[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 44 (Wednesday, April 20, 1994)]
[House]
[Page H]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: April 20, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]


                              {time}  1810
 
                             WELFARE REFORM

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Darden). Under the Speaker's announced 
policy of February 11, 1994, the gentleman from South Carolina [Mr. 
Clyburn] is recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the majority 
leader.
  Mr. CLYBURN. Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank you for giving us the 
time to address the issue of welfare reform tonight.
  Since the beginning of this session of Congress, the issue of health 
care reform has been on the front burner. News reports, constituent 
mail, and Members' own debates in this body have addressed the issue. 
There have been debates concerning the details of the health care 
crisis, possible solutions to this crisis, and even debates concerning 
the very existence of a crisis at all. Tonight, the members of this 
freshman task force are going to discuss efforts to reform something 
which no one will argue needs to be fixed.
  Making work pay is far from the only concern in reforming the welfare 
system. Currently the rules and regulations governing AFDC, Medicaid, 
and Food Stamp Program are so complex that the vast majority of 
recipients--the very people these programs were designed to help--do 
not understand them and in many cases there is inadequate understanding 
on the parts of agency staff, advocates and employers as well.
  Making work pay and closing the information gap are only two of the 
issues which must be addressed in any attempt to reform the welfare 
system. I will now yield to Mrs. Clayton, my colleague from North 
Carolina, who cochaired the Freshman Welfare Reform Task Force with Mr. 
Rush, my colleague from Illinois.
  This Nation's welfare system has been the subject of criticism by the 
press, by Members of both sides of the aisle and most importantly by 
the welfare recipients themselves. There are a wide range of opinions 
concerning what exactly is wrong with the system and whose fault it is, 
but we are not here to point fingers. Rather we are here tonight to 
offer constructive suggestions to solve the problems faced by those 
Americans who depend on the programs which make up our welfare system. 
We are here tonight to aid in the transformation of ``ending welfare as 
we know it'' from a popular political slogan to a more welcome reality.
  Recently a bipartisan survey was shared with members of the freshman 
Democratic caucus. This survey, conducted by Geoffrey Garin and Linda 
DiVall, not only confirmed the widespread opinion that the welfare 
system is in need of improvement but also that the American public 
believes strongly in the need for improvement. Seventy-nine percent of 
the participants in this survey feel that the welfare system does not 
work, compared with 61 percent who believe this country's health care 
system is in need of help. The great majority of those questioned named 
helping people to get off the welfare rolls and into the work force as 
the primary goal of welfare reform.
  Some of the most inciteful comments have been expressed by welfare 
recipients themselves. The overwhelming majority want to work but the 
cost of leaving AFDC to enter the work force is too great. In many 
instances, the transitional Medicaid and child care assistance 
available to AFDC recipients for only 1 year after taking a full time 
job, is all that stands between former AFDC recipients and their return 
to the AFDC program. Over 80 percent of the AFDC recipients in a recent 
study responded it was not likely that they would accept a minimum wage 
job which did not provide health benefits for them and their children. 
Fifty-five percent responded that they would not accept a minimum wage 
job which would provide health benefits for themselves but not for 
their children.
  In addition to the importance of health benefits is the necessity of 
child care. Fifty percent of the AFDC recipients ranked child care as 
the benefit most needed to enable them to work full time. In many 
States transitional child care assistance is available for only 1 year 
after entering the work force. For many of AFDC recipients who took 
part in answering these questions, the fear that their minimum wage 
income would not cover the cost of child care and health benefits in 
addition to other living expenses kept them from accepting full-time 
employment.
  According to one AFDC recipient,

       When I am on AFDC, I can afford to feed my children and pay 
     the rent. When I went to work, I lost the house and struggled 
     to feed my children. I would send them to my mother's house 
     to eat. All I could afford was child care and rent.

  Mr. Speaker, I now yield to the gentlewoman from North Carolina [Mrs. 
Clayton], who cochaired the Freshman Welfare Reform Task Force along 
with the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Rush].
  (Mrs. CLAYTON asked and was given permission to revise and extend her 
remarks.)
  Mrs. CLAYTON. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank our president, the 
gentleman from South Carolina [Mr. Clyburn], for coordinating this 
special order, and my freshman colleagues who are here to participate.
  Welfare reform is of extreme importance to a great many people--14.2 
million, and families--5.2 million, especially women and children--9.6 
million, across this Nation. The reform of our current welfare system, 
the manner in which this Nation reaches out to assist families in need, 
is critical to fulfill a promising future for so many.
  The current welfare system has failed to assist people with dignity 
and respect and does not enable them to become more self-sufficient or 
more responsible. Many have criticized the current system for holding 
back recipients from pursuing employment opportunities. In fact, there 
are some elements of the system that discourage work training and 
marriage. Through welfare reform we need to tear down these barriers 
that may exist that keep individuals from securing employment, self-
development, or promote responsible parenting.
  Many Americans agree that the current system of welfare exacerbates 
the problems of poverty. A recent poll found that ``many believe the 
current welfare system encourages dependence and fails to provide 
sufficient help for people to make the transition to self-reliance.'' 
Also, many of those families who receive welfare are also frustrated 
with the failed system that provides benefits without taking the extra 
step to insure that they have the ability to end their cycle of 
poverty.
  At the very heart of welfare debate needs to be a remembrance of our 
fellow brothers and sisters who are in need of our help. We must remind 
ourselves that the policies we develop should treat them with the 
dignity and respect they deserve.
  Those of us speaking tonight represent the Welfare Reform Task Force 
of the Democratic freshman class. The purpose of the task force was to 
clearly understand the depth of the problem--not to do another study 
identifying the problems--and to seek consensus from the freshman class 
members on general principles that could be used in evaluating the 
various proposed legislation on welfare reform. Because our class is so 
philosophically diverse, we did not attempt to draft legislation that 
would answer the question of how to reform our welfare system, rather 
we developed basic principles that should be addressed in any welfare 
reform proposal that would seek our support.
  The 16 task force members were appointed by our president, Jim 
Clyburn, and Bobby Rush and I were assigned as chairs. We had several 
meetings wherein we discussed background information, proposed 
legislation, and various policy initiatives. A set of general 
principles were developed and recommended to the full Democratic 
freshman class for their discussion, modification, and approval. These 
principles have been shared publicly and tonight members of the task 
force will discuss some in detail.
  The general principles we decided need to be addressed for true 
welfare reform are: First, jobs--for true welfare reform to take place 
we need to provide real job training followed by real jobs. Second, 
family--we must ensure that our families are supported. We must assist 
teen mothers with their special needs, help our young people learn 
self-esteem and family planning, and provide that noncustodial parents 
are financially responsible for their children. Third, support 
systems--we must provide services to welfare recipients that are 
sensitive to their ability to participate in programs due to a need for 
child care, bilingual proficiency, transportation, and related 
expenses.
  One major point that we have agreed upon is that the burden of 
financing welfare reform should not be balanced on the backs of the 
poor. Rather--if we agree to take on welfare reform we must do it 
right. That is, we need to insure that the programs that will promote 
self-sufficiency and independence are well financed. If we are serious 
about reforming our welfare system, then we must be serious about 
providing resources to carry out that reformation.
  One point that is essential that we all keep in mind as we prepare 
welfare reform legislation is who is on welfare. In a recent CRS 
document we found that of the 14.2 million persons benefiting from the 
Aid to Families with Dependent Children payments in 1993, 9.6 million 
were children. Understanding this, I find it essential that we compel 
ourselves to do this right. For the sake of the children.
  In promoting jobs for welfare recipients, we need to be very 
sensitive to the fact that many recipients are young mothers, who need 
to provide for their young children and be good mothers at the same 
time. We need to ensure that families are a priority and recognize that 
parenting is a full-time job. Along with this comes the importance of 
ensuring that the noncustodial parents are employed and able to provide 
financially for their children so that the sole burden does not fall 
upon the mother and allows the mother to spend time with her children.
  I look forward to the discussion that will follow from other members 
of the Democratic freshman class. Our task force will continue to 
evaluate legislation as it is introduced on the basis of our 
principles. We will continue to work to see that the reform of our 
welfare system is done right.

        Democratic Freshman Class Principles for Welfare Reform

 (Co-Chairpersons of Welfare Reform Task Force: Rep. Eva Clayton, Rep. 
                              Bobby Rush)


                           overarching themes

       1. Framework: Human dignity, responsibility, and respect 
     are the cornerstones of the American tradition. The 
     congressional welfare reform debate must recognize that all 
     people have basic human and civil rights.
       2. Purpose is self-sufficiency, and financing should not be 
     regressive: True welfare reform will require investments in 
     education, worker training, and child care programs in order 
     to allow parents to become more self-sufficient. Therefore, 
     adequate financing should be considered but at the very least 
     the programs' financing should not be regressive.
       3. Comprehensive welfare strategy: Welfare reform should 
     include simultaneous consideration of a broader anti-poverty 
     strategy to ensure that a permanent underclass of poverty is 
     not created. Welfare reform must include, among other things, 
     provisions for universal health care coverage, increased 
     child care programs, job training and job creation programs, 
     an expanded Earned Income Tax Credit, and other anti-poverty 
     programs.


                                  jobs

       1. Training: Job training is critical to enabling welfare 
     recipients make the transition to permanent employment. Job 
     training programs should afford flexibility in hours of 
     instruction and vocational fields. There are currently over 
     120 federal job training programs. Consideration should be 
     given to consolidating these programs and providing effective 
     outreach strategies for recipients. Job training information 
     should be accessible and available in other languages.
       2. Placement: There must be an effort to ensure that people 
     are not just trained in basic interviewing skills and placed 
     in `'make work'' public sector jobs. Welfare reform must 
     involve placing welfare recipients in jobs that pay a living 
     wage.
       3. Imposition of inflexible time limits: A fixed, arbitrary 
     time limit will not work. Congress must carefully define the 
     parameters of such a time limit, and provide flexibility to 
     account for situations in which job training and placements 
     may not work for certain individuals. We must recognize that 
     our nation will never reach full employment--there will 
     always be a certain percentage of the population that cannot 
     be placed.


                                 family

       1. Encouraging strong families: The disincentives for 
     mothers to work part time and care for their children must be 
     removed, as well as disincentives for couples to marry that 
     are inherent in the present system. The new system must be 
     flexible enough to allow for the reestablishment of stronger 
     family units without a blanket requirement that all mothers 
     must work full time at minimum wage jobs: the respect for the 
     balance between work and family that the rest of society 
     enjoys should be extended to those within the lower-income 
     echelons of society. The system should seek to keep families 
     together by eliminating penalties for two-parent households 
     and by allowing them to accumulate the resources necessary to 
     maintain stability before they leave AFDC.
       2. Teen pregnancy: A. Prevention program and support 
     services: There must be a comprehensive, national teen 
     pregnancy prevention program, including school-based services 
     such as self-esteem and family planning counseling. For teens 
     who do become pregnant, every reasonable effort must be made 
     to help both parents finish high school, including linkages 
     with support services such as child care, parenting classes, 
     nutrition programs, and school-to-work transition programs.
       B. Teen mothers required to live with a responsible adult: 
     Teen mothers, and, if needed, their families, should be given 
     special case management services. Rules regarding parents and 
     grandparents as guardians must be reviewed and reformed to 
     make it possible, where appropriate, for teen mothers to 
     remain in their homes and receive AFDC and support services. 
     To address the problem of teens getting pregnant to be 
     independent, teen mothers should be required to be living in 
     the home of a responsible adult (parent, teacher, counselor, 
     relative, etc.) who, if not a parent, shall act in loco 
     parentis, as determined appropriate by the mother and her 
     case manager.
       C. Abstinence and family planning: Both teenage males and 
     females should be instructed on the merits of sexual 
     abstinence and should be availed with family planning 
     services in order to instill in them a sense of 
     responsibility about parenthood and an understanding of 
     alternatives to pregnancy.
       3. Child support: We must develop a strong, national child 
     support enforcement system which will have the effect of 
     preventing many mothers from having to go on welfare because 
     they cannot collect the child support to which their children 
     are entitled. Any welfare reform proposal should include 
     federalized child support collection of support which has 
     been court-ordered, easier paternity establishment methods, 
     and a minimum assured benefit level.


                            support systems

       1. Streamlining bureaucracy, including one-stop shopping 
     and examining the potential for recreating the present 
     delivery system: Reforms should replace the current 
     eligibility-checker system, a system based on issuing checks, 
     with a case management system, a system based on giving 
     recipients the tools to become permanently self-sufficient. 
     The bureaucracy of the welfare system must be simplified and 
     streamlined by adding ``one-stop shopping'' sites where 
     recipients receive information on and apply for all necessary 
     services, including child care, transportation, counseling, 
     housing, child support, education and training opportunities, 
     and current job market openings. There should also be an 
     emphasis on creating an entirely new delivery system focused 
     on giving localities enough flexibility to deliver services 
     so as to remove barriers to employment.
       2. Augmentation of information on underserved populations: 
     Both at the national and state level, availability of data on 
     underserved populations and welfare are very limited; it is 
     therefore difficult to explore issues such as 
     intergenerational dependency and child care concerns as they 
     relate to women from these populations and their families. 
     Greatly improved data collection will be necessary to gain an 
     accurate picture of these underserved populations and their 
     use of welfare, their attitudes about welfare, and the 
     dynamics of poverty among single-mother families in these 
     populations.
       3. Fraud: Some jurisdictions have implemented programs to 
     reduce the incidence of welfare fraud. A comprehensive review 
     of these programs should be undertaken so as to ascertain and 
     utilize their most effective aspects on a nationwide basis, 
     including examination of the technology to electronically 
     transfer benefits.
       4. Case manager: As a client moves through different phases 
     of the reform program, they may become discouraged and exit 
     the program because of particular circumstances (examples: 
     intimidation, poor self image, etc.). In addition, friends 
     and family are not supportive when the client begins to 
     change her life style. Therefore, a case manager should serve 
     as a support system throughout a client's participation in 
     the welfare reform program.
       5. Transportation: In both rural and urban areas, 
     transportation is a necessary component to allow individuals 
     to have access to educational and training programs, job 
     interviews, and child care services. Moreover, because rural 
     counties have low population density, systems will also have 
     to be created to address this unmet need.
       6. Bilingual services: Welfare reform in many urban areas 
     will involve diverse populations. Often people who would be 
     eligible for a certain program or service miss the 
     opportunity to participate because of a language deficiency. 
     We must provide bilingual, culturally-sensitive services in 
     any welfare reform effort.
       7. Job-related expenses: In order to pay fees and other 
     expenses related to self sufficiency, individuals must have 
     funds to assist with meals outside of the home, uniforms or 
     supplies that are essential to education or job training, 
     expenses that must be paid in order to meet program 
     expectations, and personal items that allow individuals to 
     interact with others without the stigma of being viewed as a 
     welfare recipient.
       7. Child care services: Parents are unable to enter 
     programs or work if there is a lack of child care services. 
     The availability and access to services, as well as such 
     issues as flexibility of hours, and the quality of child care 
     services are important considerations. Child and dependent 
     care that is affordable and of high quality must be available 
     not only to participants in education and job training 
     activities, but also to those entering the paid labor force 
     for enough time to enable them to become self-sufficient.


                       geographic discrimination

       1. Territories: the unique situation of the Territories and 
     the commonwealth of Puerto Rico pertaining to federal 
     programs of social assistance must be re-examined with the 
     purpose of having these insular areas fully participate in 
     the programs and principles which will result from welfare 
     reform. The needs and contributions of the over four million 
     American citizens living in the Territories should not be 
     overlooked; thus, the federal government must take assertive 
     steps to implement measures which may be necessary in order 
     to include these citizens within the goals of welfare reform.


                               financing

       1. Potential tax increase: The proposal should not be 
     financed on the backs of poor Americans by cutting AFDC and 
     other aspects of our social safety net in order to pay for 
     the reforms. There must be an adequate investment made, not 
     just lip service. The budget rules are tough, but this effort 
     cannot have the net result of making the poorest members of 
     society worse off than they were. The potential for a tax 
     increase to pay for the new system must be considered.
       2. Other possible funding sources: A. Progressive premium 
     scheme for Medicare Part B: Under Medicare, Part B is 
     optional and partially paid for by premiums (25%), with the 
     rest (75%) being subsidized by the general treasury: even 
     millionaires on Medicare Part B get a 75% subsidy from the 
     government. The CBS has estimated that $18.5 billion could be 
     saved over five years by phasing in a higher premium starting 
     with individuals who make over $50,000 and couples making 
     over $65,000. The phase-in would end at 50% (so the 
     beneficiary is paying half rather than one-quarter of the 
     cost of the program), which would apply to individuals over 
     $60,000 in annual income over $80,000. Obviously, there are 
     other options using this idea that can raise more revenue.
       B. Tax on foreign investment: This option comes from the 
     Citizens for Tax Justice: a 5% tax on interest earned by 
     foreigners lending in the United States (on loans to American 
     companies and the U.S. Government.) This was exempted from 
     taxation in 1984. Typically, this interest income is not 
     reported to foreigners' home governments. As a result, the 
     U.S. has become a major international tax haven. The tax 
     could be waived if a foreign lender supplies the information 
     necessary to report the interest to the foreign home 
     government. The five year gain is estimated to be at least 
     $15 billion, possibly more.
       3. Legal immigrants should not be targeted: Legal 
     immigrants pay taxes into our system. When there are hard 
     times, they face the same challenges citizens face. Legal 
     immigrants should not be targeted as the only poor people who 
     will be made to pay for these reforms. Any redesign of the 
     public benefits system must ensure that legal immigrants are 
     able to fully participate.

                              {time}  1820

  Mr. CLYBURN. I thank the gentlewoman for her remarks.
  Mr. Speaker, at this time I yield to the distinguished gentleman from 
Illinois, a member of the Committee on Banking, Finance and Urban 
Affairs and the Committee on Government Operations, who along with the 
gentlewoman from North Carolina [Mrs. Clayton] cochaired this task 
force the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Rush].
  Mr. RUSH. I thank the gentleman for yielding to me.
  Mr. Speaker, As cochair of the freshman class welfare reform task 
force, I would like to thank the gentlelady from North Carolina, my 
cochair, for her hard work and her leadership on this and so many other 
issues.
  And I would also like to thank all of my fellow members of the task 
force who are joining me today in this special order on welfare reform.
  President Clinton has promised to end welfare as we know it. As this 
debate has developed, over the last few months, this has proven to be 
an extremely complicated commitment to fulfill.
  As a Member of Congress who has more than 18,000 constituent families 
who receive welfare, and as someone who has lived in public housing, I 
can say that I know and understand the welfare system.
  I know it as a broken system that desperately needs a nearly complete 
overhaul.
  I can also say I agree with the President that we must change the 
fundamental principles behind the welfare system.
  In my direct, I have heard from people who say there is no way they 
can support their children on $367 a month plus food stamps.
  I have heard from people on welfare who felt there was a strong 
disincentive for them to work. For many, work makes no sense when a job 
barely pays more than monthly welfare payments, provides no health 
insurance, and forces them to leave their children alone at home with 
no one to care for them
  But mostly, throughout my years outside of and in politics, I have 
heard from people who would gladly work, if only the jobs were 
available.
  Welfare was meant to be a helping hand. Instead, it has become a 
restraining hand which works to keep individuals down. The time has 
come to do something decisive. I am pleased that the administration has 
recognized that the present situation cannot continue. To that end, I 
have joined my freshman colleagues in preparing a set of principles 
which we feel must be central to any welfare reform package. My cochair 
has detailed many of these specific principles, but a few in particular 
bear some emphasis.

  A society's most important responsibility is to care and provide for 
all of its members. And I can think of no allocation of our resources 
which is more worthwhile than to work to help the over 9.6 million 
American children on welfare today. We cannot and must not hesitate 
when it comes to investments in our children.
  Further, if we are going to help Americans get off of welfare, and 
not merely kick them off at the end of 2 years with no recourse and no 
support. We must make absolutely certain that health care, child care, 
and flexible job training and placement in real jobs are made integral 
parts of the new system.
  But just as important, we need to reinvest in our most disadvantaged 
communities so that the jobs that former welfare recipients achieve are 
real and permanent. Once the differences between the House and Senate 
bills are rectified, the President will soon sign a community 
development banking bill which makes a small but precise step in the 
right direction, but much more of that kind of targeted investment is 
needed.
  There must be a strong emphasis in this effort toward putting more 
people back to work. As we all know, ultimately, the only way we can 
make people self-sufficient is if we offer them viable alternatives to 
welfare.
  For many on welfare, all we need to do is make working a financially 
feasible option. In a similar vein to the expanded EITC, we can do this 
by providing better child-care programs, guaranteeing health insurance 
for everyone, and putting an end to measures which penalize single 
perents who work or save for the future.
  However, for others, we must supply a greater level of assistance. 
Efforts must be made to improve job training, counseling, and placement 
programs for people who have never worked or who have limited skills.
  Most important, we must work to locate and create jobs in those 
communities which face severe job shortages. A combination of 
opportunities and assistance can and will offer those on welfare the 
help they need to break out of the cycle of poverty.
  Ultimately, the key in welfare reform is to remember that in ending 
welfare as we know it, our aim is not to hurt people, but to help them 
achieve self-sufficiency.
  We must work together to create a welfare system not merely with 
fewer people in it, but a society with fewer people who need the kind 
of support which our welfare system provides.

                              {time}  1830

  Mr. CLYBURN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. 
Rush] very much.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield now to the gentlewoman from California [Ms. 
Roybal-Allard], a member of the Committee on Small Business and the 
Committee on Banking, Finance and Urban Affairs, and an award winning 
legislator from the California State Assembly.
  Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to join my freshman 
colleagues in this important discussion of welfare reform and to 
outline the framework we feel is crucial to creating positive and 
lasting reform.
  Our discussion is based on the premise that human dignity, 
responsibility, and respect are the cornerstones of the American 
tradition. We believe that any reform debate must recognize that all 
people have basic human and civil rights.
  All measures for reform must flow directly from these principles.
  In order to reach the ultimate goal of promoting self-sufficiency, 
our legislative package focuses primarily on the elimination of 
poverty, not simply the reduction of AFDC rolls. This long-term 
approach demonstrates the discipline and vision necessary to help 
recipients escape the trap of hopelessness the welfare system has 
become for millions of Americans.
  It was not long ago that welfare was described as a ``hand up, not a 
handout.'' However, the result has been a massive, convoluted system 
that is a handout with no way out. The freshman class task force 
refocuses on the original intent and concentrates on providing 
recipients the skills and services they need to be self-sufficient.

  To accomplish this goal, the task force pursues a comprehensive 
strategy which includes health coverage and child care programs.
  We support effective and relevant job training programs to assure 
that welfare recipients make the transition to permanent employment 
with security and advancement opportunities if we are to end the 
perpetual cycle of poverty.
  Reform must not be punitive to those in genuine need. Instead, reform 
must be flexible enough to accommodate the specific needs of those 
entering the system with problems such as illiteracy and family 
violence.
  Recognizing the critical role of family in a strong society, the task 
force's proposal supports the self-help efforts of families, without 
impeding a family's positive steps toward self-reliance, penalizing 
two-parent families who strive to remain intact or hindering recipients 
struggling to save for a better future.
  Our approach ensures that the financing of reform programs does not 
penalize the poor by cutting AFDC and other social safety net 
components. To do so is shortsighted and threatens to create a 
permanent underclass of individuals, denied public assistance and 
unable to care for themselves.
  In closing, dignity and respect must be kept at the forefront of our 
thinking as we work toward the long-term goal of self-sufficiency. We 
must use the reform process as an opportunity to strengthen our best 
hope for America: its precious human resources.
  Mr. CLYBURN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from California 
[Ms. Roybal-Allard].
  Mr. Speaker, I now yield to the gentlewoman from California [Ms. 
Woolsey] who is a member of the Committee on the Budget, the Committee 
on Education and Labor, and the Committee on Government Operations who 
has managed, was the founder of, a human resources agency. She will be 
discussing child support and what we ought to do within the welfare 
system to reform that aspect.
  Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to join my freshman class 
colleagues here today, and I compliment the gentleman from South 
Carolina [Mr. Clyburn] and the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Rush] for 
their work on welfare reform. We were elected because this Nation 
demanded change. And, with the principles established by the freshman 
Democrats, we have made a bold commitment to fundamentally change the 
welfare system as we know it.
  Tonight, I want to focus on a broad principle that has already been 
introduced as legislation: A complete overhaul of our Nation's child 
support system. I recently introduced comprehensive and revolutionary 
child support reform legislation called the Secure Assurance for 
Families Everywhere Act, or SAFE. SAFE has been included in the 
freshman Democrats' welfare principles and has the endorsement of many 
freshman class Members. SAFE serves as the first step of the welfare 
reform plan that I will introduce next week. Reform that incorporates 
the principles of the freshman class task force.
  Mr. Speaker, child support reform should be the first step in any 
welfare reform proposal considered by Congress.
  Each year in America, of the $47 billion owed in court-ordered 
child support, only $13 billion is collected, leaving a $34 billion gap 
between what is owed and what is paid to support our children

  Mr. Speaker, that $34 billion gap is a national disgrace which is 
punishing our children and bankrupting our welfare system. The SAFE 
bill will recoup that $34 billion in unpaid child support, and put it 
in the hands of those who deserve it: children.
  The first step toward getting children the support they are owed is 
federalizing child support collection. By having the IRS maintain a 
national registry of child support orders, and using wage withholding 
to collect support, that $34 billion gap will close. Today, States use 
over $500 million a year in Federal dollars to collect child support--
resulting in confusion, duplication, and failing 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 across State lines, 
less than $1 for every $10 owed in interstate child support is 
collected.
  SAFE would do away with the current hit-or-miss State child support 
collection system by enabling the IRS, which has an 84-percent tax 
collection rate, to withhold child support payments from an absent 
parent's paycheck and pay support to families with child support 
orders.
  SAFE also guarantees every family that is owed child support a 
minimum monthly payment.
  Just like the Social Security System, which ensures that children of 
deceased parents receive financial support, SAFE guarantees that 
children abandoned by their living parents are also supported. SAFE 
will provide every parent who is owned child support a minimum monthly 
payment of $250.
  Finally, SAFE will greatly increase paternity establishment. SAFE 
will make it easier to establish paternity and to meet parental 
responsibilities.
  After all, Mr. Speaker, child support reform is about taking care of 
our children.
  With children accounting for 70 percent of welfare recipients, this 
bill will play a major role in reducing dependence on welfare. If we 
are truly serious about reforming the welfare system, it should be the 
first step Congress takes.
  Researchers estimate that a system like SAFE could move about one-
third of welfare recipients off the rolls.
  Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to endorse the freshman class principles 
for fundamental change, and I look forward to working with my 
colleagues in Congress to enact a fair and just welfare reform. 
Because, after all, Mr. Speaker, welfare reform is about children.

                              {time}  2040

  Mr. CLYBURN. Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank Ms. Woolsey for that 
insightful statement on child support.
  As you know, Mr. Speaker, at the core of welfare reform must be 
education and training. To discuss that for us, I would like to yield 
to the gentleman from Pennsylvania, a Member of the Banking, Education 
and Labor, and Small Business Committees, Mr. Klink.
  Mr. KLINK. Mr. Speaker, it's a pleasure to participate in today's 
special order by the freshman class welfare reform task force.
  I want to compliment my fellow members of the task force who have 
worked hard to develop a list of welfare reform principles to serve as 
an underpinning for President Clinton's welfare reform package. This 
legislation will be introduced later this year.
  My intent here is to discuss the welfare reform components of 
education and training. But before I do that let me underscore why 
welfare reform is needed.
  My home State of Pennsylvania and other States have had problems with 
the overpayment of welfare benefits. A State audit earlier this year 
revealed that the welfare recipients in Beaver County, PA which is in 
my congressional district, had been overpaid by nearly $500,000 over a 
3-year period.
  Spread across the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania these overpayments--
blamed on the State welfare personnel and not on the welfare recipients 
themselves--have cost the taxpayers millions. These overpayments simply 
are not acceptable. Any comprehensive welfare reform package has to 
inject efficiency and fiscal responsibility into the delivery system so 
these overpayments do not happen in the future.
  Mr. Speaker, our welfare system does not work. It has 
institutionalized government handouts and it has discouraged working. 
Welfare--once a temporary safety net--now is a lifestyle passed from 
one generation to another. The current welfare system should embody 
personal responsibility--instead it fosters personal irresponsibility. 
Finally, the existing welfare system is not connecting clients to 
training and employment.
  Welfare reform will not be true reform unless it emphasizes less 
government dependency, greater human dignity of the participants and it 
ultimately educates and trains people to be productive in the modern 
workforce.
  Job training is critical to enabling welfare recipients to make the 
transition to permanent employment. Job training programs should afford 
flexibility in hours of instruction and vocational fields. Currently, 
there are more than 120 Federal job training programs.
  To be effective, these job training programs need to be streamlined 
and consolidated not only to transform welfare recipients into workers 
but to assist displaced workers, students and others who desperately 
want to find work.
  The Reemployment Act of 1994--that was introduced earlier this year--
will provide the streamlining and the consolidation of job training 
programs necessary to ensure welfare reform.
  The Reemployment Act will help establish one-stop career centers that 
will serve as a common point of access to employment, education, and 
training information and services. Participants in the new system will 
use these career centers to plug into training and education 
opportunities. Intensive reemployment services are made to workers not 
able to find a job through the center's basic services. These 
participants will work with job placement counselors who will assist 
them in drafting a job plan.
  In addition, the Reemployment Act will develop a national labor 
market information system so that training and education efforts can 
target workers for specific jobs.
  The Reemployment Act will help to install the education and training 
machinery necessary to enable welfare recipients and other dislocated 
workers to become productive workers. Finally, the new system will be 
founded on the personal responsibility of the participants and a 
streamlined, more efficient array of government services.
  Mr. Speaker, the majority of the American people--through survey 
research--have indicated that the top goal of welfare reform is to get 
welfare clients off the government dole and into productive jobs.
  The Reemployment Act will help install the necessary foundation so 
the welfare system as we know it will become to the late 20th century 
what the horse cavalry became to the early 20th century, another 
outdated institution.
  Mr. CLYBURN. I want to thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. Speaker, for a discussion of developmental assistance, I would 
like to yield to the gentlewoman from Florida, who was recently 
selected as one of this Nation's most popular elected officials, a 
Member of the Committee on Appropriations, the Honorable Carrie Meek.
  (Mrs. MEEK of Florida asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend her remarks.)
  Mrs. MEEK of Florida. Mr. Speaker and Members of the freshman class, 
we hear a lot of rhetoric about welfare reform, about how it has to 
stop being a way of life, and about 2 years and you are out. But the 
easy part of welfare reform is figuring out where you want to go. The 
hardest part is figuring out to get there. That is what we are here for 
this evening.
  We all know, including welfare mothers, that every proposal that is 
serious costs money. I have been through the alphabet machine in all of 
these welfare programs and acronyms over the years. I have yet to see 
one that works to get the women off welfare. Unless we prepare 
ourselves to do things differently and better, then we are not making 
sense providing rhetoric for the welfare program.
  Mr. Speaker, I come at this issue from perhaps a different standpoint 
than many other people. I have seen this system and how it is broken 
and how it is disoriented in my community. I have seen what it does and 
what it does not do. I want to make it clear that when it comes to 
welfare, race and ethnicity are both immaterial. Thirty-eight percent 
of families receiving welfare payments are African-Americans, but 38 
percent of families receiving welfare payments are also non-Hispanic 
Caucasians, and 17 percent of these families are Hispanic-Americans.
  Mr. Speaker, Poverty is an equal opportunity problem in America. No 
single group has a majority or a monopoly. To me the worst thing about 
our welfare system is that it is wasteful. It has been wasteful, and it 
still is.
  Some people only think about the money being wasted. I think about 
the waste of the money, and I also think about the people. We have a 
welfare system that does not mind wasting people. The worst waste is 
the little children. They are doomed to grow up in poverty, in 
households struggling to survive. During the eighties, the number of 
poor infants and toddlers increased by 26 percent. The poorest 
Americans by far are infants and toddlers.
  But the squeeze on welfare recipients, if you put the squeeze on 
them, you put the squeeze on children. But help welfare children 
recipients and you help children. Keep in mind that welfare is a lousy 
way of life. People do not want to be on welfare. The average benefit 
for a family of three is $275 a month. Would anybody want to leave 
their job and raise their family on $375 a month? Not likely. It is 
going to cost us money in the short run, but for once, I think we have 
to put less attention on how much money it is going to cost and put 
more attention on how this money will be spent.

                              {time}  1850

  Because I think that no matter how much money you pump into the 
system, sometimes you pump bad money after bad money. Nothing will 
change until those on welfare get the basic skills they need to get and 
hold a decent job.
  I have seen the people escalate from one welfare program or from one 
training program to the other. The people that benefit most are the 
administrators and the people who manage these programs. The money 
never gets down to the poor people. I am for changing this cycle. It is 
a very bad cycle. Nothing will ever end poverty as fast as a decent 
job.
  We can train people. They are trainable. They are educable. But 
unless we get a strategic plan with a systematic, sequential way of 
training people in meaningful jobs, being sure that those who mean 
business stay in the program, those who do not mean business are kicked 
out. I have seen this cycle too long. It is cyclical. And every 10 or 
20 years we get back on this again.
  I am serious about the welfare reform program, and I am sure the 
freshman class in all of their deliberations are looking forward to a 
serious program, one where money is not thrown about just to please 
those who love the word ``welfare reform.''
  There are two keys to welfare reform in my opinion: health care and 
what I call ``developmental education''.
  For health care, it is pretty obvious to everyone.
  For many Americans getting on welfare at least gets you health care, 
Medicaid. One of the best things we can do in this Congress to break 
this cycle is to pass a health care reform plan that will provide every 
American with health care that can never be taken away.
  But developmental education and teaching people basic skills in a 
serious manner is less obvious, but it is no less important. Everyone 
knows the advertizing slogan from T.V., ``Real food is for real 
people.'' I would like to see a new slogan catch on: ``Real skills for 
real jobs,'' one that will train people, come up with a public-private 
partnership. And it will work. Get them off the welfare role and onto 
the payroll, any payroll, even if it begins at the bottom.
  People must be taught that they cannot always end up in a high-paying 
job but that they start wherever there skills find them and work up. 
For me, success is measured by getting people off the welfare and into 
a job. That is where this developmental education is needed.
  As an educator, I have seen it over and over again. Training programs 
set up as long as there is Federal money coming in. As soon as the 
Federal money is over, then the capacity ends. And there is no capacity 
left, because there is no Federal money.
  I think we should get this behind us, be sure that money is invested 
in proven programs that work and that schools and colleges, 
particularly community colleges, I have seen them work very well in 
training programs with adults.
  There is a way that you train adults. It is called the science of 
androgyny and not the science of pedagogy, where people are taught like 
children. Both are necessary, but neither is sufficient right now.
  Let us develop those strong partnerships, Mr. Speaker, with private 
industry to train people and teach them skills and create strong 
incentives for anyone to participate in this program.
  We are facing a new day, Mr. Speaker, where we must not continue to 
do things the old way, because the old way is not working anymore. We 
must have true reform where people are given some meaningful way to 
enhance their quality of life.
  Mr. CLYBURN. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentlewoman from 
Florida [Mrs. Meek] for that statement.
  I now yield to the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Fingerhut], who will talk 
to us a little bit about the delivery of services and training.
  Mr. FINGERHUT. Mr. Speaker, I thank our distinguished class president 
for yielding to me.
  I also want to thank the chairpeople of this task force, the 
gentlewoman from North Carolina [Mrs. Clayton], the gentleman from 
Illinois [Mr. Rush], for their work on this project. And particularly 
say how pleased I am to follow the distinguished gentlewoman from 
Florida [Mrs. Meek] in this discussion.
  She may have taken a little bit of my time, but it was well worth it. 
I subscribe and associate myself with all of her remarks, particularly 
her very eloquent statement on behalf of real reform and understanding 
that if we do not fundamentally change the delivery systems that deal 
with people who find themselves in the situation of needing to be on 
the welfare system, that we will never make any real changes that the 
question is not, as Mrs. Meek said, just how much money will be spent 
but how that money will be spent and what kinds of programs we will 
enact.

  My own personal experience on this issue, frankly, is in this area of 
education and training.
  I served, at the beginning of my career, as a legal aid lawyer 
representing people who found themselves on welfare. Then I was the 
associate director of a program called Cleveland Works, which is a job 
training and placement program for welfare recipients in the Cleveland 
area. And then both in service with the mayor of the city of Cleveland 
and in the Ohio State Senate, I was part of trying to deal with our 
welfare programs in the State of Ohio. I feel that I have some 
firsthand experience with this program.
  If there is anything that would summarize my feelings about it, it is 
two points:
  The first is that no one likes this system. No one likes it. The 
notion that people who are on welfare like being on welfare is, as Mrs. 
Meek just concluded by pointing out the amount of money involved, is 
ridiculous. It is degrading. It lacks dignity. It is a trap. It is a 
full-time job to go from program to program to beg for the crumbs that 
come out of the various agencies. It is not a way to raise children. It 
is not a way of life, and no one who is on this system, in my 
experience that I have dealt with, likes being on the system.
  As we all well know, by simply talking and campaigning and meeting 
with our constituents, we know the taxpayers do not like the system. 
They do not feel that their money is being well spent.
  Interestingly, it is not the amount of money that is spent that is 
the complaint, but it is that the way we spend the money does not 
reflect the values that the taxpayers want their money to be spent for.
  They want this money to be spent so that people can become self-
sufficient, help themselves, not become dependent and unable to help 
themselves.
  The second point, which everybody has made here today, is that the 
focus of welfare reform is jobs. The only way to really have that 
dignity as an individual supporting yourself and your family is to have 
a job. That is what I simply want to focus on for my remaining moments. 
That is, that in the delivery system we must place a high value on 
placement programs that help people get into that private sector job.
  It is the fact that there are jobs out there that people on welfare 
can qualify for today. When I was the associate director of Cleveland 
Works, our job was to place people who had been on welfare sometimes 
for 6, 8, 10 years into jobs in the private sector. We did not go out 
to the companies in Cleveland and say, ``Do a good favor for somebody, 
help a person who has been on welfare, give them a job, make this part 
of your religious or moral or social commitment.''
  We said, ``Here is a person who has been overlooked by society, who 
has the qualities to become the best employee that there is, if you 
will only give them an opportunity.''
  We helped people with interview skills, with resumes, with perhaps 
brushing up on skills that they thought they once had had and needed 
some quick training and some quick brush-up
  We helped them with transportation and managing some problems that 
they had at home. Oftentimes people have a hard time getting away from 
home because of child care or because of legal problems. Unfortunately, 
often it is because of domestic violence of some other issue that is 
keeping somebody down at home.

  We would help them be able to qualify for that private sector job.
  We must focus on placing people. There are people who are ready, 
able, and willing to work today. That is the first thing that I think 
about our delivery systems that I want to stress tonight on behalf of 
this task force package and product.
  The second is something that I will just simply underscore what Mrs. 
Meek said. That is, that training programs have got to be real. They 
have got to be measurable, and they have to be held accountable. And 
they have got to compete with people for their ability to succeed.
  We cannot simply say to the people who have been running the welfare 
bureaucracies around the country that now you can become trainers and 
because now you are training the Federal money will flow for training 
as long as you can show that you have people sitting at a desk or 
sitting in a classroom or, even worse, yet on a piece of paper are 
registered.
  We have to insist that these are real programs, really helping 
people.
  In my own district, we have three community colleges that educate 
low-income people all the time. We have two 2-year programs associated 
with major 4-year universities. We have joint vocational schools. We 
have the ability to provide education to everyone who needs that 
education and training.
  I frankly am desperately worried that we are going to send more money 
into existing training programs that are failing or showing only 
marginal rates of increase. We will put a lot of money into this 
program.

                              {time}  1900

  It will not show the success it needs to show, and the public will 
come back in a few years and say, ``See, we told you so when you 
promised us welfare reform, and we did not get it.'' We have to be 
tough about how this money is spent and put it into real programs that 
really work.
  In conclusion, the example that I know best, as I said, is a program 
called Cleveland Works in Cleveland, Ohio. We were a private, nonprofit 
organization. We had to apply for funds every year to the State of 
Ohio. We had a contract.
  We said, ``Here is how many people we are going to put in jobs. Here 
is how long they are going to stay in jobs. Here is the kind of job 
they are going to be in, a full-time job with health benefits.'' We 
said, ``Hold us to our standards, and if we do not meet the standards, 
then pull our contract and give it to somebody else.'' Those are the 
kinds of tough-minded programs we need to fund as we go through this 
welfare reform program.
  Let me compliment the leaders of this task force, who have done such 
a good job, and associate myself with all the remarks that have been 
made today. They have been eloquent, and they have been right on point.
  Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman very much for yielding to me.
  The SPEAKER. The Chair would advise the gentleman from South Carolina 
that he has approximately 12 minutes remaining.
  Mr. CLYBURN. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Puerto Rico 
(Mr. Romero-Barcelo), who will speak to us about welfare in relation to 
the territories.
  (Mr. ROMERO-BARCELO asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend his remarks.)
  Mr. ROMERO-BARCELO. Mr. Speaker, I commend the President for his 
leadership in attempting to bring about meaningful change to our 
Nation's welfare system, like he said: ``to end welfare as we know 
it''.
  The freshman class has also taken the initiative of addressing the 
need for welfare reform, and we did engage in a thorough process that 
culminated in a document that lays out the consensus of this group.
  Among the key aspects of our recommendations is the firm belief that 
the reform's goals must aim at promoting self-sufficiency and that the 
short-term expenditures necessary to implement the reform must not be 
financed by the poor. Whatever amount we invest in welfare reform this 
year will render much greater benefits to our society as a whole in 
just a few years.
  The national consensus seems to indicate that the welfare system is 
broken and that it needs a major overhaul. Therefore, we must be 
willing to come up with the necessary resources needed to fix the 
problems and implement the solutions that will ultimately reward work, 
self-sufficiency, family unity, and responsibility.
  Nevertheless, let us not forget that we will always have a small 
proportion of our population that for valid reasons will not be able to 
attain full self-sufficiency. Such individuals will need some type of 
assistance from the Government: for example, people with chronic 
disabilities, indigent senior citizens, and children at risk.
  The reform effort must envision a comprehensive welfare strategy 
which will result in carefully designed programs that will bring people 
out of poverty. Thus, the President's plan must consider the 
possibility of extending welfare resources and responsibilities to 
groups that have been traditionally excluded or underserved by welfare 
mechanisms.
  A case in point is what is happening in my own district, Puerto Rico. 
Home to over 3.6 million American citizens where a large segment of the 
population has been condemned to a permanent underclass of poverty by 
inconsistent and totally contradictory Federal policies toward the 
American citizens in Puerto Rico.
  This freshman class condemns the geographical discrimination toward 
the American citizens living in the territories. In the particular case 
of Puerto Rico, I am appalled by the preliminary recommendations being 
considered by the administration's task force. These do not address at 
all the causes and roots of poverty in the territories, nor in Puerto 
Rico, the poorest per-capita jurisdiction in the entire Nation.
  Unfortunately, the income gap between the mainland and Puerto Rico 
continues to widen with the passing of the years and the island's per 
capita income is three times below the national average. The widening 
of this gap is the direct result of the caps, which severely limit 
welfare programs as they apply to the territories. To address these 
injustices, the Nation has to sustain a policy of maintaining the poor 
in the territories, poorer than their counterparts in the 50 States. 
How can anyone rationalize this policy?
  The goals and benefits that welfare reform will render are not in the 
horizon for the territories and for Puerto Rico and the other 
territories. Can this situation be tolerated?
  To give you an idea on how inconsistent the Federal policies toward 
Puerto Rico are, consider the following: Elderly poor and/or disabled 
citizens are not eligible for Supplemental Security Income assistance. 
A family of three eligible for AFDC payments [Aid to Families with 
Dependent Children] receive only a monthly average payment of $48. This 
same family living in the mainland would receive approximately $450 per 
month.

  To complicate matters further, this same family not only lacks 
adequate resources to stay afloat, but in fact faces a catch-22 
situation since the breadwinner in such family in Puerto Rico cannot 
take advantage of the earned income tax credit--a program specifically 
designed to provide incentives for the working poor--this program is 
inapplicable in Puerto Rico.
  The earned income tax credit is a critical component of the welfare 
reform efforts and we thank the President and many Members of this 
House for having expanded this program in a significant way last year.
  However, instead of addressing the critical needs of thousands of 
citizens in my district, Congress and the Federal Government have opted 
for giving to wealthy corporations in Puerto Rico extremely generous 
tax breaks, amounting to billions of dollars each year, yes billions--
and crumbs to the poor U.S. citizens in Puerto Rico.
  As a colonial delegate without the power to vote in this House, I can 
only bring to your attention the need for meaningful changes long 
overdue for your fellow citizens in Puerto Rico. I cannot vote, you can 
and the power to change things rests with you and with our President.
  The poor do not pay taxes and they should not be condemned to be a 
permanent underclass. We must aggressively promote policies that break 
the poverty cycle. There are over 140,000 children living in poverty in 
Puerto Rico.
  The poor in Puerto Rico do not have adequate health care, a basic 
necessity, the Medicaid Program is inapplicable in Puerto Rico. 
Further, those in need of nutritional assistance obtain limited help 
since the Food Stamp Program is also capped. Even poor children are 
shortchanged in their educational opportunities since Federal 
assistance under the Chapter 1 Program, which is designed to assist 
poor school children, is also capped at about 60 percent of what Puerto 
Rico would receive if treated as a State.
  Object poverty demoralizes not only the ones who suffer from it, but 
also demoralizes the society that tolerates it.
  I call on this Congress and on this administration to seriously 
consider the repercussions of tolerating discrimination against the 
most needy U.S. citizens. Geographic location should not be a barrier 
to better opportunities. Let us provide the appropriate tools and 
people will help themselves.
  I thank the leadership of this freshman class, our president Jim 
Clyburn, and also Eva Clayton, and Bobby Rush, for coordinating a 
careful analysis of the welfare issue and for seeking a consensus on 
solutions that will benefit all of our people.
  Mr. CLYBURN. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Mississippi 
[Mr. Thompson], a member of the Committee on Agriculture, the Committee 
on Merchant Marine and Fisheries, and the Committee on Small Business.
  (Mr. THOMPSON asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. THOMPSON. Mr. Speaker, as a member of the Freshman Class Welfare 
Reform Task Force, and as the Representative of a district in which 40 
percent of the constituents receive Aid to Families With Dependent 
Children [AFDC] and 34 percent receive food stamps, I feel compelled to 
discuss the importance of developing a welfare reform concept that 
removes individuals out of poverty. In March 1993, the Mississippi 
State Legislature passed a significant piece of legislation designed to 
improve the current welfare system in Mississippi.
  This legislation entitled ``Mississippi's New Direction Demonstration 
Project'' is designed to guide recipients toward self-sufficiency. This 
package of programs is devised to reduce the dependency of welfare 
support through the following components: the statewide features, the 
work encouragement demonstration, and the work first demonstration.
  The statewide features component focuses on strengthening family 
responsibilities and on improving the preparation of all welfare 
recipients for long-term employment. This component is an additional 
feature that will be included in all welfare type programs implemented 
in the State of Mississippi. Some specific areas that will be affected 
will include extending help to minor parents; extending eligibility to 
two-parent families; developing efficiencies in paternity 
establishments; establishing family resource centers; requiring 
mandatory immunization for children; promoting the use of the earned 
income tax credit, as well as targeted jobs tax credit for employers; 
and expanding the use of the State's literacy training programs.
  The Work Encouragement Demonstration Program is a two-county, 3-year 
program--Washington and Jones. The program will evaluate the impact of 
the removal of the income disregard requirement on welfare dependency. 
Moreover, it will allow welfare recipients to receive their normal 
benefits regardless of income. Other characteristics include requiring 
participation by noncustodial, nonworking parents; and the provision of 
a 25-hour volunteer work component with a paid stipend of $50.
  The Work First Demonstration Program is a six-county--Leflore, Hinds, 
Madison, Lee, Harrison, and Oktibbeha--demonstration project designed 
to transition public assistance recipients to regular employment. Three 
of these counties are in the Second Congressional District. Work First 
will provide to AFDC and Food Stamp recipients jobs with private and 
public sector employers in exchange for their food stamp and AFDC 
allocations.
  The Work First Demonstration Program is being marketed as a business 
expansion concept. The employment positions made available to 
participants will be newly created ones and all employment transactions 
will be conducted through the local employment office. Most of the 
initial job creation will be in the public sector; that is, school 
districts, hospitals, municipal and county government. However, the 
State is receiving numerous requests from private sector employers 
regarding their expansion needs. The only way that this concept is 
going to be effective is through business expansion. This concept is 
being marketed to the private sector as a training component for future 
expansion.
  In order to accomplish this form of welfare enhancement, over 15 
different waivers are required from the U.S. Departments of Health and 
Human Services and Agriculture. Without the removal of these barriers, 
this concept cannot be realized. Waivers will allow the creation of 
accounts on behalf of participants; eliminate the requirement that the 
principal wage earner have a recent connection in the labor force; 
enhance paternity establishments, enhance fraud control efforts; and 
provide flexibility on mandatory immunization.
  The demonstration projects described represent a basis for 
instituting reforms. However, they in no way can be perceived as a 
cure-all for the many poverty related ills besetting the State. I still 
have concerns about what will happen after the 3-year demonstration 
projects are over. I worry that families will remain in poverty after 
all the experiments have been initiated and evaluated. But more 
importantly, I worry that children will never develop the self-esteem 
and skill levels needed to stop the cycle of poverty.
  These concerns are warranted, I feel, when one considers the fact 
that Mississippi enjoyed its best budget year in history. As a result 
of the establishment of casino gaming, the State realized an additional 
$300 million plus in its budget coffer. Yet, not $1 was delegated this 
legislative session to address the AFDC standard of need.
  Given the cost of living in Mississippi, it is doubtful whether $4.25 
an hour will provide the type of economic assistance necessary to 
remove many families out of poverty.
  I recognize that in order to remove people out of poverty, we must be 
flexible based on the unique characteristics of each State. However, 
welfare reform should not become a dog and pony show with graphs and 
charts showing the number of people that have been removed from AFDC 
rolls, but one that shows the number of individuals that have been 
removed from poverty. Removing individuals out of poverty must become 
the only goal of welfare reform. This goal can be realized only if the 
Congress, the administration, and the American public join forces and 
demand it. Self-serving political interests and hidden agendas have no 
room in this ongoing debate.
  Mr. CLYBURN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished gentleman from 
Mississippi.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from Georgia [Ms. McKinney], 
a member of the Committee on Agriculture and the Committee on Foreign 
Affairs.
  Ms. McKINNEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to address the issue of 
welfare reform and why any reform attempted by this august body must be 
a comprehensive plan to systematically dismantle the system of 
ambiguous and conflicting Federal regulations that are 
``disincentives'' to work.
  Welfare reform, health care reform and the affordable housing crisis 
are inextricably linked. We cannot ``reform welfare'' without 
addressing the key issues of health care reform, child support reform, 
affordable daycare services, housing regulation reform as well as 
revamping the AFDC and Food Stamp Programs. Welfare reform must be an 
incentive to work. Comprehensive welfare reform must be a road map out 
of poverty. We must help to ``make work pay'' by removing the 
``disincentives'' to work. Welfare reform should include as key 
components the following items:
  First, job training and placement: Job training must be provided for 
up to 2 years for all ``able bodied individuals.'' Followup services 
need to be provided to help obtain appropriate job placement after the 
education and training period is completed. We cannot say ``two years 
and you are out.'' We must provide welfare recipients appropriate job 
training for today's work place.
  Second, affordable day care: Working parents must be provided 
affordable child care and dependent care services while working or 
receiving education and training. Please not, Mr. Speaker, that I 
included ``dependent care'' services. We are fastly becoming a nation 
of middle-aged persons with elderly parents. Parents who are dependent 
upon their grown children for their well-being. We must not forget our 
senior citizens when we discuss welfare reform.
  Third, expanded EITC: Through the expanded earned income tax credit 
[EITC], as passed in the first session of the 103d Congress, many hard 
working Americans will receive a tax refund each year. Now working 
parents can receive the EITC through ``advanced payments.'' Instead of 
waiting for a tax refund, the EITC is received in their weekly 
paychecks--working parents will have more take-home pay.
  Fourth, improved child support enforcement: ``Absent parents'' could 
be subject to having their wages ``garnisheed'' through a national 
system of child support recovery. Why not have the Internal Revenue 
Service assist States in collecting past due child support across 
States lines? The 103d Congress must give single parents the tools to 
help legally collect child support. Many children living at or below 
the poverty level would benefit immediately from a ``national 
collection system''.

  Fifth, health care reform: Guaranteed health care for every American 
will help to make the transition into the workplace affordable. Many 
people on welfare have to make a choice of adequate health care for 
their children or a job. By providing universal health care for all 
Americans, many parents will not have to choose between a job or health 
care coverage. Who is to say that a mother with a very sick child has 
not made a responsible choice by choosing Medicaid, for medical 
coverage, over employment? It seems like a responsible choice to me.
  Sixth, regulations reform: Congress must mandate universal 
qualifications to receive benefits. With universal regulations welfare 
recipients and local agencies will no longer have to deal with 
regulations that are ``disincentives'' to work. Streamlined regulations 
will allow a 16-year-old child to obtain part-time work without this 
income adversely affecting the parent's rent subsidies, AFDC benefits, 
food stamps or health care benefits. In the present scheme of things, a 
16-year-old working part-time to meet the expenses of going to school 
actually hurts a family living in public housing by having their income 
included in calculating the rent of this family. This disincentive acts 
to keep the family in poverty--this disincentive must be removed.
  Seventh, prevention: Any component of welfare reform must look at 
ways to help alleviate ``teen pregnancy.'' We must help prevent the 
welfare mothers of tomorrow, today. This Congress must revisit the 
issue of Federal funding for abortions for poor women. We must consider 
funding pregnancy prevention and education programs for our teens at 
risk.
  Eighth, State and local control: Congress must advocate and legislate 
``local management control'' for individual States. What may work in 
inner city New York, may not be the answer for rural Georgia. The 
individual States must be given, by way of legislative authority, the 
right to have more local control and flexibility to manage their 
welfare programs. This concept of ``State-based control'' will allow 
each State to address problems unique to its welfare program.
  We must closely examine all Federal rules and regulations that are 
barriers for an individual to become self-sufficient. We must lend the 
poor of our Nation a helping hand by providing job training, affordable 
daycare services, and healthcare. President Clinton has said that the 
goal of welfare reform is to make welfare a ``transitional program,'' 
not a program of dependency. Mr. Speaker, this is a very noble goal. 
However, the 103d Congress must guarantee the poor a comprehensive 
program for ``self-help'' by enacting legislation that rewards work 
rather than punishing an individual for wanting to work.

                              {time}  1910

  Mr. CLYBURN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from Georgia.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from Utah [Ms. Karen 
Shepherd], who will talk about welfare's impact on children.
  Ms. SHEPHERD. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from South Carolina 
for allowing me to be part of this event where we examine all the 
different parts of the welfare system and the reform that is going on, 
because literally almost nothing could be more important to the future 
of this country.
  Mr. Speaker, as the Congress begins to consider reforming our 
admittedly broken welfare system, I want to call attention to the 
deteriorating situation facing many of our Nation's infants and 
toddlers. As we develop a new public assistance system replete with 
incentives and penalties aimed at moving people off public assistance 
and into the private sector workforce, let us remember that 9.6 million 
AFDC recipients, a full two-thirds of the entire caseload, are 
children. Let us also bear in mind every child's need for a loving, 
nurturing and stable family environment and resulting lifetime of 
benefits.
  Recently, the Carnegie Corporation issued a comprehensive report 
chronicling the bleak circumstances faced by many children under 3 
years of age. The statistics, and there is the face of a young girl or 
boy behind every one, are appalling for a country possessing such 
abundance. A staggering 1 in every 4 children now lives in poverty, 28 
percent of births are to unmarried mothers and as many as 60 percent of 
all two-year-olds do not receive all necessary immunizations to prevent 
childhood disease.
  Much of this neglect occurs during the crucial formative years of 
development, at which time a child's lifelong perceptions and 
intellectual abilities are formed. Without a foundation of stable 
emotional and financial support many cannot progress along the already 
difficult road to responsible adulthood. Consequently, our education 
system will fail, our crime rates will rise and our welfare rolls will 
continue to swell. In the end, our society will be forced to pay the 
immeasurable economic and social costs.
  Although we are rich in data, to date, we have been poor in 
solutions. This welfare reform effort presents us with a precious 
opportunity to reverse this course. Our society starting with our 
Government must aggressively promote individual and social 
responsibility for having children and discourage teenage births. 
Having a child should not be perceived as a status symbol nor as an 
unintended consequence requiring minimal care. We need a national 
commitment to community prenatal care programs which lead to the birth 
of healthy babies. We need to ensure that every child is properly 
immunized against the growing problem of childhood diseases. We need a 
national, affordable child care system which ensures quality and choice 
while at the same time supporting women who must work.
  Perhaps most importantly, we must begin to focus on paternal 
responsibility. Parenthood is a two-way street. If two people bring a 
child into this world then two people should be required to take care 
of that child. State lines or procedural red tape should not enable 
mothers and fathers to escape their rightful responsibilities while 
their children suffer.
  A government or a private sector program cannot take the place of a 
family in a child's life. Nevertheless, while government policies 
should hold individuals accountable, they should also help in making 
today's children tomorrow's emotionally and physically healthy adults 
and citizens. In our rush to move welfare recipients from public 
assistance to work we must not make the mistake of rushing by the 
neediest and the largest group of all welfare recipients; our children.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Darden). The time of the gentleman from 
South Carolina [Mr. Clyburn] has expired.


                         parliamentary inquiry

  Mr. CLYBURN. Mr. Speaker, we have got one additional speaker who 
needs 3 minutes. May I prevail upon the other side to let us have about 
5 minutes so we can get one speaker and a wrap-up?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. It is the Chair's understanding after 
consultation with the minority that there will be no objection.
  Mr. CLYBURN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from the minority 
side for allowing us this additional time to proceed.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from California [Mr. Becerra], 
who serves on the Education and Labor Committee who will speak to us on 
welfare reform in relation to immigrants.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair must announce that under a 
previous ruling of the Speaker that the Chair can no longer allow the 
gentleman from South Carolina to proceed. His time has expired.
  The gentleman from California [Mr. Becerra], however, can seek his 
own time by unanimous consent, but the time of the gentleman from South 
Carolina [Mr. Clyburn] has expired and the Chair has no discretion in 
permitting him to go further.

                          ____________________