[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 35 (Thursday, March 24, 1994)]
[House]
[Page H]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: March 24, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

 
                             SUBSIDY REFORM

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Laughlin). under the Speaker's announced 
policy of February 11, 1994, the gentleman from New York [Mr. Owens] is 
recognized for 60 minutes as the majority leader's designee.
  Mr. OWENS. Mr. Speaker, we have just concluded a very important Phase 
1 of this year of the 103rd session of Congress. In conclusion, we 
passed H.R. 6, the reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary 
Education Assistance Act. I think to close out this phase of this 
year's session with passage of a major education bill was very much in 
order.
  There are discussions under way now in the White House, and a few 
other places, about welfare reform and the relationship is an obvious 
one. Education is a vital necessity if we are going to have meaningful 
welfare reform. Education, job training and actual creation of jobs, 
those three are very necessary if we are going to have meaningful 
welfare reform.
  I rise in favor of welfare reform. I am in favor of any form of 
reform of a Federal function or government function. Everything can be 
improved. But I hope the reform will go forward without hysteria, and 
without seeking to wreak revenge upon the poor. Welfare reform ought to 
be guided by scientific principles, by logic, by sound management 
principles. I think we can accomplish a great deal.
  I rise to advocate welfare reform with principles that really should 
apply to all American citizens who receive assistance from our 
government. If we are going to establish certain principles with 
respect to welfare, then let it be across the board for all citizens 
who receive assistance from government.
  From time to time, different classes of citizens need assistance. We 
just passed not too long ago a bill which appropriated more than $8 
billion for earthquake relief for victims of the earthquake in 
California. And it is totally appropriate that government should come 
to the aid of people in need. In this case, victims of the earthquake, 
regardless of income level, regardless of education, will be recipients 
of that earthquake relief.
  Last year we appropriated $6 billion, more than $6 billion for relief 
for victims of the Midwest floods, more than $6 billion. They were 
victims. They needed assistance of their government. It is altogether 
appropriate and fitting and proper that our government should come to 
the aid of those who need assistance.
  The year before that, we had appropriated I think more than $6 
billion for hurricane relief for victims of the hurricane in Florida. 
People who were victims of hurricanes needed the government to come to 
their assistance. It is fitting and proper that we should do that. 
Wherever American are in need, then they should be assisted.
  Members must understand however, that in our big cities we have a 
form of disaster which is not a natural disaster or a God-made 
disaster, but it is nevertheless a disaster. Certain of our inner city 
communities have had unemployment levels 10 points higher than national 
unemployment levels for the last 10 years. There are areas in my 
congressional district where unemployment has been up as high as 20 
percent for a long period of time for adults, and for young adults even 
higher than that. And this is not unique to my district in New York. 
There are similar districts in the big cities, Chicago, Philadelphia, 
Los Angeles, you name it, where the same kind of ``job quake,'' you 
might say, unemployment quake has existed. So those victims need 
relief, too.
  Relief to these victims, these families, often comes in the form of 
Aid to Families with Dependent Children. Welfare reform should be 
looked upon as providing help to those victims who are in need. But as 
we look at welfare reform, I think the parameters ought to be 
broadened, and if we are going to have reform of welfare which is 
directed primarily to Aid to Families with Dependent Children, we ought 
to take a look at other forms of welfare also and at the same time.
  Maybe we should not even call the actions we are about to take, or 
the plans that are about to be put forth welfare reform at all. We 
should call it subsidy reform or victim assistance reform. Some people 
are receiving subsidies who are not victims, so we should call it 
subsidy reform.
  If we call it subsidy reform, then we will reach out and take a hard 
look at everybody who is getting assistance from the government, and 
take a look at what should be done about that and what principles 
should be applied. I think this would be far more in line with the 
notion that we are a just and fair society and want to be fair to 
everybody. We do not want to just take revenge against the poor.
  People get very excited about the thought of these poor people 
sitting around doing nothing, no work, and therefore they are on 
welfare and using taxpayers' money. I think we should try to find jobs 
for everybody we can find jobs for. I think victims should be assisted 
when they cannot find jobs. But I am all in favor of jobs as a sound 
principle in welfare reform. Providing jobs for all, providing jobs for 
people on welfare, that is a sound principle, and every discussion of 
welfare that I have heard so far has talked about we are going to 
provide jobs. Two years on welfare and then you get a job.

                              {time}  2150

  I have no problem with providing jobs. Jobs are basic to our society. 
There is plenty of work, you know; there are many, many things to be 
done in our society. But work is not a job. A job is something you get 
paid for. Employment is something you get paid for.
  Therefore, if they cannot find jobs in the private sector, I think 
our Government should create meaningful jobs or should provide economic 
policies which generate meaningful jobs so that everybody, every sound-
bodied person, can get a job.
  I am all in favor of that. In fact, since I arrived in Congress, 
every year I have introduced, and the first year I introduced it, and 
every session I have reintroduced a bill which calls for a revision of 
the Constitution to add an amendment which would provide for a job 
opportunity for every American who wants to work.
  I think that this would not be radical idea at all, to provide a job 
opportunity for every American who wants to work, and when there are no 
jobs, it should be the duty of the Congress to create programs that 
generate jobs.
  So as we talk about welfare reform, the idea, the principle, of jobs 
is a sound principle that I support.
  Now, the principle of 2 years and you are off, if you are on welfare, 
2 years you are getting assistance, for 2 years, 2 years and no more, 
that principle is something maybe we should take a look at. It might be 
a sound principle. It might not be. I think Congress ought to examine 
the principle of 2 years and you are off. Or maybe we want to look at 3 
years and you are off, or maybe 4 years and you are off, but I think we 
ought to examine the principle, and if we are going to examine the 
principle of 2 years and you are off, we ought to think in terms of all 
people who are receiving subsidies from the Government.
  Can they also accept the same principle? Do we want to establish in 
our Government a principle that the government should assist 
individuals or families or groups for 2 years and no more? Do we want 
to establish that principle? Or maybe it should be 4 years or 3 years.
  Whatever the principle is, let us have it apply across the board to 
all Government subsidies. That means farm subsidies where you are 
giving farmers money in order to control the kind, the amount of crops 
we produce, and keep the prices at a certain level. The taxpayers pay 
twice. They pay to subsidize the farmers, and they pay for higher food 
prices, because by regulating the price, by paying to keep the grain 
and the products off the market, we keep the price high, so you pay 
twice. You pay a higher cost for food as a result of this Government-
controlled regulated situation through the farm subsidy program.
  We have had some farm subsidy programs for three decades, three 
decades, not 2 years, three decades. If you are going to apply the 
principle of 2 years and you are off, 2 years of assistance from our 
Government and no more, then we should get rid of the farm subsidy 
programs in 2 years.
  Of course, that would generate quite a bit of money, you know; the 
budget would save quite a bit of money which maybe can be used for the 
welfare reform program to provide for more jobs that are created in 
inner cities, cleaning up the environment, doing all the work that 
needs to be done, and also provide day care for mothers who have to go 
to work. There are a number of ways you could use the money you save by 
cutting off the farm subsidies, because they have been on for three 
decades, and 2 years is all we are going to tolerate, 2 years of 
raising your cattle on publicly owned land by all of those cattle 
grazers out there who have raised their cattle on publicly owned lands 
at discount rates, discount rates which are much lower than private 
property owners are charging, 2 years, and then we charge full rates.
  We would gain quite a bit of revenue from charging full rates after 
we have helped the farmers, and these farmers are not poor. These 
ranchers are not poor. Some of them are multimillionaires. Two years, 
and that is it.
  Two years of low-interest mortgages on the Farmers' Home Loan 
Mortgage Program, 2 years with low interest, and then you pay the 
regular interest rate.
  You would save quite a bit of money on the Farmers Home Loan Mortgage 
Program if you stopped giving away money. People get incensed. 
Taxpayers, listen, people get very incensed when they see welfare 
recipients getting $400 a month for a family of four. But do you know 
that the Farmers Home Loan Mortgage Program gave $11.5 billion to 
farmers over the last 5 years? These are loans that the farmers had 
that they forgave over the last 5 years for $11.5 billion. Not only did 
they not put them off after 2 years, when they decided to put them off, 
they just let them take the money and run.
  So this is just an introduction to a discussion I want to have in 
concert with my colleagues. We are all concerned about the forward 
movement of the preparation for the welfare reform bill, and I think we 
should open by asking all the taxpayers to have an open mind. We are in 
favor of reform of any function, any program in the Government that has 
existed for some time that can benefit from reform.
  But let us go forward with some sound principles, sound management 
principles, sound principles of logic, scientific principles and let us 
not be afraid to compare what we are doing with welfare, meaning aid to 
families with dependent children, and what we are doing in assisting 
Americans in other walks of life.
  Let us have the broadest possible approach to this situation.
  At this point I yield to two of my colleagues to also make the same 
kind of introduction of this problem that we have been discussing in 
Congress for a long time.
  I think as we close out this phase of Congress and go on recess and 
return, welfare reform, I think, will be very much on the agenda and 
moving forward. It is time for us now to stop and take stock and 
prepare for a long, long debate on welfare reform.
  At this point, I yield to my colleague, the gentlewoman from 
California [Ms. Woolsey].
  (Ms. WOOLSEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend her 
remarks.)
  Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank Representative Mink 
and Representative Owens for organizing this special order on welfare 
reform today, and I look forward to participating in an ongoing 
dialogue and discussion about the essential elements of welfare reform, 
especially with an emphasis on how reform will affect women and their 
children.
  I have often said that, in order to have effective welfare reform, 
other social support services must be in place both to prevent the need 
to go on welfare in the first place, and to help recipients get off and 
stay off for good. Those services include health care, child care, 
transportation, jobs that pay a family wage, and child support 
enforcement.
  Today, I would like to focus on our Nation's child support system and 
how important the quality of child support enforcement is to truly 
effective welfare reform. The simple fact is that we cannot have true 
welfare reform without dramatically improving our child support system.
  Mr. Speaker, of the $47 billion owed in child support each year, only 
$13 billion is collected, leaving a $34 billion gap between what is 
owed, and what is paid, to support our children. That $34 billion gap 
is a national disgrace, which is punishing our children and bankrupting 
our welfare system.
  I have introduced legislation to fundamentally change the child 
support collection system in the United States. This bill, called the 
Secure Assurance for Families Everywhere Act, or SAFE, will 
dramatically increase child support collection.
  First, SAFE will federalize child support collection by having the 
IRS maintain a national registry of child support orders, and using 
wage withholding to collect support.
  Second, this bill guarantees every family, that is owed child 
support, a minimum monthly payment.
  Third, it will dramatically increase paternity establishment.
  Today, States use Federal dollars to collect child support--resulting 
in confusion, duplication, and abysmal collection rates, which range as 
low as 11.9 percent. Further, 33 percent of child support cases are 
interstate. Since it is difficult for States to enforce child support 
collection across State lines, less than $1 for every $10, owed in 
interstate child support, is collected.
  The SAFE Act would do away with the current hit-or-miss State child 
support collection system. My bill enables the IRS, which has an 84 
percent collection rate, to withhold child support payments from an 
absent parent's paycheck and pay support to families with child support 
orders.
  Just like the Social Security System, which ensures that children of 
deceased parents receive financial support, the SAFE Act guarantees 
that children abandoned by their living parents are ALSO supported. My 
legislation will provide every parent who is owed child support a 
minimum monthly payment of $250.
  In order for this program to be truly effective, however, we need to 
make progress on establishing paternity. The SAFE Act will make it 
easier to establish paternity and to meet parental responsibilities.
  Child Support Reform, after all, is about taking care of our 
children.
  I personally know the importance of child support, Mr. Speaker, 
because 25 years ago, I was a divorced, working mother struggling to 
raise my three small children ages 1, 3, and 5. I had been living a 
``Leave it to Beaver'' life--successful husband; beautiful home; 
healthy kids--and suddenly, through no fault of my own or my 
children's, I was left alone with no child support to raise my family. 
Although, I was working, I was forced to go on AFDC in order to take 
care of my family's needs.
  Mr. Speaker, if the United States had had a child support system in 
1968 like the one I am proposing today, I might not have needed to go 
on welfare in the first place.
  With children accounting for 70 percent of welfare recipients, this 
bill will play a major role in reducing dependence on welfare, and, it 
should be the first step Congress takes, if we are truly serious about 
reforming the welfare system.
  Researchers, such as Dr. Irwin Garfinkel, estimate that a system like 
the SAFE Act could move about one-third of welfare recipients off the 
system.
  The SAFE Act could have made a real difference in my life and my 
children's. Now, with this legislation, I have the opportunity to make 
sure that all of our Nation's children are given the care and support 
they need.
  Mr. Speaker, I would like to commend my colleagues in the other body, 
Senator Rockefeller and Senator Dodd, for joining me in calling for 
child support reform to be an integral part of the welfare reform 
debate. And, I look forward to working with my colleagues in this body 
for fair and effective welfare reform.

                              {time}  2200

  I thank the gentleman for yielding to me.
  Mr. OWENS. Mr. Speaker, I congratulate my distinguished colleague 
from California for that fine piece of legislation, and I would like to 
become a cosponsor. I think it certainly ought to be a component of any 
welfare reform legislation.
  Mr. Speaker, I have a couple of questions which I would like to ask. 
When the gentlewoman said $250, did she mean $250 per child or per 
family?
  Ms. WOOLSEY. $250, Mr. Owens, for the first child and $300 a month 
for more than one child.
  Mr. OWENS. Is it comparable to what AFDC paid?
  Ms. WOOLSEY. It is more.
  Mr. OWENS. It is more?
  Ms. WOOLSEY. Aid for Dependent Children can be part of this. If there 
is not enough, Aid to Dependent Children comes in and add to the 
support.
  Mr. OWENS. Is it comparable to what Social Security pays for 
survivors?
  Ms. WOOLSEY. Almost; not quite.
  Mr. OWENS. I thank the gentlewoman and look forward to working with 
her in making sure that this legislation is part of any reform 
legislation.
  Ms. WOOLSEY. I would like to expand just a bit on why I think that 
$250, even though it is not very much money, it is enough. When people 
are poor, if they cannot count on the money coming in, they cannot 
budget. But if they know what is coming in, they can budget a lot 
better than a hit-and-miss proposition; sometimes the money comes in 
and sometimes it does not.
  That is why I am going to try very hard to have income assurance, 
which is a new concept in this Nation.
  Mr. OWENS. Mr. Speaker, would the gentlewoman also agree that 
collecting from fathers who are not in the home, who do not have jobs, 
is almost an impossibility and so a jobs program is an absolute 
necessity for a large percentage of the fathers involved here?
  Ms. WOOLSEY. Absolutely. I do not think we can have welfare reform 
unless we have jobs in this Nation which pay a family wage and which 
train and educate people for those jobs, unless we have true health 
care reform, and then we can talk about welfare reform.
  Mr. OWENS. I thank the gentlewoman from California and yield to my 
colleague, the gentlewoman from Hawaii [Mrs. Mink].
  Mrs. MINK of Hawaii. I thank my colleague for yielding and for taking 
this special order.
  As indicated in the opening of this hour, these past weeks have been 
an extremely important and demanding period of our time. All three of 
us share responsibility in the Committee on Education and Labor, and we 
have concluded a conference on Goals 2000, with some difficulty, but at 
least that has been concluded, and now we have completed today the 
reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act.
  Both of these pieces of legislation are an indication of the Federal 
Government's commitment to the importance of education, and this 
relates to this whole topic of welfare reform, as my colleagues have 
indicated.
  One of the cornerstones of the various suggestions on welfare reform 
indicate that if we are going to solve this problem, we have to find 
jobs for these parents who are on welfare, and in order to do that, in 
many instances we are going to have to find the money to supplement the 
educational requirements that might be needed or the job training or 
counseling for the job research. It is an enormous task.
  We are dealing with 5 million parents who are recipients of welfare 
assistance, with 9 million children currently on board. The suggestions 
being made by the administration and others with respect to the jobs I 
think are good but unrealistic. I do not believe there are going to be 
those jobs out there in any of our communities and in our States that 
are going to be easily available to individuals who are on welfare 
today. It is going to be very difficult.
  We have people on unemployment compensation who are struggling to 
find jobs that are the equivalent of what they had or even half the 
equivalent of what they had. So the biggest task, as I see it, in this 
whole welfare reform is the attempt to connect the families to a job. 
It is going to be extremely difficult, and it is going to be costly. 
There is no doubt the cost of the welfare program is going to double or 
maybe even triple if we are going to do a good job to educate for those 
jobs and train people.
  So the anomaly is that the whole issue of welfare reform comes to 
focus because many people are looking at it as a way to save money, to 
close down the deficit or help balance the budget. But in truth, an 
honest look at the welfare situation is going to require a tremendous 
amount of money.
  That is what brings me to my feet tonight, my colleagues, because 
there was an item in the New York Times yesterday which indicates that 
the final proposals on welfare reform have come to the White House and 
they have indeed called the Cabinet people together to discuss some of 
the provisions. And in discussing how they are going to come up with 
the monies that they believe are necessary to pay for the reform 
package, most of the suggestions were not that wholeheartedly endorsed.
  So, in the end of the news article, there was a suggestion that, 
``Well, maybe we will just go for the reform, the tough, punitive 
measures first, and put aside the attempt to fund some of these costly 
requirements for reform.''
  I find that suggestion extremely shocking and disturbing, and I hope 
that the reports were not true.
  One of the things they said they could put aside was childcare. How 
could any welfare reform proposal come forward without the support for 
the parents in terms of childcare? There is no possibility they could 
go for training or education or counseling or whatever and hold down a 
job without childcare.
  Also, the astounding part of the suggestion coming from the welfare 
reform task force is that they want to target the youngest recipients, 
those below 25 years of age. When you take the youngest segment of the 
welfare recipients, you are going to take the youngest children, the 
infants, under-1-year-of-age category. What is startling about that is 
you are not only dealing with ordinary daycare childcare requirements, 
when you get into infant care, it is infinitely more expensive. So, we 
are talking about a very large requirement for funding.

                              {time}  2210

  I think that there are some things that basically have escaped those 
who are looking at this whole issue. The President has said, ``Let's do 
away with welfare as we know it.'' Well, the problem, I think, out in 
the country at large is that people really do not know what welfare is. 
They have all the visions and the myths, but the realities really are 
not known. People think, for instance, those on welfare, the 
recipients, are ill-educated, have not gone to school at all, are not 
capable of working and, therefore, the intense focus is on this work 
for wages kind of concept.
  I have taken the trouble to ask the Congressional Research Service to 
dig up some of this information. They probably got some of it from the 
Department or the Census Bureau, but I think it is very interesting 
that for the welfare recipients who are on welfare, this so-called 24-
month period, that 41 period of them already had their high school 
diploma or their GED, 4 percent had their GED.
  The other kinds of statistics, I think, that are important to 
understand in looking at this whole picture of the welfare system is 
that 42.5 percent were on welfare for less than 2 years.
  What we see in the statistics on welfare is this high mobility. We 
see these young families coming on under age 25, perhaps, coming on 
welfare, but they do not stay there on a continuous basis. They are 
out. They are holding down a job. They are trying to help themselves. 
They are not just coming on welfare and staying there.
  So, Mr. Speaker, we have got to adopt a policy that says, ``2 years 
and you're out.''
  There are more than 60 percent of the single parents who are on 
welfare who are trying to find a job and, in fact, do go out to get a 
job, and because the requirements are so strict, Mr. Speaker, the 
moment they earn anything they are dropped from the rolls, and, when 
they are dropped, that very, very important element of support is gone. 
No one is out there to help them with job training, or help them to 
find a job, or to place them in suitable work, and, as a consequence, 
they are out 6, 7, 8 months and cannot make it, and they are then 
forced to come back on the welfare rolls again.

  My suggestion to the administration and those who are working on this 
whole issue:
  Instead of arbitrarily saying we are going to set up a program that 
is going to take care of everybody under 25, why not look at these 
individuals on welfare right now? May be as many as 2 million out of 
the 5 million who are on welfare who are honestly trying to help 
themselves--and the records prove it--they are going out there and 
getting a job. They are not staying on a continuous basis. They are 
going out. They are working. They are not finding good jobs because 
nobody is out there to help them. They are not being trained. They are 
not given support.
  So, Mr. Speaker, I suggest to the task force that they look at this 
potential group of almost a half of those on welfare rolls today who by 
their own initiative indicate a real desire to help themselves by 
getting a job. These are the ones that we should concentrate on. They 
are the ones that have the highest potential of success that could 
immediately eliminate 50 percent of our welfare requirements today. 
With a little help, allow some of them to keep their earnings, allow 
them to have the earned income tax credit benefits, let them stay on 
food stamps, keep them on the AFDC rolls for 6 months or 8 months. Give 
them child care because that is one of the biggest reasons they cite 
for finally, after working 6 or 7 months, they simply cannot put it 
together, and then they come back on to welfare again.
  So I think we have right within the whole data complex to key to 
where I believe the emphasis ought to be: those on welfare today, that 
by their own initiative have demonstrated their desire to get out there 
and work.
  Mr. Speaker, one of the things that I do not like about the 2 years 
and you're out, I would say to my colleague, the gentleman from New 
York [Mr. Owens], is that it is forced labor. It is forcing people out. 
And I do not believe that we need to do that to reform the system. All 
we need to do is to look at the people who are earnestly trying and 
they are not making it, and if we help them, we would cut the rolls by 
50 percent almost immediately. We would know because of the initiative 
that has been demonstrated that these are the ones that are looking for 
self-sufficiency, they are the ones that are going to have the highest 
rate of success.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from New York [Mr. Owens].
  Mr. OWENS. I find some of the statistics the gentlewoman cited a bit 
astounding. I ask the gentlewoman, ``Did you say that 45 percent have 
high school diplomas?''
  Mrs. MINK of Hawaii. Those that are in the AFDC for 24 months or 
less, have a high school diploma: 41 percent. That is that group that 
is out there looking for work, going out and maybe getting something. 
But because we have tossed them out, more or less, the minute they get 
a job, cut off their support, no child care, they cannot make it.
  Mr. OWENS. If they have a high school diploma already, then we can 
conclude that they probably do not need a very costly job training 
program. They need training for jobs, but they have a lot to offer when 
they come to the training for the jobs, and what they need is training 
for jobs that are realistic, that are going to be there. Once the 
training is finished, they are going to have jobs there.
  We have some jobs of that kind in my district. My congressional 
district has a medical complex which includes a large municipal 
hospital and also a medical school, a down state medical center that 
has a medical school and a hospital attached to it, and it has an 
allied health professions program there with the medical complex.
  Mrs. MINK of Hawaii. Exactly that kind of program.
  Mr. OWENS. A program to train people for 1 year. In 1 year of 
training one can get certain categories of jobs: practical nurse, child 
care aide, and one or two others. So just to have a 1-year training, 
one gets trained for a job that is going to definitely be there and 
stay there. Those jobs are always there. If one gets 2 years' worth of 
support and can go to school for 2 years, then they can enter the 
middle class.
  Mrs. MINK of Hawaii. Absolutely.
  Mr. OWENS. They become record clerks, x-ray technicians. There are a 
number of jobs where they can come out of the program and not only get 
a job immediately in the New York City area or the Brooklyn area, they 
can go anywhere in the country, because those people are in demand, and 
the demand is increasing all the time. Yet our Department of Labor and 
their programs for job training have insisted that we can give only 6 
months of training.
  Mr. Speaker, the head of the school told me, ``I cannot train anybody 
for anything in 6 months. But 6 more months and I can do something 
which is useful, and certainly for 2 years.''
  We need job training programs which make sense and are attached to 
the reality of today, and one reality is that health care, health 
professions, anything related to health care, is a solid occupation and 
likely to increase, but that is not there.
  The gentlewoman from Hawaii [Mrs. Mink] also said that welfare--a lot 
of recipients who do not stay on welfare very long----
  Mrs. MINK of Hawaii. It is 2 years. Forty-two percent are less than 2 
years.
  Mr. OWENS. So 42 percent of the people do not need to be told, 2 
years and you're off, because in less than 2 years they are off.
  Mrs. MINK of Hawaii. They are, but a lot of them come back on again 
because they do not have the support right now, and that is what we 
need to bring a stop to.
  Mr. OWENS. It is very interesting to note that it appears that 
welfare would be one of the more efficient Federal programs, in that 
people who receive assistance, large numbers, do get off and make the 
attempt after 2 years.
  Not so with the farm subsidy program. Not so with the cattle ranchers 
who are using public lands for grazing. Huge numbers of people who gain 
assistance, who seem to think that the Government owes them a living on 
and on, forever, and they are in the middle class and making lots of 
money. And most Americans citizens, most of the taxpayers out there, 
are not aware.
  I just want to take a moment, if you do not mind, to get back to the 
theme of welfare reform. It should be a time when we look at the larger 
picture, the larger situation with respect to Federal subsidies. It 
ought to be subsidy reform, because a lot of the funds we need to deal 
with people who are on welfare, in terms of being able to supply them 
with child care and supply them with decent job training, why can the 
Government not provide 2 years worth of training for everybody?
  When we have Pell grants and student loans, so people can go to 
college, they get a certain kind of assistance from the Government that 
other people do not get. We ought to guarantee everybody 2 years of 
educational assistance.
  That means that those people who have the high school diplomas, if 
they are given 2 years of assistance to go into a program for medical 
training, they would come out of that program and be able to get a job.
  Now, we need to give the money for that. If the Labor Department 
needs the money, one of the places to get the money for job training 
and more child care is by cutting all of these other programs where 
people are receiving subsidies for decades and endlessly.
  I want to refer to an article that appeared in the Washington Post on 
March 6 of this year. The title of the article is ``The Fat Cat 
Freeloaders: When American Big Business Bellies Up to the Public 
Trough.''
  It talks about other forms of welfare. I will just read a little bit 
and ask unanimous consent to enter it into the Record because it is not 
that long. James P. Donahue is the author of this article that appeared 
in the Washington Post on March 6.
  It begins as follows:

       The current vogue of welfare reform in Washington is 
     curiously narrow. After all, ending welfare as we know it 
     means cutting off not only the proverbial unwed mothers, but 
     also those corporations that have grown fat feeding at the 
     public trough.
       This year taxpayers will spend $51 billion in direct 
     subsidies to business, and they will lose another $53.3 
     billion in tax breaks for corporations, according to the 
     Office of Management and Budget and the Joint Committee on 
     Taxation.
       Those who want welfare recipients to work as a condition of 
     public assistance should expand their efforts to cover 
     corporations dependent on Federal largess. The most costly 
     form of corporate welfare in 1994 will be subsidies for agri-
     business, subsidies for the farmers.

  And we have less than 3 percent of the population now engaged in 
farming. Less than 3 percent of the population receives subsidies for 
their agri-business, costing an estimated $29.2 billion. I did not say 
million, taxpayers. Listen carefully. I said billion; $29.2 billion to 
subsidize farmers, to pay them for growing less crops. And you pay 
again because you pay higher costs for their food.
  Getting back to the article, however,

       By contrast, the Federal Government will spend $25 billion 
     on food stamps and $15 billion for Aid to Families with 
     Dependent Children, two of the programs most criticized by 
     conservatives in the welfare reform debate. Ignoring the cost 
     of corporate entitlements distorts the welfare debate and 
     leaves most Americans with the false impression that poor 
     people, rather than corporations or middle and upper income 
     individuals, are straining the National budget.

  I said before I am in favor of welfare reform. I am in favor of 
reforming any aspect of government that has been in existence for a 
long time. But if you are going to look at welfare reform fairly and 
with real logic, you have got to look at subsidy reform.
  Going back to the article,

       One Federal bureaucracy that has been especially indulgent 
     of free loaders is the Bureau of Land Management. The Bureau 
     of Land Management rents out public lands to ranchers for 
     cattle grazing. In 1992, the Bureau of Land Management's 
     annual grazing fee was $1.92 per animal, according to the 
     National Wildlife Federation. But private land owners were 
     charging those same ranchers an average of $9.26 per animal.

  You, the taxpayers, were allowing rich ranchers to graze their 
animals on your land for $1.92, when the going market rate was $9.26 
per animal.

       The low grazing fees amount to a Food Stamp Program for 
     livestock belonging to wealthy ranchers.

  I am quoting, and I want to repeat that.

       The low grazing fees amount to a Food Stamp Program for 
     livestock, belonging to wealthy ranchers. In 1992, the 
     Government's below market rates cost the taxpayers an 
     estimated $55 million in revenues. A typical beneficiary of 
     this subsidy is J.R. Simplot of Grand View, ID. He paid the 
     Government $87,430 for the privilege to graze cattle on 
     public land. According to the National Wildlife Federation, 
     if the Government had billed Simplot at free market prices, 
     he would have had to pay $410,524.

  It is not as if Simplot is going to suffer without this public 
assistance. He is on the Forbes 400 list of richest Americans, with an 
estimated net worth of just over $500 million.
  Let us look at welfare reform in the larger context. Let us establish 
new perimeters for the discussion. If we collect it from millionaires 
like Mr. Simplot, what he owes, then we could have the money to deal 
with welfare reform and help people who are real victims get the kind 
of training they need and get the kind of jobs they need.

  I am going to quote one more piece, and then I will pause for a 
moment on this article.

       Another Federal handout to corporations is the Department 
     of Agriculture's market promotion program. This year the 
     program will give American companies $100 million to 
     advertise their goods and services abroad.

  There are others, and I will not quote from them right now. I may get 
back to it later before I submit this article.
  My point is, you have talked about the fact that you have a 
population here that probably large numbers could help themselves if 
they had just a little better help from the government. We do not 
supply that better help because we say it costs too much.
  Keeping people on welfare the way we keep them on now is really the 
cheapest form of helping people. That is one reason we have it. To put 
people to work means you have to give them a decent education and 
training. That costs more than we have been willing to pay so far.
  We have sources for getting the funds, if we would just take the 
welfare, the fat cat, the free loaders off welfare, and apply that 
money to the kinds of programs that my colleague is discussing here. I 
look forward to hearing further discussion from her.
  Mrs. MINK. I thank the gentleman.
  Mr. Speaker, the big issue facing the White House, as the gentleman 
knows, is they have the proper thoughts about welfare reform, the 
necessity for education and training and counseling and job searching, 
and maybe even the necessity of public service jobs if there are no 
private sector jobs and child care. But the problem is how to pay for 
it.

                              {time}  2230

  The gentleman is correct. There are many ways to pay for it. The 
shocking thing is, as the White House Task Force has looked for ways to 
pay for it, they are thinking taxing food stamps, taxing public housing 
tenants, taxing the welfare benefit itself, taking legal aliens off of 
SSI and Medicare and some of these programs. So your contributions on 
how this thing could be paid for, I think, are extremely noteworthy. I 
hope that the White House is listening and paying attention to your 
suggestions.
  The important point is to make the point over and over again, and 
that is, welfare reform is not a means to reduce the deficit or to 
balance the budget. It is a sincere effort, I hope, to help these poor 
people help themselves to get a job. I am not for forcing them out of 
the home.
  An interesting statistic, my colleague, again, I picked it up from 
CRS, is that 77 percent of the parents on welfare coming on the first 
time and staying on that 2-year period have a child 1 year or younger. 
This means that if you are targeting that young group, you are going to 
have to find the most expensive child care programs for the infants and 
the 1 and the 2-year olds. It is going to be an extremely expensive 
endeavor.
  The second suggestion that I made to the White House was, if cost was 
a problem, to augment this program immediately, they ought to think in 
terms of the parents who have school-age children. They are in school, 
kindergarten, first grade, whatever. And so you do not need that full-
time child care requirement.
  You need after-school care. You need summertime care, but at least 
that school time responsibility can be met by the public school system. 
So that is a way of getting into reform, helping these families locate 
a job.
  As I said earlier, the high school diploma situation is not as 
egregious as is purported to be, when they start talking about the 
education requirements.
  Let me give you more details about the education, because I was 
fascinated with it, particularly as we were talking about elementary-
secondary education.
  Out of the 5 million parents who are on welfare, those that have no 
high school at all number 440,000. These are 1990 statistics. Those 
that have some high school at all number 1.3 million. Those that have 
completed high school are 1.5 million. Those that have had some college 
number about 400,000, and those that are college graduates are 
somewhere between 30 and 60,000. So we have a group of individuals 
here, I believe, that with a little assistance, a little encouragement 
and incentives and support, are going to be very, very successful in 
terms of assistance in finding a job.
  But they do not need to pushed out and put to this ``2-year and you 
are out'' kind of discussion. I find that idea the most disconcerting.
  Mr. OWENS. For a long time in New York State we had a debate on 
whether or not welfare would provide, help keep women on welfare who 
wanted to go to college. They have to get a special waiver to go for 2 
years, and that was permitted for large numbers of women. But then the 
debate on whether to let anybody go for 4 years. It never got resolved. 
I think they never did that. Is there any discussion of that?
  Throughout the States, I think they have the option for the 2 years. 
How many States do allow 2 years of college for people on welfare? They 
can stay on welfare while they are going to college for 2 years.
  Mrs. MINK of Hawaii. I am not aware that there is an limitation, but 
that is certainly a point that needs to be looked at. What I do have a 
statistic here for the 1991-1992 school year is that 448,643 AFDC 
recipients were attending college with a Pell Grant. That is a real 
self-help, a drive, a significant number.
  Mr. OWENS. That is good. It probably has improved, the situation, 
since then, since that debate took place. But there are large numbers.
  Mrs. MINK of Hawaii. The picture I am trying to create is a different 
kind of welfare recipient than what the so-called welfare as we know it 
kind of myth. These are people that are struggling to improve 
themselves. They are going to college, getting their GED and 
participating in the jobs program, which the Congress created in 1988.
  The problem with the jobs program, it was under-funded. It did not 
really reach out to enough of the parents.
  In my State there is a long waiting list. Many people want to get on 
it, want to get the assistance of education and job training.
  In 1992, the statistics show only 274 AFDC parents were even on the 
jobs program. As I understand it, it requires matching. So here is a 
case in which the Federal Government could take over responsibility of 
that wonderful program that was enacted in 1988, fully funded, make it 
a Federal program. And I believe that many, many more of the parents 
would take advantage of that.

  Mr. OWENS. You estimate, according to your statistics, maybe as many 
as two-fifths of the people on welfare could get off with just some 
enhancement of the job training and education program.
  Mrs. MINK of Hawaii. Easily.
  Mr. OWENS. So we would go down from 5 million families to something 
like 3 million families.
  Mrs. MINK of Hawaii. Even 2 million, I believe, we could do that, 
about 50 percent.
  Mr. OWENS. More intelligent, more well-directed job training and 
education program and a program fully paid for by the Federal 
Government, because States and local governments have balked at 
supplying any percentage of the funds needed for the training.
  Mrs. MINK of Hawaii. Well, you can just look at the AFDC payments in 
many of these States. A State like Arizona, $293; Alabama, 124; 
Florida, 294 per month average family, one-parent family with three, 
two children.
  Mr. OWENS. One parent family with two children gets $124 a month.
  Mrs. MINK of Hawaii. That is Alabama, yes. And let us look at 
Arkansas, $204. My own State, $632, not too bad. California, $694.
  Let us look at New York. New York is $703.
  I think that the assistance should be standardized. There should be 
some way in which the government could decide what a family in each of 
these states requires to sustain themselves, a family of a size of 
three and that everybody ought to get that same support.
  Mr. OWENS. Do you have in your statistics the amount of money that 
Social Security, children who are beneficiaries of Social Security 
Survivors Program?
  Mrs. MINK of Hawaii. That is not included in this.
  Mr. OWENS. That is uniform across the whole country. All children get 
a certain amount of money. It is generally higher than the amount they 
receive in AFDC. Every child is understood to be worth, under the 
Social Security program, a much higher amount than the AFDC program.
  Some of the things you have just cited in some States, $124 a month 
in Alabama for a family of three, you could see why welfare is so 
rampant and welfare has persisted for so long. In order to really 
provide an alternative to welfare, to provide training, to provide day 
care and jobs, a job would cost far more than $124 a month. In fact, it 
is ridiculous to even think about trying to provide anything 
significant with $124 a month. So that welfare becomes a symbolic thing 
that is done by, in this case, the State of Alabama, and some other 
State. When you compare the cost of living in the State with the amount 
of money recipients are receiving, it is just as bad.

                              {time}  2240

  Welfare is the cheapest form of providing assistance to victims of 
the economic deficiencies of our society. It is our society that is 
economically deficient. The least our society can do for any individual 
is provide an opportunity to earn a living. That is basic. The social 
contract with human beings is that human beings give up their existence 
in nature. The do not steal and rob and use their strength and their 
own abilities to get what they want, because to society, they surrender 
that to the society to provide ways in which they can meet their needs 
in some legal way.
  We violate a social contract when we create a society where we do not 
have basic jobs available so people can earn a living. They ought to be 
able to earn a living. Any time you have a society that does not 
provide any jobs for people to earn a living, that society is 
deficient. Our economy is deficient. We should finds ways to provide 
income-producing opportunities for people, all people.
  Welfare has been an alternative, a substitute for meeting the real 
needs of people. Welfare has been an alternative, a substitute, for 
this society not meeting its obligations to provide meaningful income 
for people.
  Everybody should be required to work who is able-bodied and can work, 
but they cannot work if the jobs are not there. As I said before, there 
is plenty of work to do. There are plenty of things that need to be 
done to clean up our environment, there are all kinds of human service 
programs, infrastructure needs to be built. There are all kinds of jobs 
that could be created, but government must take a role in creating 
those jobs and take the responsibility for maintaining jobs at a 
certain level.
  If we can maintain jobs and employment at a certain level in a 
society, then the welfare problem goes down to zero, or down towards 
zero. It does not go to zero because there are always people who are 
not able-bodied, there are people who are going to be dependent, the 
elderly, and there are some children who do not have parents. There are 
a number of groups that will be dependent, but it can go down to a very 
small percentage of the total population if you apply yourself to the 
economic and the job and employment problem in our society.
  What we should understand, as we go into this discussion on welfare 
reform, taxpayers, is that welfare has existed for so long because 
welfare is the cheapest way to pretend that you are meeting the needs 
of your society. Welfare is the cheapest way for us to pretend that we 
are compassionate. It is the cheapest way for us to carry on the myth 
that we care about the poorest people in our society, to carry on the 
myth that we care about children. What can we provide for children with 
$124 a month, or in some other States with higher standards of living, 
$230 a month? You cannot take care of children properly. You can only 
symbolically say that you are doing something for them.
  If we come to grips with it and deal with it in realistic terms, then 
we have to provide more income for families, and the way to do that, 
the number one way to do that, is to have the government have an 
ongoing job creation program, a job generation program,where they 
stimulate the economy so that private industry does it all the time, 
most of the time, and when private industry cannot do it, government 
provides the jobs to make up for it.
  If you manage the economy properly, you can probably stimulate the 
economy so private industry is able to create the jobs, and you do not 
have to create the jobs that are run directly by the government, but 
you must start out with the premise that it is the duty of government 
to make certain that employment opportunities are out there for 
everybody at all times. That is the kind of welfare reform that is all-
encompassing and most meaningful to all of us.
  Mrs. MINK. Absolutely. Again, I emphasize that 43 percent of the AFDC 
parents work.
  Mr. OWENS. They are already working?
  Mrs. MINK. Already working. In that 2-year period, they go out to 
work. But 40 percent return within a year. They do not stay out even 12 
months, because----
  Mr. OWENS. You have not even mentioned health care, the fact that 
after they get off AFDC, they cannot get Medicaid, they do not have 
health care.
  Mrs. MINK. That's right. So the whole thing is a tragic kind of 
circle that we need to make the American people understand better.
  Mr. OWENS. I would just like to conclude this portion by including 
for the record the article entitled ``The Fat Cat Freeloaders'' that 
appeared March 6, 1994 in the Washington Post:

                [From the Washington Post, Mar. 6, 1994]

 The Fat Cat Freeloaders--When American Big Business Bellys Up to the 
                             Public Trough

                         (By James P. Donahue)

       The current vogue of welfare reform in Washington is 
     curiously narrow. After all, ``ending welfare as we know it'' 
     means cutting off, not only the proverbial unwed mothers, but 
     also those indolent corporations that have grown fat feeding 
     at the public trough.
       This year, taxpayers will spend $51 billion in direct 
     subsidies to business and lose another $53.3 billion in tax 
     breaks for corporations, according to the Office of 
     Management and Budget and the Joint Committee on Taxation. 
     Those who want welfare recipients to work as a condition of 
     public assistance should expand their efforts to cover 
     corporations dependent on federal largesse.
       The most costly form of corporate welfare in 1994 will be 
     subsidies for agribusiness, costing an estimated $29.2 
     billion. By contract, the federal government will spend $25 
     billion on food stamps and $15 billion for Aid to Families 
     With Dependent Children (AFDC), two of the programs most 
     critized by conservative in the welfare reform debate. 
     Ignoring the cost of corporate entitlements distorts the 
     welfare debate and leaves most Americans with the false 
     impression that poor people, rather than corporations or 
     middle and upper income individuals, are straining the 
     national budget.
       The problem is that corporate welfare has created a culture 
     of dependency that has encouraged certain industries to live 
     off the taxpayers. Year after year, these companies receive 
     subsidies or handouts from the federal government and never 
     learn to fend for themselves. And, unlike the vast majority 
     of poor people who receive public assistance, most corporate 
     welfare recipients are not particularly needy.
       One federal bureaucracy that has been especially indulgent 
     of freeloaders is the Bureau of Land Management. The BLM 
     rents out public lands to ranchers for cattle grazing. In 
     1992, the BLM's annual grazing fee was $1.92 per animal, 
     according to the National Wildlife Federation. But private 
     landowners charge their grazing customers, on average, $9.26 
     per animal. The low grazing fees amount to a food stamp 
     program for livestock belonging to wealthy ranchers. In 1992, 
     the government's below-market rates cost the taxpayers an 
     estimated $55 million in revenues.
       A typical beneficiary of this subsidy is J.R. Simplot of 
     Grandview, Idaho. He paid the government $87,430 for the 
     privilege to graze cattle on public land, according to the 
     National Wildlife Federation. If the government had billed 
     Simplot at free-market prices he would have had to pay 
     $410,524. And it's not as if Simplot is going to suffer 
     without public assistance. He is on the Forbes' 400 list of 
     richest Americans with an estimated net worth of just over 
     $500 million.
       A spokesman for Simplot said ranchers need the federal 
     subsidy ``to keep their operations going. * * * As Far as the 
     term `welfare' goes, there's not a lot of money in ranching 
     and it's a damn tough business. It costs more to run a set of 
     cows on public land than it does on private land because 
     there are such vast distances and you've got to haul water 
     for the cattle to drink.''
       Another federal handout to corporations is the Department 
     of Agriculture's Market Promotion Program. This year the 
     program will give American companies $100 million to 
     advertise their goods and services abroad. The corporate 
     citizens with outstretched palms include some of the biggest 
     names in American business. In 1991 and 1992 Sunkist Growers, 
     Inc. received $17.8 million to promote citrus products, 
     according to the Agriculture Department figures. The 
     Department gave the American Soybean Association $10.4 
     million in 1992 to promote soybeans. In 1991, Gallo Wines 
     received $5.1 million to promote wine, M&M/Mars received $1.1 
     million to promote candy bars, the Campbell's Soup Co. 
     received $450,000 to promote V-8 juice and McDonald's took 
     $465,000 to promote Chicken McNuggets.
       The government, according to Gallo Wine spokesperson, Dan 
     Solomon, is merely addressing a neglected national problem: 
     the fact that Americans drink more imported than domestic 
     wine. ``Export markets are difficult,'' explains Solomon. 
     ``The [market promotion] program has significantly cut the 
     wine deficit in California.''
       The government's failure to charge reasonable fees or sales 
     prices for mining minerals on publicly-owned land is another 
     form of corporate welfare. Other countries, such as Australia 
     and Canada, do not coddle their mining companies, charging up 
     to 12 percent in rents and royalties, for extracting minerals 
     on public lands. In contrast, the U.S. Interior Department 
     charges no rents or royalties and allows companies to mine 
     government land for virtually nothing. The House Committee on 
     Natural Resources reported last November that in 1988 the 
     government had transferred 20 land titles to private 
     companies in exchange for less than $4,500. The land, 
     according to the General Accounting Office, was worth in the 
     range of $14 million to $48 million.
       Perhaps the biggest beneficiary is the American Barrick 
     Resources Corp., based in Toronto. Since 1987 the company has 
     extracted $8.75 billion (yes, billion) worth of gold from a 
     site in northern Nevada that is the property of the American 
     people. According to the Natural Resources Committee, the 
     federal government is now preparing to sell the land to 
     American Barrick for all of $15,000. Oh yes, the founder of 
     the company paid himself $32 million in 1992.
       Vince Borg, a vice president of public affairs for American 
     Barrick, rejects the notion that the company has benefited 
     unduly. He says that American Barrick has spent $11.5 million 
     since 1987 to maintain its claims on the land while awaiting 
     final approval of ownership from the government and has paid 
     $80 million in corporate income taxes. Borg also claims that 
     American Barrick has spent a billion dollars developing the 
     Nevada site. The government's generosity, according to Borg, 
     is ``quite contrary to a subsidy * * * it's an investment in 
     highly skilled jobs.'' American Barrick employs 1,500 people 
     at the mine in Nevada, a rather modest payoff for the loss of 
     $8.75 billion in gold.
       Deadbeat corporations also take advantage of the taxpayers. 
     For example, forestry companies that signed contracts to 
     purchase government timber at a set price in the mid-1980s 
     and then defaulted owe the U.S. Treasury $135.6 million. The 
     corporations claim that they are justified in breaching the 
     contracts because of falling lumber prices. But there's no 
     reason why taxpayers should have to protect companies in 
     pursuit of profits from normal business risks. Hampton Tree 
     Farms, Inc. of Portland, Oregon, for example, owe the 
     government more than $18 million in 1993 for 11 timber 
     purchase agreements during the 1980s. A federal court 
     dismissed the government's claim in nine of the purchase 
     agreements on a technicality, a ruling that the government is 
     challenging. The parent company, Hampton Resources, is one of 
     the largest wood products companies in Oregon and owns 66,000 
     acres of timberland in the state. Its refusal to reimburse 
     the taxpayers on the two outstanding purchase agreements is 
     costing the taxpayers still more.
       Another example: In 1990 the Forest Service incurred 
     between $35.6 million and $112.2 million in expenses while 
     selling the public's timber, but failed to recover this cost 
     in its sales prices. The net effect is that the public spent 
     the money to help corporations purchase timberland that was 
     exploited for private profit.
       Major pharmaceutical companies are on the federal dole too. 
     While the Government pays for a substantial portion of the 
     research in developing new drugs to fight disease, private 
     drug makers are provided exclusive rights to market and 
     profit from them. Rep. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) told a 
     congressional hearing in 1993 that U.S. taxpayers had spent 
     $32 million over 15 years to develop Taxol, an anti-cancer 
     drug. Wyden reported that Bristol-Myers Squibb was provided 
     extensive government data and exclusive commercial rights to 
     Taxol in 1991 at which time it charged patients $986 for a 
     three-week's supply. The drug company declined to provide the 
     National Institutes of Health with any data about what it 
     spent on developing Taxol or on how it established the drug's 
     price; Wyden estimated that Bristol-Myers Squibb's price was 
     six to eight times the production cost of the drug. Cancer 
     patients have already helped finance the invention of Taxol 
     once as taxpayers. Why should they have to pay Bristol-Myers 
     a second time as consumers?
       Corporate welfare is sometimes rationalized on grounds that 
     it promotes ``competitiveness'' and provides a level playing 
     field against unfairly advantaged companies. The Agriculture 
     Department's Export Enhancement Program is supposed to help 
     U.S. agribusiness compete against foreign firms subsidized by 
     their goverments. Private companies receive free shipments of 
     wheat, corn and other commodities from U.S. government 
     preserves. Between 1985 and 1989 Cargill, Inc., Continental 
     Grain Co. and Louis Dreyfus Corp. received commodities worth 
     $444 million, $429 million and $300 million respectively from 
     the government. Think of it as government cheese for hungry 
     corporations.
       Given that corporate welfare represents only a tiny 
     fraction of the overall net worth of corporate America, 
     shouldn't its societal benefit be scrutinized at least as 
     closely and widely as AFDC? The ``two years and out'' 
     proposal for individual welfare recipients should be linked 
     with a similar time limit on corporate welfare payments.
       More generally, we need to expand what we mean by welfare 
     reform. President Clinton, who recently appointed the members 
     of an ``Entitlements Commission'' to deliberate how best to 
     reduce the cost of ``entitlements,'' should broaden the 
     definition of the panel's work to cover business 
     entitlements, too. It's time to take the corporate welfare 
     Cadillac of the road.

                          ____________________