[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 97 (Thursday, July 10, 1997)]
[House]
[Pages H5031-H5040]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




   APPOINTMENT OF CONFEREES ON H.R. 2015, BALANCED BUDGET ACT OF 1997

  Mr. KASICH. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to take from the 
Speaker's table the bill (H.R. 2015) to provide for reconciliation 
pursuant to subsections (b)(1) and (c) of section 105 of the concurrent 
resolution on the budget for fiscal year 1998, with a Senate amendment 
thereto, disagree to the Senate amendment, and agree to the conference 
asked by the Senate.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Gillmor). Is there objection to the 
request of the gentleman from Ohio?
  There was no objection.


                Motion To Instruct Offered by Mr. Spratt

  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, I offer a preferential motion.
  The Clerk read as follows:
       Mr. Spratt moves that the managers on the part of the House 
     at the conference on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses 
     on the Senate amendment to the bill H.R. 2015 be instructed 
     as follows:
       (1) On the matters pertaining to increasing the age of 
     eligibility for medicare, reject the provisions contained in 
     section 5611 of the Senate amendment.
       (2) On the matters pertaining to the minimum wage, worker 
     protections, and civil rights--
       (A) insist on paragraphs (2) and (3), and reject the 
     remainder, of section 417(f) of the Social Security Act, as 
     amended by sections 5006 and 9006 of the bill, as passed the 
     House, and
       (B) reject the provisions contained in sections 5004 and 
     9004 of the bill, as passed the House.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from South Carolina [Mr. 
Spratt] is recognized for 30 minutes in support of his motion and the 
gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Kasich] is recognized for 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from South Carolina [Mr. Spratt].
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Briefly, as a matter of introduction to what this motion to instruct 
pertains, it is a double-barrel motion. On the one hand we say the 
Senate provisions that would raise the age of eligibility for Medicare 
from 65 to 67 were not part of our bipartisan budget agreement, were 
not essential to achieving the objectives we set for ourselves. Indeed 
we were able to do the $115 billion in Medicare cost reduction over a 
5-year period of time with substantial consensus.
  This particular portion of the bill was reported by the Committee on 
Ways and Means with a near unanimity, with as close to consensus as we 
can get in this House. It was unnecessary to do it and, furthermore, it 
raises more questions than it answers: What will this coverage cost for 
people from 65 to 67; will it be available; how much lead time should 
we give people to get ready for this unexpected adjustment?
  So we would instruct the conferees to reject those Senate provisions.
  Second, the House and the Senate both added other provisions outside 
the budget agreement unnecessary to it that would deny the basic 
protections of one of the fundamental laws of the land, the Federal 
Fair Labor Standards Act, to individuals coming off TANF, coming out of 
welfare into workfare, or participating in the welfare to work program. 
We think that is unwarranted and unnecessary, and we would say to the 
conferees excise, take out, those provisions as well and reject them as 
part of this bipartisan agreement so it can truly be called a 
bipartisan agreement.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. KASICH. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  First of all, these motions to instruct are kind of gimmicky, to be 
truthful. They are just designed for somebody to come to the House 
floor, lay out difficult positions that are hard to win in a debate 
and, basically, they do not have the force of law.
  Now, let me just speak to the three of them. First of all, the first 
one is we should not raise the age of eligibility for Medicare 
recipients from 65 to 67.

                              {time}  1115

  In the House bill we did not do that. We said it ought to be 65. But 
let me make it clear to everybody who is in this Chamber, that if they 
think that when their children must be put into the workplace to work 
day and night to pay for our benefits, and they think that there is not 
a fundamental restructuring of the system in need, then are we doing 
injustice to the young people of this country.
  The fact is, in Medicare and Social Security and in Medicaid, we are 
going to find ourselves in a position where the number of young people 
will be few in number and the number of people getting benefits, which 
will be us, are going to be great in number.
  Mr. Speaker, our young children in this country deserve a chance, the 
same kind of chance our parents gave to us, and we know that there must 
be fundamental structural changes in the major entitlement programs 
because these programs are not sustainable. We put our children in a 
position that is untenable and unconscionable if we are not willing to 
meet the challenge of the baby boomer retirement and what it does to 
our children.
  Now, I am not so sure that this House is capable, along with the 
Senate, of designing the real solutions that are going to be necessary, 
the structural changes that are going to be necessary in the area of 
Social Security, in the area of Medicare and in the area of Medicaid.
  I will say this: I think this House has taken a large step forward in 
terms of designing changes in Medicare that are structural in nature, 
that are positive, that move us in the right direction. But I would 
hope that this House will reject in the future the rhetoric of 1995, 
where some of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle said that we 
were trying to damage the senior citizens in this country by our 
Medicare reforms, and they are the Medicare reforms that they are today 
accepting.
  So for those people who want to stand and demagogue and scare the 
elderly, scare the children, we are going to stand against you, just 
like we did in 1995 and just like we did in 1996, and finally had you 
support our program on a bipartisan basis.
  Now in the area of worker protection, the gentleman from Florida [Mr. 
Shaw] had a comment on that. In the area of worker protection, let me 
just make one other statement here to my colleagues on the other side. 
And I have some friends on the other side who understand my heart, and 
there are friends I have on the other side who risked a lot for things 
they believed in.
  The bottom line on this is, the House is not prepared to move to 
changing the retirement date on Medicare this week, but we sure as heck 
better open our mind and open our heart to what we are going to need to 
do long-term for the future of the next generation. And we will not be 
stopped by demagoguery because the young people in this country will 
not permit the politicians in this House, who are going to be the 
beneficiaries of all the benefits, the young people are not going to 
stand for it; and there are going to be many of us who get the benefits 
who are not going to permit you to demagogue this on your own and be 
able to win the day.
  In the area of worker protections, the third recommendation that my 
friend from South Carolina [Mr. Spratt] recommends, which is that we do 
not prohibit or we do not discriminate in the area of sex or health or 
safety for our people who go to work, who are on welfare, the House 
intends to stand behind

[[Page H5032]]

that position. We do not support discrimination in any form. We sign up 
to that.
  In the other area regarding these workfare nonemployees, we obviously 
do not want to deny them their rights under antidiscrimination. But let 
me just suggest to all of my colleagues that we do not believe that all 
of the provisions like unemployment compensation ought to apply to 
workers who are on welfare, who are out there working to pay for the 
benefits they get from people who go to work every day.
  Now we have had a struggle trying to define exactly how all these 
welfare workers should be treated, and I think we have made substantial 
progress in this House by guaranteeing that there would not be 
discrimination, that these workers would be in a safe environment, and 
the House intends to pursue that position in conference. At the end of 
the day I believe that we will guarantee the civil and human rights of 
every American. We are going to stand behind that.
  So I am recommending to my side that we will accept the motion to 
instruct, but what I am troubled about is this idea that we should 
reject even the discussions about structural changes as they apply to 
the next generation.
  Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, would the gentleman yield?
  Mr. KASICH. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished chairman for 
yielding, and I want to agree with him, particularly as to the Medicare 
part. We are supporting the House position, and we have, and it has 
been a bipartisan exercise and has not been demagogued. I will talk 
more about it later.
  And I agree that the long range program is what has not been 
addressed by either side, to our shame. We are getting to that. But for 
now, we have the high ground in the House and I am happy it hear that 
he is going to, because basically all we are asking is that we stick to 
the House position.
  Mr. KASICH. Reclaiming my time, furthermore I want to compliment my 
friend from California for his work in the health subcommittee with the 
gentleman from California [Mr. Thomas], the chairman, to try to fashion 
a bipartisan first step in Medicare. Maybe I should explain to the 
gentleman that he is very well aware of the beating that we took for 
our Medicare reforms which are now working their way into law.
  Mr. STARK. If the gentleman would continue to yield, I think it was 
25 short. But other than that, I am aware of it.
  Mr. KASICH. But let me just suggest, though, that I am very pleased 
to hear the gentleman say that he recognizes that there is a next step. 
Because if we walk away from this problem of the baby boomers retiring, 
as the gentleman knows, we are not going to survive in America as we 
have known it.
  I would like to say to the gentleman, and to the gentleman from South 
Carolina [Mr. Spratt] and my friend from the State of Washington, that 
the Committee on the Budget intends to pursue a very aggressive 
examination of this big wave, the tidal wave that is coming. I expect 
to have Democrats participate in the settings that we create, the 
witnesses that we call in. Because the only way we are going to be able 
to deal with all this is to deal together, without having people 
standing in the well yelling and screaming and trying to scare the 
elderly in our country.
  So we are going to vote for this motion to instruct, but I am very 
sensitive about the idea that we want to let people know everything is 
done, taken care of.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California [Mr. 
Thomas].
  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  The chairman of the Committee on the Budget is absolutely correct, 
this is frankly a theater. I am a little disappointed that the minority 
did not go after some really important stuff to try to protect in terms 
of a motion to instruct. Actually we do not need all the verbiage that 
is on the page.
  The motion to instruct can be put in basically four words, that is, 
support the House positions. Now let us look at the irony. We are 
wasting time on the floor of the House of Representatives in talking 
about a motion to instruct which says ``support the House positions.''
  I am here to tell my colleagues as chairman of the Subcommittee on 
Health, I did not work all those long hours to produce a 13 to zero 
vote, a unanimous support position in the Subcommittee on Health of the 
Committee on Ways and Means, to run over to the Senate and fold. I did 
not work hard to maintain the subcommittee's position on a 36 to 3 vote 
in the full Committee on Ways and Means to simply collapse in the face 
of the Senate. I do think it would be appropriate, since the Senate 
apparently feels fairly strongly on this issue, having voted on the 
floor of the Senate by better than two to one to include this, that we 
probably ought to listen to their arguments.
  The gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Kasich], the chairman of the Committee 
on the Budget, I think makes the cogent point, we are going to have to 
engage. Is this the appropriate time? Is this the appropriate arena? 
Probably not.
  But my colleagues should watch because this motion to instruct should 
be a voice vote. There is no reason whatsoever to have a recorded vote 
on a position ``support the House positions.'' So if the Democrats call 
for a recorded vote, it is a feeble opportunity on their part to try to 
catch someone who believes that we should not engage in these kinds of 
tactics so that a campaign position, if there is a recorded vote and 
they do not support this position, for them to put out a statement that 
the person who did not vote for this is in favor of increasing 
eligibility for Medicare from 65 to 67, shame on them.
  Can they not come up with a real issue so that we can have a real 
discussion on substance, instead of putting together a package which is 
``support the House positions.'' The answer is, you bet we are going to 
support the House position. My challenge to them is to let it go on a 
voice vote and do not record the vote.
  Mr. FAZIO of California. Mr. Speaker, would the gentleman yield?
  Mr. THOMAS. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. FAZIO of California. Mr. Speaker, I wonder why the gentleman is 
concerned about a recorded vote on something everyone has just agreed 
to.
  Mr. THOMAS. Reclaiming my time, all I am saying is if the gentleman 
did not understand the point, let us see whether or not there is a 
recorded vote.
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Let me simply say there is nothing unreal, nothing gimmicky about the 
age eligibility for Medicare. It is a vital issue for millions of 
Americans. And there is nothing gimmicky, either, about whether or not 
those coming off welfare into the work force will have the protection 
of the Federal Fair Labor Standards Act which has been the fundamental 
law of the land for the better part of this century.
  Mr. Speaker I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. 
Pallone].
  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I just wanted to agree with the gentleman 
from South Carolina [Mr. Spratt]. I do not understand how the other 
side can say that we are wasting time or this is gimmickry. If they 
really believe that the age eligibility should not be raised from 65 to 
67, let us vote on it.
  We know that the other body has specifically said in their bill that 
they want to raise the age. American people, our seniors, are very 
concerned about that. We need to take a position on this. I have to say 
that I find it abhorrent that the Congress would even consider raising 
age eligibility for Medicare. At a time when we are trying to find 
solutions concerning our uninsured populations, raising the age 
eligibility to age 67 will only exacerbate the problem.
  There are 4.5 million people between age 50 and 64 that are among the 
uninsured, for various reasons, and these numbers are growing every 
day. Some of these seniors lack access to employer-sponsored health 
benefits, while others are unable to afford expensive premiums and 
cost-sharing requirements.
  Now we are telling them that they have to wait even longer before 
they become eligible for Medicare. We would be breaking our commitment 
to America's seniors by raising the age eligibility. It is not needed 
to balance the

[[Page H5033]]

budget, nor is it necessary to maintain Medicare short-term solvency.
  Some may argue that Social Security is already raising its age 
eligibility and that raising Medicare's would be consistent. But I 
would remind my colleagues that in Social Security seniors have the 
option to retire early and receive some of their benefits, while no 
similar option exists for Medicare.
  Raising the age eligibility has had little discussion, no 
congressional hearings. I personally see the increase in age 
eligibility as a back-door approach to letting Medicare wither on the 
vine. That is a phrase that the Speaker, the gentleman from Georgia 
[Mr. Gingrich] has often used; and I strongly oppose that its inclusion 
be a part of any final budget package. I strongly urge my colleagues to 
support this motion to instruct.

                              {time}  1130

  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Fazio].
  Mr. FAZIO of California. Mr. Speaker, far from wasting our time on 
the floor today, we have accomplished seemingly two major improvements 
in a bill that is seriously flawed in many ways.
  I hear the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Kasich] and the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Thomas] saying that they are going to support this 
motion. I hope that means that when we go to conference on this package 
of spending cuts, we will not entertain the increase in the age to be 
eligible for Medicare to the age of 67. It is very clear that in this 
country we have a major problem with many people in their fifties who 
have been downsized, let out of their job, where their health benefits 
were real and decent, and suffer because there is no bridge to 
retirement. We only make the gap broader for those people if they are 
not given at least the age of 65 to look forward to.
  In addition, Mr. Speaker, it is unconscionable to say that people who 
are transitioning from welfare to work will not be covered by the same 
statutes that protect workers. To have a sexual harassment claim not to 
be viable, not to be of legal standing simply because someone is 
transitioning from welfare is unbelievable. I am very pleased the 
Republicans have agreed.
  Mr. KASICH. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Thomas].
  Mr. THOMAS. The gentleman has argued the points. None of the points 
that the gentleman has argued are in the House package, so I guess the 
concern of the gentleman is that this conferee and other House 
conferees, having gone through the legislative process on this side, 
not putting any of that material in the bill would now somehow think 
that it makes sense. Is that the concern of the gentleman from 
California?
  Mr. FAZIO of California. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. THOMAS. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. FAZIO of California. I am particularly concerned about the 
version of this bill that will work a hardship on people coming off 
welfare into work.
  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, is he concerned about 
the conferees not holding the House position? Is that his concern?
  Mr. FAZIO of California. I am concerned that this conference is going 
to engage in some fundamental changes not only in the Medicare law----
  Mr. THOMAS. The question is, and I'll reclaim my time. If the 
gentleman wants to answer it, I'll give him another chance. If he 
chooses not to, that is fine. The question is, does the gentleman have 
confidence in the House conferees upholding the House position? Yes or 
no.
  Mr. FAZIO of California. I am certainly hopeful that if we all vote 
to make sure that these onerous provisions are not included in the 
conference, that we will follow the position when we get to conference.


                             Point of Order

  Mr. WAXMAN. Point of order, Mr. Speaker.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Gillmor). The gentleman will state his 
point.
  Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, I cannot understand how a gentleman can ask 
another gentleman a question and not give him a moment to answer it.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman has not stated a point of 
order.
  Mr. KASICH. Mr. Speaker, how much time is left on both sides?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Kasich] has 
17\1/2\ minutes remaining. The gentleman from South Carolina [Mr. 
Spratt] has 25 minutes remaining.
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
Connecticut [Ms. DeLauro].
  Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, the fact is that we are not wasting time at 
all. There is a serious threat to seniors' health care in this country. 
There is a health care crisis in our country. Too many Americans do not 
have access to quality health care that they need.
  Quite honestly, Democrats have fought to expand coverage for 10 
million American children who do not have health care coverage. Yet 
Republicans backed away from their promise to insure just half of these 
children.
  Now with the specter of moving the age limit from 65 to 67 for 
seniors with regard to Medicare, we are looking at no coverage of 
people zero to 67 in this country. We are moving backward in terms of 
providing health care for people in this country. Instead of trying to 
find ways to make sure that seniors have security of health care 
coverage in their retirement, it would appear that the Government is 
backing away from that promise that they would be there for them at age 
65.
  Seniors have worked hard all of their lives, they paid their dues, 
they planned their retirement with the knowledge that they would be 
able to depend on Medicare when they turned 65 years of age to help to 
pay their medical bills.
  Let us vote on the motion to instruct. Let us work to help expand 
health care coverage for seniors.
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 11 minutes to the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Stark] and ask unanimous consent that he be allowed to 
yield portions of that time to other Members.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from South Carolina?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished ranking member for 
yielding me this time, and I yield myself 2\1/2\ minutes.
  Mr. Speaker, insofar as the Medicare provisions in this bill are 
concerned, it is a matter of record that we have had strong bipartisan 
cooperation and agreement in the House. My remarks today are designed 
to amplify the problems in the Senate bill and for whatever other 
effect we may have is to give us a stronger hand in dealing with the 
Senate in conference, which indeed has been a tradition of motions to 
instruct for many years.
  A vote by this House representing the strong feelings that we have in 
support of our bill is an aid in negotiating and to show that we have 
the support of the American people. The Senate has basically taken a 
silk purse and turned it into a sow's ear. We find this morning a poll 
of the Washington Post that says 64 percent of the people oppose 
extending the wait for Medicare to age 67.
  The AARP bulletin, which I now get, Mr. Speaker, says that the 
Medicare measure takes the wrong turn. That is in relationship to the 
Senate bill. The Senate also allows doctors to bill patients more, or 
extra. It allows doctors to force patients to give up Medicare if they 
want certain specialty care from these doctors. It cuts payments to the 
Nation's safety net hospitals by 20 percent. It increases home health 
care cost in the Nation's frailest and sickest by $760 a year.
  I hope that the conference committee will stand firm and fix these 
provisions, and I pledge to work with the gentleman from California 
[Mr. Thomas] and the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Kasich] to see that we do 
prevail over the Senate, for these provisions will do harm to the 
Medicare system. There are ways in which we can change Medicare and 
make it more solvent. I would like to work with them. I believe that 
raising the age limit without a plan to protect the people from 65 to 
67 is the wrong way to go, and I think we can work to fix that in the 
years ahead.
  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. STARK. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. THOMAS. I thank the gentleman for yielding. First of all, I want 
to thank him for the cooperative effort in

[[Page H5034]]

producing this House product and we will continue to make sure that the 
House product survives in conference. I will commit to the gentleman 
that we will do everything we can to deliver the product.
  It is just a shame that we wind up with a political charade. If it is 
a voice vote, I understand the gentleman's and the others' concern. If 
it is a recorded vote, it is clear that these are political 
shenanigans.
  Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Waxman].
  Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time.
  Mr. Speaker, the House has passed a bill, the Senate has passed a 
different bill. There will be a conference. The Republican leaders 
today have said to us that when they go into conference, they are going 
to try to hold the House position, but they are going to have to move 
toward the Senate to get an agreement. The chairman of the Committee on 
the Budget said we have got to be aware that structural changes are 
going to come down the line at some point, and he is not for this 
change this week.
  The point is that we know what the House Republicans were for in 
Medicare in the last Congress. They wanted structural changes that 
would have ended the Medicare program as we know it and would have put 
a lot of elderly people into the lowest priced HMO that would survive 
profitably by denying them care.
  I cannot understand why we are hearing that the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Thomas] would object to a recorded vote. If he really 
thinks it is a bad idea to change the age limit, he ought to be willing 
to vote with us to reject that idea when they go into conference.
  The Senate reconciliation bill contains a number of ill-conceived 
provisions relating to Medicare. They increase the burdens on 
beneficiaries with home health copayments. They have further balanced 
billing beyond what now exists in the law. They have premiums increase 
dramatically for higher income people in a very complicated and 
unworkable way. If you combine the income testing of the premium along 
with the MSA option, which is in the House bill, it raises the specter 
of fragmenting the risk pool of the program. That sounds technical, but 
the effect on moderate-income Medicare beneficiaries who are older and 
sicker is not going to be some theoretical one. It will be real and it 
will ultimately hurt many of them.
  The issue before us and the focus is the Senate voted to change the 
Medicare age from 65 to 67. We want to say ``no'' to that provision. It 
is irresponsible. It is a proposal where there has been no examination 
of the effects it will have or who it will hurt, and we know already we 
have a problem with many people waiting for Medicare coverage who have 
no health insurance coverage. Let us not widen this gap into which many 
people will fall. We are talking about people who are often downsized, 
which is the euphemism, out of jobs when they are older, but they are 
not old enough for Medicare. They are not old enough for Social 
Security. Under Social Security they at least can come in and get a 
reduced benefit rather than go without any income. But if we say to 
them, you have got to wait until you are 67 to get any health care 
coverage and they happen to be sick, disabled but not disabled enough 
to get covered as a disabled person, they are not going to find a 
health insurance coverage insurer that will cover them because of 
preexisting conditions. We must vote to reject the Senate provisions.
  The Senate reconciliation bill contains a number of ill-conceived 
provisions relating to Medicare. Burdens on beneficiaries are increased 
with home health copayments, protections against balanced billing are 
removed in some cases, and premiums are increased dramatically for 
higher income people in a very complicated and unworkable way.
  Combining income-testing the premium, along with the MSA option 
included in both the House and Senate bills, raises the specter of 
fragmenting the risk pool of the program. That sounds technical--but 
the effect on moderate-income Medicare beneficiaries who are older and 
sicker is not going to be some theoretical one--it will be real, and it 
will ultimately hurt them.
  But I want to focus particularly on the provision in the Senate bill 
that raises the age of eligibility of Medicare from 65 to 67. This is a 
change that is totally irresponsible. It is being proposed with no 
examination of the effects it will have or who it will hurt.
  It is flat out bad policy.
  We already have a problem in this country with people who find 
themselves out of the work force at a time when they are getting older, 
but aren't yet eligible for Medicare. They face a truly terrible 
situation: frequently they simply cannot find any sort of affordable 
insurance coverage.
  This problem is so serious that we have frequently recognized over 
the last several years that something needs to be done to extend 
medical benefits to this population.
  Instead, this proposal goes in the opposite direction: It takes 
people at the very time they are most likely to begin to face health 
problems, at the very time that getting affordable private coverage is 
most difficult--and we delay their eligibility for Medicare.
  A lot of people out of the work force in their early sixties aren't 
wealthy or healthy people: they are people in poorer health, or with 
some disability not quite serious enough to qualify them as disabled, 
or people that their employers have decided to downsize out and replace 
with younger workers. This would add to their problems by delaying 
their eligibility for health coverage.
  Unlike Social Security, where people can at least elect a reduced 
benefit if they need it before the age when full coverage begins--there 
is no partial coverage for health benefits.
  Medicare just won't be there.
  This is a change that we should vigorously oppose. House conferees 
should not accept it.
  People who need Medicare, who can't wait 2 more years until they are 
67, deserve the support of every Member of this House in opposing this 
change.
  Mr. KASICH. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Thomas], chairman of the Subcommittee on Health and the 
Environment of the Committee on Ways and Means.
  Mr. THOMAS. I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time.
  Mr. Speaker, I am really pleased that the gentleman from California 
[Mr. Waxman] pretty well laid out the game plan here. He talked about 
the structural changes that the Republicans made in the balanced budget 
amendment in terms of Medicare changes. Most of those frankly are in 
this bill. They were voted on unanimously in subcommittee. The point 
that the gentleman was making on the structural age change from 65 to 
67 was not in our program. It was not in the plan.
  If you are going to offer a motion to instruct which is not theater, 
the gentleman from California then went on to discuss the medical 
savings account provision and a number of other provisions. If you want 
a contest, you want to lock in positions that are important, that are 
of substance, that should have been your motion to instruct. Something 
of substance would have been worth this debate.
  The gentleman says we should have a recorded vote on the motion to 
instruct. The gentleman well knows the motion to instruct carries 
exactly the same weight whether it is passed by a voice vote or by a 
recorded vote. It is obvious in the debate that they want to make 
points not included in the motion to instruct.
  The motion to instruct is theater, and the recorded vote that will be 
insisted on by my colleagues on the other side of the aisle is theater 
as well. Welcome to the grand theater of the absurd.
  Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from 
Ohio [Mr. Strickland].
  Mr. STRICKLAND. Mr. Speaker, when the gentleman on the other side of 
the aisle says what we are doing as we try to speak for our 
constituents is a charade and that this is theater, I am reminded of 
Shakespeare who says ``thou dost protest too much.''
  We have got a responsibility in this Chamber to speak up for our 
constituents and that is what we are going to do. We should be 
expanding health care opportunities for the most vulnerable among us, 
the old and the young, and not reducing those opportunities. How many 
millions of our mothers and fathers, grandparents, aunts and uncles 
will be without health insurance because of the Senate's action?

                              {time}  1145

  For many Americans who work with their hands in grueling jobs, I am 
talking about steel workers, carpenters, machinists, road builders, it 
is simply

[[Page H5035]]

not physically possible for many of these workers to work beyond 65 
years of age. We cannot afford to let them languish without health 
insurance.
  I think of my niece, Beverly, a mother who has four children and who 
works as a pipefitter. Beverly cannot work beyond 65 years of age, I 
think. I am worried about Beverly and all the other hard-working 
Americans who could face the age of 65 and know that they have no 
guarantee of health insurance. That is what we are talking about. That 
is why it is important.
  My colleague can call it absurd, my colleague can call it theater, 
but it is important business that we are talking about today.
  Mr. KASICH. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 2\1/2\ minutes.
  Let me just suggest that I do not have the Senate proposal in front 
of me, but I believe that the people who would be the most affected by 
the raise from 65 to 67 are us because it is phased in over a long 
period of time.
  Now I am just going to suggest that if we think that in order to help 
the children we have to bankrupt mom, that is clearly, that view is 
clearly held by somebody who does not know much about the current 
system. At the same time, in order to help mom it does not mean we have 
to bankrupt her adult son.
  Now if we want to hear emotional appeals about the struggle that 
people have as they become senior citizens, we have to be sensitive to 
it. I think we got a good bill to do that. But to only take into 
consideration us, the baby boomers who would be primarily affected by 
this, and for me to say that I got to eat and that my children should 
just go to work and work 80 hours a week to pay taxes to support me is 
unconscionable.
  The simple fact of the matter is this country must avoid a 
generational war, and it is up to us to have the decency, it is up to 
us to have the restraint, it is up to us to be the leaders that will 
prevent a generational war in this country by putting the good of the 
country first and not pitting one age group against another. And if it 
is going to happen, we are going to go to war.
  And I am going to tell my colleagues the young people in this country 
are going to win that war, and we do not need to have it, we need to 
avoid it. We have enough divisions in our country. We have enough anger 
and enough hatred and enough prejudice in our country without us to be 
creating it.
  I believe it is possible in a sensitive way to be able to make the 
structural changes in this country that will not bankrupt mom while at 
the same time giving her adult children and grandchildren a chance, and 
in order to give the adult children and the grandchildren a chance does 
not mean that we got to dump it all out.
  What has happened in our country is simple. The young people, working 
young people with kids in this country have been put up against the 
wall, and mom and dad will be the first ones to say we ought to restore 
balance between the generations, and that is what Republicans and 
Democrats ought to strive for.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from 
Missouri [Mr. Talent].
  Mr. TALENT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding this time 
to me.
  Mr. Speaker, I knew from the beginning of the session that there 
would be a series of attempts through the back door, if my colleagues 
will, to substantially revise, in fact to gut the work provisions in 
the welfare bill that we passed last year on a bipartisan basis, and 
that the President signed and that is working in the United States of 
America and reducing welfare caseloads around the country, getting 
people off dependency and to work. And there have been a series of 
attempts to do that in committee, on the Senate floor, and now 
unfortunately in this motion to instruct.
  Now, Mr. Speaker, the motion to instruct contains, I think, a good 
provision telling us that we should not, at this time anyway, increase 
the retirement age for Medicare from 65 to 67. I support that, and I am 
going to support the motion to instruct for that reason. But attached 
to it is one of those back-door attacks on the work provisions in the 
welfare bill.
  The whole point of the work provisions that we passed last year was 
to require work in exchange for welfare benefits and therefore to make 
work attractive vis-a-vis welfare, so that we would encourage people to 
get work skills and to get off welfare and into work, and it is 
working. All around the country caseloads are going down, people are 
going off of dependency into sufficiency, into self-sufficiency, and it 
is working because we have decreased the attractiveness of welfare vis-
a-vis work.
  Now there are many people in this House who will not oppose that 
openly. They will all stand up and say ``We are for welfare reform.'' 
But then they introduce measures which would have the effect of gutting 
that by in effect turning workfare into a vast expansion of the welfare 
bureaucracy without changing any of the incentives that lead people to 
dependency. That is the effect of the work provisions that were 
attached to the Senate bill. Here is what they would do, in a nutshell:
  Let us suppose somebody goes on community service. They have to work 
under the new bill, they cannot get a job, so they go into community 
service, they are doing some kind of paperwork job in a clerk's office; 
OK.
  If the Senate provision prevails, they will be getting at least a 
minimum wage plus food stamps, plus Medicaid, plus housing, plus access 
to 70 other Federal welfare programs; plus, if the Senate has its way, 
the right to get the earned income tax credit, the right to file 
worker's compensation. FICA taxes will be deducted. It will be some 
kind of a super employee status, and they will be working right next to 
somebody who is just getting that same minimum wage and is not getting 
any of those other things, and the reason is they never went on 
welfare.
  So we will take a provision, the purpose of which was to make welfare 
less attractive than work, and will turn it around and make it more 
attractive than work, exactly the kind of welfare reform, quote, 
unquote, that was attempted in the 1980's and did not work and will not 
work now.
  Mr. Speaker, we are helping for the first time poor people and their 
children. We are getting them off of welfare checks and onto paychecks. 
It is working. Let us not turn the clock back on that.
  I am going to vote for the motion to instruct. I like the provision 
on Medicare. I think my colleague is right. I think we ought to make a 
statement to the Senate. Let us work together in conference on these 
other provisions. The House has reasonable protections for people in 
community service. We do require the payment of the minimum wage. We 
have protections against sex discrimination. We have protections to 
make sure they work in a safe environment. But let us not load up the 
work requirements to the point that they are unaffordable to the State 
and that they make actual work unattractive vis-a-vis welfare.
  I hope I can work with my colleagues in achieving that in conference. 
I think the motion to instruct in that respect is a step in the wrong 
direction. I am going to support it anyway, but let us talk about it in 
conference. Let us not gut the work provisions in a welfare bill that 
is working so well.
  Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Cardin].
  Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Stark] for yielding me this time, and really thank the 
gentleman from South Carolina [Mr. Spratt] and Mr. Stark for bringing 
forward this motion to instruct our conferees to support the House 
position.
  I would like to talk primarily on the Medicare provisions because we 
worked long and hard in this House to bring out a bipartisan bill on 
Medicare. The other body, in raising the eligibility from 65 to 67, 
have brought forward a major change in policy in Medicare without any 
public hearings on this side, without really thinking out what that 
policy would mean. We have provisions in our bill that set up a 
commission to look at the long-term solvency of Medicare, but by 
increasing the age from 65 to 67 we have not thought out how these 
individuals are going to receive health benefits.
  Are we expecting the employer-provided health benefits to cover? If 
so, then we have one of the largest new mandates on the private sector 
with no

[[Page H5036]]

idea how it is going to be funded. Do we expect our seniors 65 and 66 
to pick up this cost, the extra five 5, 6, $7,000 a year? Can they 
afford it recently retired? I doubt it. Do we expect our seniors to go 
without any insurance coverage, to increase the number of uninsured?
  These are questions that must be answered first before we increase 
the eligibility age for Medicare.
  I urge my colleagues to support this motion to make it clear to our 
conferees to maintain the 65-year-old eligibility for Medicare. Let us 
make sure that we protect the solvency of Medicare as we have in the 
House provisions. I urge my colleagues to support the motion.
  Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished 
gentlewoman from Connecticut [Mrs. Kennelly].
  Mrs. KENNELLY of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I rise to urge the Members 
to support the motion to instruct the conferees to prevent us from 
prematurely raising the age from 65 to 67 to qualify for Medicare.
  Mr. Speaker, a few years ago a young President came to Washington, 
DC. He wanted to make sure everybody had health care. We all know what 
happened. We could not agree on a plan, and so we got no plan.
  Last year we began again to move in that direction. The Kennedy-
Kassebaum, anyone with preexisting conditions could get health care.
  This year all we talk about is how do we get more kids covered with 
health care.
  Now I look and see, what are we doing? We only have one area, one 
group of people who have universal health care. When someone becomes 
65, take a sigh of relief. They have got Medicare. Why on one hand are 
we trying to cover more people and then, lo and behold, on the other 
side saying, ``You that have it, we're going to take away, you're going 
to have to wait 2 years longer.''
  I think this is folly. The bill before us provides for a study. We 
should wait for that study and not act prematurely.
  Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished 
gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Kucinich].
  Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the Senate's 
recent vote to raise Medicare's eligibility age from 65 to 67. Millions 
of seniors know they are being pushed toward an early retirement. If 
this provision were accepted today, 4 million seniors would no longer 
be eligible for Medicare and 200,000 would have no insurance at all. 
This ill-advised change will create gaps in health care coverage, gaps 
which could be covered only by expensive private insurance, which would 
further jeopardize seniors' retirement security or force seniors to 
forgo needed health care. The number of uninsured seniors would soon 
rise to almost 2 million.
  Ultimately American families will be called upon to sacrifice the 
health of their parents or grandparents. That is where the real 
intragenerational financial challenge will be faced, in family budgets. 
Such hasty changes in Medicare will reduce public confidence in a 
program which has provided solid health care and security for tens of 
millions of Americans. We should protect Medicare, not weaken it with a 
proposal to increase the Medicare eligible age.
  Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Gillmor). The gentleman from California 
is recognized for 1 minute.
  Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I close by suggesting that I am pleased that 
my colleagues will be supporting this motion to instruct on a 
bipartisan basis. Send a strong message to the Senate about our 
feelings.
  But I want to warn my colleagues about the future. Any attempt to 
make Medicare a two-income-level plan, indeed to make it a welfare 
plan, could put the seniors in the same fate as second class Americans 
that we will be debating in the next 10 or 20 minutes, because once we 
allow any Medicare beneficiaries to become in any way suggested that 
they are welfare beneficiaries, we will see by the attitude that this 
House directs toward them what could be the sad fate of seniors.

                              {time}  1200

  So think about it. We must keep Medicare as a broad program in which 
all seniors participate, and as we change it, and we must do that, we 
must make sure that it does not become a two-class program, because 
Members will see the dangers in the future debate on this issue.
  Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished chair of the Committee on the 
Budget and the ranking member and the chairman of the subcommittee for 
their courtesy.
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to allocate 12 
minutes, 6 minutes to the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Clay] and 6 
minutes to the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Levin], and ask that they 
be able to allocate and yield portions of their time to other Members.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Gillmor). Is there objection to the 
request of the gentleman from South Carolina?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. CLAY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 2 minutes.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this motion. The Republican 
gentleman from California said that this motion is unnecessary because 
it is supporting the House position. That is untrue. The House-passed 
version of the budget reconciliation bill is destined to make second-
class citizens out of those going from welfare to work. It establishes 
a class of workers who will be denied protections against age, sex, and 
racial discrimination.
  The welfare workers will in fact be doing the same jobs as that 
performed by other workers. The House bill denies these workers the 
enforcement and remedial protections of the Fair Labor Standards Act. 
What have poor people done to deserve such cynical treatment by the 
Republican majority?
  The pending motion instructs the conferees to reject the outrageous 
attack on people trying to escape the ravages of poverty and welfare. 
It also instructs the conferees to recognize that workfare recipients 
are worthy of the same dignity and equal protection afforded other 
workers.
  The motion instructs conferees to accept the House language 
concerning sexual harassment and occupational health provisions. It 
instructs them to reject the sham grievance procedure under which 
victims of sexual harassment can only seek redress from the very 
agencies that employ them. Mr. Speaker, this is contrary to what the 
gentleman from Missouri on the other side said. It is a sham procedure. 
There is no protection for them.
  The House grievance procedure also fails to provide any means by 
which welfare workers may effectively refuse to work in dangerous and 
hazardous conditions. Under the House bill, these workers can be forced 
to work in toxic waste sites.
  Mr. Speaker, the pending motion is very simple: Preserve the promise 
we have made regarding Medicare eligibility, protect workfare 
participants like we protect other workers, and make sure these 
protections are backed up by credible due process and effective 
remedies for redress.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from California asked why we wanted a 
recorded vote. The reason is because there are several parts of this 
motion to instruct. One of them relates to Medicare and the age 
parameters, but another part relates to whether people who move from 
welfare to work should be treated as first-class citizens and should be 
covered by FLSA.
  When Members vote, whoever does, for this motion to instruct, they 
are essentially saying, we reject the House position that takes people 
who are moving from welfare to work out from under the minimum wage and 
other protections of FLSA. That is what Members are doing when they 
vote, if they do, for the motion to instruct.
  We want everybody on record on this because it is very important. 
Contrary to what the other gentleman from Missouri said, this is an 
effort to implement the welfare bill. This is to make sure, as people 
move from welfare to work, who are workers, that they be treated as 
workers and not as second-class citizens.
  The history of this is the following, quickly: The original Committee 
on Ways and Means proposal in the House would exempt all of the people 
who are under TANF from protection of minimum wage and other 
protections,

[[Page H5037]]

health and safety and others, under the Fair Labor Standards Act. We 
protested.
  So then what was finally done was to say even if they would be 
classified as employees, they would still not be considered as 
protected under the Fair Labor Standards Act, but let us be sure they 
have minimum wage and, unlike the original House Republican proposal, 
we will not allow the State to deduct medical care, child care, or 
housing assistance. But they still do not have the protections under 
Federal law if they are not paid the minimum wage. They still do not 
have protections against sexual harassment.
  Let me just ask, as someone moves from welfare to work, as they 
should, why should they not have protection against sexual harassment? 
No, this is not a question of making welfare less attractive. This is 
an issue of treating people who move from welfare to work as workers. 
It is carrying out the basic premise of welfare reform, and that is the 
dignity and integrity of work. That is what this is all about.
  We won only part of this fight in the committee. We want to win the 
rest of this fight today on the floor of the House in the motion to 
instruct. Let there be no mistake about it, that is our purpose, to 
implement welfare reform. The excuse was States would not be able to 
implement the participation requirements if we put people under FLSA. 
But Members put them, the majority, under some form of minimum wage, 
which would be the main barrier to States, and everybody acknowledges 
they are going to be able to meet these participation requirements in 
the next several years.
  Then the argument was, well, we are going to create bookwork. My 
answer to that is, Mr. Speaker, I do not want to create unnecessary 
bookwork, but I want to make sure that people who move from welfare to 
work, which I very much favor, are treated, as is the promise of 
welfare reform, as first-class citizens of the United States of 
America.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge support for the motion to instruct on this record 
rollcall.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HOBSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from 
Florida [Mr. Shaw].
  Mr. SHAW. I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time, Mr. 
Speaker.
  Mr. Speaker, I guess we should start out the argument in this 
particular phase of where we are today as ``been there, done that.'' As 
a minority party, we have been there, we have done that. Now I think it 
is a question of whether or not we are going to record a vote. Of 
course we are going to record a vote. We have been there, we have done 
that, too.
  What do we do? We try to get this thing couched in a way that could 
cause some embarrassment to the majority. We have been there, we have 
done that. So let us get rid of the question of whether or not they are 
acting unfairly, because we have been there and we have done that.
  I would like to take a close look at the motion that is before us. 
The first item talks about, oh, we are not going to raise the 
retirement age as far as receiving Medicare until age 67. The first 
generation that is going to have to wait until the age of 67 are those 
born in 1960, so let us not talk about senior citizens, because we are 
not. They are totally unaffected. Even people in my age category are 
unaffected by what the Senate is going to do.
  Are we going to support the House position? Of course we are. So we 
get by that one.
  Then I want to go down to the third one. The third one reads that the 
motion insists on the House provisions that prohibits sex 
discrimination in all work activities and assures health and safety 
protection for all participants. Are we going to support the House 
position? Of course we are. We wrote it. We negotiated it.
  I might tell my Democrat friends that they had input in it, and we 
received some of their input, and together we wrote some of these 
provisions. Are they going to support that? Of course they are. Are we 
going to support that? Of course we are, because we put it in the bill.
  But let us take a look at the second provision in the motion to 
instruct. That says that the motion rejects language in the House bill 
that treats certain TANF participants as nonemployees, therefore 
denying them protection under the Federal antidiscrimination laws: the 
Fair Labor Standards Act, OSHA, and other workers' protection.
  Let us take a close look at that. Let us look at existing law, the 
welfare bill that was signed into law by the President on August 22, 
1996. That has a provision, a nondiscrimination provision, including, 
and I am reading directly from the legislation right now, ``The 
following provisions of law shall apply to any program or activity 
which receives funds provided under this part.''
  Now what applies? We heard somebody talk about discrimination on 
race. We heard another Speaker say they can discriminate on age. Let us 
see what is in the law right now that we do not change, that we simply 
make this a part of.
  The Age Discrimination Act of 1975, that applies to the people 
receiving these benefits. Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 
1973, that applies to people receiving benefits and having to work for 
their benefits under this bill. The Americans with Disabilities Act of 
1990, it applies. We do not take that away. Title VI of the Civil 
Rights Act of 1964, that applies. It is in the bill. Read the law. Read 
the law for once and quit posturing.
  Then what we do is that we go back and we add to those 
antidiscrimination provisions. We have a provision as to health and 
safety. We have another provision as to sex discrimination. I am 
reading right from it. It says, ``In addition to the protections 
provided under the provisions of law specified in section'' so and so, 
``an individual may not be discriminated against with regard to 
participation in work activities by reason of gender.'' That is in 
here. Read it. That is in the House bill.
  I think it is important that we look and see how far we have come. We 
have taken the provisions and the safety provisions that are presently 
in the existing welfare bill and we build upon them. We build upon 
them, to be sure that workers have more rights.
  Now, the question is, is there a remedy? Yes, we provide in here that 
the States have to set up a remedy. Now, with regard to the Civil 
Rights Act and other Federal laws that I just made reference to, their 
remedy is just as it always has been and it is for any worker, whether 
it be through the courts or a complaint to the Federal Government. But 
we set up a provision that requires the States to set up a remedy with 
regard to some of these other provisions if people are discriminated 
against.
  Mr. Speaker, these are important things to realize. I would like to 
point to one other provision that was something that was very, very 
heavily supported by the Democrats. That is a provision that could be, 
could be seen as discrimination. We cannot displace an existing worker 
with somebody who is on welfare. That is something that I think Members 
want in the bill. Is that discrimination? Yes, I would say that is 
discrimination. If we cannot fill that position and let somebody go 
because you are going to fill it with somebody coming off of welfare, 
that is, but I think my Democrat friends would insist upon that, and it 
makes sense. We went along with it. So I think what we have to do, and 
I would say here in closing that I have no problem with the motion to 
instruct. Is it a political document? Of course it is. Does it have any 
effect of law? Does it bind the negotiators? No, it does not. Does it 
do any harm? No, it does not. Am I going to vote for it? Of course I am 
going to vote for it. There is nothing in here that is inconsistent 
with my responsibility as a conferee, and I intend to support it.

                              {time}  1215

  Mr. CLAY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Miller].
  (Mr. MILLER of California asked and was given permission to revise 
and extend his remarks.)
  Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, it is an interesting 
refutation we just heard. What we heard is that with respect to people 
who are struggling to get off of welfare, the Republicans are prepared 
to take care of old disabled people. We thought they would do that 
anyway.
  But the fact of the matter is for the workers under this legislation 
that they have sent to conference, those

[[Page H5038]]

workers who are struggling to get off of welfare, who have taken the 
direction of this Congress, they are second-class citizens with respect 
to the protections that other workers receive. That is a matter of the 
law in the bill that we have sent to the conference committee.
  That is true with respect to sexual harassment. That is true with 
respect to the minimum wage. That is true with respect to worker 
protections under OSHA. We have to ask ourselves, why is it the 
Republicans are so hell bent, so hell bent on punishing working people?
  Earlier we saw that they wanted to deny them the minimum wage. Then 
they wrote a tax bill that showered the benefits onto the wealthy. Now 
we see, to balance the budget, they have decided that people who go on 
welfare should not be given the same benefits as other people they are 
working alongside of in the workplace.
  It simply is not fair. It is inequity, and it is simply un-American 
with respect to the treatment of working people. Working people deserve 
better and that is why we are going to ask for a vote on the motion to 
instruct.
  Mr. HOBSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from 
Florida [Mr. Shaw].
  Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, I would like to read directly from the House 
bill. Health and safety standards, that is OSHA, established under 
Federal and State law otherwise applicable to working conditions of 
employees shall be equally applicable to working conditions of 
participants engaged in a work activity.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Speaker, I say to my friend from Florida, look, there is a 
reference to health and safety that was put in after we protested. But 
there is no Federal protection of that right.
  Why should people be treated as second class citizens as they move 
from welfare to work? Why should they not have the same protections as 
other people, the full dignity and integrity of work? In the list he 
read earlier, there is no protection against sexual harassment or 
against employment discrimination. So they are trying in a sense to 
finesse the issue on the majority side.
  We have been able to move this along but not to the point where 
people who work are first class citizens whether they are on welfare or 
not.
  Our basic premise is this: People who work, surely those who move 
from welfare to work, as I believe they should, and I supported the 
welfare bill, should have the same protections as all other employees. 
If they are employees under FLSA, they are employees. And you have been 
trying to cut this in pieces.
  What we are saying is, let us keep it whole. That is what people in 
this country deserve. That is the intent of the law.
  This motion to instruct says, follow FLSA as it applies to all 
employees.
  Mr. CLAY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Michigan [Mr. Bonior].
  Mr. BONIOR. Mr. Speaker, the Republican tax-and-spend bills that we 
are debating here this afternoon help the biggest and reward the 
richest and the biggest corporations, and they punish America's working 
families. My colleagues across the aisle know it, and the American 
people know it.
  This Republican spending bill turns hardworking Americans into, as my 
colleagues have just said on the floor, second class citizens. This 
bill contains provisions that permit and even encourage employers to 
deny basic rights and protections to hardworking Americans doing an 
honest day's work, provisions that say that it is OK to deny some 
Americans safe working conditions, provisions that say that it is OK to 
deny some Americans their right under the Family and Medical Leave Act, 
denying them the right to choose their jobs, making sure that they do 
not have to deal with the choice between the job that they need and the 
family they love, provisions that say that it is OK to deny some 
Americans protection from sexual harassment.
  This bill says that some Americans are less than equal, that they do 
not deserve the same rights as other Americans, that it is OK to create 
a subclass of citizens. That is not just a slippery slope, it is a 
jagged cliff.
  If all Americans do not share the same rights, then none of us have 
them. Think about a mother who is working to support her children. This 
spending bill permits, it even encourages her boss to ignore the most 
basic safety rule. It allows him to sexually harass her without fear of 
punishment. Who would put their sister, their daughter, their mother in 
such a demeaning, compromising situation without any recourse? The 
Republicans want to write this into law.
  This Republican spending bill does very little to protect children's 
health. Every day in America 3,300 children lose their health 
insurance. In the bipartisan budget agreement, Republicans promised to 
cover half of America's 10 million uninsured children. This bill 
abandons that promise. It abandons these children. Under this bill, 
only about 500,000 children will get health care, and even that figure 
is in dispute.
  To make matters worse, this bill shortchanges funding for children's 
hospitals. This Republican spending bill is an attack against the 
American principles of fairness and opportunity. This Republican 
spending bill is an attack on our rights. This Republican spending bill 
is an attack against American working families, as is the bill that we 
will discuss in a little while that deals with the tax reconciliation, 
helping the rich at the expense of working Americans.
  I urge my colleagues to vote for the motion to instruct so we do not 
have to have a subclass of American citizens and so that we can ensure 
that our citizens are protected in health care.
  Mr. HOBSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Georgia [Mr. Linder].
  Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the 
time. This whole discussion has sort of an Alice in Wonderland quality 
about it. We are talking as though hard working American citizens are 
being denied basic rights of employment.
  These are welfare recipients. These are people who have been on 
welfare for 2 years and did not get a job after 2 years, as the welfare 
reform requires. So they are doing 20 hours a week of public service. 
They are getting $8.50 to $9 an hour in cash and noncash welfare 
benefits without working for it, and they are providing 20 hours a week 
of public service because they did not get a job as the law requires.
  Now they want to require, in addition, they get minimum wages on top 
of that. For that, they get all the protections of the Fair Labor 
Standards Act, so they could possibly maybe get unemployment benefits, 
too, when they quit the job, and all the other benefits that accrue to 
people who go out and work for a living, find a job and support their 
family the way the rest of America does.
  It is dishonest, it seems to me, or at least misleading to try and 
convince America that these are hardworking people just trying to raise 
their families when in fact they are welfare recipients, getting $8.50 
to $9 an hour in benefits from the taxpayers already, who now want to 
be paid for public service because they refuse to go to work.
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HOBSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the 
gentleman from Florida [Mr. Shaw].
  Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, as we come to the closure of the debate on 
this, I would like to not only compliment the chairman of the Committee 
on the Budget, the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Kasich], but also the 
gentleman from South Carolina who, together with the Republicans and 
his Democrats, sought out a lot of middle ground in working this 
process through to bring the House bill to the floor.
  The provisions complained of in the motion to instruct are harmless. 
It accepts the House provision in the first and the last provision 
within the motion to instruct. The second provision is written in such 
a way, I think, to mislead people that the House provision was blind to 
the protections that workers would have.
  I would encourage all Members on this side of the aisle to go ahead 
and support the motion. It does no harm to the House position. I think, 
as a matter of fact, my interpretation of it is in very strong support 
of the House position, and that is where the conferees should start out 
and hopefully end up on a lot of these provisions.

[[Page H5039]]

  I do want to make it very clear, however, to Members listening to the 
debate that what we are talking about when we talk about some of these 
things that might be missing such as unemployment compensation, FICA, 
some of these other provisions that are the only benefits that these 
people are not receiving, when they go into the private sector, they 
will receive full benefits.
  There is no discrimination against people when they become employees 
when coming off of welfare. As a matter of fact, we do everything we 
can to get them out there in a permanent job in the private sector 
where they receive all the benefits.
  This is not a question of class warfare, class distinction, or taking 
away the rights of the American workers. They are fully protected as 
they should be protected. We are talking only about the provision when 
they are doing public service jobs so that they do not lose their 
benefits. That is what is important.
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  We bring this motion to instruct conferees because we are in the 
minority. This is a way we have, one of the few devices we have to 
register our views on things that are important.
  There is no question about it. Medicare age eligibility is 
fundamentally important. We want to register the House position on 
that.
  Second, it is fundamentally important to us also to say that 
everybody, every American, because of his status as an American, is 
entitled to the fundamental protection of the laws of the land, which 
is what the Federal Labor Standards Act is.
  The simple way to accomplish that is to say that you are a worker 
within the definition of the Federal Fair Labor Standards Act, except 
to the extent that this protection does not apply. That is what we are 
seeking here, to give them the broad protection of the law that has 
been the law of the land for more than 50 years. I was pleased to hear 
that my colleagues, the other side of the aisle, will be supporting 
this motion to instruct, and I assure the Chair that when the time 
comes we will be asking for a record vote because this is a matter of 
importance, both of these issues, on which we want to register the 
views of the House as we go into this conference.
  Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this motion, but I 
bring a somewhat different perspective to this debate. I find myself in 
agreement with much of what has been said by my Republican colleagues 
about the need to deal with both of these issues. I agree with the 
substance of both proposals addressed in this motion.
  A gradual increase in the eligibility age for Medicare must be part 
of a serious effort to reform entitlement programs to preserve them for 
future generations. I think most of us recognize that the budget 
agreement is a very humble first step in dealing with the long-term 
needs of the major entitlements. Bringing the eligibility age of 
Medicare in line with Social Security is a fair and reasonable reform 
that would have a tremendous long-term benefit for the Medicare 
Program. However, I do agree that it is reasonable for this issue to be 
considered in the context of overall Medicare reform where we can 
consider the various ramifications of this change on retirees, 
employers, the health system, and so forth.
  With regard to the second provision, I am concerned that a well-
intentioned effort to protect welfare recipients will harm the very 
people that we are trying to protect. Many States have instituted 
community service and work experience programs as a safety net for 
welfare recipients who do not have the skills or experience to obtain 
private sector employment before they lose eligibility for cash 
assistance. Community service jobs often provide experience for these 
individuals then to be hired by private employers. If we apply all 
labor laws to community service programs, many States who sincerely 
want to help welfare recipients will find it too cumbersome and complex 
to operate a community service program, leaving welfare recipients with 
no source of income when they lose eligibility for cash assistance. 
States that rely on nonprofit organizations to provide community 
service jobs for welfare recipients will have a hard time continuing 
these programs because very few nonprofit organizations are willing to 
accept the legal obligations and liabilities associated with being 
classified as an employer. I don't believe that any of us want to 
eliminate this portion of the welfare safety net, but that will be the 
consequence if we do not take action on this issue.
  However, I support this motion because I question the ability to 
adequately deal with these issues within budget reconciliation. These 
are very controversial and complex issues that should be reviewed and 
debated on their own merits. I believe that both of these issues would 
receive strong support in Congress if they were considered separately.
  As someone who is very interested in taking constructive action on 
both of these matters, I am concerned that the politically charged 
context of the budget agreement will prevent a serious discussion of 
these issues. Allowing these matters to be consumed by the rhetoric in 
the budget debate will make it much more difficult to make any real 
progress on either issue. For this reason, I would encourage all 
Members who want to deal with these issues in a constructive manner 
instead of allowing them to be exploited for political purposes to vote 
for this motion.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Gillmor). Without objection, the 
previous question is ordered on the motion to instruct.
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to instruct 
offered by the gentleman from South Carolina [Mr. Spratt].
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. SPRATT. 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.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 414, 
nays 14, not voting 6, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 257]

                               YEAS--414

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Aderholt
     Allen
     Andrews
     Archer
     Bachus
     Baesler
     Baker
     Baldacci
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barrett (NE)
     Barrett (WI)
     Bartlett
     Bass
     Bateman
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Bereuter
     Berman
     Berry
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Blagojevich
     Bliley
     Blumenauer
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonior
     Bono
     Borski
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Bryant
     Bunning
     Burr
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canady
     Cannon
     Capps
     Cardin
     Carson
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth
     Christensen
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins
     Combest
     Condit
     Conyers
     Cook
     Cooksey
     Costello
     Cox
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cubin
     Cummings
     Cunningham
     Danner
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (VA)
     Deal
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     DeLay
     Dellums
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doolittle
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Emerson
     Engel
     English
     Ensign
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Everett
     Ewing
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fawell
     Fazio
     Filner
     Flake
     Foglietta
     Foley
     Forbes
     Ford
     Fox
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frost
     Furse
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gejdenson
     Gekas
     Gephardt
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Gonzalez
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Gordon
     Goss
     Graham
     Granger
     Green
     Greenwood
     Gutierrez
     Gutknecht
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hamilton
     Hansen
     Harman
     Hastert
     Hastings (FL)
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Hefner
     Herger
     Hill
     Hilleary
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Hooley
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Istook
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Jenkins
     John
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (WI)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kim
     Kind (WI)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kleczka
     Klink
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     Kucinich
     LaFalce
     LaHood
     Lampson
     Lantos
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lazio
     Leach
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lipinski
     Livingston
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Lucas
     Luther
     Maloney (CT)
     Maloney (NY)
     Manton
     Manzullo
     Martinez
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDade
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McHale
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek
     Menendez
     Metcalf
     Mica
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (CA)
     Miller (FL)
     Minge
     Mink
     Moakley
     Molinari
     Mollohan
     Moran (KS)
     Moran (VA)

[[Page H5040]]


     Morella
     Murtha
     Myrick
     Nadler
     Neal
     Nethercutt
     Neumann
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Oxley
     Packard
     Pallone
     Pappas
     Parker
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Paul
     Paxon
     Payne
     Pease
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pickett
     Pitts
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Portman
     Poshard
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Redmond
     Regula
     Reyes
     Riley
     Rivers
     Rodriguez
     Roemer
     Rogan
     Rogers
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rothman
     Roukema
     Roybal-Allard
     Royce
     Rush
     Ryun
     Sabo
     Salmon
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Sawyer
     Saxton
     Schaefer, Dan
     Schaffer, Bob
     Schumer
     Scott
     Sensenbrenner
     Serrano
     Sessions
     Shaw
     Sherman
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Sisisky
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (OR)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith, Adam
     Smith, Linda
     Snowbarger
     Snyder
     Solomon
     Souder
     Spence
     Spratt
     Stabenow
     Stark
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stokes
     Strickland
     Stump
     Stupak
     Sununu
     Talent
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Thurman
     Tiahrt
     Tierney
     Torres
     Towns
     Traficant
     Turner
     Upton
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Waters
     Watkins
     Watt (NC)
     Watts (OK)
     Waxman
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Wexler
     Weygand
     White
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wise
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wynn
     Yates
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                                NAYS--14

     Barr
     Barton
     Campbell
     Ehrlich
     Fowler
     Johnson, Sam
     Kolbe
     Porter
     Riggs
     Rohrabacher
     Sanford
     Scarborough
     Shadegg
     Shays

                             NOT VOTING--6

     Armey
     Burton
     Markey
     Schiff
     Skaggs
     Slaughter

                              {time}  1248

  Messrs. ROHRABACHER, PORTER, SHAYS, RIGGS, BARR of Georgia, BARTON of 
Texas, and Mrs. FOWLER changed their vote from ``yea'' to ``nay''.
  Ms. DeGETTE and Mr. BLUNT changed their vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
  So the motion to instruct was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the Chair appoints the 
following conferees:
  For consideration of the House bill, and the Senate amendment, and 
modifications committed to conference: Messrs. Kasich, Hobson, Armey, 
DeLay, Hastert, Spratt, Bonior, and Fazio of California.
  As additional conferees from the Committee on Agriculture, for 
consideration of title I of the House bill, and title I of the Senate 
amendment, and modifications committed to conference: Messrs. Smith of 
Oregon, Goodlatte, and Stenholm.
  As additional conferees from the Committee on Banking and Financial 
Services, for consideration of title II of the House bill, and title II 
of the Senate amendment, and modifications committed to conference: 
Messrs. Leach, Lazio of New York, and Gonzalez.
  As additional conferees from the Committee on Commerce, for 
consideration of subtitles A-C of title III of the House bill, and 
title IV of the Senate amendment, and modifications committed to 
conference: Messrs. Bliley, Dan Schaefer of Colorado, and Dingell.
  As additional conferees from the Committee on Commerce, for 
consideration of subtitle D of title III of the House bill, and 
subtitle A of title III of the Senate amendment, and modifications 
committed to conference: Messrs. Bliley, Tauzin, and Dingell.
  As additional conferees from the Committee on Commerce, for 
consideration of subtitles E and F of title III, titles IV and X of the 
House bill, and divisions 1 and 2 of title V of the Senate amendment, 
and modifications committed to conference: Messrs. Bliley, Bilirakis, 
and Dingell.
  As additional conferees from the Committee on Education and the 
Workforce, for consideration of subtitle A of title V and subtitle A of 
title IX of the House bill, and chapter 2 of division 3 of title V of 
the Senate amendment, and modifications committed to conference: 
Messrs. Goodling, Talent, and Clay.
  As additional conferees from the Committee on Education and the 
Workforce, for consideration of subtitles B and C of title V of the 
House bill, and title VII of the Senate amendment, and modifications 
committed to conference: Messrs. Goodling, McKeon, and Kildee.
  As additional conferees from the Committee on Education and the 
Workforce, for consideration of subtitle D of title V of the House 
bill, and chapter 7 of division 4 of title V of the Senate amendment, 
and modifications committed to conference: Messrs. Goodling, Fawell, 
and Payne.
  As additional conferees from the Committee on Government Reform and 
Oversight, for consideration of title VI of the House bill, and 
subtitle A of title VI of the Senate amendment, and modifications 
committed to conference: Messrs. Burton of Indiana, Mica, and Waxman.
  As additional conferees from the Committee on Transporation and 
Infrastructure, for consideration of title VII of the House bill, and 
subtitle B of title III and subtitle B of title VI of the Senate 
amendment, and modifications committed to conference: Messrs. Shuster, 
Gilchrest, Oberstar.
  As additional conferees from the Committee on Veterans' Affairs, for 
consideration of title VIII of the House bill, and title VIII of the 
Senate amendment, and modifications committed to conference: Messrs. 
Stump, Smith of New Jersey, and Evans.
  As additional conferees from the Committee on Ways and Means, for 
consideration of subtitle A of title V and title IX of the House bill, 
and divisions 3 and 4 of title V of the Senate amendment, and 
modifications committed to conference: Messrs. Archer, Shaw, Camp, 
Rangel, and Levin.
  As additional conferees from the Committee on Ways and Means, for 
consideration of titles IV and X of the House bill, and division 1 of 
title V of the Senate amendment, and modifications committed to 
conference: Messrs. Archer, Thomas, and Stark.
  There was no objection.

                          ____________________