[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.

                          ____________________