
YEAS--281
Allard
Archer
Armey
Bachus
Baesler
Baker (CA)
Baker (LA)
Ballenger
Barcia
Barr
Barrett (NE)
Bartlett
Barton
Bass
Bateman
Bentsen
Bereuter
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop
Bliley
Blute
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bono
Boucher
Brewster
Browder
Brownback
Bryant (TN)
Bunn
Bunning
Burr
Burton
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Canady
Castle
Chabot
Chambliss
Chapman
Chenoweth
Christensen
Chrysler
Clement
Clinger
Coble
Coburn
Collins (GA)
Combest
Condit
Cooley
Costello
Cramer
Crane
Crapo
Cremeans
Cubin
Cunningham
Danner
Deal
DeLay
Deutsch
Diaz-Balart
Dickey
Dicks
Dingell
Dooley
Doolittle
Dornan
Doyle
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Durbin
Edwards
Ehlers
Ehrlich
English
Ensign
Everett
Ewing
Fawell
Fields (TX)
Flanagan
Foley
Forbes
Fowler
Fox
Franks (CT)
Franks (NJ)
Frelinghuysen
Frisa
Frost
Funderburk
Gallegly
Ganske
Gekas
Geren
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gilman
Goodlatte
Goodling
Gordon
Goss
Graham
Greene (UT)
Greenwood
Gutknecht
Hall (OH)
Hall (TX)
Hamilton
Hancock
Hansen
Harman
Hastert
Hastings (WA)
Hayworth
Hefley
Hefner
Heineman
Herger
Hilleary
Hobson
Hoekstra
Hoke
Holden
Horn
Hostettler
Hunter
Hutchinson
Hyde
Inglis
Istook
Jacobs
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (SD)
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Kasich
Kelly
Kennelly
Kim
King
Kingston
Kleczka
Klug
Kolbe
LaHood
Largent
Latham
LaTourette
Laughlin
Lazio
Leach
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Lightfoot
Lincoln
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Longley
Lucas
Luther
Manzullo
Martini
Mascara
McCarthy
McCollum
McCrery
McHugh
McInnis
McIntosh
McKeon
Metcalf
Meyers
Mica
Miller (FL)
Minge
Molinari
Montgomery
Moorhead
Morella
Myers
Nethercutt
Neumann
Ney
Norwood
Nussle
Orton
Oxley
Packard
Parker
Paxon
Payne (VA)
Peterson (FL)
Peterson (MN)
Petri
Pickett
Pombo
Porter
Portman
Poshard
Pryce
Quillen
Quinn
Radanovich
Ramstad
Regula
Riggs
Rivers
Roberts
Roemer
Rogers
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Rose
Roukema
Royce
Salmon
Sanford
Saxton
Scarborough
Schaefer
Schiff
Seastrand
Sensenbrenner
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Shuster
Sisisky
Skeen
Skelton
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Solomon
Souder
Spence
Spratt
Stenholm
Stockman
Stump
Talent
[[Page H9403]]
Tanner
Tate
Tauzin
Taylor (MS)
Thomas
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Torkildsen
Torricelli
Traficant
Upton
Volkmer
Vucanovich
Walker
Walsh
Wamp
Watts (OK)
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
White
Whitfield
Wicker
Williams
Wilson
Wolf
Young (AK)
Zeliff
Zimmer
NAYS--137
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Andrews
Baldacci
Barrett (WI)
Becerra
Beilenson
Berman
Bevill
Blumenauer
Bonior
Borski
Brown (CA)
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Bryant (TX)
Cardin
Clay
Clayton
Clyburn
Coleman
Collins (IL)
Collins (MI)
Conyers
Coyne
Cummings
Davis
de la Garza
DeFazio
DeLauro
Dellums
Dixon
Doggett
Engel
Eshoo
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Fazio
Fields (LA)
Filner
Foglietta
Frank (MA)
Furse
Gejdenson
Gephardt
Gibbons
Gonzalez
Green (TX)
Gutierrez
Hastings (FL)
Hilliard
Hinchey
Hoyer
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Johnson, E. B.
Johnston
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy (MA)
Kennedy (RI)
Kildee
Klink
LaFalce
Lantos
Lewis (GA)
Lofgren
Lowey
Maloney
Manton
Markey
Martinez
Matsui
McDermott
McHale
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek
Menendez
Millender-McDonald
Miller (CA)
Mink
Moakley
Mollohan
Moran
Murtha
Nadler
Neal
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Owens
Pallone
Pastor
Payne (NJ)
Pelosi
Pomeroy
Rahall
Rangel
Reed
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Sabo
Sanders
Sawyer
Schroeder
Schumer
Scott
Serrano
Skaggs
Slaughter
Stark
Stokes
Studds
Stupak
Taylor (NC)
Tejeda
Thompson
Thornton
Thurman
Torres
Towns
Velazquez
Vento
Visclosky
Ward
Waters
Watt (NC)
Waxman
Wise
Woolsey
Wynn
Yates
NOT VOTING--15
Cox
Flake
Ford
Gunderson
Hayes
Houghton
Knollenberg
Linder
Livingston
McDade
Myrick
Richardson
Roth
Stearns
Young (FL)
{time} 1530
So the resolution was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid of the table.
personal explanation
Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 382. I was in the
Rayburn Room. The beeper and the bells failed to function and I missed
the above vote. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''
personal explanation
Mr. HOUGHTON. Mr. Speaker, I was inadvertently delayed while
attending an International Relations Committee hearing with Secretary
Christopher, and missed voting on rollcalls No. 381 and No. 382. Had I
been there, I would have voted ``yea'' on 381 and ``yea'' on 382.
Mr. KASICH. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 495, I call up
the conference report on 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.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 495, the
conference report is considered as having been read.
(For conference report and statement, see Proceedings of the House of
Tuesday, July 30, 1996, at page H8829.)
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Kasich] and the
gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Sabo] will each be recognized for 30
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Kasich].
Mr. KASICH. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from
Kansas [Mr. Roberts], the distinguished chairman of the Committee on
Agriculture.
(Mr. ROBERTS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to
me, and I thank my colleagues for their reluctant attention.
Mr. Speaker, in a year that has been described by many as one of
gridlock and finger-pointing and wheel-spinning and even-numbered year
partisan rhetoric, we are about to achieve a remarkable accomplishment.
This House and the Senate, and now finally the President, have
responded to the American public. Simply put, this conference report
represents real accomplishment, real welfare reform.
We urged the President to sign this conference report. He has. There
are good reasons why. Seventy-five percent of the food stamp reforms in
this conference report represent the same things that were proposed by
this administration. I do not care whether we are talking about budget
savings, the work requirement, the program simplification, the tougher
penalties for fraud and abuse, or keeping the program at the Federal
level as we go through the welfare reform transition. We have tried to
work with the administration. We have done that. The President will
sign the bill.
Mr. Speaker, this road has not been easy. We have been working in
this House for 18 months. The very first hearing held by me in the
Committee on Agriculture was on fraud and abuse, and the critical and
urgent need for reform of the Food Stamp Program. The new Inspector
General at the Department of Agriculture showed a videotape of
organized crime members trading food stamps for cash, and eventually
using that cash for drugs and guns. That tape made national news, and
it confirmed the suspicions of many taxpayers and citizens.
Following that hearing, our late colleague and dear friend, the
chairman of the subcommittee, Bill Emerson, held four extensive
hearings and formulated the principles that guided the reform that is
now before us.
First, the original Republican plan was to make sure that as we go
through welfare reform, no one would go hungry, that we would keep a
reformed Food Stamp Program as a safety net so food can and will be
provided while States are undergoing this transition.
Second, we wanted to eliminate as much paperwork and redtape and
regulation as possible. We wanted to harmonize the welfare and the Food
Stamp Program requirements. This bill does that.
Third, having seen the program costs soar from $12 to $27 billion in
10 years, regardless of how the economy has performed, we wanted to
take the program off of automatic pilot. We have done that.
Fourth, the food stamps must not be a disincentive to work. In this
bill, able-bodied participants, those from ages of 18 to 50 with no
dependents, no kids, no children, only the able-bodied, these folks,
less than 2 percent of those on food stamps, they must work in private
sector jobs and not be rewarded for not working.
Fifth, after hearing firsthand from the Inspector General, we
tightened the controls on waste and abuse. We stopped the trafficking
with increased and tough penalties.
Mr. Speaker, these principles do represent real reform of the Food
Stamp Program. All are incorporated in the conference agreement. I urge
my colleagues to vote ``yes.''
I want to thank my colleagues for a tremendous team effort, more
especially the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Kasich], more especially the
gentleman from Texas [Mr. Archer], more especially the gentleman from
Pennsylvania [Mr. Goodling], and more especially, underscored three
times, the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Shaw], who said the work we have
accomplished is significant. We have true reform. We have a real
welfare reform bill. But now the work really starts. This bill is not
perfect. We have a lot ahead of us and a lot of challenges. I urge a
``yes'' vote on the conference report.
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 am happy today for several reasons. I
think Congress has come together with the administration to take a step
forward on certainly what is a pressing national social problem. That
is welfare reform. We started out, as the previous speaker said, almost
2 years ago to try to bring together something that could be signed and
enacted into law so we could actually change the system that is broken,
according to everyone who has observed it, and actually do something
about it now.
I want to thank the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Shaw], the gentleman
from Ohio [Mr. Kasich], the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Sabo], and
many others here. I particularly want to
[[Page H9404]]
thank the gentleman from Delaware, Mike Castle, who came together with
me to put together something that would be bipartisan so we could get
off of this partisan gridlock that we have been suffering from.
Mr. Speaker, in our motion to instruct conferees we asked for two or
three things: One, a safety net for kids. That has been accomplished
with Medicaid and food stamps. The safety net is there for children.
The unfunded mandate problem has been partially taken care of, with the
States being allowed to continue with waivers, and also because the
Medicaid situation is intact, there will not be a lot of costs
transferred to county hospitals across our country. We also asked that
savings go to the debt. That has not been accomplished, but as the
previous speaker said, we will continue to work on that.
The most important difference between the conference agreement and
the two bills that have previously been vetoed, in my judgment, is that
we protect innocent children. This bill no longer treats a 4-year-old
child like he or she is a 24-year-old irresponsible adult. To me that
was critical. That is not a part of welfare reform. That is just
compassionate public policy. This bill has done that.
I once again thank the Republican conferees for their hard work, the
gentleman from Florida [Mr. Shaw] and others. I also urge a ``yes''
vote. Let us make this a red letter day.
Mr. CAMP. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the
gentlewoman from New Jersey [Mrs. Roukema].
(Mrs. ROUKEMA asked and was given permission to revise and extend her
remarks.)
Mrs. ROUKEMA. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this legislation, and
want to associate myself with the statement of the chairman of the
Committee on Agriculture, the gentleman from Kansas [Mr. Roberts],
particularly as it applied to the Food Stamp Program. My opposition and
stated principle in the last round of this bill before it went to
conference was expressing a concern of what it did to innocent children
in that regard. I rise in support. It has been corrected, and I support
the conference agreement.
Mr. Speaker, as someone who has advocated a ``tough love'' approach
to welfare reform legislation, this goes a long way toward reforming
our broken welfare system as we return the system to its original
purpose--a temporary safety net, not a way of life.
Furthermore, as a pioneer in the battle to also reform our child
support enforcement system, I am very pleased to see that the reforms I
have been pushing for almost 4 years now--which represent the heart and
soul of the U.S. Interstate Commission on Child Support's final
report--have been included in the package before us today.
Ensuring that these child support enforcement reforms were included
in this bill acknowledges what I've been saying for years: Effective
reform of our interstate child support enforcement laws must be an
integral component of any welfare reform plan that the 104th Congress
sent to President Clinton.
Research has found that somewhere between 25 and 40 percent of
welfare costs go to support mothers and children who fall onto the
welfare rolls precisely because these mothers are not receiving the
legal, court-ordered support payments to which they are rightfully
entitled.
With the current system spending such a large portion of funding on
these mothers, children are the first victims, and the taxpayers who
have to support these families are the last victims.
The plan before us also puts teeth into the laws that require unwed
mothers to establish paternity of their children at the hospital,
thereby laying the groundwork for claiming responsibility for their
actions and families.
The core of the welfare reforms incorporated into this bill are
clearly defined work requirements for welfare beneficiaries--which is
essential to moving people off of the welfare rolls--strict time
limits--thereby giving welfare recipients a strong incentive to find a
job--and more flexibility for States to design welfare programs that
fit the needs of their people.
In addition, this welfare reform plan protects the safety net for
children by including a rainy day fund to help the families in States
suffering from recession or economic downturns.
The enhanced flexibility that States will receive under this plan
is meritorious, provided that the safety net is maintained in order to
protect families who truly need temporary assistance--not a lifetime of
handouts generation after generation.
For example, while I support the concept of giving States more
flexibility in designing their own welfare programs, I am very pleased
to see that this bill contains strong maintenance of effort provisions
which will require States to continue their commitment to the Nation's
safety net.
Under no circumstances should a block grant reform allow States to
simply administer welfare or any other program using only Federal
moneys--this bill avoids that problem with its tough maintenance of
effort language.
I was very distressed by the fact that House version of this bill
opened a significant loophole in the Food Stamp Program by giving
States the option of using block grants for this critically-important
aspect of our Nation's safety net.
Given that I was deeply concerned about giving a blank check to the
Governors for the Food Stamp Program would result in innocent children
going hungry, I opposed the House plan last week.
But again I am very pleased to see that, once again, the Senate has
saved the House of Representatives from itself by rejecting this
proposal, and successfully retaining its position on this issue in the
final bill.
Additionally, this legislation does take a modest step in the right
direction by allowing States to use their own money, or social services
block grant funds--to provide families on welfare with vouchers--
instead of cash benefits--to pay for essential services needed by the
family, that is, medicine, baby food, diapers, school supplies--if a
State has terminated the family's cash benefits as part of its sanction
program.
This is the right thing to do because even if a welfare recipient is
playing by all of the rules and has not found a job when the time
limits become effective, the use of vouchers for services plays an
important role in helping the family and its children keep their head
above the water-line.
There should be no question that we must enact strong welfare reform
legislation this year. The American people are correctly demanding that
we restore the notion of individual responsibility and self-reliance to
a system that has run amok over the past 20 years.
Although I have strongly supported some welfare reforms that have
been described as ``tough love'' measures for several years now, I want
to reiterate that my goal has always been to require self-reliance and
responsibility, while ensuring that innocent children do not go hungry
and homeless as a result of any Federal action.
Finally, I am most supportive of the improvements the conference gave
to the Medicaid Program. This is an enlightened and humane response to
genuine medical needs.
Mr. Speaker, this bill is not perfect. But, it represents the first
major reform of our broken-down welfare system in generations. We have
been given a historic opportunity that I hope and trust we will not
squander. We owe no less to our children. I urge my colleagues to join
me in voting for final passage of this monumental reform package.
Mr. CAMP. Mr. Speaker. I yield myself such time us I may consume.
(Mr. CAMP asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. CAMP. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the conference agreement.
Today, the Congress is again presented with the opportunity to adopt
meaningful welfare reform. Over the past 19 months, my colleagues and I
have written, debated, and adopted proposals to reform our current
welfare system. Our efforts, however, were twice vetoed by the
President.
Since launching the war on poverty in 1965, over $5 trillion has been
spent to eliminate poverty in America. Some 31 years later and despite
billions and billions of dollars, poverty in America has worsened and
our children grow and mature in an environment with little hope and
opportunity.
The proposal before us today reforms a welfare system that has
trapped millions in a
[[Page H9405]]
cycle of poverty. Our current welfare system punishes families and
children by rewarding irresponsibility, illegitimacy and destroying
self-esteem. For too long, the Federal Government has defended the
current system and turned away as millions of families and children
became trapped in a cycle of despair, dependence, and disappointment.
This bill accomplishes several important goals. First, it time limits
welfare to 5 years. The Federal and State governments have an
obligation to assist those in need but our current system has become a
way of life instead of a temporary helping hand for those experiencing
hard times.
Second, our bill requires work. The Washington welfare system has
also robbed recipients of their self-esteem by merely providing a
check. This proposal requires each recipient to work for their
benefits, thereby instilling the pride of employment and allowing each
recipient to earn a paycheck. This sense of accomplishment and
independence increases the individual's self-esteem and often
influences the children who can see firsthand the benefits of a strong
work ethic. For those continuing to experience hard times, however, the
bill allows States to exempt up to 20 percent of the welfare caseload
from the time limit.
Most importantly our bill helps those families and individuals
working to improve their lives. We provide more funding for child care
than current law and more than requested by the President. This funding
is extremely important in allowing families to work while ensuring
their children receive the proper care. We also protect our children by
ensuring eligibility for Medicaid. For those families moving from
welfare to work, we continue assistance so they don't have to worry
about losing health care coverage if their incomes increase.
Compassion is not the sole property of Washington and our bill
creates a Federal-State partnership in meeting the needs of welfare
recipients. States will have the power and opportunity to design and
implement new innovative programs that best meet the needs of
residents. I urge my colleagues to support the conference report.
Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the gentleman from Florida
[Mr. Shaw] be allowed to control the time and to yield.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Riggs). Is there objection to the
request of the gentleman from Michigan?
There was no objection.
Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from
Washington [Ms. Dunn], a member of the Committee on Ways and Means.
Ms. DUNN of Washington. Mr. Speaker, this is a good bill. I am very
pleased that the President has announced that he is going to sign this
bill. I want to commend Members on both sides of the aisle for their
hard work. We have worked for a long time to put a good bill together.
To those who are concerned with protecting the children, so were we.
We spent a lot of time, a lot of thought, a lot of effort on protecting
the children. We have come up with a bill that in the child care
portion of the bill provides over $4 billion more to help those mothers
who are trying to get off welfare into the workplace, with the peace of
mind to know their children will be taken care of, $4 billion more than
in the current welfare system.
On the child support portion of the legislation, where we all know
that in this Nation today $34 billion are owed, ordered by the court to
be paid to custodial parents, we have tightened up this system. Those
children are often the children that go on welfare--30 percent of their
parents leave the State to avoid paying money to support their own
flesh-and-blood children. We have solved this problem. So it is my
great joy to say support this bill, and thanks for all the help.
Mr. SABO. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished
gentlewoman from California [Ms. Woolsey].
(Ms. WOOLSEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend her
remarks.)
Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, we all agree that the welfare system does
not work for the welfare recipients and for the taxpayers. The
challenge we face as lawmakers is to improve the system so we can
invest in getting families off welfare and into jobs that pay a
liveable wage, and also to answer the ``what ifs''. What if a mother on
welfare cannot find a job? What if she is not earning enough to take
care of her family? What if she cannot find child care for her 6-year-
old?
Unfortunately, this conference report will not ensure families can
live on the jobs that they get, that they will earn a liveable wage,
and this conference has made sure that it does not answer our ``what
ifs''. It kicks families off of assistance, even if parents are trying
hard to find a job. It does not even invest in the education and
training parents need to get jobs that pay an actual liveable wage.
Even though the House and Senate agreed that single parents with kids
under 11 should not leave their children home alone if there is no
child care, the majority went ahead without discussion and lowered that
age to under 6.
{time} 1545
How many of my colleagues would leave their 6-year-old home alone?
I ask my colleagues, do not take this vote lightly. Do not leave any
child behind. The lives of millions of children are at stake. It will
be too late tomorrow if the what-ifs are not answered today.
Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Pennsylvania [Mr. Goodling], the chairman of the Committee on Economic
and Educational Opportunities.
(Mr. GOODLING asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Speaker, as I have said many times, you cannot fix
something, you cannot change something unless you first admit it is
broken and first admit that you need to change it. Finally, both sides
of the aisle came forward and indicated that we do have a broken
system, that we have as a matter of fact put millions of Americans into
a bind and took away their opportunity to ever have a chance at the
American dream.
Now, the tough part then came as to how do you fix it. Of course we
had differing opinions. Our committee started out with the idea that
welfare must be a safety net, not a way of life; there must be a very
clear emphasis on work and on getting those on welfare into work. There
must be a strong measure to stop abuses of the system. We need to
return power and flexibility to the States. Welfare should not
encourage, it should discourage destructive personal behavior that
contributes so clearly not only to welfare dependence but to a host of
social problems.
Mr. Speaker, this is a good, balanced welfare reform bill. We have
been very generous in providing money for child care. We have protected
the nutrition program. We have established strong work requirements.
And we have at long last addressed the tremendous problem of out-of-
wedlock births and absentee fathers.
Mr. Speaker, I commend all those who have worked so hard to bring
about this welfare reform effort. I want to especially mention from the
Committee on Economic and Educational Opportunities, the gentleman from
California [Mr. Cunningham], the gentleman from Delaware [Mr. Castle],
the gentleman from Arkansas [Mr. Hutchinson], the gentleman from
Missouri [Mr. Talent], and the gentlewoman from Kansas [Mrs. Meyers]. I
strongly support the legislation. I urge all to vote for it because at
long last we move forward in transforming welfare to a program of work
and opportunity.
Mr. SABO. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas
[Mr. Stenholm].
(Mr. STENHOLM asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this conference
report. In doing so, I want to pay particular thanks to the gentleman
from Florida [Mr. Shaw] for making this an inclusive conference, at
least from the perspective of those of us on this side of the aisle,
and also the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. McCrery] and the gentleman
from Delaware [Mr. Castle]. They have been very good to work with, at
least in listening to those of us on this side of the aisle who had
major problems with previous bills before the House and thought we had
constructive suggestions of how to make it better. We were listened to,
and many of the proposals we made are included, of which we are
grateful.
To those that suggest that somehow the State waivers portion of this
is contrary to the best interest of the work programs of somehow guts
work requirements, I only suggest that they read the bill. Read the
language which is available, and they will see. Far
[[Page H9406]]
from gutting it, it makes it much more workable.
For States like mine, Texas, Utah, Michigan, and others that have
already begun experimenting with work programs, this bill, I believe,
allows those States and all of us who are interested in making this
bill work as we say we wish it to, it allows the flexibility to allow
States to experiment, to do pilot projects and pilot programs. In this
case it is already happening in my State.
Some of the concerns that we had with unfunded mandates, they have
been alleviated as best as can be possible under a conference report.
For that we are grateful. In the area of health care providers,
protection of children, this is moved in the direction that we feel is
much, much more preferable than the bill that originally passed the
House.
While this welfare reform conference report is far from perfect, it
is clearly preferable to continuing the current system and preferable
to welfare legislation considered earlier.
For these reasons I support the welfare reform conference report. I
am extremely pleased that the President has agreed to sign it, and I
commend those who have worked so hard for so long in order to bring us
to this day.
Mr. Speaker, while some of the comments I've heard this afternoon
have tended toward the hyperbolic, it truly is the case that the
importance of what we are doing today should not be minimized. When
this welfare reform proposal is signed into law, the status quo will be
fundamentally changed.
This kind of change does not happen by chance. More people than I can
mention deserve credit, but in addition to the obvious leadership of
President Clinton, Chairman Shaw, and other members of the leadership,
I want to express my thanks for the bipartisan efforts of Mike Castle,
John Tanner, John Chafee, Sandy Levin, Nancy Johnson, and others.
One of the major reasons I opposed previous welfare reform proposals,
and specifically the bill that was most recently before the House, was
because of the restrictions it would have placed on the State of Texas.
Earlier this year I worked extensively with Governor Bush and the White
House to obtain approval of the Texas welfare waiver which includes the
best plans of our State for moving people from welfare to work.
President Clinton already has approved waivers allowing 41 States to
implement innovative programs to move welfare recipients to work. The
House's welfare reform bill would have restricted those State reform
initiatives by imposing work mandates that are less flexible than
States are implementing. Over 20 States would have been required to
change their work programs to meet the mandates in that earlier House
bill or face substantial penalties from the Federal Government.
The conference report now allows States that are implementing welfare
waivers to go forward with those efforts. Specifically, the conference
report allows those States to count individuals who are participating
in State-authorized work programs in meeting the work participation
rates in the bill, even work programs which otherwise do not meet the
Federal mandates in the bill.
I know that some of my colleagues on my side of the aisle have been
critical of the State waiver provisions included in this conference
report. I must respectfully and forcefully disagree with that sentiment
and say that in virtually all cases, I think that conversations with
officials from their own States would lead them to supporting this
waiver provision.
I am convinced that these various State plans are precisely the best
experiments for determining how to put people to work. Frankly, I think
the State plans generally are more realistic about the work
requirements and are more solidly grounded in the possible, rather than
the hypothetical.
Some of us around here have gotten carried away with our rhetoric
about being tough on work by getting into a bidding war over who can
have work requirements that sound tougher. Our rhetoric about being
tough on work has led us to impose work requirements in this bill that
virtually no State can implement.
The only work requirements that are meaningful are the work
requirements that actually can be met by States. When I have said that
previous welfare reform bills were weak on work, I have meant that the
bills would not give States the resources to put welfare recipients
into work.
The mandates in the bill passed by the House would force States such
as Texas to make changes in the plans passed by the State legislature
or face severe penalties from the Federal Government.
The important State waiver change included in the conference report
gives States necessary additional flexibility in implementing programs
to move welfare recipients to work even if they don't meet the mandates
in this bill.
The additional flexibility that this bill gives to States in
developing work programs will reduce the pressure on States to cut
benefits or restrict eligibility for assistance in order to meet the
work requirements of the bill. The Congressional Budget Office has
reported that States would be forced to tighten eligibility for
assistance to needy families or by reducing the size of benefits in
order to offset the unfunded mandate in the work programs. Members who
are concerned about the impact that welfare reform will have on
children should strongly support giving States this flexibility and
reducing the unfunded mandates.
Despite some reservations I have about this conference report, I
believe it is critical that welfare reform be enacted this year.
Failure to do so will signal yet another wasted opportunity to make
critically needed reforms. We should enact this conference report and
fix the current system now, moving towards a system that better
promotes work and individual responsibility.
Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from Nevada [Mr. Ensign], a valued member of the Subcommittee
on Human Resources of the Committee on Ways and Means.
(Mr. ENSIGN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. ENSIGN. I thank the chairman for yielding me the time, and I
thank him for all the work he has done on behalf of the welfare
recipients in the country.
Mr. Speaker, today is truly independence day for welfare recipients.
It is the first day to redefine compassion in America. In Las Vegas, we
have a program known as Opportunity Village. It is an incredible
program for the mentally disabled. It is a public-private partnership.
The primary premise for the program is that it is compassionate enough
to care enough about mentally disabled people to where the community
works together to find these people jobs.
It is an incredible situation to walk down there and to see the joy
that these people have in being able to work every day so that they do
not become a drain on society. They feel good about themselves. Today
is the first day welfare recipients are going to start feeling good
about themselves, and the children are going to start feeling good
about their parents.
My mom, when I was young, was divorced, supporting three kids, with
very little money, just virtually no child support. I watched her every
single day get up and go to work. She taught me a work ethic that has
carried through my entire life with myself and my brother and sister.
We have robbed that of welfare families. This bill starts giving that
work ethic back to the American people.
The Wall Street Journal did a poll. Ninety-five percent of all
presidents of companies had their first job by the time they were 12
years of age. Compassion, work ethic, today; vote for this bill. It is
a good bill for America, and today is a great day for America.
Mr. SABO. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished
gentlewoman from California [Ms. Waters].
Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, someday more politicians will approach tough
decisions such as welfare reform with more care and integrity. This is
not that day. Someday politicians will place children above politics.
This is not that day. Someday politicians will place truth above
personal gain. This is not that day.
Too many Democrats and Republicans will run for reelection on this
so-called welfare reform legislation. The truth is this bill does
nothing to train mothers for work, to develop jobs, to help recipients
become independent. This bill is welfare fraud, not welfare reform.
This bill penalizes poor working families and will drive more children
into poverty. Only time will reveal the shame of what happened this
day, and only history will record the blatant lack of courage to simply
do the right thing.
Mr. SABO. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished
gentlewoman from Florida [Mrs. Meek].
(Mrs. MEEK of Florida asked and was given permission to revise and
extend her remarks.)
Mrs. MEEK of Florida. Mr. Speaker, let no one fool you. This bill is
not about reforming welfare. It is not about that. It is about saving
money and trying your very best to influence
[[Page H9407]]
the American public that we have balanced the budget. I would not mind
this. I want to see welfare reform. But this is not the way to do it.
What we are doing here is hurting children. Every time I stand here, I
talk about that. These are all children. The conference report did much
worse than the Senate. You allow the States, and I come from a State
that will, you are allowing a State to cut 25 percent of their 1994
spending levels without any penalty. When the Florida legislature gets
ready to cut, they are going to cut this particular program. The
parents of children ages 6 to 11 will have to work without assurance of
child care at all. Who is going to take care of the children? Are they
going to run all over the world and get into trouble? Yes. The transfer
of funds from transfer assistance to work, the Senate bill did better
than that. The conference bill allows them to divert funds.
I am hoping that people listen to this bill because what this
conference bill does is worse than the Senate bill and it should not be
passed. Mr. Speaker, this is a travesty to the American public.
Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from
Connecticut [Mrs. Johnson], a distinguished member of the Committee on
Ways and Means.
Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. I thank the gentleman from Florida for
yielding me the time and commend him on his extraordinary leadership
now over 4 years in getting this bill to the President.
Mr. Speaker, this bill is about work, responsibility, hope, and
opportunity. I wish I had the time here today to answer some of the
concerns that have been raised about day care and jobs and all of those
things. I think this bill addresses them. But I would like to discuss
two issues that have not received much attention but are integral to
our underlying goal of helping families become self-sufficient: Child
support enforcement and Medicaid.
First, I am very pleased to say that this bill retains current
eligibility standards for families on Medicaid. All families now on
Medicaid will continue to get Medicaid. Furthermore, all families in
the future that meet today's criteria will continue to get Medicaid
even if their State redefines their welfare program with more
constricted criteria.
Regarding the Medicaid transition period, under current law when a
family leaves the welfare rolls to work, they are guaranteed 1 year's
transitional Medicaid benefit. In the future, this will be absolutely
true. We retain current law in this regard. Medical coverage is often
one of the biggest barriers to families leaving welfare, especially
since lower paying jobs are less likely to have employer-provided
health coverage. By keeping the transition period policy constant, we
are enabling families to go to work without worrying about losing their
medical benefit.
Second, this bill contains landmark child support provisions. Today
in America 3.7 million custodial parents are poor; of those 3.7
million, fully three-quarters receive no child support. Of those who
have child support orders in place, which is only 34 percent of the
women, only 40 percent receive the payment they should receive. This is
catastrophic for women and children, and this bill fixes that system,
an enormous advance for women and children and a way off welfare.
Mr. SABO. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished
gentlewoman from Florida [Mrs. Thurman].
Mrs. THURMAN. I thank the gentleman from Minnesota for yielding me
this time.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate my friends from the other
side of the aisle for their wisdom in adopting the position of the
bipartisan Castle-Tanner coalition in maintaining the Federal
commitment to food stamps.
My colleagues were right to eliminate the optional block grant that
would have forced States to turn away hungry families with children.
They were right to modify the Kasich food stamp amendment in favor of a
provision that provides assistance to laid-off and downsized workers.
Of course, I still believe it would have been more beneficial if this
bill realized that people who cannot find jobs still need to eat. But
my colleagues have come a long way, and it is significant improvement
over the first attempt at welfare reform. I am happy that my friends
from the other side of the aisle listened to us and made these
important changes along with others such as Medicaid coverage and
vouchers. I look forward to the opportunity for us to continue in a
bipartisan spirit to look at the future of these programs and to ensure
that people that we are trying to help to get to work are able to do
so.
My colleagues so aptly put in a provision so that we do a review
every 3 years. We need to make sure we follow through with that.
Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from Florida [Mr Bilirakis], a valued member of the Committee
on Commerce.
(Mr. BILIRAKIS asked and was given permission to revise and extend
his remarks.)
Mr. BILIRAKIS. Mr. Speaker, as representatives of the people we do
not get as many opportunities as we would like to do something that
would truly help improve the lives of the people we serve. This bill
presents us with just such an opportunity. This conference report is
more than just a prescription for much needed welfare reform, however.
It is what I hope will be the first step in our bipartisan efforts to
improve the public assistance programs on which disadvantaged families
depend.
After all, welfare as we know it means more than AFDC. It includes
food stamps, housing assistance and energy assistance, and it includes
medical assistance. That is right. For millions of Americans, Medicaid
is welfare. That is because income assistance alone is not sufficient
to meet the pressing needs of disadvantaged families.
For States, too, Medicaid is welfare. In fact, it makes up the
largest share of State public assistance funding. As a share of State
budgets, Medicaid is four times larger than AFDC.
{time} 1600
If President Clinton does the right thing and signs this welfare
reform bill into law, Medicaid will still be caught up in the choking
bureaucratic red tape of Federal control, and that is why the Medicaid
Program must be restructured if States are to fully succeed in making
public assistance programs more responsible and effective.
Mr. Speaker, I commend my colleagues on both sides of the aisle for
their commitment to true welfare reform, and I look forward to
continuing our efforts to making all sources of public assistance work
better for those who need a helping hand up.
Mr. SABO. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the
gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Jackson].
(Mr. JACKSON of Illinois asked and was given permission to revise and
extend his remarks.)
Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to
this deadly and Draconian piece of garbage which will do nothing to
reform the conditions of poverty and unemployment suffered by our
Nation's most vulnerable.
As I listen to the debate on the floor of this body today, I felt
compelled to make clear to the American people exactly what this bill
will do to our Nation's families and our Nation's future. Despite the
deceptive rhetoric that we have heard on the floor today, let us be
clear--at its core, this bill unravels a 60-year guarantee of a basic
human safety net for our Nation's poorest and most vulnerable children
and their families.
The President and many Members of the 104th Congress have decided to
cut welfare as they know it--to children, immigrants and the poorest
Americans--but they have left intact welfare as we know it--welfare to
America's largest corporations. We cannot and must not balance the
budget on the backs of the least of these.
Mr. Speaker, I have heard Members on this floor urge support of this
deadly measure, cloaking its defense in terms like ``This is for the
good of the poor.'' How can this be anything but bad for the poor, when
we know that in my Home State of Illinois alone, 55,800 children will
be pushed below the poverty line as a result of this bill, and 1.3
million children will be similarly impacted nationwide.
Please know, Mr. Speaker, that I will not join demopublicans and
republicrats in this mean-spirited attack. you can rest assured that I
will work to continue to provide equal protection under the law for our
Nation's poor, our disabled, our immigrants and our children.
Posturing tough on welfare mothers is viewed as good politics at
least by a press
[[Page H9408]]
corps that admires cynicism. But ending welfare as I know it is a good
idea if done well. So before you push more poor kids and their mothers
out on the streets let's apply ``Two Years and You're Off'' to
dependent corporations and find a real jobs program for all Americans.
Perhaps conservative Republicans and Democrats and posturing Presidents
should begin to beat up on the welfare king for a change.
Mr. SABO. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished
gentlewoman from New York [Mrs. Maloney].
Mrs. MALONEY. Mr. Speaker, this conference report is dangerous and
unrealistic. I do not believe the American people will tolerate a
policy of ending support to a single mom who has played by the rules,
tried to find a job for 2 years and could not.
Our unemployment rate is over 5 percent, and that does not include
millions of welfare recipients. This conference report does not require
the Government to create jobs. The result will be the world's
wealthiest nation putting families out on the street to fend for
themselves. Will we tolerate destitution and call it reform?
Republicans say the States will solve these problems. Already
Philadelphia, as reported yesterday in the paper, has stopped providing
shelter beds for single homeless people due to Federal and State
welfare cuts. I am not predicting that Republican welfare reform will
put people out on the street. I am pointing out that it already has.
Oppose this conference report.
Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished
gentleman from Delaware [Mr. Castle], who has done a great deal in this
conference in bringing the two sides together.
Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Speaker, I cannot thank the gentleman from Florida
[Mr. Shaw] enough. At a time when somebody had to listen, he did. We do
not always do that in this building, and it is just a tremendous honor
to him that we are passing this bill today.
I thank the gentleman from Tennessee, Congressman John Tanner, not a
finer person to work with I know in the House, who acted in a
bipartisan way when I think we needed that in order to bring this bill
into line.
I thank the President, who I understand is going to sign this
legislation. I believe he is doing the right thing for a variety of
reasons.
I believe the safety net was put back into place that we have talked
about in several ways in the area of Medicaid, food stamps, and the
ability of States to set up voucher systems after 5 years. I think they
can deal with that.
I have believed strongly, in my fight for welfare reform for 12 years
now, that this is the opportunity. Everyone talks about this in a very
draconian sense. I believe this is opportunity for women, for children,
in some instances for men, and for families. It is opportunity because
we are going to take people who have not had a true chance to live the
American life in terms of their education and background and we are
giving them that chance.
It is an experiment. We may have to come back to it, but I
congratulate everybody.
Mr. SABO. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished
gentleman from South Carolina [Mr. Clyburn].
Mr. CLYBURN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the ranking member for yielding me
this time.
Mr. Speaker, 2 years and you are out is not a bad proposition in and
of itself, but in this bill it relies on that tried-and-true adage if
you give a man a fish you may feed him for a day, if you teach a man
how to fish he may feed himself for a lifetime.
In this bill, Mr. Speaker, only 50 percent of those 2-years-and-you-
are-outers can reasonably expect any chance at training. In this era of
personal responsibility, this legislation asks our most vulnerable
citizens to do more, but our States are being required to do less.
Mr. Speaker, this is not the best we can do, and it is not the best
we can afford. I urge a no vote, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. SABO. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished new mom
from Arkansas, Mrs. Lincoln.
(Mrs. LINCOLN asked and was given permission to revise and extend her
remarks.)
Mrs. LINCOLN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this
time and for his kind remarks.
I think we can find that no one will argue that our current welfare
system needs changed and today we have the opportunity to pass
legislation that will hopefully move our Nation's low-income citizens
from passively accepting a welfare check to actively earning a
paycheck.
Welfare reform has been one of my top priorities since first coming
to Congress, especially reform of the SSI disability program or the
crazy check problem.
I have worked diligently with members of the Blue Dog Coalition, with
the Chairman of the Subcommittee on Human Resources, the task force,
and with Members of both sides of the aisle to find a reasonable
solution to those who truly need SSI assistance and welfare reform,
hoping we can crack down on the abuse in the system while making
provisions for those who need it.
Although this conference report is not a perfect bill, it represents
a significant improvement over our status quo. No one should get
something for nothing, and if the American people are going to be
generous with their tax dollars, they should get something in return.
Mr. Speaker, this legislation provides responsible reform through the
three main goals we started with: State flexibility, personal
responsibility, and work. I urge my colleagues to support this
provision, a lot of hard work in a bipartisan spirit.
Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the
gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Goodlatte].
(Mr. GOODLATTE asked and was given permission to revise and extend
his remarks.)
Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me
this time, for his fine work on this bill, and I rise in strong support
of the welfare reform conference report.
Mr. SABO. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished
gentlewoman from Hawaii [Mrs. Mink].
Mrs. MINK of Hawaii. Mr. Speaker, I thank the ranking member of the
Committee on the Budget for yielding me this time.
I intend to vote against this conference report. The Urban Institute
tells us that over a million children will be put into poverty as a
result of this legislation. We are told by our own Republican
Congressional Budget Office that it is underfunded insofar as the work
requirements.
If indeed we want our people on welfare to go to work, is it not fair
to expect that there will be dollars there to provide them jobs, not to
cut them adrift after 2 years without any cash support whatsoever?
That is what the consequence of this bill will do. It will force
people out on the streets, literally, with no cash assistance
whatsoever and without the promise of any assistance in finding jobs.
The women on welfare want to work. Look at any study that has been
issued. These studies tell us that over 60 percent of the young mothers
on welfare are out there looking for jobs and half of them do find them
and they get off welfare. These people who say that the women stay
there 13 years on welfare are simply not telling the truth.
Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from
North Carolina [Mrs. Myrick], the former mayor of Charlotte.
Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, the President's decision to sign this
welfare reform bill is really great news for working Americans and for
people in need. The welfare bill will really reform and empower the
States to be creative in solving their own problems and it will help
end the cycle of dependency and poverty, which really truly helps
millions of children with a decent fulfilling future.
As a former mayor, I know firsthand these ideas work because we had
pilot programs in our area where we were moving people out of public
housing and into home ownership and off of welfare with child care help
and really giving them their dignity back again.
It is a sin not to help someone who genuinely, truly needs that help
through no fault of their own, but it is also a sin to help people who
do not need help. So this bill is going to encourage that personal
responsibility that we are all so proud of and give people their
dignity back.
Mr. SABO. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished
gentleman from North Dakota [Mr. Pomeroy].
Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Speaker, I rise to support this legislation. I
believe this
[[Page H9409]]
bill is clearly an improvement over the current system.
I voted against the previous GOP bills because I believed they
inadequately protected children and were weak on work. Unlike those
bills, this conference report does not deprive kids on Medicaid of
their health care coverage.
The conference report allows States to provide vouchers for
children's necessities when their parents reach the time limit on
benefits. The conference report removes the optional food stamp block
grant and provides families with high rent or utility bills an
adjustment for more grocery money than the earlier House versions
allowed. I remain concerned that funding for job training may not be
adequate yet, and that may need to be addressed in the future.
A lot of us have worked hard to improve the various welfare reform
proposals we have considered. Real welfare reform has meaningful
protections for children, has a tough work requirement and demands
personal responsibility. While this bill is not perfect, it fits those
parameters and begins a process of reforming welfare.
Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Louisiana [Mr. McCrery], a most valuable member of the Subcommittee on
Human Resources of the Committee on Ways and Means.
Mr. McCRERY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman of the subcommittee
for yielding me this time and congratulate him on the great work in
getting this welfare reform bill to the floor today. I also commend the
President today for agreeing to sign this most historic bill.
I want to talk for just a second about a part of the bill that I
helped write, and I have gotten several calls today and yesterday, and
some of my colleagues have, regarding the SSI for children's provisions
in this bill.
I want to assure all those teachers who brought this problem to my
attention and to the attention of other of my colleagues this is being
taken care of in this welfare reform bill. We do away with a very
subjective qualifying criteria that allows children to qualify for a
disability when they really should not be on the program and replaces
it with very definitive medical criteria that will be much, much
superior to the current system.
So I want to thank the gentlewoman from Arkansas, Blanche Lambert
Lincoln, the gentleman from Wisconsin, Gerald Kleczka, and others who
helped me to bring to the attention of this body the very serious
problems with the SSI disability for children.
Mr. SABO. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
California [Mr. Farr].
In addition, Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to yield the
remainder of the time on our side to the gentleman from Florida [Mr.
Gibbons] and that Mr. Gibbons be permitted to manage that time and to
yield time to others.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. McInnis). Is there objection to the
request of the gentleman from Minnesota?
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from California [Mr. Farr] is
recognized for 1 minute.
(Mr. FARR of California asked and was given permission to revise and
extend his remarks.)
Mr. FARR of California. Mr. Speaker, everybody in this Congress wants
welfare reform. That is not the debate. But not everybody in the
Congress wants to shift the cost from Federal Government to local
government.
We usually ask ourselves as lawmakers to look before we leap. I do
not think we have done that here on the welfare reform bill. We have
asked to be quoted by Governors, but Governors do not administer
welfare, communities do. Counties and cities do. Has anyone asked the
mayors and county supervisors? Well, I did.
In California we are going to shift 230,000 people who are legal
residents of the United States who are disabled. They are cut off. They
live in our community. Where are they going to go? What will this bill
do to help them?
This bill goes on. It hurts the people in our neighborhoods, people
who go to school with our children. What can we do with a bill that
hurts children, that hurts the disabled, that hurts the elderly? In the
Congress of the richest Nation in the world, what we can do is vote
``no'' on this bill and say we can do a better job.
We want welfare reform, but a welfare reform bill that just plows the
problem on the community is not reform at all. I ask for a ``no'' vote.
Mr. Speaker, I insert the following material for the Record:
County of Santa Cruz,
Health Services Agency,
Santa Cruz, CA, July 17, 1996.
Re recommendation to oppose H.R. 3507 and S. 1795 denying
eligibility for federal programs for legal immigrants.
Hon. Sam Farr,
U.S. House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
Dear Congressman Farr: On behalf of Santa Cruz County, we
are asking for your assistance and intervention in deleting
from H.R. 3507 and S. 1795, requirements which deny
eligibility for federal programs to legal immigrants. These
two bills are moving forward under the heading of welfare
reform and in their present form, are expected to save the
Federal government $23 billion over seven years. At least $9
billion of this total would be achieved by eliminating
services to legal immigrants in California. Santa Cruz County
with less than 1% of the state's population, because of its
population history, dependence on agriculture and
demographics, expects an adverse financial impact far in
excess of its population share.
While the federal budget will experience some relief, the
budgets of local governments, especially over-taxed budgets
such as Santa Cruz's, will be severely impacted. These
important issues demand thoughtful, coordinated planning and
implementation to assure the least negative impact on those
taxpayers who fund local government services and those
residents who look to local government for care.
These two legislative proposals, regardless of their noble
intent, will savage local government and cause severe
personal and societal disruption. For these reasons, we urge
that you oppose these measures as long as they contain these
unacceptable provisions which deny eligibility for legal
immigrants.
Very truly yours,
Charles Moody,
Health Services Administrator.
Will Lightbourne,
Human Resources Agency Administrator.
____
California Legislature,
Sacramento, CA, July 18, 1996.
Hon. Sam Farr,
U.S. House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Dear Representative Farr: We are writing to convey major
concerns raised by the most recent proposed welfare
legislation currently being considered by Congress.
services for aged and disabled legal immigrants
Denying Federal benefits to legal immigrants
disproportionately harms California communities. Over 230,000
non-citizen legal immigrants currently receive SSI in
California, excluding refugees. This aid is provided to the
aged, blind and disabled, who could not support themselves by
going to work if their SSI benefits ended. Under H.R. 3507,
SSI and Food Stamps would be denied to non-citizens already
legally residing in California as well as to new legal
entrants, unlike the immigration reform legislation currently
under consideration in Congress, which permits continued
benefits for existing legal residents.
The proposed bar on SSI and Food Stamps for all legal
immigrants, and the denial of other Federal means-tested
programs to new legal entrants for their first five years in
the country would have a devastating effect on California's
counties, which are obligated to be the providers of last
resort. It is estimated that these proposed changes would
result in costs of $9 billion to California's counties over a
seven-year period. At a minimum, the very elderly, those too
disabled to become citizens and those who become disabled
after they arrive in this country should be exempted from the
prohibition on SSI--if for no other reason than to lessen to
counties the indefensible cost of shifting care from the
Federal government to local taxpayers for a needy population
admitted under U.S. immigration laws.
protection of children
While we agree that welfare dependence should not be
encouraged as a way of life, it is essential in setting time
limits on aid that adequate protections be provided for
children once parents hit these time limits. Some provision
must be made for vouchers or some other mechanism by which
the essential survival needs of children such as food can be
met. The Administration has suggested this sort of approach
as a means of ensuring adequate protection for children whose
parents hit time limits on aid.
California's child poverty rate was 27 percent for 1992
through 1994, substantially above the national rate of 21
percent. H.R. 4, which was vetoed by the President, would
have caused an additional 1.5 million children to become
poor. Though estimates have not been produced for H.R. 3507,
it is likely that it also would result in a significant
additional number of children falling below the poverty
level.
adequate funding for child care
Funds provided for child care are essential to meet the
needs of parents entering the
[[Page H9410]]
work force while on aid and leaving aid as their earnings
increase. For California to meet required participation
rates, about 400,000 parents would have to enter the work
force and an additional 100,000 would have to increase their
hours of work. Even if only 15 percent of these parents need
a paid, formal child care arrangement, California will need
nearly $300 million per year in new child care funds.
Thank you for your consideration of these concerns. If your
staff have any questions about these issues, they can contact
Tim Gage at (916) 324-0341.Sincerely,
Bill Lockyer,
President Pro Tempore, California Senate.
Richard Katz,
Democratic Floor Leader, California Assembly.
NATIONAL IMMIGRATION LAW CENTER--OVERVIEW OF CURRENT LAW AND WELFARE REFORM IMMIGRANT RESTRICTIONS--104TH CONGRESS
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Welfare Reform Reconciliation Act of Personal Responsibility, Work
Current Law 1996 (H.R. 3734) as passed by the Opportunity Act of 1966 (H.R. 3734) Differences/Comments
House as passed by the Senate
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Programs barred to None Denied until citizenship: SSI, Food Denied until Citizenship: SSI, and Medicaid: House bars Medicaid to
most legal Stamps, and Medicaid. Food Stamps. most legal immigrants. Senate
immigrants imposes lesser restrictions on
including current immigrant access to Medicaid. The
residents Senate Medicaid provisions affect
about half as many people after
six years.
................... Current recipients: phased in over Current recipients: phased in over ...................................
one year. one year.
................... Exemptions Exemptions Refugees/Asylees: Most refugees and
Refugees, asylees, withholding of Refugees, asylees withholding of asylees have been here more than
deportation during 1st 5 years deportation during 1st 5 years five years and would be subject to
only. only. the bar.
Veterans and family members. Veterans and family members.
Immigrants who work 40 Immigrants who work 40
``qualifying quarters'' (as defined ``qualifying quarters'' (as
for Title II Social Security) and defined for Title II Social
did not receive any means-tested Security) and did not receive any
assistance in any of those means-tested assistance in any of
quarters. those quarters.
Minor children get credit for Minor children get credit for
quarters worked by parents; spouses quarters worked by parents;
get credit for work if still spouses get credit for work if
married or if working spouse is still married or if working spouse
deceased. is deceased.
State option to bar States may not Programs: State have option to bar Programs: State option to bar both Identical provisions.
current legal discriminate both current residents and new current residents and new The definitions of ``means-
residents and against legal immigrants from: AFDC, title XX, immigrants from: Medicaid, AFDC, tested'' programs was deleted from
future legal immigrants in the and all entirely state funded means- title XX, and all entirely state the Senate bill because of the
immigrants. provision of tested programs. funded means-tested programs. ``Byrd rule''.
assistance.
Five Year None. Provision: Provision: Bars AFDC and most Communicable Diseases: House
prospective bar Bars AFDC and most federal means federal means tested programs to permits doctors to be reimbursed
(on future legal tested programs to legal immigrants legal immigrants who come after for treating symptoms of
immigrants). who come after date of enactment date of enactment for 1st 5 years communicable diseases even if the
for 1st 5 years after entering the after entering the U.S. disease later turns out not to
U.S. Exceptions: have been communicable.
Exceptions: Emergency Medicaid. Nutrition: Senate permits food
Emergency Medicaid. Immunization & testing and banks and others who administer
Immunizations & testing and treatment of communicable disease emergency food programs to avoid
treatment of the symptoms of if necessary to prevent the spread spending volunteer resources to
communicable diseases. of such disease. verify citizenship.
Short-term non-cash disaster Short-term non-cash disaster Head Start and ITPA: House does not
relief. relief. restrict legal immigrant access to
School Lunch Act programs. School Lunch Act programs. these programs.
Child Nutrition Act programs. Child Nutrition Act programs. Student Assistance Under the Public
Title IV foster care and adoption Certain other emergency food and Health Services Act: These
payments. commodity programs. programs were added to the Senate
Higher education loans & grants. Title IV foster care and adoption bill by floor amendment sponsored
Elementary & Secondary Education payments. by Senator Paul Simon (D-IL).
Act. Higher education loans & grants The definition of ``means-
Head Start. (including those under the Public tested'' programs was deleted from
TPA. Health Services Act). the Senate bill due to the ``Byrd
At AG discretion, community Elementary & Secondary Education rule.''
programs (such as soup kitchens) Act.
that do not condition assistance on At AG discretion, community
individual income or resources and programs (such as soup kitchens)
are necessary to protect life or that do not condition assistance
safety. on individual income or resources
and are necessary to protect life
or safety.
Programs restricted AFDC, Food Stamps, Provision: Virtually all federal Provision: Virtually all federal Identical provisions.
by deeming and SSI. means-tested program must deem means-tested programs must deem
(impacts most future immigrants. future immigrants.
family-based
immigrants).
................... Exempted programs: Same programs Exempted programs: Same programs Neither bill exempts non-profit
exempted from deeming as from the 5- exempted from deeming as from the organizations from burdensome
year prospective bar (see above). 5-year prospective bar (see verification requirements (as does
above). the Senate immigration bill).
................... State and local programs: Programs State and local programs; Programs ...................................
that are entirely state funded may that are entirely state funded may
deem (or ban) current legally deem (or ban) current legally
resident immigrants as well as resident immigrants as well as
future legal immigrants (except for future legal immigrants (except
those exempt from federal deeming for those exempt from federal
and programs that are equivalent to deeming and programs that are
federal programs exempted from equivalent to federal programs
deeming). exempted from deeming).
Length of deeming 3 years (SSI 5 Current residents: same as current Current residents: same as current Identical provisions.
period/ years until 10/1/ law. law.
retroactivity. 96).
................... Future immigrants: until citizenship Future immigrants: until ...................................
unless an exemption applies (e.g. citizenship unless one of the
40 quarters). exemptions applies (e.g. 40
quarters).
Immigrants exempt Disabled after Immigrants who work 40 ``qualifying Immigrants who work 40 ``qualifying Identical provisions.
from deeming. entry (SSI only). quarters'' (as defined for Title II quarters'' (as defined for Title
Social Security) and did not II Social Security) and did not
receive any means-tested assistance receive any means-tested
in any of those quarters. assistance in any of those
quarters.
Sponsor is Minor children get credit for Minor children get credit for About half of the legal immigrants
receiving Food quarters worked by parents; spouses quarters worked by parents; who will be cut off of SSI under
Stamps (Food get credit for work if still spouses get credit for work if these bills have been in the U.S.
Stamps only). remarried or if working spouse is still married or if working spouse more than ten years.
deceased. is deceased.
................... Veterans, exempt from SSI, Medicaid Veterans, exempt from SSI, Medicaid There is no exemption for battered
and Food Stamp bar, are not exempt and Food Stamp bar, are not exempt spouses or children in either
from deeming. from deeming. bill.
Affidavits of Affidavits of Enforceable to recover money spent Enforceable to recover money spent The requirement that only the
support provision. support are on most means-tested programs. on most means-tested programs. petitioner may be the sponsor
unenforceable precludes all other close
against the relatives from obligating
sponsor. themselves to support the
immigrant.
................... Sponsor liable for benefits used Sponsor liable for benefits used This entire section was deleted
until citizenship, unless immigrant until citizenship, unless from the Senate bill because of
works 40 ``qualifying quarters'' is immigrant works 40 ``qualifying the Byrd rule.
credited for work of spouse or quarters'' is credited for work of
parent. For definition of spouse or parent. For definition
``qualifying quarter,'' see of ``qualifying quarter,'' see
Immigrants Exempt from Deeming Immigrants Exempt from Deeming
above. above.
................... Enforceable against sponsor by Enforceable against sponsor by ...................................
sponsored immigrant or government sponsored immigrant or government
agencies until 10 years after agencies until 10 years after
receipt of benefits. Sponsor fined receipt of benefits. Sponsor fined
up to $5,000 for failure to notify up to $5,000 for failure to notify
when sponsor moves. when sponsor moves.
................... Only the petitioner may qualify as a Only the petitioner may qualify as
sponsor. a sponsor.
Treatment of ``Not Eligibility of Definition: ``Not qualified'' = all Definition: ``Not qualified'' = Child Nutrition: The House would
qualified'' classes of but LPR, refugee, granted asylum, all but LPR, refugee, granted require the schools, churches,
immigrants. immigrants the INS deportation withheld, parolee for > asylum, deportation withheld, charities, and clinics that
does not plan to 1 year. parolee for > 1 year. operate school lunch programs and
deport varies by WIC clinics to verify immigration
program. status and turn away ineligible
children. The Senate exempts child
nutrition programs from these
requirements.
Undocumented Prohibition: Not qualified barred Prohibition: Not qualified barred ...................................
immigrants from: Social Security (affects new from: Social Security (affects new
ineligible for applicants only), unemployment, all applicants only), unemployment,
cash assistance federal needs-based programs, and all federal needs-based programs,
and all major any governmental grant, contract, and any governmental grant,
federal programs. loan, or professional or commercial contract, loan, or professional or
Exemptions license (nonimmigrants may receive commercial license (nonimmigrants
include: emergency license or contract related to may receive license or contract
Medicaid, public visa.) related to visa.)
health, child
nutrition, Child
care, child
protection, and
maternal care,
emergency
services.
[[Page H9411]]
Exceptions: Exceptions: No Battered Women's Exception:
Emergency Medicaid. Emergency Medicaid. Beneficiaries of the Violence
Short-term emergency relief. Short-term emergency relief. Against Women Act (VAWA) self-
Immunizations and testing and Immunizations and testing and petitioning provisions are treated
treatment of the symptoms of treatment of communicable disease the same as persons who are
communicable diseases. if necessary to prevent the spread unlawfully in the U.S.
of such disease.
School Lunch Act programs.
Child Nutrition Act programs.
Certain other emergency food
and commodity programs.
Current recipients of housing or Current recipients of housing or
community development funds. community development funds.
At AG discretion, community At AG discretion, community
programs (such as soup kitchens) programs (such as soup kitchens)
that do not condition assistance on that do not condition assistance
individual income or resources and on individual income or resources
are necessary to protect life, or and are necessary to protect life,
safety. or safety.
State and Local Programs: Immigrants State and Local Programs:
who are not lawfully present may Immigrants who are not lawfully
not participate in state or locally present may not participate in
funded programs unless the state state or locally funded programs
passes a law after enactment unless the state passes a law
affirmatively providing for such after enactment affirmatively
eligibility (state has no option to providing for such eligibility
provide assistance to ``not (state has no option to provide
qualified'' immigrants who are here assistance to ``not qualified''
lawfully). immigrants who are here lawfully).
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Verification and Agencies such as No Confidentiality: No state or No Confidentiality: No state or Identical provisions.
reporting. battered women's local entity may ``in any way'' local entity may ``in any way''
shelters, restrict the flow of information to restrict the flow of information
hospitals, and law the INS. to the INS.
enforcement
agencies may keep
immigration
information
confidential if
they feel such
confidentiality is
advisable given
their mission. For
example, a law
enforcement agency
may assure a timid
witness that he or
she will not be
deported as a
result of coming
forward to report
a crime.
Required Verification: All federal, Required Verification: All federal, The no confidentiality provision
state and local agencies that state and local agencies that endangers witness protection
administer non-exempt federal administer non-exempt federal programs and all other endeavors
programs must verify immigrant programs must verify immigrant in which confidentiality is
eligibility ``to the extent eligibility ``to the extent necessary to encourage cooperation
feasible'' through a computerized feasible'' through a computerized or participation.
database. database.
Required Reporting: SSI, Housing, Required Reporting: SSI, Housing,
and AFDC agencies must make and AFDC agencies must make
quarterly reports to INS providing quarterly reports to INS providing
the name and other identifying the name and other identifying
information of persons known to be information of persons known to be
unlawfully in the U.S. unlawfully in the U.S.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished
gentleman from California [Mr. Riggs].
Mr. RIGGS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this
time and for his hard work on this very historic and very important
legislation.
This legislation curtails food stamp fraud, it limits the access of
resident aliens to welfare programs, which just might persuade some
visitors to our country who did not come here to work to return home,
but, more importantly, it is another step in the process of devolving
or sending social services back to the States and getting control back
in the hands of local managers who are closer to the problems of the
poor.
It addresses a fundamental fairness issue in American society, and
that is the resentment of working individuals toward able-bodied
individuals who refuse to get off the dole. Most importantly, in my
mind, it addresses the problem of welfare dependency and welfare
pathology in this country, which has led to soaring rates of family
disintegration, illegitimacy in American society, and the other
consequences, like youth crime.
This is indeed an historic day in this body and a very, very
important piece of legislation, in my view the most important
legislation we will enact in the 104th Congress.
{time} 1615
Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.
Mr. Speaker, let me say first of all that there are some good things
in this legislation that could have and should have become law without
being tied to the rest of this fundamentally flawed package. The
President has made a mistake in endorsing this legislation and the
Congress will make a mistake in passing it.
Essentially, Mr. Speaker, this legislation reduces assets that we
need to help those who are the most vulnerable in our society. Seventy
percent of all the people on welfare are infants and children. The rest
are so disabled one way or another, and they cannot make a go of it.
This bill reduces their assets, reduces the assets of the people who we
are trying to help to improve and better their situation.
For some reason that we do not thoroughly understand, the bottom
three-fifths of all the people in the United States have not made any
progress in the last 20 years, economically speaking. The bottom one-
fifth have lost 18 percent of their resources that are available to
them. This bill further exacerbates that problem and will hurt infants
and children. It should not become law. It should be vetoed.
Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from Connecticut [Mr. Shays], a member of the Committee on
the Budget.
Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, politicians are elected by adults to represent the
children. We need to save our children from crippling national debt,
Government debt. We need to make sure that our trust funds, like
Medicare, are there for our children. And most importantly, we need to
enable, we need to help our children become independent citizens of
this great and magnificent country. This bill helps to transform our
caretaking, social and corporate welfare state into a caring
opportunity society.
I extend tremendous admiration to the gentleman from Florida, [Mr.
Shaw] for not giving into those who wanted to weaken the bill so that
it would end up not doing anything. We have a caring bill that does
this. In the final analysis, it is not what you do for your children
but what you have taught them to do for themselves that will make them
successful human beings.
It ends this caretaking society and moves toward a caring society
where we teach our children and the adults who raise our children how
to grow the seeds, how to have the food.
Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New
York [Mr. Rangel].
(Mr. RANGEL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, what time is it? It is time for us to get on
with our conventions. We better get on with the Democratic Convention
and Republican Convention. What do we want to say that we are for?
Reform. What is a nagging sore in everyone's problem? Welfare. People
who do not work.
What is the bill all about? Well, the bill is supposed to be to
protect children. I heard the previous speaker say that. He said that
this child will be cut off of welfare if the mother does not
[[Page H9412]]
get a job in 2, 3, 4 or 5 years. He did not say it, but I know he read
the bill.
The winners in this are the Governors. There is nothing to tell the
Governors what to do, and they will be the losers in the long run, but
not as bad as the children. They can do what they want with immigrants
and with little kids because for 60 years we have said there is a
safety net for children. But not before this election.
Who won? Bob Dole? Oh, yes, he said it already. He shoved this one
down the President's throat. Three strikes and the President would have
been out so he wins because what the heck, he forced the issue.
And who is another winner? My President. He is a winner. He has
removed this once again. Everything you come up with, my President
says, oh, no you do not. And so here again he is a winner.
So when we look at it, this is a big political victory. The Democrats
are happy in the White House. The Republicans are happy because they
made him do it. The Governors are happy. They begged for the
opportunity to do it their way after all. They are closer to the
problem. And the only losers we have now are the kids.
The got no one there to protect them. The religious leaders came out.
Obviously they are not as highly registered as some other people, but
they said do not do this to our children. They are the weakest. They
cannot vote. If my colleagues do not like their mothers and their
fathers and their neighborhoods, then get involved in education and job
training and make them work. But there are winners and losers and the
kids are the losers.
Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from Texas [Mr. Archer], the distinguished chairman of the
Committee on Ways and Means.
Mr. ARCHER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, the only way we can change people's behavior is by
changing the system. Franklin Roosevelt warned that giving permanent
aid to anyone destroys them. By creating a culture of poverty and a
culture of violence, we have destroyed the very people we are claiming
to help. Can any serious person argue that the federalization of
poverty by Washington has worked?
Government, since 1965, has spent over $5 trillion on welfare, more
than we have spent on all the wars that we have fought in this century.
And we have lost the war on poverty. With this bill, we can begin to
win the war.
We need to come to the realization that dollars alone will not solve
the problem. We need to give unemployed people hope and equip them for
work so they will be better able to help themselves. As our colleague,
the gentleman from Oklahoma, J.C. Watts, says, they are eagles waiting
to soar.
Today we will ask those now receiving welfare to make a deal with the
taxpayer. We will provide you with temporary help to get you through
the hard times and we will help you feed your family and get the
training you need, and in exchange, we ask that you commit yourself to
find a job and move back into the economy.
I am pleased to see that the President has finally agreed to join us
in our fight to overhaul the broken-down welfare system. It has been a
long, arduous road since 1988 when Ronald Reagan first made the effort
to do something about work fare and finally we are here.
Mr. President, the poor have suffered long enough and now we have the
opportunity to change it all and help the hard-working taxpayers as
well.
Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from
Connecticut [Mrs. Kennelly].
Mrs. KENNELLY. Mr. Speaker, we all can be proud of the record that
many of us have in working on this bill to protect children. Eight
months ago we had a welfare conference report on the floor that would
have blocked foster care or would have made foster care a block grant,
and also food stamps. Today's legislation retains the Federal guarantee
for these services.
Eight months ago we had Federal welfare legislation on this floor
that would have cut severely disabled children by 25 percent. Today we
do not have that flawed two-tiered system.
Eight months ago we considered legislation that would have denied
millions of Americans Medicaid because they lost welfare eligibility.
Today's legislation, the legislation before us, guarantees continual
health coverage for those who are currently entitled to these services.
Eight months ago we voted on legislation that would have underfunded
child care. This bill has $4.5 billion in it for child care.
I am not suggesting the legislation is perfect. Most legislation is
not perfect. But I predict we will be back on this very floor finding
more answers and better answers than we have today. If that is there, I
will be involved in these changes. But today we have to decide if this
legislation as a whole represents an improvement over the status quo.
My answer is: Yes, it does.
While some of the changes here being suggested pose risks, so does
the current system. Welfare is clearly broken, offering more dependence
than opportunity. We can vote today to at least begin to transform the
welfare system. Today we can begin welfare reform, those of us who have
worked hard over the months to make the bill, working with those who
have had the bill. We now have the bill. We should vote for the bill
and get on with welfare reform.
Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas
[Mr. DeLay], the distinguished Republican whip.
Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to hear that President
Clinton has endorsed the welfare bill that will pass the House today.
Clearly, the time has come to end welfare as we know it. The welfare
system as we know it has been a disaster. The only thing great about
the Great Society was the great harm it has caused our children.
With this bill, Mr. Speaker, we make commonsense changes long
requested by the American people.
Common sense dictates that able-bodied people work.
Common sense dictates that only Americans should receive welfare
benefits in this country.
Common sense dictates that incentives to keep families together.
Common sense dictates that welfare should not be a way of life.
Now liberal Democrats will vainly challenge these simple truths, and
even the President could not help himself and has challenged some of
these truths, but time and experience has proven them wrong. Welfare
has not worked for the people it was supposed to help. Everybody knows
that fact. Now is the time to change that system. Some well-meaning
people will once again make the claim that welfare reform is mean-
spirited. Well, I disagree.
We reform welfare not out of spite but out of compassion. We change
this system not because we want to hurt people, but because we want to
help people help themselves. And we change this system not to throw
children into the streets, but to give children a greater chance to
realize the American dream and still maintain a safety net for those
truly in need.
Mr. Speaker, I am proud of this Congress for the great work on this
historic legislation, and I am pleased that President Clinton has
agreed to finally live up to his campaign promise.
Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New
York [Mr. Nadler].
(Mr. NADLER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, sadly, it seems clear that this House today
will abdicate its moral duty and knowingly vote to allow children to go
hungry in America. Sadly, our President, a member of the Democratic
Party, the party of Franklin Roosevelt and John Kennedy and Lyndon
Johnson, will sign this bill.
Does this bill allocate sufficient funds to provide employment for
people who want to work? No.
Does this bill provide adequate child care so parents can leave their
children in a safe environment and earn a living? No.
Does this bill ensure that people leaving welfare can take their kids
to a doctor when they get sick? No.
Does this bill do anything to raise wages so people who work hard to
play by the rules will not have to see their children grow up in
poverty? No.
Does this bill reduce the value of food stamps for children of the
poorest working people to push these children into poverty and hunger?
No.
[[Page H9413]]
Mr. Speaker, I know that scapegoating poor children is politically
popular this year, but it is not right. We must stand up for our
country's children. I urge my colleagues to reject this immoral
legislation.
Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Georgia [Mr. Lewis].
Mr. LEWIS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, the bill we are considering today
is a bad bill. I will vote against it and I urge all people of
conscience to vote against it. It is a bad bill because it penalizes
children for the actions of their parents. This bill, Mr. Speaker, will
put 1 million more children into poverty. How, how can any person of
faith, of conscience vote for a bill that puts a million more kids into
poverty. Where is the compassion, where is the sense of decency, where
is the heart of this Congress. This bill is mean, it is base, it is
downright low down.
We are a great nation. We put a man on the Moon. We have learned to
fly through the air like a bird and swim like a fish in the sea. We are
the world's only superpower. We did not do this by running away--by
giving up. As a nation, as a people--as a government--we met our
challenges--we won.
This bill gives up--it throws in the towel. We cannot run away from
our challenges--our responsibilities--and leave them to the States.
That is not the character of a great nation. I ask you, Mr. Speaker,
What does it profit a great nation to conquer the world, only to lose
it's soul? Mr. Speaker, this bill is an abdication of our
responsibility and an abandonment of our morality. It is wrong, just
plain wrong.
It was Hubert Humphrey, who said:
We can judge a society by how it treats those in the dawn
of life, our children, those in the twilight of life, our
elderly and those in the shadow of life, the sick and the
disabled.
I agree with Hubert Humphrey, my colleagues. What we are doing here
today is wrong.
I say to you, all of my colleagues, you have the ability, you have
the capacity, you have the power to stop this assault, to prevent this
injustice. Your vote is your voice. Raise your voice for the children,
for the poor, for the disabled. Do what you know in your heart is
right. Vote ``no.''
{time} 1630
Mr. GIBBONS. 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 status quo is gone.
The current system does not meet the American values of work,
opportunity, responsibility, and family.
We have been wrestling for a long time with what should replace it.
The key always has been the linkage of welfare to work, within a
definite time structure, and with sensitivity to the children of the
parent who needs to break out of a cycle of dependency, for her/his
good, for the child's and for the taxpayer.
The challenge has been to find a new balance, that combines State
flexibility with national interest.
The first two bills vetoed by the President failed to address
effectively work and dealt insensitively with children.
If the AFDC entitlement was going to be replaced by a block grant--
which was already beginning to happen through Federal waivers--after
the vetoes we successfully pressured the Republican majority to make
substantial improvements in day care, health care, benefits for
severely disabled children and to retain the basic structure of foster
care, food stamps and the school lunch program.
In a word, this is a different bill than those vetoed by the
President.
The bill before us is at its very weakest in two areas essentially
unrelated to AFDC--food stamps and legal immigrants. Reform was needed
in these areas, but surely not punishment nor a mere search for
dollars, as was true of the majority's approach.
The question is whether the defects in those areas should sink
changes in our broken welfare system.
On balance, I believe it is better to proceed today with reforms in
the welfare system, with a commitment to return on a near tomorrow to
the defects in this bill.
I hope in the next session there will be a Congress willing to
address these legitimate concerns with President Clinton.
Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the distinguished
gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Hayes], a valued member of the Committee
on Ways and Means.
Mr. HAYES. Mr. Speaker, folks at home simply wonder if they can tell
the difference between a disabled veteran from a real war and someone
who has become disabled because of a fake war on poverty, converting
food stamps into drugs, why cannot the Government. They want to know,
if they can tell the difference between a young woman whose husband has
walked out on them, leaving them a child with no recourse, and a teen
who becomes pregnant because of a system that rewards it, why cannot
the Government?
Today this body answers that it can tell the difference. The Senate
can tell the difference. And I am very pleased to understand that the
President is going to sign the bill that allows people at home to at
least know we have that judgment to make that difference.
Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the
gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Hoyer].
(Mr. HOYER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the bill.
America's welfare system is at odds with the core values Americans
believe in: Responsibility, work, opportunity, and family. Instead of
rewarding and encouraging work, it does little to help people find
jobs, and penalizes those who go to work. Instead of strengthening
families and instilling personal responsibility, the system penalizes
two-parent families, and lets too many absent parents off the hook.
Instead of promoting self-sufficiency, the culture of welfare offices
seems to create an expectation of dependence rather than independence.
And the very ones who hate being on welfare are desperately trying to
escape it.
As a society we cannot afford a social welfare system without
obligations. In order for welfare reform to be successful, individuals
must accept the responsibility of working and providing for their
families. In the instances where benefits are provided, they must be
tied to obligations. We must invest our resources on those who value
work and responsibility. Moreover, we must support strict requirements
which move people from dependence to independence. Granting rights
without demanding responsibility is unacceptable.
The current system undermines personal responsibility, destroys self-
respect and initiative, and fails to move able-bodied people from
welfare to work. Therefore, a complete overhaul of the welfare system
is long overdue. We must create a different kind of social safety net
which will uphold the values our current system destroys. It must
require work, and it must demand responsibility.
Today, the House will take a historic step as it moves toward
approving a welfare reform conference report which takes significant
steps to end welfare as we know it. The bill is not perfect. But, at
the insistence of the President and congressional Democrats,
significant improvements to require work and protect children have been
made. It is because of these important changes that I will vote in
favor of this bill.
This bill requires all recipients to work within 2 years of receiving
benefits. The bill requires teen parents to live at home or in a
supervised setting, and teaches responsibility by requiring school or
training attendance as a condition of receiving assistance.
When the House Ways and Means Committee marked up its first welfare
bill 1\1/2\ years ago, Democrats proposed an amendment to exempt
mothers of young children from work requirements if they had no safe
place for their children to stay during the day. The amendment was
defeated by a unanimous Republican vote. I am pleased that the
conference report prohibits States from penalizing mothers of children
under 6 if they cannot work because they cannot find child care.
A year and a half ago, Ways and Means Committee Republicans defeated
Democratic amendments to strengthen child support enforcement
provisions, because committee Republicans felt those sanctions were
``too hard'' on deadbeat dads. I am pleased that this conference report
includes every provision in the President's child support enforcement
proposal, the toughest crackdown on deadbeat parents in history.
A year and a half ago, the Republican welfare bill included a child
nutrition block grant that would have caused thousands of children in
Maryland to lose school lunches--for some of those children, the only
meal they would receive in a day. I am pleased that the conference
report maintains the guarantee of school meals for our neediest kids.
[[Page H9414]]
As recently as last week, the House Republican bill eliminated the
guarantee of food stamps for poor children and assistance for children
who had been neglected or abused. I am pleased that this bill prohibits
the block grants which dismantle food stamp and child protection
assistance.
Like many Americans, I continue to have concerns about some of the
provisions in this bill. We must be certain that both the Federal and
State governments live up to their responsibilities to protect children
who may lose assistance through no fault of their own. We must make
sure that legal immigrants, who have paid taxes and in some cases
defended the United States in our armed services, are not abandoned in
their hour of need. And it is not enough to move people off of
welfare--we must move them into jobs that make them self-sufficient and
contributing members of society.
This bill supports the American values of work and personal
responsibility. It has moved significantly in the direction of the
welfare reform proposals made by Congressman Deal and Congressmen
Tanner and Castle, both of which I supported. I applaud this important
step to end welfare as we know it, and intend to vote in favor of this
bill.
Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Rhode Island [Mr. Kennedy].
Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island. Mr. Speaker, just hearing my colleague,
the gentleman from Georgia, John Lewis, speak so passionately, I think
should move anyone who listened to his speech. Over 30 years ago it was
John Lewis who was fighting against States rights, States rights
meaning justice dependent on geography. How you were treated depended
on what State you lived in.
And yet our Republican friends who are offering this welfare reform,
as they call it, are willing to embrace States rights; what their block
grant plan means is that again justice will depend on geography. In my
State of Rhode Island, over 40,000 kids in poverty are going to be put
at a disadvantage under the block grant system because when you take
away the money that is entitled to kids based upon their poverty, you
leave it to the whim of the States.
I can tell you, each State is under pressure to lower the bar so that
you can squeeze people even more. This is wrong.
When Mr. Shaw and Mr. Archer say that dollars will not do it alone, I
want to ask the Republicans, what are they going to substitute when a
poor child needs food, what are they going to substitute for the money
that they are supposed to be providing through these programs?
Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from
California [Ms. Pelosi].
Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding the time.
I rise in opposition to the welfare bill. If this bill passed today,
it will be a victory for the political spin artists and a defeat for
the infants and children of America.
We all agree that the welfare system must be reformed. But we must
make sure that that reform reduces poverty, not bashes poor people. The
cuts in this bill will diminish the quality of life of children in poor
families in America and will have a devastating impact on the economy
of our cities.
Food and nutrition cuts will result in increased hunger. Local
government will be forced to pay for the Federal Government's
abdication of responsibility. How can a country as great as America
ignore the needs of America's infants and children who are born into
poverty?
The Bible tells us that to minister to the needs of God's children is
an act of worship; to ignore those needs is to dishonor the God who
made them.
Mr. Speaker, let us not go down that path today.
Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the
gentleman from New York [Mr. Towns].
(Mr. TOWNS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. TOWNS. Mr. Speaker, vote no on this pain and shame that we are
inflicting on young people, a garbage bill.
This agreement along with the other vetoed welfare bills amount to
nothing short of a rollcall of pain and shame that will be dumped on
those Americans who are clearly in need of a social service safety net.
And to add to that pain, legal immigrants will bear 40 percent of the
cuts in welfare even though they make up only 5 percent of the
population receiving welfare benefits.
No one is satisfied with the way welfare policy is constructed or
practiced. The Federal Government doesn't like it; the local
administrators don't like it; the social workers don't like it; the
majority of the taxpayers don't like it and the recipients don't like
it. There is no doubt that the welfare system in this country needs to
be changed. Clearly reform is necessary. However, the overall scope of
the proposed reforms will victimize those Americans most in need of
assistance.
I urge a ``no'' vote on this conference agreement.
Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 45 seconds to the gentlewoman from
Florida [Ms. Brown].
Ms. BROWN of Florida. Mr. Speaker, this was a bad House bill, a bad
Senate bill and the conference report did not fix it. It is still bad.
You can judge a great society by how it treats its children, its
senior citizens. This bill guts our future. I urge my colleagues to
vote against it.
Mr. Speaker, I rise to oppose this conference report. The House
welfare reform bill was a bad bill, the Senate bill was a bad bill and
the conference report does not fix it. This legislation is so bad that
it can't be fixed.
This bill will have a horrible impact on the children in my State. In
Florida, at least 235,000 children would be denied benefits under this
legislation. In Florida alone, 48,000 would be pushed deeper into
poverty. Children will be hungrier if this bill becomes law.
In Florida, 111,926 children would be denied aid in the year 2005
because of the 5 year time limit. In Florida, 42,714 babies would be
denied cash aid in the year 2000 because they were born to families
already on welfare. In the year 2000, 80,667 children in Florida would
be denied benefits if the State froze its spending on cash assistance
at the 1994 levels.
In addition to the travesty this bill does to our children, this bill
will pull the rug out from under our seniors who are legal immigrants.
For a State like Florida whose population has such a large number of
legal immigrants, the impact will be extremely high.
There is another troubling aspect of this bill we need to look at. No
victim of domestic violence, no matter how abused nor how desperate,
could know that if she left her abusive spouse, that she would be able
to rely upon cash assistance for herself or for her children--even for
a short period of time until she was able to secure employment.
I have always believed that the sign of a great society is how well
it treats its most vulnerable--children and seniors. Our children are
America's future. This bill prevents the future generation from meeting
its potential to contribute to American society and instead dooms
today's poor children to deeper poverty and no chance to take their
place as productive members of our society.
Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 3 minutes.
Mr. Speaker, I come over here to do something I have never done
before; that is, to trespass on the Democrat side. I hope that they
will give me their understanding in my doing so, because I do not do it
out of smugness or arrogance. I do it out of coming together.
We have heard a lot of name calling, a lot of rhetoric, a lot of
sound bites that we have heard all through this debate. We have come
down a long road together. It was inevitable that the present welfare
system was going to be put behind us.
Today we need to bring to closure an era of a failed welfare system.
I say that and I say that from this side of the aisle because I know
that the Democrats agree with the Republicans. This is not a Republican
bill that we are shoving down your throats. We are going to get a lot
of Democratic support today. I think the larger the support, the more
chance there is for this to really work and work well.
The degree of the success that we are going to have is going to be a
victory for the American people, for the poor. It is not going to be a
victory for one political party. It is time now for us to put our hands
out to one another and to come together to solve the problems of the
poor.
Without vision, the people will perish. Unfortunately, we have not
had vision in our welfare system now for many, many years. It has been
allowed to sit stagnant. We have piled layer upon layer of humanity on
top of each other. We have paid people not to get married. We have paid
people to have children out of marriage. We have paid people not to
work.
This is self-destructive behavior. We know that. We all agree with
that.
[[Page H9415]]
I know we have heard many, many speakers: My friend, the gentleman
from Georgia, John Lewis, thinking that we are going the wrong way; my
friend, the gentleman from New York, Charlie Rangel, saying that we are
going the wrong way.
I also see some of my colleagues who have fought for different
changes within the welfare bill within the Subcommittee on Human
Resources of the Committee on Ways and Means, now coming to closure,
where they do not believe this is a perfect bill. And I can stand here
and say it is not a perfect bill, but it is as good as this Congress
can do. It is as good as we can come together.
We have included the Governors in balancing out their interests and
in seeing what they have been successful with and how they feel that
they can be successful. We have talked to many of the Members on the
Democrats' side, and to my Republican colleagues I say, we are not
through. We have another long road ahead of us. We need to get to a
technical corrections bill as we see problems arise within this bill
that we are going to be passing today.
It was unexpected to hear that the President was going to endorse
this bill and announced his signature of it. But let us now be patient
with each other. Let us work with each other and let us bring this
awful era of a failed welfare system to closure.
Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the
gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Cardin].
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. McInnis) The gentleman from Maryland
[Mr. Cardin] is recognized for 2\1/2\ minutes.
Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Florida [Mr.
Gibbons] for yielding me the time.
Let me say to my friend, the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Shaw],
first, congratulations on a job very well done and come on back over on
this side of the aisle a little bit more frequently. I think that if we
would have started working together in a bipartisan spirit, we could
have had a better bill today, and we could have gotten here a little
bit sooner. But I thank the gentleman very much for the way in which he
has provided leadership on this issue. I know it has been heartfelt,
and I know he has worked very, very hard.
{time} 1645
Mr. Speaker, I support the conference report because I think it is
important that we return welfare to what it was originally intended to
be, and that is a transitional temporary program to help those people
that are in need. The current system does not do that. We cannot defend
the current system.
But let me make it clear to my colleagues, the bill before us is a
far better bill than the bill that was originally brought forward by
the Republicans 2 years ago, the bill that was vetoed twice by the
President. We have a better bill here today.
It is a bill that provides for major improvement in child support
enforcement, something all of us agreed to; provides protective
services for our children, which was not in the original bill; provides
health insurance to people coming off of welfare, something that is
very important; day care services, another important ingredient that
people are going to get off welfare to work. Food stamps are in much
better condition than the bill that was vetoed by the President. There
is a Federal contingency fund in case of a downturn of our economy, and
we have maintenance of effort requirements on our States so we can
assure that there are certain minimum standards that are met in
protecting people in our society.
The bottom line is that this bill is better than the current system.
It could have been better, and I regret that. I am not sure there is
enough resources in this bill to make sure that people get adequate
education and job training in order to find employment, and I look
forward to working with the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Shaw] to make
sure that this becomes a reality.
But I do urge my colleagues to support the conference report because
bottom line: It is far better than the current system.
Yes, we are going to take a risk to get people off of welfare to
work, but the current system is not fair either to the welfare
recipient or the taxpayer.
This conference report is far better, and I urge my colleagues to
support it.
Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the
distinguished gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Kasich], chairman of the
Committee on the Budget.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. McInnis) The gentleman from Ohio is
recognized for 5\3/4\ minutes.
Mr. KASICH. Mr. Speaker, I would like to initially congratulate the
gentleman from Florida [Mr. Shaw] for his relentlessness in being able
to pursue welfare reform and he deserves the lion's share of the
credit, along with the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Archer], who has done
an outstanding job, and although I do not see him on the floor, our
very able staff director, Ron Haskins, who has probably lived with this
bill for about a decade, feeling passionately about the need to reform
welfare.
As my colleagues know, it was pretty amazing today to watch the
President of the United States come on television and say that he was
going, in fact, to sign this welfare bill. The reason why it is so
amazing today is that because the American people, during all of my
adult lifetime, have said that they want a system that will help people
who cannot help themselves, but they want a system that is going to ask
the able-bodied to get out and begin to work themselves. This has been
delayed and put off, with a million excuses as to why we could not get
it done.
I just want to suggest to my friends who are in opposition, and I
respect their opposition; many of them just did not talk; many of them
were not able to talk, as they were beaten in the civil right protests
in this country. I respect their opposition. But the simple fact of the
matter is that this program was losing public support.
Mr. Speaker, the cynicism connected to this program from the folks
who get up and go to work every day for a living, and I do not mean the
most fortunate, I mean those mothers and fathers who have had to
struggle for an entire lifetime to make ends meet, they have never
asked for food stamps, the have never asked for welfare, they have
never asked for housing, and they are struggling. They are counting
their nickels. They do not take the bus transfer because it costs a
little extra money, and they walk instead so they can save some more
money to educate their children. These people were becoming cynical,
they were being poisoned in regard to this system, and they were
demanding change.
Mr. Speaker, we all know here, as we have watched the Congress, the
history of Congress over the decades, that when the American people
speak, we must deliver to them what they want. They said they wanted
the Vietnam war over. It took a decade, but they got it, and public
cynicism and lack of support was rising against this program. It was
necessary to give the people a program they could support.
But I also want to say that the American people have never, if I
could be so bold as to represent a point of view, have never said that
those who cannot help themselves should not be helped. That is Judio-
Christianity, something that we all know has to be rekindled. Our souls
must once again become attached to one another, and the people of this
country and Judeo-Christianity siad it is a sin not to help somebody
who needs help, but it is equally a sin to help somebody who needs to
learn how to help themselves.
But I say to my friends who oppose this bill:
This is about the best of us. This is about having hopes and dreams.
After 40 or 50 years of not trusting one another in our neighborhoods
and having to vacate our power and our authority to the central
government, to the Washington bureaucrats, this is now about reclaiming
our power, it is about reclaiming our money, it is about reclaiming our
authority, it is about rebuilding our community, it is about rebuilding
our families, it is about cementing our neighborhoods, and it is about
believing that all of us can march to that State capitol, that all of
us can go into the community organizations and we can demand
excellence, we can demand compassion, and that we can do it better.
We marched 30, 40 years ago because we thought people were not being
treated fairly, and we march today for the very same reason. What I
would say, and maybe let me take it back and say many of my friends
marched. I was
[[Page H9416]]
too young, but I watched, and I respect it. What I would suggest at the
end of the day, however, is that we all are going to have to stand up
for those who get neglected in reform, but frankly this system is going
to provide far more benefits, far more hope, restore the confidence in
the American people that we have a system that will help those that
cannot help themselves and at the same time demand something from able-
bodied people who can. It will benefit their children, it will help the
children of those who go to work.
America is a winner in this. The President of the United States has
recognized that. He has joined with this Congress, and I think we have
a bipartisan effort here to move America down the road towards
reclaiming our neighborhoods and helping America.
And I would say to my friends, we will be bold enough and humble
enough when we see that mistakes are being made, to be able to come
back and fix them; but let us not let these obstacles stand in the way
of rebuilding this program based on fundamental American values.
Support the conference report.
Mr. BENTSEN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this welfare reform
conference report. This bill is far from perfect, but it does move us
down the road toward reforming the welfare system to help families in
need.
I have long advocated and agree with provisions requiring work and
encouraging self-sufficiency and personal responsibility.
This legislation is an improvement over more extreme earlier bills.
It includes necessary provisions which I and others fought for during
the last 2 years because they are important to working families,
children, and fast-growing states such as Texas. It provides some
transitional health care benefits and child care assistance. It retains
the Federal guarantee of health care and nutritional assistance for
children. It eliminates the Republicans' proposal to raise taxes on
working families by cutting the earned income tax credit. It provide a
safety net, albeit minimal, for high growth states such as Texas,
Florida, and California and for recessions. It lets States give noncash
vouchers to families whose welfare eligibility has expired, so they can
buy essentials for children. None of these provisions were contained in
previous so-called welfare reform.
While I am supporting this legislation, I am troubled by the
elimination of benefits for legal immigrants who have participated in
the workforce and paid taxes. Harris County, TX, which I represent,
currently faces a measles epidemic. Future prohibitions on Medicaid for
such instances would result in the State and county facing tremendous
cost increases. I have no doubt that Congress will be forced to revisit
this issue in part at the behest of States as we may be creating huge
unfunded mandates. Unfortunately, while this bill contains many
positive reforms which I support, it also contains many misguided
provisions for which the only motivation is monetary, not public
policy.
Mrs. FOWLER. Mr. Speaker, the American welfare system was intended to
be a safety net for those who fall on hard times. Unfortunately, it has
become an overgrown bureaucracy which perpetuates dependency and denies
people a real chance to live the American dream.
I am pleased that President Clinton has just announced he would sign
the Republican welfare bill. We knew that when it got this close to the
election, this President would choose the path of political expediency,
as he always does.
This legislation is not about saving money, it is about saving hope
and saving lives, while reforming a broken system and preserving the
safety net.
The bill encourages work and independence, and discourages
illegitimacy. I urge my colleagues to vote for fairness, compassion,
and responsibility. Pass the conference agreement on H.R. 3437.
Mrs. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I strongly support the
Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Act of 1996 (H.R. 3734).
This landmark piece of welfare reform legislation emphasizes
responsibility and compassion. It provides a helping hand and not a
handout. Americans today want a future filled with hope. Parents want
to be able to take care of themselves and their children. They want to
teach their kids how to take responsibility for their lives.
This legislation reverses welfare as we know it. Today, the average
length of stay for families on welfare in 13 years. The cycle of
dependency must stop.
Congress' welfare reform legislation also has tough work
requirements. Families must work within 2 years or lose their benefits.
Work is the beginning of dignity and personal responsibility. Single
mothers who desire to work but cannot leave their children home alone
will be provided with child care assistance. In fact, the Personal
Responsibility and Work Opportunity Act provides $14 billion in
guaranteed child care funding.
Two parent families are encouraged through this plan. It takes two
people to make a baby. Strong paternity requirements and tough child
support measures ensure that deadbeat parents will take responsibility
for their actions.
This welfare reform package is estimated to save the American
taxpayers $56.2 billion over the next 6 years. It is a balanced
approach that gives the States more autonomy and flexibility in
crafting solutions. The Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity
Act promotes work while also guaranteeing families adequate child care,
medical care, and food assistance. It is compassionate while promoting
the dignity of Americans through an honest day's work. I urge my
colleagues to support this bill.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak out
against a great injustice, an injustice that is being committed against
our Nation's children, defenseless, nonvoting, children, I am referring
of course to the conference agreement on H.R. 3734, the Personal
Responsibility and Work Opportunity Act.
We speak so often in this House about family values and protecting
children. At the same time however, my colleagues on the other side of
the aisle, have presented a welfare reform bill that will effectively
eliminate the Federal guarantee of assistance for poor children in this
country for the first time in 60 years and will push millions more
children into poverty.
A recent study by the Urban Institute estimated that the welfare
legislation passed by the House would increase the number of children
in poverty by 1.1 million, or 12 percent. The analysis estimated that
families on welfare would lose, on average, about $1,000 a year once
the bill is fully implemented. More than a fifth of American families
with children would be affected by the legislation.
This partisan legislation is antifamily and antichild. The Republican
bill continues to be weak on work and hard on families. Without
adequate funding for education, training, child care and employment,
most of our Nation's poor will be unable to avoid or escape the welfare
trap. Even before the adoption of amendments increasing work in
committee, the Congressional Budget Office [CBO] estimated that the
Republican proposal is some $9 billion short of what would be needed in
fiscal years 1999 through 2002 to provide adequate money for the States
to carry out the work program.
Furthermore, the increase in the minimum work hours requirement,
without a commemsurate increase in child care funding, will make it
almost impossible for States to provide child care for families making
the transition from welfare to work. True welfare reform can never be
achieved and welfare dependency will never be broken, unless we provide
adequate education, training, child care, and jobs that pay a living
wage.
I am particularly concerned that, like the House bill, the conference
agreement prohibits using cash welfare block grant funds to provide
vouchers for children in families who have been cut off from benefits
because of the 5-year limit. We must not abandon the children of
families whose benefits are cut off. We must continue to ensure that
they will be provided for and not punished for the actions of their
parents.
Many more children will be hurt by the bill's denial of benefits to
legal immigrants. Low-income legal immigrants would be denied aid
provided under major programs such as SSI and food stamps. States would
also have the option of denying Medicaid to legal immigrants. They
would also be denied assistance under smaller programs such as meals-
on-wheels to the homebound elderly and prenatal care for pregnant
women. Under this bill, nearly half a million current elderly and
disabled beneficiaries who are legal immigrants would be terminated
from the SSI Program. Similarly, the Congressional Budget Office
estimated that under the House bill, which is similar to the conference
agreement, approximately 140,000 low-income legal immigrant children
who would be eligible for Medicaid under current law would be denied it
under this legislation. Most of these children are likely to have no
other health insurance. I cannot believe we would pass legislation that
would result in even one more child being denied health care that could
prevent disease and illness.
This bill also changes the guideline under which nonimmigrant
children qualify for benefits under the SSI Program.
As a result, the CBO estimates that by 2002, some 315,000 low-income
disabled children who would qualify for benefits under current law
would be denied SSI. This represents 22 percent of the children that
would qualify under current law. The bill would reduce the total
benefits the program provides to disabled children by more than $7
billion over 6 years.
Mr. Speaker, mandatory welfare-to-work programs can get parent off
welfare and into jobs, but only if the program is well designed
[[Page H9417]]
and is given the resources to be successful. The GOP bill is punitive
and wrongheaded. It will not put people to work, it will put them on
the street. Any restructuring of the welfare system must move people
away from dependency toward self-sufficiency. Facilitating the
transition off welfare requires job training, guaranteed child care,
and health insurance at an affordable price.
We cannot expect to reduce our welfare rolls if we do not provide the
women of this Nation the opportunity to better themselves and their
families through job training and education, if we do not provide them
with good quality child care and, most importantly, if we do not
provide them with a job.
Together, welfare programs make up the safety net that poor children
and their families rely on in times of need. We must not allow the
safety net to be shredded. We must keep our promises to the children of
this Nation. We must ensure that in times of need they receive the
health care, food, and general services they need to survive. I urge my
colleagues to oppose this dangerous legislation and to live up to our
moral responsibility to help the poor help themselves.
Mr. BLILEY. Mr. Speaker, it is with pleasure that I take this
opportunity to address the welfare reform conference report before us
today. This measure will do exactly what its name promises: promote
personal responsibility and work opportunity for disadvantaged
Americans. More important, it will replace the despair of welfare
dependency with the pride of independence.
This measure is critical to welfare reform initiatives taking place
in the States. In my State, the Virginia Independence Program has
already helped two-thirds of all eligible welfare recipients find
meaningful jobs and restore hope to their lives.
This legislation will enable Virginia to continue its highly
successful statewide reform program. And it will allow other States to
create similar initiatives--without having to waste time and money
seeking a waiver from the Federal Government.
I am also proud of the role that the Commerce Committee has played in
crafting this landmark initiative. Although the Medicaid reform plan
designed by the Nation's Republican and Democrat Governors is not a
part of this legislation, the conference report does include important
Medicaid provisions.
In particular, the conference report guarantees continued coverage
for all those who are eligible under the current AFDC Program. It also
ensures that eligible children will not lose the health coverage they
need. And it requires adult recipients to comply with work requirements
in order to remain eligible for Medicaid benefits.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to close by congratulating all those who
helped to shape this historic measure. It deserves our full support,
and it should be signed by the President.
Mr. COSTELLO. Mr. Speaker, today this body will take a large step in
making sweeping reform in our welfare system. By passing the welfare
reform agreement, we move toward a system that emphasizes work and
independence--a new system that represents real change and expanded
opportunity. Although this bill is not perfect, it is our best chance
in years to enact welfare reform that represents an opportunity to
improve the current system.
Sadly, our current system hurts the very people it is designed to
protect by perpetuating a cycle of dependency. For those stuck on
welfare, the system is not working. It is clear that we cannot and
should not continue with the status quo. The status quo has fostered an
entire culture of poverty. Our current system does little to help poor
individuals move from welfare to work.
It is clear the best antipoverty program is a job. To that end, this
bill encourages work. It requires welfare recipients to work after 2
years and imposes a 5-year lifetime limit on welfare benefits. The bill
turns Aid to Families with Dependent Children [AFDC] into a block grant
program, allowing States to create their own unique welfare programs to
best serve their residents. The bill maintains health care benefits for
those currently receiving Medicaid because of their AFDC eligibility
and provides $14 billion for child care so parents can go to work
without worrying about the health and safety of their children. In
addition, this bill preserves the earned income tax credit which has
been successful in helping working families.
Mr. Speaker, I voted against the Republican welfare reform bill when
it was before this House. That bill represented a drastic departure
from the actual intent of welfare--to help the most vulnerable in our
society in their time of need. The House bill eliminated the safety net
of Medicaid and food stamps for many children. It was mean in spirit
and should not have passed. The conference agreement that is before us
today, however, is much more reasonable. Children will have the
guarantee of health care coverage through Medicaid even as their
parents transition to work. Further, unlike the House bill, States will
not be able to opt out of the Federal Food Stamp Program. The
conference agreement is a far better bill than the measure passed by
the House. It is a bold, yet compassionate step in helping foster
independence.
I am pleased the President has indicated he will sign this bill into
law. I applaud the President--who has worked on this issue for years,
even before it was politically fashionable--for continuing to insist
that the bill be improved before signing it into law. While the
President and I agree that this bill is by no means perfect, it is a
good starting point. We can begin the process of moving toward a system
that encourages and rewards work for all able-bodied citizens.
Mr. TORRES. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this antifamily,
antichildren bill. There are so many parts of this bill that should
concern us. I could stand here all day and describe, in detail, how
this bill falls short of our shared goal of welfare reform.
For example, consider the effects on our Nation's most unfortunate
children. I say unfortunate because these children are being sacrificed
by election year politics simply because they came from poor families.
Their already difficult lives will be made impossible due to food stamp
reductions, loss of SSI assistance, and no guarantee of Federal
assistance when time runs out for them and their families. The effect
will be to drown an additional 1.1 million children in poverty.
Like I said, I could go on and on. But, I won't waste your time
discussing what we all know: that block grants aren't responsive to a
changing economy and inadequate child-care provisions make welfare-to-
work a very difficult journey.
I will tell you what this so-called reform will mean to California,
and how my State is being asked to absorb 40 percent of the proposed
cuts. Why? Because California is home to the largest immigrant
population in our country and this bill denies legal immigrants Federal
assistance. It does not take much to do the math and understand the
consequences of denying food stamps, supplemental security income, or
Medicaid to our legal immigrant population. There are no exceptions for
children or the elderly, regardless of the situation.
The needs of these taxpaying, legal residents will not vanish because
the Federal Government looks the other way. The children will still be
hungry, the elderly will still get sick, and the disabled will still
have special needs. Someone will have to provide these services, and it
will be our cities and counties who are forced to pick up the tab. And
for California, the bill will be approximately $9 billion over 7 years.
My district of Los Angeles County is home to some 3 million foreign-
born residents. County officials estimate that denying SSI to legal
immigrants could cost the county as much as $236 million per year in
general relief assistance. More importantly, this translates into no
Federal assistance for the elderly or disabled children.
These costs would continue to rise with the loss of Medicaid coverage
for legal immigrants. More than 830,000 legal immigrants in California
would lose Medicaid coverage, including 286,000 children. Overall, the
total number of uninsured persons in California would rise from 6.6
million to 7.4 million. Under this bill, these people would turn to
county hospitals for care. And the costs of that care will be shifted
to local governments already operating on shoe string budgets. In Los
Angeles County, this could mean as much as $240 million per year.
To say this is unfair is an understatement. Legal residents, who play
by the rules and contribute over $90 billion a year in taxes, do not
deserve this. They deserve what they earn; to be treated with the same
care and provided with the same services enjoyed by the rest of the
tax-paying community.
I encourage my colleagues to oppose these short-sighted cuts and
unfair rule changes: Say no to a bad deal and vote against this report.
Mr. ORTON. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in support of this
welfare reform bill. I commend this Congress for creating a flexible
reform bill that will allow Utah and other innovative States to
continue their successful welfare reform efforts.
My greatest concerns during the course of the welfare reform debate
have been to transform the system to a work-based system, to ensure
that States like Utah have the flexibility to continue their successful
reform efforts, and to protect innocent children. I have worked
diligently with colleagues on both sides of the aisle to craft a bill
that accomplishes these goals, and I am pleased to say that Congress
has finally passed a bill that achieves them.
I am extremely pleased that this bill contains a provision that
allows Utah to continue its successful welfare reform efforts. Under
the bill that passed the House 2 weeks ago, Utah would have had to
change its program to meet the restrictive Federal requirements
contained in the bill. Moreover, CBO estimated that the earlier bill
imposed $13 billion in unfunded costs on States unless they restricted
eligibility or decreased assistance to those in need.
[[Page H9418]]
Both the National Governors' Association and the State of Utah
expressed concerns about these unfunded costs. I worked with members of
the conference committee to address these concerns, and now we have a
bill that really is flexible.
The bill that passed the House today contained several of the
provisions proposed by myself and others who have worked over recent
months to find bipartisan common ground on welfare reform. For
instance, this conference report is much more flexible than the earlier
House bill because it allows States with waivers to use their own
participation definition in meeting Federal work participation
requirements. It also reduces the unfunded costs in the bill
substantially. Unlike the House version, the conference report
maintains current protections against child abuse, guarantees that
children do not lose their Medicaid health care coverage as a result of
the bill, and provides States with the option to provide noncash
assistance to children whose parents have reached the time limit.
Finally, it improves upon maintenance of effort provisions and
enforcement of work participation rates.
It wasn't long ago that we were debating H.R. 4, an extreme proposal
that would have eliminated 23 child protection programs like foster
care and child abuse protection and replaced them with a block grant
that contained $2.7 billion less funding than provided under current
law. H.R. 4 would have eliminated nutrition programs like school lunch,
school breakfast, the Summer Food and Adult Care Food Program, the
Women, Infants and Children Program, and the Homeless Children
Nutrition Program, and replaced them with two block grants that
provided $6.6 billion less funding for nutrition than provided under
current law. Although claims were made that there were no cuts to
certain popular programs like school lunch, the truth was a State would
have to eliminate or severely reduce all other programs in order to
fully fund these high profile programs.
Even in the House version of welfare reform passed 2 weeks ago,
children could have lost their Medicaid coverage as the result of the
bill; current child abuse protections were eliminated and States were
prohibited from providing noncash assistance to children whose parents
have reached the time limit. I am pleased that the conference report
has corrected these provisions and protected children.
Previous bills, which I opposed, treated 4-year-old children like 40-
year-old deadbeats. This bill is far better for children and far more
flexible for States than any of the other welfare reform proposals that
have been passed by this Congress. We finally have a bill that should
be signed into law.
Mr. TANNER. Mr. Speaker, there is virtually universal agreement that
our current welfare system is broken and must be dramatically
overhauled. Americans are a compassionate people, eager to lend a
helping hand to hard workers experiencing temporary difficulties and
especially to children who are victims of circumstances beyond their
control. But Americans also are a just people, expecting everyone to
contribute as they are able and to take responsibility for themselves
and their families. It is the balancing of these two concerns that
makes correcting our welfare system a challenge, but a challenge which
must be met.
This welfare reform conference report is far from perfect, but it
clearly is preferable to continuing the current system and preferable
to welfare legislation considered earlier this Congress. For these
reasons, we support the welfare reform conference report and have
encouraged the President to sign it.
We have opposed previous welfare reform proposals because we believed
that they offered empty, unsustainable promises of moving welfare
recipients to work. Additionally, earlier bills were seriously
deficient in their protections for children and other truly vulnerable
populations. We have decided to support this final conference report
because it is considerably better than the welfare reform bill (H.R. 4)
appropriately vetoed by the President last year and it also makes
significant improvements to the bill passed by the House last week. The
conference committee agreed with our proposals giving States additional
flexibility in moving welfare recipients to work, allowing States to
use block grant funds to provide vouchers, and providing other
protections for children.
This conference report incorporates several improvements proposed by
the National Governors' Association to H.R. 4 in its final form. it
provides $4 billion more funding for child care that will assist
parents transitioning to work. It doubles the contingency fund for
States facing larger welfare rolls caused by economic downturns. The
latest bill returns to a guaranteed status children eligible for school
lunch and child abuse prevention programs. The reductions in benefits
for disabled children contained in last year's H.R. 4 are eliminated,
and greater allowances are made for hardship cases, increasing the
hardship exemption from the benefit time limits to 20 percent of a
State's caseload.
Several changes proposed in the Castle-Tanner alternative were
subsequently made to the bill passed by the House in July. The amount
States must spend on child care was increased. Additionally, States
will be required to assess the needs of welfare applicants and prepare
an individual responsibility contract outlining a plan to move to work.
Also, an increase in the State maintenance of effort for States that
fail to meet the participation rates was added to the bill. All of
these changes strengthen the effort of moving welfare recipients to
work.
The conference report further improved the bill. The conferees
adopted our suggestions providing additional State flexibility in
developing work programs and adding additional protections for
children. We were disappointed that the conference did not incorporate
constructive suggestions that were made regarding penalties for failure
to meet work requirements and, unfortunately, an authorization for
additional work funds was eliminated because of parliamentary ``Byrd
rule'' considerations in the Senate. On balance, however, the
conference report produced a bill that is significantly better than the
bill passed by the House.
President Clinton already has approved waivers allowing 41 States to
implement innovative programs to move welfare recipients to work. The
House's Welfare Reform bill would have restricted those State reform
initiatives by imposing work mandates that are less flexible than
States are implementing. Over 20 States would have been required
to change their work programs to meet the mandates in that earlier
House bill or face substantial penalties from the Federal Government.
The conference report now allows States that are implementing welfare
waivers to go forward with those efforts. Specifically, the conference
report allows those States to count individuals who are participating
in State-authorized work programs in meeting the work participation
rates in the bill, even work programs which otherwise do not meet the
Federal mandates in the bill.
States such as Tennessee and Texas that have just received waivers
will be permitted to begin implementing these reforms and States like
Utah and Michigan which have a track record in moving welfare
recipients into self-sufficiency will be able to continue their
programs. We will work to ensure that States will continue to have this
flexibility when their waivers expire if the State plan is successful.
Another key goal we have maintained throughout the debate is
protecting innocent children. The earlier House bill would have treated
a 4-year-old child the same as a 24-year-old deadbeat by prohibiting
States from using block grant funds to provide vouchers after the time
limit for benefits to the parents had expired. The conference report
reverses this extreme position. In addition, the conference report
moderates the impact of the food stamp cuts on children by maintaing a
guaranteed status for children and by increasing the housing deduction
to $300 a month for families with children.
Third, we have been concerned about the impact of health coverage to
individuals and payments to health providers as a result of welfare
reform. The House bill effectively would have denied Medicaid to
thousands of individuals, removing $9 billion of Medicaid assistance
from the health care system and resulting in a cost shift to health
care providers that would affect the cost, availability, and quality of
care of to everyone. While the correction is less than we had hoped,
the conference report effectively reduces this cost shift to health
care providers by more than half. The conference report also contains
language very similar to the Castle-Tanner bill continuing current
Medicaid eligibility rules for AFDC-related populations, ensuring that
no one loses health care coverage as a result of welfare reform.
As we began by saying, this conference report is far from perfect and
we continue to have concerns about the impact of several provisions.
Although the report provides States with additional flexibility in
implementing work programs, the work provisions in the bill still may
impose unfunded mandates on States that will make it more difficult to
move welfare recipients to work. Given the unfunded mandates in the
bill, the provisions penalizing States for failing to meet
participation rates by reducing funding to the State are
counterproductive. The contingency fund in the conference report, while
much stronger than the contingency fund in H.R. 4, will not be
sufficient to respond to a severe national or regional recession.
The conference report contains a requirement that Congress review the
impact of the bill 3 years. This review process will allow Congress to
make a number of changes that we feel certain will be necessary to
fulfill successful welfare reform.
Despite these reservations, we believe that it is critical that
welfare reform be enacted this year. Failure to do so will signal yet
another wasted opportunity to make critically needed
[[Page H9419]]
reforms. We should enact this conference report and fix the current
system now, moving toward a system that better promotes work and
individual responsibility.
Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Speaker, as I was reading the papers this morning I
noticed some stories that claimed that this welfare reform proposal is
not such a big change--that its significance has been overrated. That
all sides are coming to a consensus and it's not such a big deal after
all.
In the short term, that's how it may look. But in the long term, we
are making a fundamental change to the status quo--we've gone beyond
questioning the failed policies of the past--we are implementing a
whole new approach. We are beginning to replace the welfare state with
an opportunity society.
Ideas have consequences and bad ideas have bad consequences. The
Great Society approach may have been well-intentioned, but the impact
was tragic. We have done a disservice to those who have fallen into the
welfare trap. The incentives have been all wrong and the logic
backward.
We need a welfare system that saves families, rather than breaking
them. And that's what this bill does.
Our welfare system has deprived people of hope, diminished
opportunity and destroyed lives. Go into our inner cities and you will
find a generation fed on food stamps but starved of nurturing and hope.
You'll meet young teens in their third pregnancy. You'll meet
fatherless children. You'll talk to sixth graders who don't know how
many inches are in a foot. And you'll talk to first-graders who don't
know their ABC's.
It's time for Washington to learn from its past mistakes. It's time
to reform our welfare system, to encourage families to stay together
and to put recipients back to work.
That's what our plan does. Four years ago, President Clinton promised
to end welfare as we know it, and I am pleased that he has committed to
sign our bill into law.
Our plan calls for sweeping child support enforcement. We end welfare
for those who won't cooperate on child support. We strengthen
provisions to establish paternity. We force young men to realize they
will be required to provide financial support for their children by
requiring States to establish an automated State registry to track
child support information.
One of the key elements of our welfare reform bill is ending
fraudulent welfare payments to prisoners and illegal immigrants--saving
$22 billion.
Each year, millions of taxpayer dollars are illegally sent to
prisoners in State and local jails through the Supplemental Security
Income Program. In fact, in one case, infamous ``Freeway Killer''
William Bonin illegally collected SSI benefits for 14 years while on
San Quentin's death row.
This bill removes the Washington-based intermeddling and bureaucratic
micromanagement that has resulted in welfare programs that build a
welfare population but do not relieve the suffering of those who are
poor. We do not want to maintain the poor, we want to transform them.
That's exactly what this bill would do.
Mr. SABO. Mr. Speaker, today we will debate legislation to radically
change our welfare system. We will hear a lot about the fundamental
principles that should govern the way we help those truly in need. And
while I agree with those who say our welfare system must work better
for the American people, we need to remember that something much more
profound than rhetoric is at stake.
There is no denying that we should encourage work and parental
responsibility. And I have long argued that States and localities can
deliver some services better than we can at the Federal level. But,
there are also other principles that we need to remember when we
discuss welfare.
We need to remember that the safety net for vulnerable people is
fundamentally important to our society. There has long been wide-spread
support among Americans of all political views that the Government
should help people who are too sick, too old or too young to help
themselves--particularly when they don't have families who can take
care of them. This is why the safety net was developed in the first
place and has had the continued support of Republicans such as Richard
Nixon and Ronald Reagan as well as Democrats.
I congratulate the Republican majority for its attempts to reform
welfare, but I believe this legislation fails in many ways. Simply
labeling this bill welfare reform cannot disguise the fact that it
shreds the national safety net for millions of vulnerable people.
The Urban Institute has estimated that 1.1 million children will be
pushed into poverty because of this legislation. More than a fifth of
American families with children will be hurt by it. They also note that
almost half of the families affected by this bill are already employed.
The provision to cut off food stamps after 3 months for unemployed
people without dependents is unprecedented and unnecessarily harsh.
These are some of the most vulnerable people in our country. Under this
measure, even if they are trying to find work, if they don't succeed
they will go hungry.
And, personally, I find the treatment of legal immigrants mystifying.
My parents were immigrants. They, like many others, came to this
country, worked hard, and contributed to their community. Today's
immigrants are no different. They come to this country, they work hard,
and they pay taxes. If they should fall upon hard times, why shouldn't
we help them just like we help each other? Under the terms of this bill
we aren't allowed to help them. They lose food stamps and SSI even if
they have been paying taxes and living legally in this country for
years. And new immigrants will be denied Medicaid.
Equally as disturbing as this bill's reduction in its Federal
commitment to a national safety net is the pressure it puts on States
to reduce their commitments to help vulnerable people. The reduction in
State match set by the bill and the flexibility to shift 30 percent of
basic block grant moneys to other uses will exacerbate pressures within
State governments to pull their own resources out of these programs.
That combined with the cuts in Federal dollars will lead to a sharp
reduction in resources available for needed services and benefits.
The logical end result of all these interactions is significant cost-
shifting to local governments. Because of the deep cut in Federal
resources and potential reductions in State support, localities will
need to spend more of their own funds to help move people from welfare
to work and to provide needed services while that process is occurring.
Many local officials including the Republican mayor of New York,
Rudolph Giuliani, have expressed alarm at the hundreds of millions of
dollars in additional costs their cities and residents will have to
bear. Clearly, this will mean higher property taxes for working
families all over the country.
We should reform our welfare system. But we must do it in a way that
does not simply shift costs and that does not abandon the safety net
for people who are truly in need. Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, this bill
badly fails that test and America will be the worse for it. We can and
should do better.
Mr. CLAY. Mr. Speaker, I condemn both the process and the substance
of the Republican conference agreement on welfare. As the 104th
Congress draws to a close, the Republican majority has not wavered from
its autocratic role of this institution nor from its vicious
indifference to our Nation's poor and infirm.
Like my other Democratic colleagues, I was systematically denied any
meaningful role on that conference. The time and location of conference
negotiations have been a closely-held secret among Republicans. This
most antidemocratic process is an affront to the people of the 1st
Congressional District of Missouri who send me here to represent their
concerns on all matters of political discourse. Time and time again,
this new Republican majority has interfered with my ability to fully
represent the interests of my constituents.
As a matter of policy and substance, this conference report is an
evil charade. From the outset, I had little expectation that the final
product of the conference would mean reasonable, viable, and
compassionate welfare reform. After all, both the House and Senate bill
contained unrealistic work requirements, woeful funding for meaningful
workfare, and the very real risk of throwing millions of children into
poverty.
The Republican majority has no real interest in truly reforming
welfare. Then real objective is to steal $60 billion from antipoverty
and antihunger programs in order to help finance their tax cuts and
other gifts to the wealthy--Robin Hood in reverse. I can think of no
more desperate, shameful act than to use the poor, especially children
and the elderly, in a game of political chicken.
Mr. Speaker, I cannot in good conscience support a welfare reform
bill that will punish those who, through no fault of their own, must
turn to their Government for help in times of need.
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, I proudly rise to support the conference
report for H.R. 3734, the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity
Act.
As chairman of the House Subcommittee on Early Childhood, Youth and
Families, as a former teacher and coach, and as a dad, I understand the
need to take into account the needs and interests of children. I cannot
imagine a policy that is crueler to children than the current welfare
system. Certainly it was born of the good intention to help the poor.
But in the name of compassion, we have unleashed an unmitigated
disaster upon America. Today's welfare system rewards and encourages
the destruction of families, and childbirth out of wedlock. It
penalizes work and learning. It poisons our communities and our country
with generation after generation of welfare dependency. It robs human
beings of hope and life and any opportunities at the American Dream.
In the name of compassion, and with good intentions, the welfare
status quo is mean and
[[Page H9420]]
extreme to children. It is mean and extreme to families. It is mean and
extreme to the hard-working Americans who foot the bill.
Thus, without a doubt, we must replace this mean, extreme, and failed
system of welfare dependency with work, hope, and opportunity. We can
and must do better as Americans. And we will, by adopting this
compassionate, historic legislation.
Our measure makes welfare a way up, not a way of life. It replaces
Washington-knows-best with local control and responsibility. It
replaces a system that rewards illegitimacy and destroys families, with
a family-friendly fighting chance at the American Dream.
Now, President Clinton promised in his 1992 campaign to end welfare
as we know it. He also made several other promises, including starting
his administration with middle class tax relief. Unfortunately, the
President has not kept his promises. He raised taxes. And twice, he has
vetoed legislation to fulfill his own promise to end welfare. The
President who pledged to end welfare as we know it has twice vetoed
legislation to end welfare for illegal aliens.
Let me speak for a moment about illegal aliens. Illegal immigration
is breaking our treasury, burdening California, and trying America's
patience. It is wrong for our welfare system to provide lavish benefits
for persons in America in violation of our laws.
I am proud that the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Act
ends welfare for illegal aliens. It ends eligibility for Government
programs for illegal aliens. It ends the taxpayer-funded red carpet for
illegal aliens. Our plan is to send a clear message to those who jump
our borders, violate our laws, and reside in America illegally: Go
home. Stop freeloading off of hard-working American taxpayers.
Let me address the matter of legal immigrants. America is a beacon of
hope and opportunity for the world. That is why we continue to have the
most generous system of legal immigration that history has ever known.
It is in America's interest to invite those who want to work for a
better life, and have a fighting chance at the American Dream. But we
will not support those who come to America to be dependent upon our
social safety net. Thus, our legislation places priority on helping
American citizens first, and represents the values held by Americans.
For we are determined to liberate families from welfare dependency
and get them work and a chance at the American Dream. We understand
that for many single parents, child care can make the difference
between being able to work or not. That's why or bill provides more and
better child care, with less bureaucracy and redtape, and more choices
and resources for parents striving for a better life.
Here are the facts: This conference report provides $22 billion for
child care over 7 years. That amounts to $4.5 billion over current law,
and $1.7 billion more than President Clinton's plan recommends. And we
dramatically increase resources for child care quality improvement. By
investing in quality child care, we provide more families the
opportunity to be free from welfare dependency and to strive for the
American Dream.
In the end, this bill is what is about the best of America. We are a
compassionate people, united by common ideals of freedom and
opportunity. The great glory of this land of opportunity is the
American Dream. Families trapped by welfare, and especially their
children, have had this dream deferred. We can do better. And we do,
through this legislation, because this is America. I urge the adoption
of the conference report on H.R. 3734.
Mr. BILIRAKIS. Mr. Speaker, I would like to join in supporting the
Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of
1996. As representatives of the people, we do not get as many
opportunities as we would like to do something that will truly help
improve the lives of the people we serve.
This bill presents us with just such an opportunity.
The landmark welfare reform plan before us today will bring
education, training, and jobs to low-income Americans. It will replace
welfare dependence with economic self-reliance. And it will create more
hopeful futures for the children of participants.
This conference report is more than just a prescription for much-
needed welfare reform. It is what I hope will be the first step in our
bipartisan efforts to improve the public assistance programs on which
disadvantaged families depend.
Last February, the Nation's Republican and Democrat Governors
unanimously endorsed welfare and Medicaid reform plans. And although
the conference report before us today will give States the tools they
need to improve their public assistance programs, our work is not done.
After all, welfare as we know it means more than AFDC. It includes
food stamps, housing assistance, and energy assistance. And it includes
medical assistance.
That's right--for millions of Americans, Medicaid is welfare. That is
because income assistance alone is not sufficient to meet the pressing
needs of disadvantaged families.
For States, too, Medicaid is welfare. In fact, it makes up the
largest share of State public assistance funding. As a share of State
budgets, Medicaid is four times larger than AFDC.
If President Clinton does the right thing and signs this welfare
reform bill into law, Medicaid will still be caught up in the choking
bureaucratic redtape of Federal control. That is why the Medicaid
program must be restructured if States are to fully succeed in making
public assistance programs more responsive and effective.
I commend my colleagues on both sides of the aisle for their
commitment to true welfare reform. And I look forward to continuing our
efforts to making all sources of public assistance work better for
those who need a helping hand up.
Thank you.
Mr. REED. Mr. Speaker, today's vote is about change. Today we begin
the move from a status quo that no one approves of to a reformed and
improved welfare system. Our current welfare system traps too many
families in a cycle of dependency and does little to encourage or help
such individuals find employment. Both welfare recipients and taxpayers
lose if the status quo is maintained.
I have repeatedly stated that meaningful welfare reform should move
recipients to work and protect children. Just 2 weeks ago, I supported
a bipartisan welfare plan, authored by Republican Representative
Michael Castle and Democratic Representative John Tanner, which I
believe met these goals.
The conference agreement on H.R. 3734 is not perfect, but it is a
good first step into an era of necessary welfare reform. This
legislation contains many useful and necessary improvements over the
previous welfare proposals put forth by the Republican majority. In
fact, this legislation has moved several steps closer to the Castle-
Tanner bill.
The agreement ensures that low-income mothers and children retain
their Medicaid eligibility; provides increased child care funding;
removes the optional food stamp block grant; removes the adoption and
foster care block grant; and allows States to use a portion of their
Federal funding to provide assistance to children whose families have
been cut off welfare because of the 5-year time limit.
While this legislation attempts to protect children from the
shortcomings and failures of their parents, it does not fulfill all of
my goals for welfare reform. I am concerned that H.R. 3734 fails to
provide adequate Federal resources for States to implement work
programs, nor does it contain adequate resources for States and
individuals in the event of a severe recession.
In addition, the legislation makes cuts in food stamps for unemployed
individuals willing to work and contains legal immigrant provisions
that will deny access by legal immigrant children to SSI, food stamps,
and other benefits. These concerns should be rectified by this and
subsequent Congresses. I am committed to realizing this goal, and
therefore, I am pleased that the President plans to propose legislation
to repeal many of these provisions.
Furthermore, several States are currently working on plans to reform
their welfare reform systems. We must ensure that these efforts are
accommodated by this legislation.
This is the first Republican proposal which adequately acknowledges
the need to protect children, while emphasizing work. Rhode Island,
through the work of a coalition of State officials, business leaders,
and advocacy groups, has crafted a welfare reform plan that also
accomplishes these goals. Should H.R. 3734 prove detrimental to Rhode
Island or the children of Rhode Island, I will work to make necessary
changes to further strengthen the Nation's welfare reform efforts.
Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this
conference report. Despite the slanderous accusations by the advocates
of the current welfare state, our welfare reform plan is compassionate
and humane, two adjectives rarely used to describe the current welfare
program.
Our welfare reform plan ends welfare as a way of life and gives back
welfare recipients their self-worth. By replacing welfare with work,
current recipients will realize that they have talents in which to make
a productive and self-reliant life. They are so used to the government
providing for them that they never believed they could provide for
themselves and their families.
We know this transition isn't going to be easy; nothing worth having
is easy. That is why our welfare reform plan continues government
assistance as long as they are making a good-faith effort to be a
productive member of society.
We separate from bona fide eligible welfare candidates those who have
been convicted of a felony or those that refuse to become citizens. For
too long, those that have been trying to make their own way but are
suppressed by the big thumb of government have been represented by
those welfare recipients that
[[Page H9421]]
make the headlines. By denying convicted felons and noncitizens
taxpayer-funded assistance we take away the scourge previously
associated with all welfare benefits. We create a new benevolent
program and therefore a positive and refreshing atmosphere for its
recipients.
Along with increased sense of self-worth that necessarily comes with
a pay check that isn't a donation comes a greater sense of personal
responsibility. Our reform promotes self-responsibility in an attempt
to half rising illegitimacy rates. Once we diminish illegitimacy we can
truly end the cycle of dependency created by our current welfare state.
As a condition for benefit eligibility, a mother must identify the
father. This will ensure that single parents get the support they need
and remind fathers that their children is their responsibility, not the
State's.
Our welfare reform plan gives power and flexibility back to the
States. I think this is the provision that gives the proponents of the
current welfare state the most heartburn. The block grants give the
power and flexibility once enjoyed by big government advocates to our
Nation's Governors and State legislatures. Non longer will Washington
power brokers be able to dictate who gets and how much they get.
Rather, those who know the solutions for their unique challenges won't
have to wait for bureaucratic approval to put their programs in action.
Mr. Speaker, not only is this reform plan historic, it is futuristic.
This plan ends welfare as we know it and helps us see a society which
encourages all of its members to be productive and self-reliant.
Mr. FRANKS of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, this welfare reform
conference bill brings us one step closer to fixing a welfare system
that has been broken and in need of major repairs. We have had a
welfare system that has caused generations of American citizens to live
in poverty and become consumed by a condition of hopelessness and
despair. We have had a welfare system that has created dependency upon
a monthly stipend instead of employment as a viable solution to
overcome poverty.
I strongly believe in the American dream where each individual is
given the opportunity to work, provide for their family, and
participate in our society. The current welfare system has taken that
dream away from too many Americans.
The conference committee bill represents the change that will place
the welfare program back into the hands of the States so that States
can implement programs that best fit the needs of their welfare
constituents. The bill will reinforce the American principle in which
parents are responsible for the well-being of their children. Welfare
recipients will be required to identify the absent father, and all
able-bodied parents will be expected to work to provide for the needs
of their children. The bill strengthens child support enforcement so
that absent fathers will be located and required to pay child support.
The conference committee bill encourages States to implement the
debit card for disbursement of welfare funds and food stamps. No longer
will welfare recipients be able to use welfare funds to purchase
illegal drugs. The bill will bring greater accountability in the
spending of American taxpayer's money.
This conference committee bill will lead to greater self-sufficiency.
The bill will give families who have had to live in poverty a new
chance for a better life and an opportunity to participate in the
American dream.
I urge support for the conference committee bill.
Mrs. COLLINS of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I have heard of a rush to
anger and a rush to judgment. What we have here is a rush to the floor.
We're told an agreement on a conference committee report to H.R. 3734
was made near midnight last night. I haven't seen the conference report
and don't know what's in the conference agreement. I read what's in the
National Journal's Congress Daily/A.M. edition and the Congressional
Quarterly's House Action Reports ``Conference Summary.'' The
Congressional Quarterly Action Report includes the disclaimer that they
haven't seen the conference agreement report either, but prepared a
morning briefing anyway, using information provided by committee staff.
Well, excuse me.
I don't consider it appropriate to rely only on some nebulous
statement written by someone who hasn't read the report before casting
my vote on behalf of my constituents. I want to have a copy of the
legislation available and that's why we have the rule that we don't
vote on a conference agreement the same day it is reported.
In my 23 years in the Congress, I have been accustomed to reading and
studying legislation before I cast my vote on behalf of the Seventh
District of Illinois, a responsibility I take very seriously. The House
has rules governing debate, rules designed to keep us from rushing to
judgment. Those rules dictate that we don't vote on conference reports
the same day they are filed so that we have time to study the
provisions. That's why there is a two-thirds majority vote requirement
to overturn that rule.
So why are we being asked to waive the time requirement and go
immediately to a vote on this conference report? We are told we will
have 1 hour of debate on the rule that will give us 1 hour of debate to
consider a special rule to waive the two-thirds vote requirement. Why?
Because once again the Gingrich Republicans are trying to force
legislation through the process without adhering to the safeguards
established to protect the American people and the legislative process.
I object to this rule and urge my colleagues to defeat this rule so
that America has a chance to look at what we are being asked to approve
as new changes, major revisions really, in the provisions and control
of public assistance programs that provide a safety net for the needy
and vulnerable among us. I owe it to my constituents to study
legislation and weigh the measure before casting my vote for them.
Let's get back to reasoned debate, let's follow the rules, just like we
are going to ask the recipients of the benefits provided or denied
under this bill to follow. Let's stop changing the rules as it suits
the desires of the Gingrich Republicans. I urge my colleagues to defeat
this motion to change the rules. I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, there is perhaps no more urgent issue in
America today than ending welfare dependency.
In place of a welfare program built around welfare checks, we need a
program built around helping people get paychecks. We need to move
people toward work and independence. And we need to be tough on work
and protective of children.
When the work on welfare reform started last year, the Republican
proposals were weak on work, tough on kids, and the President was right
to veto them.
Unfortunately, the bill before us today, while a significant
improvement on the earlier versions, still falls short in both regards.
On work, the bill is, in fact, too weak, for it underfunds employment
assistance by $13 billion. According to the Congressional Budget
Office, a $13 billion shortfall is a guarantee that no State can meet
the employment requirements in this bill. So we have missed an
opportunity to make these poor families self-supporting.
On children, the bill is, in fact, too weak in its child care
provisions; it is too harsh in the manner children are punished for the
failures of their parents; and it is far too extreme in its potential
to push an additional 1 million children into poverty.
I am also deeply concerned by the fundamental premise of this
legislation. There are many Governors, in many States, who today are
sincerely committed to using a welfare block grant to raise the well-
being and quality of life of people within their States. And as I
listen to them, I hear a haunting echo of a situation which occurred
some years ago when many well-intended State legislators, myself
included, voted to transition the mentally ill in Oregon into
mainstream society. The concept seemed solid, as the welfare block
grant seems to many Governors. But when the 1980's recession hit
Oregon, the commitments we made to the mentally ill--similar in so many
ways to the commitment the Governors today are making to their welfare
recipients--simply came undone. And today, many years later, the
mentally ill of Oregon still live on the streets, and Oregon's
neighborhoods and local governments are struggling under the burden of
serving this neglected population.
This, Mr. Speaker, is what I fear we face when the next recession
rumbles through this land. When times get tough, and resources grow
scarce, and the contingency funds are drawn down, who will be hurt the
most? Will it be our schools? Our ports? Our highway funds? Our
economic competitiveness programs? Or will it be those who are
struggling to find a route out of poverty?
I fear without adequate planning, safeguards, standards, and funding,
welfare reform will likewise turn into a nightmare not just for the
poor, but for the people in our community ill-equipped to deal with the
consequences of another experiment that backfires.
Mr. POSHARD. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this conference
agreement on welfare reform. This is truly an important moment in my
legislative career and in the history of the House. I trust our
judgement today will be proven wise in years to come.
I have supported welfare reform with my work and with my votes during
this session. I voted for the bill proposed by my colleague from
Georgia, Congressman Deal, and for the bill most recently proposed by a
bipartisan coalition led by Congressmen Castle and Tanner.
By voting for those bills, and opposing the bills which were passed
but vetoed by the President, we have been able to move toward a
sensible middle ground, a tough yet humane bill which is worthy of our
support. I will enter into the Record at this point a number of
improvements which helped earn my support for this legislation.
[[Page H9422]]
Unlike the House bill, the Conference Agreement forces
states wanting to transfer funds between block grants to
transfer those funds specifically into child care and social
services block grants.
The Agreement allows states the flexibility to implement
pilot welfare programs like the one being put into place in
Illinois. [A part of the Castle-Tanner Plan] However, states
many use federal funds to provide vouchers and health and
food stamp benfits to children through the five year time
limitation mandated in the bill. After that, states have the
option of continuing benefits in the form of a voucher.
The Conference Agreement provides additional flexibility in
meeting the work requirements by allowing states that are
implementing plans under federal waivers to count individuals
who are participating in work programs under the waiver in
meeting the work participation rates in the bill, even if the
hours of work or the definition of work in the state plan do
not meet the mandates in the bill.
The Agreement does not include the House provision that
would have prohibited states from using block grant funds to
make cash payments to families that have an additional child
while on welfare.
Unlike the House bill, the Conference Agreement does not
give states the option to receive food assistance in the form
of a block grant, instead of under the regular Food Stamp
program. The bill retains the current Food Stamp program. [A
major part of the Castle-Tanner Plan]
The Conference Agreement decreased the amount cut from the
Food Stamp program by $2.3 billion. (The Agreement cuts the
Food Stamp program by $23.3 billion over six years.)
Tightens SSI eligibility criteria to restrict eligibility
to children who meet the medical listings. However,
individualized functional assessment and references to
maladaptive behavior are repealed. [Criteria contained in
Castle-Tanner Plan] All children meeting medical listings
will be eligible for SSI benefits.
The House bill restricted Food Stamps benefits for able-
bodied, unemployed adults who have no dependent and who are
between the ages of 18 and 50--limiting Food Stamp benefits
for this group to three months over their lifetime up to age
50. The Agreement provides such individuals with Food Stamps
for three months out of every three years, with the
possibility of another three months within that period.
[Moved closer to the Castle-Tanner Plan]
Under the agreement, all families currently receiving
welfare and Medicaid benefits will continue to be eligible
for the Medicaid program. In addition, there is a one year
transition period for Medicaid for those transitioning into
the workforce.
The Conference Agreement does not deny Medicaid benefits
for legal immigrants retroactively and applies the ban on
benefits for five years instead of until citizenship to legal
immigrants.
The Agreement retains the current Family Preservation and
Support program, which is a preventive program designed to
teach improved parenting skills before a child must be
removed to foster care. The House bill would have replaced
the program with a block grant.
The Agreement includes $500 million more than the House
bill for a fund to reward states that are effective in moving
people from welfare to work, preserving two-parent families,
and reducing the out-of-wedlock births.
I come from a rural area. I know times can be tough. But I also grew
up on a farm where we worked for everything we ever had, and where we
took care of each other. Most of the people I represent in the 19th
district have similar backgrounds. They know that jobs can be lost or
families can break apart and that we need to look after our neighbor.
But they also want that neighbor to take responsibility for their
behavior and for them to look for work if they're able.
This bill helps us respect those old-fashioned traditions in a modern
world. It helps us move people from welfare to work, helps us save
money in the program, and gives the states the flexibility to meet the
needs of their people.
We should be prepared to revisit this bill if in fact children are
left behind as some critics fear. But today, we should embrace this
proposal with courage and faith, confident that we are changing not
only the construct but also the culture of welfare.
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of reforming the welfare
system. As the American people know, the current welfare system is in
desperate need of reform. For public aid recipients trapped in the
system, for those who exploit the welfare system, and for the taxpayers
who foot the bills, an overhaul of welfare in America is a high
priority.
The fundamental problem with our current system is that for many
people welfare becomes more than a helping hand; it becomes a way of
life. For some who enroll in the primary welfare program, Aid to
Families with Dependent Children [AFDC], welfare becomes a trap they
cannot escape. Some are afraid to lose the health benefits they receive
through Medicaid. Others are unable to secure child care to enable them
to go to work. We must eliminate these barriers and chart a clear path
for welfare recipients to go after a paycheck instead of a welfare
check. Welfare should be viewed as temporary assistance, not a life-
style.
I believe welfare benefits should be cut off for recipients who are
unwilling to pursue work, education or training. I also believe we must
strengthen child support enforcement. Billions of dollars in child
support payments go uncollected each year. By establishing paternity at
birth and pursuing deadbeat parents, we can reduce the number of
families impoverished by the failure of non-custodial parents to
fulfill their financial responsibilities.
The legislation before the House today makes many of the changes
needed to reform the welfare system. It will move people from welfare
to work, and it provides child care funding and Medicaid to help people
make the move from a welfare check to a paycheck. It maintains
nutritional guarantees. And it includes child support provisions to
press deadbeat parents to meet their responsibilities so their children
do not end up on welfare.
This legislation is better than the Gingrich bill which I opposed 2
weeks ago. The Gingrich bill eliminated the Federal guarantee of
nutritional assistance. The Gingrich bill denied Medicaid to legal
immigrants. The Gingrich bill denied benefits to children born to
parents on welfare. And the Gingrich bill did not allow States to
provide vouchers for children when their parents exceeded time limits.
The legislation before us today does not include any of these problems.
This legislation is also far better than the Gingrich bill I opposed
last year. Last year's Gingrich bill would have block-granted and
reduced funding for the nutrition program for Women, Infants and
Children; school lunches and breakfasts; and the Child and Adult Care
Food Program. It would have eliminated the critical nutrition,
education and health services that are an important part of the WIC
program's effectiveness in increasing the number of healthy births. It
would have eliminated the assurance of food assistance for many
children, leaving many of them without enough food to eat. And it would
have eliminated the assurance of sound nutrition standards for these
programs.
Last year's Gingrich bill also would have eliminated the guarantee of
Medicaid coverage for millions of women and children on AFDC. It would
have terminated most Federal day care programs and replaced them with a
block grant to States. It would have cut overall child care funding and
caused many families to be denied day care assistance. Without day
care, many parents would be forced to quit their jobs and enter the
welfare system. It also would have eliminated many of the health and
safety standards that have previously been required of day care
providers receiving Federal funds, and put many children's lives at
risk. And it would have cut funding for foster care, adoption
assistance, child abuse prevention and treatment and related services,
and turned these programs over to the States in a block grant. Today's
bill does not contain these enormous flaws.
The legislation before the House today is far from perfect. It has
significant problems that must be corrected, and I will work with the
President to ensure that these problems are effectively addressed. I
support effective requirements on the sponsors of legal immigrants who
apply for benefits, but I do not believe that people who live legally
in our country should be treated unfairly. The legislation before the
House today is unfair to legal immigrants who play by the rules and
contribute to the progress of our country, just as all of our ancestors
have done. And the legislation before us today cuts nutritional
assistance too deeply, which will be harmful to children and may force
some working families to continue to choose between paying the rent and
putting food on the table.
I will vote for the legislation that is now before the House because
it makes many of the changes that must be made to change welfare from a
way of life to a helping hand. And I will work with the President to
correct the problems in this legislation that have nothing to do with
welfare reform.
Mr. FAZIO of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise to express my support
for the conference agreement before us and to voice my gratitude to the
many members of the Democratic Caucus who have worked long and hard
over the last 2 years on this difficult issue.
These members, including Xavier Becerra, Lynn Woolsey, John Tanner,
Charlie Stenholm, Sandy Levin, Bob Matsui, Martin Sabo, and many, many
others, have worked long and hard to improve the welfare reform bill
that we are considering today. They have increased the awareness of
their colleagues and have worked for a whole range of improvements
which have moderated some of the bill's original provisions. I truly
appreciate their efforts.
While this conference agreement isn't perfect, it represents a step
in the right direction. This agreement acknowledges the view that
[[Page H9423]]
welfare should be a second chance for those in need, not a way of life.
This agreement sets a 5-year time limit on receiving benefits,
includes tough welfare-to-work requirements, and allows States to
decide how best to meet the needs of their citizens.
I am pleased to see that the conference agreement moved toward the
President's position on a number of important issues, especially the
removal of a provision that would have allowed States to opt out of the
food stamp program. This will help keep the nutritional safety net
intact for our kids. In addition, I am pleased that strong child
support enforcement provisions have been included in this agreement.
The agreement that we're voting on today is the first step toward a
much-needed overhaul of our welfare system. It stresses both fiscal and
personal responsibility and it breaks the cycle of dependence.
I urge my colleagues to support this conference agreement.
Mr. STOKES. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 3734, the
Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Act, a bill which would
dramatically overhaul our Nation's welfare system.
On July 18, 1996, I joined with 170 of my colleagues to show my
staunch opposition to H.R. 3734. After reviewing the product of the
conference committee, my position remains unchanged.
During this session of Congress, our Republican colleagues assured us
a family friendly Congress. They promised us that our children would be
protected from harm. However, this bill is not about helping our
families, nor is it about saving our children. The primary purpose of
this bill is to achieve more than $61 billion in budget cuts. And
unfortunately, those who will suffer most from this legislation will be
those who need assistance the most, our children, and the poor.
Seven months ago, President Clinton was forced to veto a welfare bill
which, much like the bill before us today, would place an alarming
number of children into poverty. According to the Urban Institute, H.R.
3734 would push 1.5 million children into poverty. I appeal to
President Clinton to veto this measure which abandons the Federal
commitment and safety net that protects America's children.
H.R. 3734 slashes more than $61 billion over 6 years in welfare
programs. This bill guts funding for the Food Stamp Program, cuts into
the SSI protections for disabled children, drastically cuts child
nutrition programs, and slashes benefits for legal immigrants. Mr.
Speaker, I find these reductions in quality of life programs appalling.
Mr. Speaker, I believe most of us agree that our Nation's welfare
system is in the need of reform. But do we reform the system by denying
benefits to legal immigrants who, despite working hard and paying
taxes, fall upon hard times? How can we demand that welfare recipients
work 30 hours a week, yet provide inefficient job training and job
services--essential components in contributing to longevity in the
workplace? In short, how can we justify punishing children and their
families simply because they are poor?
If we are truly to talk about the reform of welfare, if we are going
to talk about increasing opportunities for our low-income residents, we
cannot expect productive changes for our community by taking away from
those who already have very little.
Mr. Speaker, I can understand and support a balanced and thoughtful
approach to addressing the reform of our Nation's welfare system.
However, I cannot support this legislation which would shatter the
lives of millions of our Nation's poor.
The pledge to end welfare as we know it is not a mandate to act
irresponsibly and without compassion. On behalf of America's children
and the poor, I urge my colleagues to vote against H.R. 3734.
Mrs. COLLINS of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the
conference agreement on H.R. 3734, legislation that revises our current
law providing welfare to needy children, individuals, and families in
America. This welfare revision does little more than poke holes in the
safety net that is called welfare. In my opinion, this legislation is a
desperate--and unsuccessful--attempt to claim reform when it is an
illogical revision. Change merely for change's sake can lead to chaos,
damage, and injury.
This bill reportedly contains changes to our welfare system that will
ensure insecurity and forecast fear on the part of the many vulnerable,
loving parents out there trying their best to provide for their
children a safe, secure, and nurturing environment.
Some of my constituents in the Seventh District of Illinois are among
the poorest of the Nation. For the 23\1/2\ years that I have served in
this body, I have fought strong and sometimes bitter battles for the
benefit of the vulnerable, the disenfranchised, the young, old,
disabled, and poor. That is what I hope to be remembered for when I
retire from the House at the end of the year.
So, I feel I have an obligation to rise today in opposition to the
conference agreement developed in the 11th hour by a few secretly
selected Members of Congress. I continue to be concerned that we are
applying Band-Aid policy and control instead of prevention and early
intervention. The funds provided in current law attempt to address,
and/or remedy, the symptoms of poverty: joblessness, hunger, domestic
violence, child abuse and neglect, illiteracy; but until and unless we
set about strategically to address the causes, we go far short of
adequate to eradicate the problem and then wonder why we are losing the
fight.
I was contacted this morning by the Day-Care Council of Illinois,
located in Chicago, who reminded me that President Franklin Roosevelt,
under whose leadership the safety net for our most vulnerable children
and families was established some 60 years ago once said: ``The test of
our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who
have much; it is whether we provide enough for those who have too
little.''
We do too little when we take away the Federal oversight of funds
that are channeled into State and local coffers in the form of block
grants; reduce the Food Stamp program in the name of budget deficit;
deny benefits to legal immigrants; and make children-having-children
continue to live in housing environments that failed them as teenage
parents instead of supporting communities in their efforts to provide
stable, dependable support systems. Whether that support is supplied by
the teen parent's biological or substitute parent, or a publicly funded
shelter, should be the decision of that child-parent, not the Federal
Government.
Block granting welfare benefits is likely to block grant suffering. I
can only hope that if this legislation passes, sufficient Federal
criteria and oversight can make them work. The States have asked for
block grants and will be called upon to demonstrate that they can act
responsibly to all vulnerable populations in a non-discriminatory
manner. My fear and recollection of contemporary history is that many
of them will not.
On the issue of Medicaid eligibility, until and unless Congress can
achieve meaningful health care reform to provide for universal access
to health care financing, there must be Medicaid eligibility for the
unemployed, uninsured families who receive public assistance. The well-
being of our children is what public welfare should be all about; and
we should focus on how best we can prevent and protect the vulnerable
children of our Nation from experiencing poverty and despair, against
hunger and sickness, and against fear and helplessness.
I urge my colleagues to reject this rush to agreement. I yield back
the balance of my time.
Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to the welfare
conference agreement. This bill is an outrage. It constitutes the
latest chapter in the right wing majority's all-out attack on children
and the poor.
Let's get real. Less than 2 percent of Federal dollars are spent on
assisting poor women and children. Yet radicals are ramming a bill down
our throats that does nothing more than single out and punish children
in the name of deficit reduction.
Many on the other side of the aisle are under the false assumption
that all we need to do to eliminate poverty is take food and money away
from poor people. But I have news for you--this sink or swim approach
will not work. According to the Urban Institute this bill would push
1.1 million children into poverty and eliminate their ability to count
on basic income support.
The worse tragedy of all is that this cruel bill comes up short on
jobs. Cutting financial assistance to poor families without money for
job creation, job training and day care will not force recipients to
swim but cause millions of poor children to drown.
The real problem is that in poor areas like the one I represent,
there simply are not enough jobs for people. In fact in some areas in
NYC there are 14 applicants for every one fast-food job.
Let's end this charade. I implore my colleagues, on both sides of the
aisle, to support fairness and basic decency and reject this heartless
legislation.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the previous question is
ordered on the conference report.
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the conference report.
Pursuant to House Resolution 495, the yeas and nays are ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 328,
nays 101, not voting 5, as follows:
[Roll No. 383]
YEAS--328
Ackerman
Allard
Andrews
Archer
Armey
Bachus
Baesler
Baker (CA)
Baker (LA)
Baldacci
Ballenger
Barcia
Barr
Barrett (NE)
Bartlett
Barton
Bass
Bateman
[[Page H9424]]
Bentsen
Bereuter
Bevill
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop
Bliley
Blute
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bono
Borski
Boucher
Brewster
Browder
Brownback
Bryant (TN)
Bryant (TX)
Bunn
Bunning
Burr
Burton
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Canady
Cardin
Castle
Chabot
Chambliss
Chapman
Chenoweth
Christensen
Chrysler
Clement
Clinger
Coble
Coburn
Collins (GA)
Combest
Condit
Cooley
Costello
Cox
Cramer
Crane
Crapo
Cremeans
Cubin
Cunningham
Danner
Davis
de la Garza
Deal
DeFazio
DeLay
Deutsch
Dickey
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Dooley
Doolittle
Dornan
Doyle
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Durbin
Edwards
Ehlers
Ehrlich
English
Ensign
Everett
Ewing
Fawell
Fazio
Fields (TX)
Flanagan
Foley
Forbes
Fowler
Fox
Franks (CT)
Franks (NJ)
Frelinghuysen
Frisa
Frost
Funderburk
Furse
Gallegly
Ganske
Gejdenson
Gekas
Geren
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gilman
Gingrich
Goodlatte
Goodling
Gordon
Goss
Graham
Greene (UT)
Greenwood
Gutknecht
Hall (TX)
Hamilton
Hancock
Hansen
Harman
Hastert
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Hefner
Heineman
Herger
Hilleary
Hobson
Hoekstra
Hoke
Holden
Horn
Hostettler
Houghton
Hoyer
Hunter
Hutchinson
Hyde
Inglis
Istook
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (SD)
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kasich
Kelly
Kennelly
Kildee
Kim
King
Kingston
Kleczka
Klink
Klug
Knollenberg
Kolbe
LaHood
Largent
Latham
LaTourette
Laughlin
Lazio
Leach
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Lightfoot
Lincoln
Linder
Lipinski
Livingston
LoBiondo
Longley
Lowey
Lucas
Luther
Manton
Manzullo
Martini
Mascara
McCarthy
McCollum
McCrery
McHale
McHugh
McInnis
McIntosh
McKeon
Meehan
Metcalf
Meyers
Mica
Miller (FL)
Minge
Molinari
Montgomery
Moorhead
Moran
Morella
Murtha
Myers
Myrick
Neal
Nethercutt
Neumann
Ney
Norwood
Nussle
Obey
Orton
Oxley
Packard
Pallone
Parker
Paxon
Payne (VA)
Peterson (FL)
Peterson (MN)
Petri
Pickett
Pombo
Pomeroy
Porter
Portman
Poshard
Pryce
Quillen
Quinn
Radanovich
Ramstad
Reed
Regula
Richardson
Riggs
Rivers
Roberts
Roemer
Rogers
Rohrabacher
Rose
Roth
Roukema
Royce
Salmon
Sanford
Sawyer
Saxton
Scarborough
Schaefer
Schiff
Seastrand
Sensenbrenner
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Shuster
Sisisky
Skaggs
Skeen
Skelton
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Solomon
Souder
Spence
Spratt
Stearns
Stenholm
Stockman
Stump
Stupak
Talent
Tanner
Tate
Tauzin
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Thomas
Thornberry
Thornton
Thurman
Tiahrt
Torkildsen
Torricelli
Traficant
Upton
Vento
Visclosky
Volkmer
Vucanovich
Walker
Walsh
Wamp
Ward
Watts (OK)
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
White
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson
Wise
Wolf
Wynn
Young (AK)
Zeliff
Zimmer
NAYS--101
Abercrombie
Barrett (WI)
Becerra
Beilenson
Berman
Blumenauer
Bonior
Brown (CA)
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Clay
Clayton
Clyburn
Coleman
Collins (IL)
Collins (MI)
Conyers
Coyne
Cummings
DeLauro
Dellums
Diaz-Balart
Dixon
Engel
Eshoo
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Fields (LA)
Filner
Foglietta
Frank (MA)
Gephardt
Gibbons
Gonzalez
Green (TX)
Gutierrez
Hall (OH)
Hastings (FL)
Hilliard
Hinchey
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jacobs
Jefferson
Johnson, E. B.
Johnston
Kennedy (MA)
Kennedy (RI)
LaFalce
Lantos
Lewis (GA)
Lofgren
Maloney
Markey
Martinez
Matsui
McDermott
McKinney
McNulty
Meek
Menendez
Millender-McDonald
Miller (CA)
Mink
Moakley
Mollohan
Nadler
Oberstar
Olver
Ortiz
Owens
Pastor
Payne (NJ)
Pelosi
Rahall
Rangel
Ros-Lehtinen
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Sabo
Sanders
Schroeder
Schumer
Scott
Serrano
Slaughter
Stark
Stokes
Studds
Tejeda
Thompson
Torres
Towns
Velazquez
Waters
Watt (NC)
Waxman
Williams
Woolsey
Yates
NOT VOTING--5
Flake
Ford
Gunderson
McDade
Young (FL)
{time} 1710
Mr. SCHUMER changed his vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
So the conference report was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
____________________