[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 52 (Wednesday, May 4, 1994)]
[House]
[Page H]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: May 4, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

 
                             WELFARE REFORM

  Mr. WALKER. Thank you.
  Madam Speaker, as you have indicated, this is the second in a series 
of Oxford-style debates instituted in the House of Representatives. The 
first debate was on health care. Tonight we will be debating the issue 
of welfare. The specific resolve clause for tonight is ``Resolved, 
welfare has done more harm than good.'' The Republican team will speak 
in favor of that resolve clause. The Democratic team will speak against 
that resolve clause.
  The format we will use differs slightly from the traditional Oxford 
debate. After this introduction of the debate topic, one member from 
each team will make a 3-minute opening statement to present their 
position. Then we will hear alternately from the teams, with time and 
recognition controlled by the moderator. It is during this time that 
the remaining six debaters will have 1\1/2\ minutes to make statements, 
as well as 4 minutes in which to question and later to be questioned by 
a member of the opposing team or by the entire team.
  During the questioning periods of the debate, we would hope that 
debaters will keep their questions to approximately 30 seconds, and 
that respondents will keep their answers to approximately 1\1/2\ 
minutes, so we might fit two questions and answers into each 4-minute 
segment. After the back and forth debate, one member of each team will 
be recognized for a final summary statement.
  For the assistance of the debaters this evening, we have cards that 
will give members notice when there is certain time remaining in their 
segment. We hope to have as much give and take as possible during this 
debate without speaking over one another. If we do not speak over one 
another, it will keep the moderator from getting confused, and the 
moderator will much appreciate that. So please be courteous. We would 
hope to have a vigorous debate on the resolve clause, which again is, 
``Welfare has done more harm than good.''
  The debaters for this evening, from the Republican team, are the 
captain of the team, Tom DeLay of the 22d District of Texas; Gary 
Franks of the Fifth District of Connecticut; Clay Shaw of the 22d 
District of Florida; and Susan Molinari of the 13th District of New 
York;
  Democratic Members participating in tonight's debate are the captain, 
Mike Synar of the Second District of Oklahoma; Lynn Woolsey of the Six 
District of California; Eleanor Holmes Norton, the Delegate from 
Washington DC; and Dave McCurdy of the Fourth District of Oklahoma.
  To open the debate tonight, we will ask the captain of the Republican 
team [Mr. DeLay of Texas] to speak for the resolution for 3 minutes.

                              {time}  1910

  Mr. DeLay. Thank you, Mr. Moderator.
  The major problem with welfare is that Congress has long been 
dominated by soft-thinking liberals who believe they help people by 
giving them things other citizens must earn. Welfare started innocently 
enough in 1935 with cash assistance for single mothers with children.
  President Roosevelt understood that by giving welfare, the 
policymakers were playing with fire. During debate on the Social 
Security Act of 1935, he said,

       The lessons of history show conclusively that continued 
     dependence on welfare induces a spiritual and moral 
     disintegration, fundamentally destructive to the national 
     fiber. To dole out welfare in this way is to administer a 
     narcotic, a subtle destroyer of the human spirit.

  Congress ignored Roosevelt's wise advice, and now we have created a 
1,000-tentacled monster that must be attacked. We give away cash, food, 
health care, housing, and social services on the simple conditions that 
recipients promise not to work and not to marry.
  We demand virtually nothing in return. The harms caused by this 
system are immense. Welfare creates incentives not to work, thereby 
causing and spreading the dread disease of dependency that Roosevelt 
warned us about.

  Welfare creates incentives not to marry so our divorce rates now 
reach 50 percent. Welfare creates incentives to have children born out 
or wedlock so 7 of 10 black children and 2 of 10 white children are now 
born illegitimately.
  Welfare is a key factor in creating some of the world's most 
devastated and dangerous neighborhoods. Welfare spending grows like a 
cancer, imperiling the budgets of both the Federal and State 
Governments. We now spend over $340 billion in welfare programs.
  Let us be clear on this issue. We, as Republicans, do not condemn all 
welfare programs. Our position is not that welfare has done no good. 
Rather, our position is that welfare has done more harm than good.
  If a car breaks, do you banish it to the junk yard? No. You repair 
it. And if the problem is a flaw in the car's basic design, you make 
major alternations in its basic features.
  That is what Republicans want to do with welfare. During this debate, 
we will outline the major changes we want to make in welfare.
  Our guiding metaphor is that welfare is like chemotherapy: A little 
bit can get you back on your feet; too much can damage you.
  In this case, as Roosevelt warned, it will damage your soul and that 
of your children.
  Mr. WALKER. The moderator will now recognize the gentleman from 
Oklahoma [Mr. Synar] to speak against the resolution for 3 minutes.
  Mr. SYNAR. Good evening.
  Tonight the Democrats will not defend the status quo. Democrats 
believe that welfare must and is being changed to encourage marriage, 
reward work, strengthen families. Welfare ought to be a bridge to new 
opportunities, not a parking lot. Our reforms stress work, demand 
responsibility from fathers, and place tough expectations on young 
unwed mothers.
  But you know, too often in these debates we let the myths and our 
prejudices about welfare cloud the facts. Some of them are true, but 
many of them are not. Tonight, once and for all, let us set the record 
straight.
  Fact No. 1, over two-thirds of all welfare recipients are children, 
with an average age of 7 years old. Nearly 14 million children, our 
Nation's future, live in poverty without hope this very night.
  Fact No. 2, the faces of a family on welfare look a lot like yours 
and mine. The vast majority of people on welfare have one to two 
children, live in private homes, leave the welfare system within 2 
years, and are as likely to be white as black.
  Fact No. 3, no one gets rich on welfare. The average welfare benefit 
in this country is $367 for a family of three. And Federal spending for 
welfare is less than 1 percent of our general spending each year.
  The Democrats recognize that the current welfare system must be 
reshaped in order to move people from poverty to work. However, we 
reject the proposition that welfare has done more harm than good.
  Tonight we will present an outstanding example of its success, a 
mother who used welfare to stabilize her family and move herself 
forward, all the way to the U.S. Congress.
  Democrats believe reform began last year when we enacted legislation 
that granted tax relief to working poor families and passed legislation 
so that a mother would not lose her job in order to take care of a 
sick child. We also believe more needs to be done, providing affordable 
health care, developing quality child care, and creating stable, good-
paying jobs.

  These are commitments Democrats have to working people. It has been 
said that the real measure of a great people is how they treat the 
least among them. Tonight we find out what that measure is.
  Mr. WALKER. The moderator will now recognize the gentleman from 
Connecticut [Mr. Franks] to speak for the opening statement.
  Mr. FRANKS of Connecticut. Thank you, Mr. Moderator.
  In many ways, welfare is the 20th century's version of slavery. It is 
reserved for those who are in the worst possible socioeconomic 
position.
  Its victims are dependent on the very system that enslaves them. Its 
victims receive shelter, food, health care, and clothing from the 
system. The plantation, as a residence, and the often-used public 
housing units of today, both leave its victims feeling trapped. Welfare 
enslavery restricts its victims from sharing the American dream of 
ownership, prosperity, and hope. Its slave owners or overseers flourish 
at the expense of its victims. It thrives largely due to a divided 
family unit.
  During slavery, the family was divided via the slave trade business. 
Today welfare fails to hold the male accountable and inadvertently does 
its best to push the male out of the house.
  Lack of education and hope are two other common denominators between 
welfare and slavery. Without either, one cannot progress.
  We have babies in poverty having babies, thus our current system has 
produced generations of welfare-dependent children. Our welfare system 
continues to play the role of the fish delivery man for able-bodied 
people. Instead, we should help and insist that able-bodied people 
should catch their own fish.
  Eliminating dependency ultimately makes one stronger.
  Mr. WALKER. The Chair will now recognize the gentlewoman from 
California [Ms. Woolsey] speaking against the opening statement for 
1\1/2\ minutes.
  Ms. WOOLSEY. My knowledge of welfare is based on experience, my 
experience as a single working mother with three small children needing 
welfare in order for my family to survive. That was 25 years ago.
  But even today, my face is the face of a typical welfare mother. I am 
white. I had three children. I was on welfare for 3 years, when my 
marriage broke up and left my family without child support and without 
health care.
  There are many faces on welfare families, but the thing we have in 
common is that we need a safety net for our children. We are a people 
who have worked, paid taxes, and cannot find a job that we can afford 
to live on.
  We are people who need training, who need health care, who need good 
child care in order to go to work.
  We are a people who are poor, because we are divorced or deserted or 
left without child support.
  The welfare system is broken. There is no question about it. But we 
will not fix it until we have jobs that pay a family wage, until we 
have health care, until we have a child support system and until we 
have a child care system for our working families.
  Most of all, we have to hold both parents responsible for supporting 
their children. It comes down to this: We either punish innocent 
children for being poor, or we invest in them so that they can get off 
of welfare once and for all like my family did.

                              {time}  1920

  Mr. WALKER. The moderator will now recognize Mr. Franks for 4 minutes 
to question Ms. Woolsey.
  Mr. FRANKS of Connecticut. Mr. Moderator, the intent of welfare was 
to serve as a temporary safety net to help people get back on their 
feet, yes. However, it has gone off course considerably. In my opening 
statement I compared welfare to slavery. We can all agree that slavery 
was a horrible period in our history, and it was right for us to end 
slavery.
  Welfare versus slavery, slaves were brought here against their will, 
the intents were different, slaves were black, for the most part, and 
slaves worked. Could you point out other differences between slavery 
and welfare?
  Ms. WOOLSEY. What I will point out is the safety net of welfare, and 
what we need to change, so we will not keep welfare recipients, 
particularly single mothers, on welfare for the long term. That is by 
investing in the short term for long-term results, and by not treating 
our welfare recipients as slaves, not trapping them in a system, 
providing them with the skills and the knowledge they need for the jobs 
of the future, jobs that pay a family wage.
  Do you know that 18 percent of working families in this Nation today 
with a family of four live below the poverty level?
  Mr. FRANKS of Connecticut. You did not answer my question. My 
question would be, could you point out some of the differences.
  Ms. WOOLSEY. I don't agree that welfare and slavery are the same 
thing, Mr. Franks.
  Mr. FRANKS of Connecticut. Could you point out the difference between 
welfare and slavery?
  Ms. WOOLSEY. I do not see welfare and slavery the same. That is your 
thesis, and not mine.
  Mr. WALKER. The time is controlled by Mr. Franks.
  Mr. FRANKS of Connecticut. In my remarks, I talked about how there 
was a lack of education, a lack of hope, the plantation being very 
similar to a project. I talked about the fact that today you have 
people entrapped.
  Can you tell me any differences? If not--we ended slavery. If you 
cannot tell me any differences, I would presume you would also agree 
that we should end something that is very comparable to slavery.
  Ms. WOOLSEY. I do not agree with your thesis that welfare and slavery 
go hand in hand. What I would like to address, however, is child 
support.
  Mr. FRANKS of Connecticut. Could you tell me why you do not agree 
with that? Do you agree it was a lack of education?
  Another question for you, both slavery and welfare will reward or 
praise the mother for having another child. For the slave, obviously 
more children would increase the slave master's work force. Our welfare 
system gives mothers more money for having more babies. Do you agree 
with this approach, and if so, my wife and I are expecting a baby this 
month. Should I start to send letters to my constituents asking them 
for a raise?
  Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Franks, I hope you can raise that child on an 
average of $63 a month. That is not enough of an incentive to have 
another child.
  Let me tell you, welfare receipents have smaller families than the 
average family in this Nation, a family not on welfare.
  Mr. FRANKS of Connecticut. She is not answering my question.
  Do you agree that we should pay mothers more money for having more 
babies? That is the question.
  Ms. WOOLSEY. I agree that we should not punish the children of those 
mothers, and that $63 a month is not enough----
  Mr. FRANKS of Connecticut. Does that mean yes of no?
  Ms. WOOLSEY. Is not enough to be an incentive to add a person to your 
family.
  Mr. FRANKS of Connecticut. We should pay them more? So I should 
receive a raise when my baby is born?
  Ms. WOOLSEY. If you can afford to raise a child on $63 a month, that 
is fine.
  Mr. FRANKS of Connecticut. There are a number of individuals today 
who are earning $25,000, $30,000, and $40,000 a year, and upon their 
having another baby they cannot walk in to their supervisors and demand 
an increase in pay.
  Ms. WOOLSEY. They get a nice tax deduction for that child.
  Mr. FRANKS of Connecticut. They cannot go in and ask for an increase 
in pay.
  My last question, and I will try to be brief with this, lastly, do 
you believe that noncitizens should receive welfare, with the exception 
of refugees and individuals over the age of 75?
  Ms. WOOLSEY. Noncitizens are not covered by welfare. They have not 
been, and there are no proposals----
  Mr. FRANKS of Connecticut. Currently they are.
  Ms. WOOLSEY. Noncitizens, or illegal aliens are not, noncitizens are. 
Yes, I believe that is part of our society. If we want to debate a 
change in the Constitution, let us do that later.
  Mr. FRANKS of Connecticut. You would want to see taxpayers' dollars 
go to noncitizens?
  Mr. WALKER. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Now I recognize Ms. Woolsey for 4 minutes to question Mr. Franks.
  Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Franks, I can tell you as a former welfare mother 
that the main reason families are on welfare in the first place is 
because there aren't enough jobs that pay a family wage, and there 
aren't the support systems like child care and health care so that they 
can get off welfare and go into the work force.
  I am sure you are aware that we have just been through a recession. 
Families were struggling to get by, and they are still struggling, just 
like I did when I was on welfare. In fact, as I said, 18 percent of 
working families with four members are earning below the poverty level 
today. Families like this need welfare to survive.
  Aren't you aware that the welfare rolls grew primarily because of 
economic hard times?
  Mr. FRANKS of Connecticut. Statistics would show that the growth in 
poverty that we have seen has been due largely to the growth of the 
teenagers giving birth out of wedlock, and we have statistics to 
support that.
  Yes, we should try to create more jobs. That is why I have always 
been a strong advocate of trying to put forth tax policies that would 
help employers to employ employees. The capital gains tax cut would do 
that, and a number of other measures.
  Yes, we must try to increase the number of jobs. In the last 30 years 
we have produced 52 million jobs in this country, an average of 1.7 
million jobs a year. We have seen programs in your State of California, 
and in Riverside, CA, a welfare-to-work type of program that was able 
to increase the number of jobs for individuals on welfare.
  Yes, we must try to create jobs. We have to remember that today, 
unfortunately, we have a number of single parents out there who are 
teenagers. In the Republican bill we will not allow a teenager to be 
able to receive, or a minor, to be able to receive welfare benefits. 
That is, that individual----
  Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Franks, you have gone past your time, I believe.
  How do you explain the Congressional Budget Office report which 
clearly shows the recession was a major factor in this increased 
welfare case load since 1989?
  I don't need a report to tell me that, because I know from personal 
experience. I look around my district and I see some of the same 
things. How do you explain that report, and not put that down to the 
economy as why welfare is growing?
  Mr. FRANKS of Connecticut. I have not seen that report, but as I 
stated to you before, we have seen a growth, a rapid growth, of 
teenaged birth in our society. In the 1980's we had a tremendous amount 
of economic prosperity during the 1980's, as you well know. We did have 
a recession. The recession hurt all individuals. It did not hurt just 
the poor. It hurt those individuals who are in the middle class, it 
hurt those individuals in the upper class. Whenever you have a 
recession, it has a way of hurting all individuals. We are not going to 
deny that, Ms. Woolsey.
  Ms. WOOLSEY. I think I have to clear something up. One percent of the 
Nation got a lot richer while the rest of the country got a lot poorer 
over the last 12 years.
  Mr. FRANKS of Connecticut. May I respond to that? More blacks were 
able, just looking at the black population alone, more blacks were able 
to move into the middle class during the 1980's than any other time in 
our history. More blacks were able to buy a home during the 1980's than 
at any other time in our history, and more blacks were able to purchase 
a car during that time than any other time in our history. We had the 
greatest expansion of jobs during the 1980's than any other time in our 
history during peacetime, so you are wrong.
  Ms. WOOLSEY. People got poorer. There is no question about that.
  Mr. FRANKS of Connecticut. We had lower class that expanded because 
we allowed babies to have babies.
  Ms. WOOLSEY. What I would like to talk to you about right now is why 
I had to go on welfare in the first place, because I did not have child 
support, I did not have health care, and right now out of the $47 
billion that is owed in court-ordered child support every year, only 
$13 billion is collected.
  How do you propose that we collect that $34 billion that is the gap 
between what the States collect and what they are not collecting?
  Mr. FRANKS of Connecticut. Ms. Woolsey, I say, God bless you. You are 
an example of a success story, and I am pleased to be able to see that, 
and to be able to hear you talk about it.
  Mr. WALKER. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. FRANKS of Connecticut. The problem I have with all these 
individuals is the fathers we have not identified, who are not taking 
care of their children.
  Mr. WALKER. The moderator will now recognize Mr. Shaw of Florida to 
speak for the opening statement for 1\1/2\ minutes.
  Mr. SHAW. I thank the moderator. I think we can all agree on what is 
a fact: If you subsidize something, you will get more of it. The United 
States Government subsidizes illegitimacy. Amazingly enough, our 
Government has struck a deal with young women having illegitimate 
babies: We will give you cash, food, medical care. It is all 
guaranteed. More than likely, we will also give you housing. That is a 
package, my friends, that is worth $16,000 a year. It is guaranteed.
  For this, though, you must agree to two conditions: Do not work, and 
do not get married, and in return we will guarantee that you will live 
in a permanent state of dependency.
  Today 3 of 10 births in America are to unmarried women. The rate of 
black babies is a shocking 7 out of 10 babies. President Clinton has 
admitted that welfare plays a strong role in promoting illegitimate 
birth and single-parent families. Social scientists agree that children 
raised in single-parent families get less education, they are more 
likely to be on welfare as adults, and are more likely to commit 
illegal acts. It is clear that the presence of a male and a female role 
model in the house is essential to a well-rounded upbringing.

                              {time}  1930

  Yes; there are heroic women who do a wonderful job raising their 
children. We have just heard from one. But virtually no one disputes 
the fact that on the average kids from single-parent families have more 
problems than kids from two-parent families.
  Mr. WALKER. The time has expired.
  The Democratic team is now recognized to interrogate Mr. Shaw for 4 
minutes.
  Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Shaw, how much does aid to dependent children pay a 
family of three in your district?
  Mr. SHAW. In Florida? Well, this is one of the problems that I have 
been noticing on your questioning.
  Ms. WOOLSEY. I know the answer.
  Mr. SHAW. What you are asking, you are adding up, just taking aid to 
families with dependent children.
  Ms. WOOLSEY. That is what I asked.
  Mr. SHAW. When you talk about welfare, you have to talk about food 
stamps, you have to talk about child nutrition programs, you have to 
talk about housing, you have to talk about all of the things that come 
into this.
  Ms. WOOLSEY. That is not what we are talking about.
  Mr. SHAW. Even without housing, it amounts to $12,000 a year in the 
State of Florida, and I think it is even higher in your State of 
California.
  Ms. WOOLSEY. Well, as a matter of fact, aid for dependent children, 
which is welfare, and that is what we are talking about tonight, 
welfare reform, we are not talking about food stamp reform.
  Mr. SHAW. I disagree emphatically. We are not just talking about----
  Mr. WALKER. The time is controlled by the Democratic team.
  Ms. WOOLSEY. Aid for dependent children in your State pays an average 
of $367 a month. Let me ask you: Do you think that is living high on 
the hog?
  Mr. SHAW. When you add to it the other benefits, it is certainly 
above minimum wage. Minimum wage in this country is only about $8,800 a 
year. Now we are competing and having the people on welfare getting a 
total package without housing of $12,000 a year. Where is the incentive 
to go to work when you can go to work and get a reduction? That is the 
problem with the system. That is why welfare is not working in this 
country today, as you, much to our surprise, in your opening statement 
said, that the welfare system is sick and must be corrected.
  Our position is that it is a disincentive to work, it is a 
disincentive to independent self-empowerment, to maintaining control 
over their lives today.
  Ms. NORTON. Mr. Shaw, I cannot understand, given the zeal with which 
you want to clear the welfare rolls, why your side of the aisle seems 
to be against all training for people on welfare.
  Mr. SHAW. That is absolutely----
  Ms. NORTON. I have the time. Sixty-eight percent of the American 
people are saying that they are willing to pay more to clear the rolls. 
I want to ask you about a person like a hypothetical Mary who worked 
all of her life, lived in a steel town, got laid off, used up her 
unemployment insurance, had to go on welfare, now has no job. There are 
no jobs of the kind she was trained for. Want to be trained for a 
permanent job. Why, Mr. Shaw, should not Mary be trained for a 
permanent job so that she can leave welfare? She has a work history all 
her life.
  Mr. SHAW. Oh, Ms. Norton, I am sure you will be quite surprised to 
know I agree with you. She should be trained. And this is exactly what 
the Republican bill has said.

  The Republican bill says that this woman who is on welfare deserves a 
second chance. We will give her education, we will give her training, 
we will even search for a job for her, and we are going to limit that 
to 2 years.
  Ms. NORTON. Your bill calls for job search. What Mary needs is 
training because in the steel town----
  Mr. SHAW. It has training.
  Ms. NORTON. She cannot qualify for the other jobs.
  Mr. SHAW. Ms. Norton, I know you hear me, but you are not listening. 
Training is in the Republican bill.
  Ms. NORTON. So you concede that training----
  Mr. SHAW. Perhaps you would like to join us in the discharge petition 
we have filed today.
  Ms. NORTON. Mr. Shaw, you concede that training has to be a part of 
any successful strategy to remove people off the welfare rolls?
  Mr. SHAW. You are so right.
  Ms. NORTON. Even if it costs money to do so?
  Mr. SHAW. You are so right. And do you know how we get that money, 
because it does cost money? We say that this is only available to 
citizens of the United States, and people who are here as political 
refugees or people over 70 years old. And we create a $20 billion 
surplus.
  What we are doing is taking care of our own people. We are training 
them, we are giving them self-esteem, and we are going to get them back 
into the job market. We are going to give them independence.
  Ms. NORTON. Of course, if Mary does not have a job after she has been 
trained, you will kick her off welfare at that point.
  Mr. WALKER. The time has expired.
  Mr. SHAW. If I may respond to the last question, Mr. Moderator?
  Mr. WALKER. Briefly.
  Mr. SHAW. If she cannot find a job, we will get one for her. We need 
more child care, we need cleaning up at the housing projects, we need 
these things. All we require is that after that 2 years she is going to 
work for these benefits.
  Mr. WALKER. We now will have Ms. Norton speaking against the opening 
statement for 1\1/2\ minutes.
  Ms. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, the present welfare system is a monument to 
passive government. It helps you get on. It will not do anything to 
help you work your way off.
  There is only one solution that will work, and that solution is work, 
steady work and steady income sufficient to support a family.
  Work is the solution of choice of the American people as well, and is 
the solution of choice of welfare recipients. Work is not just what 
welfare recipients want. Work is what welfare recipients do. More than 
two-thirds of them leave the rolls by themselves.
  The Congress has to focus on what the problem, the real problem is 
here. It is not getting off, it is keeping off. They come back for lack 
of a steady job that pays enough to support their family or the sine 
qua non for keeping a job, and that is a place to leave your child.
  You are not serious about welfare reform unless you are serious about 
jobs that pay a family wage and assist people in finding a place to 
leave their children. The obligation to support one's own child is 
undebatable. There is no easy or cheap way out however for the Congress 
because two-thirds of the people we are talking about are children.
  There should be no free lunch for mothers on welfare. But we will 
find out that neither is there a free lunch for Congress as it strives 
to reduce the welfare rolls.
  Mr. WALKER. The Republican team will now be recognized for 4 minutes 
to interrogate Ms. Norton.
  Mr. DeLAY. I must say, Ms. Norton, it looks like we have agreement 
that welfare has done harm, more harm than good, listening to the 
opponents to the proposition. Maybe we ought to get down into the 
details.
  I do not know where you all get your figures, but they are really fun 
to listen to, but inaccurate. I have got several charts here that I 
would like to explain to you. These charts are given to us by the 
Congressional Budget Office and the Congressional Research Service run 
by the Democrat majority that controls this House. It shows that 
welfare spending from 1950 to 1992 has increased significantly, gone 
out of sight; yet at the same time, AFDC enrollment has gone out of 
sight, the illegitimacy rate has gone out of sight, the poverty rate 
has gone out of sight.
  Mr. WALKER. Question, please.
  Mr. DeLAY. How do you explain that you want to continue more of the 
same but expand more spending on welfare, and it will not change these 
numbers?
  Ms. NORTON. I remind you it is a Democratic President who has come 
forward with the notion that we should fundamentally change welfare as 
we know it. We are not foolish, however. As I said in my statement 
a moment ago, there is no free lunch or cheap way to cut the welfare 
rolls.

  In order to cut the welfare rolls we are going to have to do what 
business does when it wants a return on its investment. We are going to 
have to invest in those people if we want them to stay off of welfare.
  Mr. DeLAY. An investment means more spending. So what you want----
  Ms. NORTON. Investment.
  Mr. DeLAY. But what the President says is a notion, not a bill. He 
has yet to come with a bill. But what I have heard three speakers now 
talk about is more spending. So you want to end welfare as we know it, 
but you want to create more welfare as we know it, and you want to 
preserve welfare as we know it, and you want to go in all directions at 
once, right?
  Ms. NORTON. Sixty-eight percent of the American people said they 
would be willing to spend more if you could get people off welfare and 
keep them off welfare.
  What we want to do is to take this matter in gulps that are 
digestible by our economy and move people off of welfare and keep them 
off of welfare. Recidivism we see on welfare comes precisely from the 
fact that the welfare system as now structured gives them no help, 
gives them no training.
  If in fact a mother has a place to leave her child that is reliable, 
if in fact a mother has a job that is reliable and pays enough, she 
will not come back on welfare.
  What you want to do is throw her off when in fact she cannot find 
another job. You want to say too bad, you and your children too, we 
have no more responsibility for you.
  Ms. MOLINARI. Ms. Norton, if in fact we came up with a proposal that 
says we will provide education and training and day care and help you 
find a job, would you agree to a bill that eliminates AFDC payments 
after 2 years to the recipients?
  Ms. NORTON. I would agree to the elimination of AFDC payments if in 
fact a person has lived by the rules and has found a job. If in fact 
that person has done all you say but lives in the steel town that Mary 
lives in that I just described, and she cannot find a job, if she lives 
in Washington, DC. And the inner city where 12 percent of the people 
are unemployed, then of course I am not going to throw her and her 
children out in the street.

                              {time}  1940

  Mr. WALKER. Republicans control the time.
  Ms. MOLINARI. Under the Republican proposal, we would then provide 
her with a job. Presumably, though, from your response, the answer is 
no.
  Ms. NORTON. If you provide her with a job, of course, you provide her 
with a job at less than the living wage. Suppose that job, however, 
suppose even after that she cannot find a job, you then throw her off 
welfare anyway.
  Mr. WALKER. Time is expired.
  Ms. MOLINARI. It would be the same benefit as if she had found a job 
in the private sector.
  Mr. WALKER. Time is expired. The moderator will now recognize Ms. 
Molinari to speak for the resolution for 1\1/2\ minutes.
  Ms. MOLINARI. Thank you.
  The probability of a child growing up to be dependent on welfare is 
four time greater if that child comes from a welfare-dependent family. 
Welfare is not working.
  While one-half of mothers on welfare are off in 1 year, 75 percent 
will end up back on the welfare rolls for at least part of the next 8 
years.
  Welfare is not working. America has gambled with $5 trillion, more 
than our national debt, but has never stopped to see that welfare just 
is not working.
  Since the War on Poverty began in 1965, we have increased spending 
more than 14 times, with basic spending on poor individuals going up 
fivefold, yet during this very same period we have made no progress 
against poverty. People more than ever use welfare.
  The illegitimacy rate has quadrupled, and our violent-crime rate has 
quintupled.
  If we are going to continue to help people, and we should, we must 
demand change for the recipients' sake and the very survival of our 
society.
  We must have the courage to break that cycle of poverty, because only 
then can we make sure that welfare will work.
  Mr. WALKER. Thank you. And now the Democratic team will have 4 
minutes to interrogate Ms. Molinari.
  Ms. WOOLSEY. Congresswoman, I was on welfare for 3 years. I do not 
know what my children would have done without that safety net.
  Since Republicans propose completely denying all benefits to these 
families after a short period of time, what do you propose to do with 
the children? Are you supporting your Republican colleagues who want to 
put these children in Government-run orphanages or putting them up for 
adoption?
  Ms. MOLINARI. Under the Republican proposal, the short period of time 
to which you just referred is a full 2 years, and during those 2 years 
we are going to provide women with education, with day care, with, in 
fact, job training. And we will provide, if they still cannot find a 
job, with the Government's assistance, a Government-sponsored job to 
help create and fill in the voids that exist for our society.
  And the other thing that we are going to be doing to help the 
children that you talk about is to enable that mother to feel good 
about herself, something I know you more than any of us can truly 
identify with, thereby forcing that woman to, yes, provide a truly 
integrous role model for the children to which you have just referred.
  Ms. WOOLSEY. Let me remind you, I was educated, I was healthy, my 
children were healthy, and you know I was aggressive and assertive. I 
was on welfare for 3 years.
  Ms. MOLINARI. I have no doubt about that, Ms. Woolsey.
  Ms. WOOLSEY. I was on welfare for 3 years.
  Your district in New York City has an unemployment rate of 11.7 
percent; almost 30 percent of the households are headed by women. How 
many people on welfare in your district could get off in 2 years?
  Ms. MOLINARI. Ms. Woolsey, unfortunately, my district that you just 
described is very accurate. But unfortunately we have tremendous 
societal needs that could truly be addressed under the Republican 
alternative if we created those Government-sponsored jobs that allowed 
women to, in fact, while their children were receiving day care, come 
into the communities and run day-care sessions of their own, help to 
engage in a graffiti program so we could clean up and feel good about 
our inner-city communities. Oh, Ms. Woolsey, I would need more than 4 
minutes to respond to that question to tell you all the needs we could 
find that that working mother, if she wanted to work, could truly add 
to society and herself and the well-being of her family.
  Mr. McCURDY. Ms. Molinari, sometimes it seems like we are talking 
past each other here, and I am not so sure that in many cases we are 
not closer to having agreement than we are actually arguing.
  Ms. MOLINARI. And I am grateful. I think this debate has at least 
illuminated that, yes.
  Mr. McCURDY. We have heard a lot about teen pregnancy, and the 
Republicans have argued that welfare has caused illegitimacy and an 
outbreak of out-of-wedlock births in this country.
  But, in fact, we have an alarming rate in nonwelfare society as well. 
And within the bill, there is nothing there to really address teenage 
pregnancy other than cutting off benefits. Would you not rather join a 
Democratic proposal to have a national campaign to fight teen 
pregnancies, to prevent teen pregnancies, so that we can actually 
address the real problem in America?
  Ms. MOLINARI. Clearly, you know, Mr. McCurdy, I do support 
prevention, and I do think that maybe someday if we all do our job that 
a discussion such as we have will not be necessary, because we will 
have finally gotten to help educate young women as to what is going to 
happen.
  But first we have got to create, and now you said that we say that 
welfare causes pregnancies. I do not think that is true. But it 
certainly encourages pregnancies.
  Whether or not we want to say that woman is on welfare at the time 
that she gets pregnant, it is, in fact, a fact that 80 percent of teen 
mothers will be on welfare within 5 years, so they do take advantage of 
the system. They know it is the system that is there, and it is, in 
fact, the system that perhaps has led them astray, has told them they 
do not need to seek out their male counterparts for responsibility, and 
this fact has placed them in a cycle to which most of them will find a 
very difficult time of breaking out.
  Mr. WALKER. Time has expired.
  The moderator will now recognize Mr. McCurdy to speak against the 
resolution for 1\1/2\ minutes.
  Mr. McCURDY. Thank you, Mr. Moderator.
  Tonight I want to talk about what I consider the most critical aspect 
of welfare reform and that is individual responsibility. Welfare reform 
must reconnect recipients to the world of work and reestablish the 
traditional American values of work, family, individual responsibility, 
and opportunity.
  In exchange for transitional support in search of a job, en route to 
a job, recipients must assume personal responsibility on their part and 
their end of the contract, finding a job, getting job training, and in 
other ways working themselves off the welfare rolls.

  As part of that contract, we must change the culture of welfare, and 
to those who administer it today, as just a way to qualify for income 
maintenance, to job placement; a reform system must reward work and 
encourage two-parent families. It should also provide incentives to 
young people to make better choices with regard to parenting and 
getting an education.
  It also needs to have stiff enforcement for fathers who neglect child 
support payments.
  Welfare must be a hand up, not a handout, and, therefore, it must be 
an invitation to join the American work force, to break out of the 
cycle of poverty and despair and offer hope for the future.
  It can work. I have personally seen successful projects in 
California, Wisconsin, Indiana, and my own State of Oklahoma. I only 
hope my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, Democrats and 
Republicans, will support smart and responsible welfare reform.
  Mr. WALKER. The time is expired.
  The moderator will now recognize the Republican team to interrogate 
Mr. McCurdy for 4 minutes.
  Mr. DeLAY. Mr. McCurdy, do you support what the President's task 
force on welfare reform has presented to the President?
  Mr. McCURDY. I think we are here tonight in large part because the 
President has said we must meet, we have to change welfare as we know 
it, in this country, and I believe the task force has done yeoman work 
in presenting an outline and a model.
  As a matter of fact, many of the Republican proposals that I am aware 
of have come directly from the suggestions of the task force.
  Mr. DeLAY. They are going to change welfare as we know it, that is 
for sure. They are going to make it bigger.
  The Task Force on Welfare Reform has suggested that we make work pay 
by guaranteeing health care, by advance payments of EITC, a brand-new 
entitlement program, expanding child care, spending an additional $8 
billion to $12 billion more, and they do not know how to pay for it.
  Should we not make work necessary rather than pay, than create new 
entitlement programs, and expanding the existing entitlements?
  Mr. McCURDY. Mr. DeLay, quite frankly, some of the concern I have is 
the Republican proposal actually spends more money than what the White 
House Task Force is proposing.
  Mr. DeLAY. Have you read our proposal?
  Mr. McCURDY. I have, indeed. I have spoken with the sponsors of it.
  Mr. DeLAY. It saves $20 billion over 5 years.
  Mr. McCURDY. It is actually now talking about spending more money 
than what the Democratic task force has suggested.
  Mr. DeLAY. No; not at all. You have not read our proposal.
  Mr. McCURDY. I actually have a proposal that works to address many of 
those obstacles to work.
  What we are arguing and what the President has said is work must pay, 
and that is why we supported an earned income tax credit which takes 
the minimum wage job, by tax credit, and supplement to and through the 
employer, to make it a paying job.
  There are real obstacles to paying.
  Mr. SHAW. Mr. McCurdy, you mentioned just about a short minute ago, 
maybe a long minute ago, that we took from the President's bill.
  I would like to ask you: Have you had an opportunity to read the 
Shaw-Weber bill that was filed about 4 years ago? I would, if you have 
not, enlighten you to tell you that there is nothing that the President 
has said right here in these Chambers, in the State of the Union, or 
publicly said with regard to welfare, that was not in that bill.
  Mr. McCURDY. Are you not pleased that finally we have some bipartisan 
support in this country to solve real problems? And the debate tonight 
has really been a recommendation on how do we solve problems.

                              {time}  1950

  Mr. SHAW. Could I ask you a question, then, as one of the leading 
Republican--excuse me--one of the leading Democrat advocates of what I 
consider real welfare reform, as you certainly are, I am sure you would 
be one of the first to see the President's bill. Have you yet to see 
the President's bill, or do you know if it is even written? Because we 
have not received it on this side.
  Mr. McCURDY. We have met a number of times with the White House task 
force on welfare reform.
  Mr. SHAW. Has the bill been written yet?
  Mr. McCURDY. I do not believe it has.
  Mr. SHAW. The President promised to have a bill by this time.
  Mr. McCURDY. If I may respond, the President has made a commitment to 
present a welfare reform bill this year. I am presenting a bill next 
week with a large group of Democrats. But we also represent some 
diversity on this side of the aisle.
  Mr. SHAW. We concede that.
  Mr. McCURDY. We believe that maybe we are fighting----
  Mr. SHAW. The answer to the question is ``no,'' you have not seen the 
President's bill. Is that correct?
  Mr. McCURDY. No, and quite frankly I have not read your bill as well, 
the Shaw-Weber bill, but I have read the one by Mr. Santorum.
  Mr. SHAW. The one by Mr. Santorum and those of us on the task force 
on this side have written comes from--much of it is taken from the 
Weber bill. It is a kinder, gentler Shaw-Weber bill, I might say.
  Mr. McCURDY. In many respects, there are some elements within the 
bill that the President of the United States has also embraced; a 2-
year time limit, trying to reduce obstacles to work, having job 
training.
  Mr. WALKER. The time has expired.
  The moderator will now recognize the Democratic team to interrogate 
Mr. DeLay for 4 minutes.
  Ms. NORTON. Mr. DeLay, you have completely fudged, you and your team, 
the final outcome.
  Mr. DeLAY. Wait a minute, do I have fudge all over me?
  Ms. NORTON. Please do not take away from my time. Let me put before 
you the scenario that would be created by the Republican approach. Here 
is Sally Jones, she wants to play by your rules. She lives at home, 
that is, when she was a teen parent, just as you would want her to do 
instead of going on welfare. She could not find--she went back to high 
school, has not been able to find a job. She has worked off her grant, 
and she has gone past your 3 years, but she lives in a high 
unemployment area and she has not been able to find a job, does not 
have any car.
  Mr. WALKER. Question, please.
  Ms. NORTON. The question is: After she has played by all of your 
rules and she still cannot find a job, would you kick her off of 
welfare, which is to say her child?
  Mr. DeLAY. No, no. We are going to say to her, if you continue to 
receive benefits, you have got to work at least 35 hours a week.
  Ms. NORTON. You will let her work 35 hours a week?
  Mr. DeLAY. Not ``let her.''
  Ms. NORTON. As long as necessary to support her child, she will never 
be kicked off welfare?
  Mr. DeLAY. No. She will receive benefits, but she has to work for 
those benefits. What is wrong with working and earning the benefits you 
are receiving?
  Ms. NORTON. Nothing is wrong with earning the benefits you are 
receiving. That is indeed what we would want. Of course, she would be 
working at less than the minimum wage for 35 hours a week under the 
Republican approach. I doubt that that is----
  Mr. DeLAY. What you would have, Ms. Norton, have her do is to be 
isolated in a room somewhere with her kids and not let her out.
  Ms. NORTON. I would want----
  Mr. DeLAY. What we would want her to do----
  Ms. NORTON. Mr. Moderator, is the time not mine?
  Mr. WALKER. Yes.
  Mr. DeLAY. Well, may I answer the question?
  Ms. NORTON. The question is----
  Mr. DeLAY. Do you have a question?
  Ms. NORTON. The President's approach is a public service job, a 
public service job, not a 35-hour-per-week job where you work for $2 an 
hour and ultimately lose your welfare benefits anyway.
  Mr. DeLAY. Do I have a question here, or do I get to listen to a 
lecture?
  Mr. McCURDY. I have a question, too, if you like.
  Mr. DeLAY. Could I answer the lecture? First off, let me say we have 
not seen what the President has, we have just seen the leaks that he 
put out and the balloons that he sent up out of the White House to see 
what would go with the polls. But what we have seen is more welfare, 
more programs, more entitlements.
  What we want is we want to give that young mother an opportunity to 
get out, out of that isolation that you want to put her in and keep her 
in, because the best way to get a job is from another job. So, if she 
is out there working at least, for her benefits as a teachers aide or 
daycare aide or just working around her public housing unit, cleaning 
it up, cleaning graffiti off, she is going to meet other people and 
know that there is a real world out there and those people will help 
her get a job. It is called the real world, earning your way.
  Mr. McCURDY. May I ask a question? I was in Indianapolis, IN, in a 
project called America Works, where they emphasize job placement. There 
has been a great deal of success. A young man in that room told me that 
he had a job in the private sector that had insurance, but because his 
son had a preexisting condition, it made more economic sense for him to 
go back on welfare and get Medicaid. You cite the increased cost in 
entitlement spending, but half of that cost today is in Medicaid.
  Would you not rather join and have a responsible approach that 
reduces those obstacles to work and actually have real health care 
reform and try to--which is a primary ingredient in any kind of welfare 
reform?
  Mr. WALKER. Question?
  Mr. DeLAY. Well, I did not know we were debating health care reform. 
Our bill eliminates preexisting conditions. For example, in your 
example, he would be able to get health care, and if he could not, he 
could go onto the Medicaid system. So we are not any way different in 
that regard.
  Mr. WALKER. Time has expired.
  Now the Republican team will interrogate Mr. Synar for 4 minutes.
  Mr. FRANKS of Connecticut. Mr. Synar, let us stay with the real-world 
example here. It is my belief that some welfare dollars are ending up 
in the hands of drug dealers. We all have heard about the Chicago 
welfare story where 20 people were living in a 2-bedrom apartment, 4 
adults were receiving $4,500 per month in cash payments. It was alleged 
that some of these welfare dollars were going to support their drug 
habit. What would you recommend to stop cash from being used in this 
manner?
  Mr. SYNAR. Well, I am glad you brought that up, because I think it is 
a problem that all of us Republicans and Democrats should be sensitive 
to. Let us first of all complement your President, our President, 
George Bush, who during his administration really squeezed out a lot of 
the fraud and abuse that was in the welfare system. In fact, the 
overpayment rate, for example, has gone to just about 4.96 percent, 
which is down 17 percent from just 1991.
  All of us believe in better enforcement. You would argue for a debit, 
where people would do that. What we are working for as Democrats is to 
give them a credit, a credit card, and a future.
  Mr. FRANKS of Connecticut. Getting back to the point that you brought 
up--I did not bring up--that is the debit card which would allow for us 
as taxpayers to have an accounting of all dollars spent by welfare 
recipients--and we do the same for defense contractors today. We get an 
accounting of every single dollar the defense contractor would spend to 
construct a helicopter or an airplane. One again, it is not hurting, it 
is not hurting the recipients of welfare, but it is hurting, 
potentially, drug dealers. Would you be in support of a proposal of 
that nature?

  Mr. SYNAR. As I said, I think that the Democratic Party would be more 
interested in a credit card approach rather than a debit card.
  Mr. FRANKS of Connecticut. The bottom line is: Would you be 
interested in eliminating cash? Like some example, obviously we want to 
have direct payments to landlords, utility companies, some incidental 
cash being given to the individual. But the principle of not allowing 
what we saw in Chicago to happen anywhere else in America, would you be 
in favor of that type of structure, where we would have an accounting 
of the dollars that are being spent on welfare?
  Mr. SYNAR. Recognizing that the gentleman and I agree that we have 
better enforcement, I think the gentleman would also agree that if you 
have simply a debit, you move yourself right back into the category of 
your opening statement, which is slavery, which are no options at all. 
With cash, used responsibly, you give options and get away from that 
slavery.
  Mr. FRANKS of Connecticut. This is simply an accounting type of 
measure. It eliminates fraud.
  Mr. SHAW. Mr. Synar, I was taken by your opening statement in which I 
think you might have even caught us a little off balance by moving 
closer to our side of the debate than we anticipated from your opening 
remarks. But I compliment you for your candor because what we are 
trying to do is to craft a welfare bill that will empower the poor and 
get them out of the cycle of poverty. Would you support a bill that 
requires work after 2 years, 2 years and you have got to accept a job 
that is given to you or your benefits are cut off?
  Mr. SYNAR. I think that is an excellent question, Mr. Shaw. I think 
both parties agree the best way to eliminate the welfare cycle is to 
provide good jobs to help you raise your family.
  Mr. SHAW. Would you support one that would require that?
  Mr. SYNAR. We can require jobs that may not be available. That is the 
problem.
  Mr. SHAW. If it is not, you supply them. But you take the basic 
proposition that you will support the enforcement that in 2 years you 
have got to work at something, if you cannot find a job we will find 
one for you, and if we can find one for you, then you know at that 
point you have got to take it or we will find it for you. The question 
I have as a follow-up because I am seeing a little hesitation on your 
side, what does this have to pay? And if we supply such a job, a public 
service job, the one Mr. Franks talked about and the one Ms. Molinari 
talked about, like taking graffiti off the wall in the housing project, 
helping there, helping with daycare?
  Mr. WALKER. Question, please?
  Mr. SHAW. The question is: Would you include as part of that payment 
for that job the other benefits that are received, or would you say 
that you have got to pay at least minimum wage?

                              {time}  2000

  Mr. WALKER. The time is expired. I will give the gentleman from 
Oklahoma [Mr. Synar] a brief period to respond.
  Mr. SYNAR. I think the basic difference between the Republican 
approach and the Democratic approach that we are talking about tonight 
is that you would cut people off. We want to build for the future 
through work, 2 years is inflexible. We believe that there would be 
cases like Ms. Woolsey's, that 3 years is more appropriate and, in a 
lot of cases, where 2 years is too much. We believe in the flexibility 
to adjust to the individual circumstances.
  Mr. WALKER. The time is expired.
  The moderator will now recognize the gentleman from Florida [Mr. 
Shaw] to question the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia [Ms. 
Norton] for 4 minutes.
  Mr. SHAW. Ms. Norton, I would like to explore what I see is a 
possible division in the ranks on your side to see if I can put a 
spotlight on it to try to set up the stage as to where we are going to 
be when this debate finally comes to the floor of the House of 
Representatives.
  Do you agree, and I would ask you to answer this yes or no, do you 
agree that there is a welfare crisis in this country today?
  Ms. NORTON. Of course. The Democrats have taken the initiative to 
deal with that crisis.
  Mr. SHAW. If you would send us your bill, I would be happy to see it 
because I have not seen the Democratic bill, and----
  Ms. NORTON. Sorry?
  Mr. SHAW. Seen the Democratic bill, and I don't think----
  Ms. NORTON. Well, let me----
  Mr. SHAW. And what have you, the Democrats, done to take the lead in 
the House on welfare reform? I very much want to know that because I am 
on the committee that has jurisdiction.
  Ms. NORTON. Even before the President submitted his health care 
reform bill, it was clear he had taken the lead on that issue. He has 
made the crisis of the welfare system an issue for the first time in 
this country, and, when it comes to overall change----
  Mr. SHAW. But the President----
  Ms. NORTON. But the President's bill has not been submitted yet and 
is a testament to his desire to make sure we do not have to raise our 
taxes in order to reform the welfare system and that we indeed have an 
effective system when he presents his bill.
  So, not to worry. Only a little longer.
  Mr. SHAW. Well, he says that there is a health crisis in this 
country, and we cannot even get a health care bill out of the Committee 
on Ways and Means.
  Ms. NORTON. But he submitted one; did he not?
  Mr. SHAW. And I might also point out to you and ask you to perhaps 
give us some inside information. We have been asking the chairman of 
the Human Resources Subcommittee, on which I serve on the Committee on 
Ways and Means, to have hearings and do things, and we cannot even get 
a bill to start with. I ask, do you have a bill that you think that he 
might be able to use, that we can----
  Ms. NORTON. The outline of the President's bill has not come from 
leaks, but from briefings of the press, and if your concern is you do 
not have a bill yet, then I can only say that you will have a bill 
soon, and the bill you have will be better because the President has 
insisted upon perfecting it before sending it here.
  Mr. SHAW. Ms. Norton, one-seventh of this economy he turned over to 
Mrs. Clinton to write a health care bill. She did that in less than a 
year. You have admitted, or you have stated very forcefully, that there 
is a welfare crisis in this country. I ask, don't you think he could 
have produced one?
  Ms. NORTON. I think he could have produced one if he wanted to spend 
a great deal more money and raise the taxes of American citizens. What 
has taken the time----
  Mr. SHAW. Reclaiming the time----
  Ms. NORTON. Could I answer the question?
  Mr. SHAW. Reclaiming my time--I am reclaiming my time.
  Mr. WALKER. Mr. Shaw is in control of the time.
  Mr. SHAW. I think the question is: ``Do you see any way that we can 
create a health care bill maybe by looking at who receives--excuse me, 
welfare bill--by seeing who receives the benefits, and then all join 
together and decide that we need to take care of Americans first, and 
that the job training, the job search, and what we are doing for 
genuine reform should really be made available to the American citizens 
and to people who are here as political refugees and not offer to the 
citizens of the world who come into our country--do you support such a 
proposition?''
  Ms. NORTON. The citizens of the world, of course, cannot get welfare. 
The people who can get welfare are indeed citizens of the United 
States.
  Mr. SHAW. Let me share this with the gentlewoman then: We sent our 
welfare bill, which has the training that you want, has the job search 
that you want, supplies a job at the end of the time, which you want 
even though we may disagree on how much that person is to be paid, and 
simply, by making it not available to the people you said it was not 
available to anyway, but which it is available to----
  Mr. WALKER. Question, please.
  Mr. SHAW. We create $20 million surplus. Could you support such a 
proposition?
  Ms. NORTON. The gentleman would deny benefits even to legal aliens 
and, as a result, create problems for us that we do not have now 
because, as the Supreme Court said in the case involving some public 
schools, students----
  Mr. WALKER. Time expired.
  Ms. NORTON. We lose more than we gain if we deny legal aliens the 
right to go to school.
  Mr. WALKER. Ms. Norton is now recognized for 4 minutes to question 
Mr. Shaw.
  Ms. NORTON. Mr. Shaw, I am interested in the position your party took 
when President Clinton sought to expand the tax credit for working 
families. As we know, there are many more working poor people than 
there are welfare poor. Only a third of single mothers even get 
welfare. These are the most vulnerable people for going on welfare 
however.
  Why is it, therefore, that the Republicans did not support the 
expansion of the family tax credit when that would be an important way 
to prevent people from having to go on welfare in the first place?
  Mr. SHAW. The earned income tax credit, which the gentlewoman well 
knows was a product of two Republican administrations, was expanded 
three times during the Republicans' administrations----
  Ms. NORTON. So why do you support the expansion this time, Mr. Shaw? 
Most of you did not.
  Mr. SHAW. Because it was not paid for. It was a budget buster, and 
this is something that I feel is very irresponsible. We are not 
helping--we are not helping even the kids on welfare----
  Ms. NORTON. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Shaw, the President----
  Mr. WALKER. The gentlewoman controls the time.
  Ms. NORTON. Had a deficit reduction package there. Not only was this 
paid for, but in fact we will end up--we would end up paying much more 
if we had not expanded that tax credit. If anything is going to save us 
money----
  Mr. SHAW. You are talking----
  Ms. NORTON. It is encouraging the working poor to work instead of 
going on welfare.
  Why did not the Republicans who, the gentleman is right, supported 
this year after year, simply embraced this welfare prevention bill?
  Mr. SHAW. Ms. Norton, am I correct in saying that what you are 
talking about is the biggest tax increase in the history of this 
country?
  Ms. NORTON. No, the gentleman is not correct in saying that is what I 
am talking about.
  What I am talking about is the gentleman's non-support of help for 
working families which makes them more vulnerable to going on welfare. 
That is what I am talking about----

  Mr. SHAW. Ms. Norton, you are talking about--is the Clinton tax 
bill----
  Ms. NORTON. Changing the subject; let me move on.
  Mr. SHAW. It also was----
  Ms. NORTON. I say, ``You have changed the subject, Mr. Shaw.''
  The fact is the gentleman did not support it; right? Yes or no?
  You did not support----
  Mr. SHAW. You bet your life----
  Ms. NORTON. Attempt to expand, help the working families that would 
have kept people on welfare----
  Mr. SHAW. I did not----
  Ms. NORTON. All right. He cannot answer my question, so, reclaiming 
my time----
  Mr. SHAW. Right, I did not support----
  Ms. NORTON. Now, the income for families maintained by women over the 
past 10 years has gone down in real dollars. I ask, ``How do you 
propose that these women will have sufficient income to maintain their 
families without a safety net?
  Mr. SHAW. Well, I think there has to be a safety net, and there must 
be--and I think that is what we are supporting on our side.
  One of the problems, and the problem that we really have not--not 
approached here as a Congress is the question of male responsibility. 
There are more teenaged kids having babies, more single mothers having 
babies, and the father gets a free ride. I have heard of instances--two 
and three in the hospital at the same time.
  Ms. NORTON. Bipartisanship on something, Mr. Chairman.
  Mr. SHAW. Well, let us mark that down because we are going to work 
together to see that there is male responsibility. It is time that the 
men of this country learned that they have a responsibility for raising 
these kids, and we, as a Federal Government, are going to do everything 
we can to assist the States in forcing the child support payments that 
are due the mothers, and, by the way, in the Republican bill we require 
the mothers to identify the fathers so we can go after them.
  Ms. NORTON. As would we.
  Let the record show, Mr. Chairman, that there is agreement on a very 
important item in the welfare debate, and that is male responsibility.
  Mr. SHAW. I look forward to working with the gentlewoman on it.
  Mr. WALKER. The moderator will now recognize the Democratic team to 
interrogate the gentleman from Connecticut [Mr. Franks] for 4 minutes.
  Ms. NORTON. Mr. Franks, a favorite scholar of the Republican 
persuasion, Mr. Charles Murray, has drawn a distinction of late between 
how he would treat divorced mothers and never-married mothers. He 
would, he said, deny benefits to the children of never-married mothers 
altogether while allowing some welfare benefits for divorced mothers.
  I ask, ``Do you endorse this notion of the----''
  Mr. FRANKS of Connecticut. No.
  Ms. NORTON. The sins, you will forgive me, visited upon innocent 
children?
  Mr. FRANKS of Connecticut. No.
  Ms. NORTON. Would you indicate what your position would be then; no 
distinction based on prior marital----
  Mr. FRANKS of Connecticut. No, there should be no difference.

                              {time}  2010

  Mr. FRANKS of Connecticut. There should be no difference. It is very 
simple. Next question, please.
  Ms. NORTON. Glad to see this repudiation.
  Mr. FRANKS of Connecticut. I will bring it over to you if you want to 
see it. It is right in here. Same thing.
  Ms. NORTON. It is important we have it on the record.
  Mr. FRANKS of Connecticut. We will send you a copy. Same thing. Next 
question, please.
  Mr. McCURDY. Mr. Franks, we had agreement with Mr. Shaw earlier on 
the responsibility of males in society to provide child support. As the 
father of teenagers, both male and female, I strongly support that 
notion, but within the Republican bill, obviously there is a 
requirement of no additional payments to the mother, a requirement that 
she may have to live at home, but there is no provision for providing 
training to the young father. In fact, the record should reflect that 
it is generally poor women giving birth because of poor men, and we 
want to be able to address that kind of problem as well in order that 
they be responsible.
  Mr. FRANKS of Connecticut. Our teenage fathers are eligible, just 
like anybody else.
  I agree with you. I know a male today who has had two women pregnant 
at the same time in the hospital and has not been accountable for 
taking care of either one of them. You are absolutely right. We have to 
take the parental identification very seriously and in our bill we do. 
If that mother does not identify the father, she would not be eligible 
for benefits. That is a very important component. We also penalize 
States for not improving on our parental identification aspect. In our 
bill, we have $12 billion over 5 years dedicated toward training and 
mandatory work, $12 billion, that is on top of the $5.5 billion that we 
are spending today on jobs and training.
  In our bill, we will say to that father----
  Mr. WALKER. The Democrats control the time.
  Mr. McCURDY. If the primary source of welfare is AFDC, males are not 
qualified for that, and if they cannot get into a program, are you 
expanding your program to include males and females?
  Mr. FRANKS of Connecticut. We say in our bill to that young male, 
first we have to identify him, obviously.
  Mr. McCURDY. I agree.
  Mr. FRANKS of Connecticut. Then we give that person three options: 
Find a job and support your children, go to jail, or you have a State-
supported type job as we talked about before, community service type 
job. We also within our bill talk about training and we talk about 
obviously trying to--Ms. Norton wants to ask another question.
  Ms. NORTON. I want to ask you one other question, a very important 
concession you made on Charles Murray.
  Do you also reject his notion that we should end welfare immediately 
and, rather, embrace the bill that the Republicans now have?
  Mr. FRANKS of Connecticut. No, I do not know why we are here 
defending Charles Murray. We are giving him a lot of attention. 
Hopefully, he has a book he is trying to push. You are doing wonders to 
make his book become a best seller. I am not here to support Charles 
Murray. We have a bill as Republicans. I have offered other bills as a 
Republican. I could care less about defending Mr. Murray.
  Ms. NORTON. That brings us closer together, Mr. Franks.

  Mr. WALKER. The time has expired.
  We will now have the Republican team interrogate Ms. Woolsey.
  Mr. DeLAY. Ms. Woolsey, I have to commend you for getting off welfare 
and working your way out of that obviously horrible situation, but I am 
curious. If our bill had been law at the time you went on welfare, do 
you realize that after 2 years, you would still receive benefits, in 
fact more benefits than you probably got back then, and you would 
receive the education and job training and all that? But after 2 years, 
you would be required to work either in the private sector or work for 
your benefits.
  Do you have any objection that in the third year that you are on 
welfare that you would work for your benefits?
  Ms. WOOLSEY. Oh, I do not think you heard me. I worked before I was 
on welfare. I worked the entire time I was on welfare.
  Mr. DeLAY. That is not my question. My question is, would you have 
objected----
  Ms. WOOLSEY. You are asking me what I would have done.
  Mr. DeLAY. What I am asking is, would you have objected to working--
did you have a private sector job? Obviously you did not.
  Your third year of welfare, would you have objected to working?
  Ms. WOOLSEY. Obviously I did not what, Mr. DeLay?
  Mr. DeLAY. I am sorry.
  Ms. WOOLSEY. Obviously I did not what, Mr. DeLay? You said obviously 
I did not. Did not what?
  Mr. DeLAY. Obviously you did not work.
  Ms. WOOLSEY. I did work.
  Mr. DeLAY. Not your third year.
  Ms. WOOLSEY. I worked the entire time I was on welfare. That was 25 
years ago. When I was on welfare, I received enough welfare help to pay 
for child care, to have health care. That is what I needed. If I had 
had that through child support, I would not have needed it.
  Mr. DeLAY. But you do not have to work today. My question is, in your 
third year, and you could not find a private sector job, would you have 
minded working for your benefits?
  Ms. WOOLSEY. See, I believe going to school, being trained----
  Mr. DeLAY. You have done that for 2 years. You get 2 years to do 
that. I am talking about the third year.
  Ms. WOOLSEY. No, I do not believe we can be that inflexible. It is a 
laudable goal to get people off welfare.
  Mr. DeLAY. It is inflexible to ask you to work for your benefits?
  Ms. WOOLSEY. It is inflexible to expect every recipient to be ready 
to go to work after 2 years. Some of them are not literate.
  Mr. DeLAY. Just 35 hours a week?
  Ms. WOOLSEY. Some of them have tiny babies.
  Mr. DeLAY. We will give you day care.
  So you do object?
  Ms. WOOLSEY. I do object. Two years and you are off is too limiting. 
But I think that we should be working so that we get people off, into 
jobs that pay a family wage and keep them off forever.
  Mr. DeLAY. Do you agree with Ms. Norton that we ought to be raising 
taxes to pay for more welfare and more expanded programs, taxes from 
people that are not on it?
  Ms. WOOLSEY. I believe that we should be collecting the child support 
that is owed though court orders which is not paid every year, which is 
$34 billion. If we even collected half of that, then we would not have 
a problem today.
  Mr. DeLAY. But we spend $240 billion on welfare. How is $34 billion 
going to help?
  Ms. WOOLSEY. $34 billion would offset the expansion that it needs 
right now.
  Ms. MOLINARI. You said you require more flexibility than the 2 years 
and you are off.
  Would you agree with a 3-year, or does flexibility go up to 10 years? 
At what point do we in society say: Flexibility, time is up, it is now 
up to society to expect you to contribute? Could you just answer that 
question?
  Ms. WOOLSEY. Every person stays on welfare less than 2 years.
  Ms. MOLINARI. If you were to write a bill----
  Ms. WOOLSEY. I have introduced a bill.
  Ms. MOLINARI. You have no time limit.
  Ms. WOOLSEY. No time limit?
  Ms. MOLINARI. Someone could, based on flexibility, stay on welfare 10 
years?
  Ms. WOOLSEY. My bill invests in getting people ready to go to work, 
getting them off the welfare system.
  Mr. DeLAY. No matter how much it costs?
  Ms. MOLINARI. No time limit? Ten, fifteen, twenty years? If they need 
the flexibility you are talking about, your bill gives them that 
flexibility.
  Ms. WOOLSEY. There are some people on welfare who will be on welfare 
forever.
  Mr. DeLAY. How much does your bill cost?
  Mr. FRANKS of Connecticut. It sounds like slavery to me.
  Ms. WOOLSEY. There are people that are ill, people that are disabled.
  Mr. WALKER. Time has expired.
  Mr. DeLay is now recognized for 4 minutes to question Mr. Synar.
  Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Synar, this has been a pretty good debate, and I think 
we are getting to the bottom of it. It seems that your side sort of 
agrees that welfare does a little more harm than good, but maybe not as 
much and we just need to do more of it and be flexible.
  I want to ask you a question that comes straight out of your opening 
remarks. You said welfare is only 1 percent of the Federal budget. What 
do you consider welfare?
  Mr. SYNAR. I think this is an important distinction that the two 
parties have. You would claim that it is $200 to $300 billion a year 
because you would include into it the entitlements of housing, and yet 
only one-third of welfare recipients use housing. You would also 
include job training and community service of which no direct money 
goes to individuals. You would also include Pell grants and hot lunch 
programs which serve nonpoor individuals.
  Mr. DeLAY. How about food stamps? Is that welfare?
  Mr. SYNAR. The major issue is that your figure is at $300 billion.
  Mr. DeLAY. No, no, my question is, what is welfare?
  Mr. SYNAR. Let me finish what you have included in your number.
  Mr. DeLAY. No, I did not ask you about my number, Mr. Synar. I asked 
you about your number.

                              {time}  2020

  Mr. SYNAR. Well, my number says the Medicaid number, which you 
include in there, is probably the most useless number in the facts.
  Mr. DeLAY. I am sorry, Mr. Synar, maybe I am hard of hearing or hard 
of talking. But I am asking, you said welfare is only 1 percent of the 
Federal budget. Now I am asking you, is food stamps welfare?
  Mr. SYNAR. No.
  Mr. DeLAY. Food stamps is not welfare. Is Medicaid welfare?
  Mr. SYNAR. No, not all of it. Yet you have included all of those 
numbers, those total numbers, as a total welfare picture.
  Mr. DeLAY. It is an entitlement, is it not?
  Mr. SYNAR. If the gentleman would allow me, if only a third of the 
welfare recipients get housing, if 70 percent of Medicaid goes to 
disabled and elderly, to claim them as welfare is not correct.
  Mr. DeLAY. But all that money goes to welfare recipients.
  Mr. SYNAR. No, it does not go to welfare recipients. Seventy percent 
of the Medicaid budget goes to the elderly and disabled. Do you 
consider them welfare?
  Mr. DeLAY. If they are on Medicaid, they are on welfare, yes.
  Mr. SYNAR. So all elderly who get Medicaid by the Republican 
definition are on welfare.
  Mr. DeLAY. It is means tested. Those that are poor, elderly, that 
receive Medicaid, not Medicare, are on welfare. So you don't consider--
let me get this straight--you don't consider Medicaid welfare. You 
don't consider food stamps welfare. Do you consider any nutrition, like 
school lunch, any of that? Housing you say is not welfare. If we pay 
$13,000 for an apartment in New York City for a welfare mother, that is 
not welfare, because that is housing?
  Mr. SYNAR. Let me correct you again, if I could. Only one-third of 
the welfare recipient get housing.
  Mr. DeLAY. Let's take the one-third. Are those one-third on welfare 
by getting housing?
  Mr. SYNAR. They are on welfare only under the definition of aid for 
dependent children.
  Mr. DeLAY. OK. You said in your opening remarks that you require 
work. How do you require work in your proposals, or any of the 
proposals that have been made. How do you require work?
  Mr. SYNAR. There are many proposals on the table, the Republicans 
have offered some, the President will offer others.
  Mr. DeLAY. The one you referred to.
  Mr. SYNAR. Basically what I think the Democratic position is, is that 
we think it should be flexible, that each individual welfare recipient 
will have unique needs.
  Mr. DeLAY. So you don't require work?
  Mr. SYNAR. Yes, we do require work.
  Mr. DeLAY. How?
  Mr. SYNAR. We say, after 2 years in many of the proposals, where work 
is available and people are qualified, that we should encourage that.
  Mr. DeLAY. So you don't require work.
  Mr. SYNAR. Yes, we do require work, in many of the proposals that the 
Democrats propose.
  Mr. DeLAY. If you encourage it and they don't work and there are jobs 
available, what kind of sanctions do you bring against the welfare 
recipient?
  Mr. WALKER. The time has expired. I will give the gentleman a brief 
period to respond.
  Mr. SYNAR. What is important for the gentleman from Texas to remember 
is that providing a person a job without adequate support through child 
care, health care, and a job that can pay a decent living guarantees 
that the person will be back in welfare. The Democratic Party believes 
we have to provide those kinds of support so we don't have the 
population sliding backward and forward.
  Mr. WALKER. I will now recognize Mr. Synar to question Mr. DeLay for 
4 minutes.
  Mr. SYNAR. Mr. DeLay, there have been many in the Republican Party 
who have called for getting rid of all welfare benefits together and 
basically sending that money we are using for welfare recipients 
directly to the States to build orphanages and group houses.
  Mr. DeLAY. No one in this House, no Republican in this House, has 
ever said that, or has introduced a bill to that effect.
  Mr. SYNAR. Let me suggest to you that you need to visit with your 
colleague from Kansas [Mrs. Meyers], and the bill you cosponsored that 
would do exactly that.
  Mr. DeLAY. No, it wouldn't.
  Mr. SYNAR. We are concerned as Democrats that that kind of proposal 
doesn't strengthen families.
  Mr. DeLAY. You are mischaracterizing Mrs. Meyers' bill. Mrs. Meyers' 
bill blockgrants what we now spend on welfare and sends it back to the 
States. It doesn't end welfare and cut it off and destroy it.
  Mr. SYNAR. What we are concerned about is that the building of 
orphanages and group housing and tearing families apart is 
counterproductive to the family values we think both parties stand for.
  How do you justify the building of orphanages and group houses with 
the context of trying to build a strong social family unit?
  Mr. DeLAY. Well, first I believe when you give somebody something, 
they will take it, and sell you their soul in the taking. And our 
present welfare system, that has been passed by Democrats, supported by 
Democrats, and expanded by Democrats, has created a whole culture of 
people that has created generation after generation of people that are 
really unfortunate to be in their present situation.
  You have destroyed their self-esteem by such a system. You have 
destroyed their dignity. And what we want to do is return it by 
requiring responsibility. And we say you have got to sign the social 
contract. If you are going to receive the largesse of the American 
taxpayers, then you have got to establish some way of showing that you 
are going to show responsibility in pulling yourself out of your 
present situation.

  Mr. SYNAR. You talk about creating a system where people are not 
dependent. In fact, your colleagues tonight have really been arguing 
that these Government programs promote that dependency. You are 
familiar that the American taxpayers in the decade of the eighties, to 
the tune of billions of dollars, subsidized the cattle industry, the 
timber industry, the mining industry.
  Why is it that Republicans by and large ignore corporate welfare and 
seem to want to pick on women who are working and trying to provide for 
their families?
  Mr. DeLAY. Well, what Republicans are for is to protect those that 
earn a living from the largesse of the Government and more taxes, as 
outlined by your side, to give to those that may not work for that 
which they receive.
  We are saying we can do both. We are saying that we can give 2 years 
to those that are down and out to get themselves together and look for 
a job and work themselves out of their present situation. But in 2 
years, they will either have to have a job in the private sector, or 
they will have to work for their benefits.
  I don't think that is much to ask. It is a typical Democrat ploy to 
pit those that earn a living against those that have no living.
  Mr. SYNAR. I described the philosophy of the Republicans earlier as 
really the party that wants to cut people off. I think the Democratic 
Party represents the party of prevention and trying to prevent welfare 
in the beginning. That is why our party overwhelmingly supported the 
earned income tax credit for working families and family and medical 
leave, as well as the raising of the minimum wage.
  The Republicans have traditionally overwhelmingly not supported those 
proposals.
  Mr. DeLAY. Au contraire. Au contraire. The Republicans introduced the 
ITC, investment income tax credits, under Reagan, under Bush, helped 
the Democrats pass it, and have always supported the ITC.
  Mr. SYNAR. They had the opportunity about 18 months ago on this 
floor, and not one Republican voted for it.
  Mr. DeLAY. No, no, no, no, no.
  Mr. SYNAR. And not one Republican voted for the earned income tax 
credit.
  Mr. DeLAY. Please. If we are going to do something like that, you put 
EITC expansion in a huge, huge tax bill that you know the Republicans, 
who are always against raising taxes, would not support.
  Mr. WALKER. Time has expired. The moderator now recognizes Ms. 
Molinari to question Mr. McCurdy for 4 minutes.
  Ms. MOLINARI. Thank you, Mr. Moderator.
  Mr. McCurdy, do you believe in establishing time limits for 
individuals to get off welfare?
  Mr. McCURDY. I do. I support the President's proposal. There ought to 
be a 2-year time limit.
  Ms. MOLINARI. Do you agree that we should establish paternity before 
we provide benefits?
  Mr. McCURDY. I do. My State, Oklahoma, has a requirement of such. 
When President Clinton was Governor of Arkansas, he recommended, and 
they established, such a requirement as well, and it is in every bill 
that I am proposing and the recommendation that the White House is for 
as well.
  Ms. MOLINARI. Mr. McCurdy, Do you believe that access to welfare 
should be cut off to noncitizens at a certain point?
  Mr. McCURDY. In the bill that I am going to introduce, we propose 
that as one of the options of funding. But I think there is a real 
problem here. And that is since you come from a State with a large 
immigrant population as well, that you have to avoid cost shifting.
  We talk about unfunded mandates. We don't want to just cost-shift a 
huge cost on the States and cities. And the courts, as you recall, in 
Plyler versus Doe, has a requirement that we provide education, even to 
illegal immigrants. So I think there has to be some balance in this 
approach, and I think we have to have a standard for citizenship as 
well.
  Ms. MOLINARI. So you do believe we should have a standard for 
citizenship. You do believe we should establish and insist on 
paternity. You do believe we should establish time limits. Mr. McCurdy, 
on the basis of what we have heard tonight, you appear to be on the 
wrong side of the aisle.
  Mr. McCURDY. Actually, I have a number of your colleagues and 
Republicans, and quite frankly, Ms. Molinari, I was hoping I could also 
get you before this is over on our bill as well. I believe there should 
be a bipartisan solution to the welfare problem.
  Ms. MOLINARI. I am delighted to hear you say that.
  Mr. McCURDY. And as the President called for an many of us embrace.
  Ms. MOLINARI. I am delighted to hear you say that. May I suggest, 
however, as a result of what we have heard tonight and in the debate 
that has taken place before, that you spend a lot more time 
concentrating on the Members on your side of the aisle than on our side 
of the aisle, because the majority of the Republicans are in support 
and on the bill.
  But I would like to talk a little bit about, and I commend you for 
your bill and the fact you have actually got something down on paper 
that we can talk about. And I am really sorry that the President of the 
United States did not have time to do that before tonight.
  But with some of the things that have been coming out through the 
grapevine, we do understand that the President, and correct me if I am 
wrong, agrees for a 2 year and off, but that it would only apply to 
those people in the United States who were born after 1972.

                              {time}  2030

  Mr. McCURDY. 1971, actually, which makes them 25 years of age. And 
when you are looking at financing welfare reform, I think the American 
public, and I think Republicans have agreed as well, that there is some 
cost in order to do that, if you are going to provide training, if you 
are going to provide ways to overcome these obstacles to work. So there 
is an issue of how much of the population you can actually phase in or 
address at any one time.
  Ms. MOLINARI. There is also another question about how disingenuous 
the Clinton plan is, because it does, in fact, exempt over 75 percent 
of the participants in the program today. And it does cost $58 billion. 
How, in fact, does President Clinton plan to pay for $58 billion in new 
costs toward allegedly reforming welfare?
  Mr. McCURDY. I look forward to getting my chance to ask you the very 
question about your bill. In fact, the administration's proposal 
recognizes the difficulty of moving this burden on to the States. If we 
do it too quickly, if we are not careful, then we will overwhelm them 
and create even more of a problem.
  Ms. MOLINARI. You are saying new taxes to me, Mr. McCurdy.
  Mr. McCURDY. The President has made a commitment not to have any new 
taxes in the bill. We made that decision as well in the bill that I am 
introducing.
  Let me just add, in the bill that the mainstream forum is proposing 
and many Democrats----
  Ms. MOLINARI. I understand that President Clinton understands to fund 
some of his so-called promises----
  Mr. WALKER. The time has expired.
  The moderator now recognizes the gentleman from Oklahoma [Mr. 
McCurdy] to question the gentlewoman from New York [Ms. Molinari] for 4 
minutes.
  Mr. McCURDY. Do not go away, Ms. Molinari.
  Ms. MOLINARI. I am not going anywhere.
  Mr. McCURDY. You seem to indicate that the Republican bill is, I 
assume, the Santorum bill, which has a large number of cosponsors. Are 
you a cosponsor of that bill?
  Ms. MOLINARI. No, I am not at this point.
  Mr. McCURDY. Maybe you would like to explain the problems with it.
  Ms. MOLINARI. I sure would. I appreciate your asking that question.
  It is true that we have talked an awful lot about some drastic 
changes to our national system. And when I first heard some of the 
proposals that the Republicans put forth, I did, in fact, step back and 
said I wanted to analyze, I wanted to make sure that the impact on 
everyone who receives this funding or would have that funding 
terminated would be done in the best interests of all Americans, 
including those people who receive benefits today.
  I have to tell you though, Mr. McCurdy, that since I studied this 
issue in preparing for this debate and started really studying the 
Republican proposal and, certainly, as a result of everything that I 
have heard between the Democrats and Republicans today, that I intend 
to sign onto the Republican bill as a sponsor first thing tomorrow 
morning.
  Mr. McCURDY. Can you tell us how much the bill cost?
  Ms. MOLINARI. The bill cost $6 billion.
  Mr. McCURDY. $6 billion, and you raise $21.3 billion in cutting off 
benefits to noncitizens.
  Ms. MOLINARI. That is correct.
  Mr. McCURDY. You say you have a $21 billion surplus. Where do you get 
the rest of the funding?
  Ms. MOLINARI. We are working with the Congressional Budget Office 
figures that state that it would, in fact, cost $6 billion to implement 
the plan and that over a very short period of time, which is 5 years, 
we would see over a $20 billion surplus by restricting access to 
noncitizens of the United States.
  Mr. McCURDY. When I visited the GAIN Program in Riverside, CA, which 
you have----
  Ms. MOLINARI. Let me just also add that we do, in fact, I think we 
agree on this, know we are going to realize immediate savings as soon 
as we embark on establishing paternity and making some young men in 
America finally pay for the responsibilities that they carelessly 
created.
  Mr. McCURDY. That point we have already agreed upon.
  When I visited the GAIN Program, which most analysts today cite as a 
success story, they still indicate that 50 percent of the population 
that would be eligible to participate in the program is now in deferral 
because of problems with drugs, legal problems, teenage mothers, 
pregnancy or whatever. Fifty percent is not even being able to 
participate. What do we do for a population like that? Are we prepared 
then to just say they are cast aside? That is a problem for both, if we 
are trying to achieve some solution.
  Ms. MOLINARI. First of all, No. 1, we do exempt the disabled. Second 
of all, the situation that I think is very serious, which the 
Republicans do stress, and that is drug addicts or alcoholics who 
receive benefits must enroll in a treatment program in order to receive 
their benefits. That is certainly and inarguably in the best interest 
of the U.S. taxpayer and the person who may need to be forced into 
treatment at a certain point.
  Mr. McCURDY. What percentage of the population that you now consider 
to be on welfare, by whatever definition you want to use, if you want 
to throw in housing and all of the other entitlements----
  Ms. MOLINARI. I think we use other definitions----
  Mr. WALKER. Mr. McCurdy controls the time.
  Mr. McCURDY. In order to speed this up, because we want to get as 
much information out as we possibly can, what percentage of the total 
population do you believe that your bill would be able to move off of 
welfare based on this result?
  Ms. MOLINARI. We certainly believe that the majority of individuals 
will be able to move off welfare in the near future. One of the things 
that I think Republicans rely on very clearly is the good faith of the 
American people that given an opportunity for a job----

  Mr. McCURDY. If I may, New York, Oklahoma, we are still trying to 
figure out the accents.
  Mr. WALKER. Time has expired, without the accents being resolved.
  The moderator will now proceed for final arguments, recognizing first 
the gentleman from Oklahoma [Mr. Synar] to speak against the resolution 
for 2\1/2\ minutes.
  Mr. SYNAR. Thank you.
  Webster defines welfare as the state of being or doing well, a 
condition of health, happiness, and comfort, well-being.
  How could such a nice word take on such a negative meaning. These 
days welfare is usually used as a cuss word. We have all heard the 
conversations. They are lazy. They have kids in order to get a check. 
They are totally irresponsible.
  The simple fact is that as long as Government welfare programs are 
seen as subsidies for idleness, they will continue to be unpopular with 
most Americans.
  Democrats believe there is a better way. Welfare reform universal 
health care, and a package of education and training programs that 
clearly emphasize the dignity of work and the need to reward workers.
  Let us never forget that, first and foremost, we need to demand 
personal and parental responsibility and to ensure that people do not 
slide back into welfare. Let us also not forget three principles: 
Health care for all workers, safe, quality child care, and a stable job 
that pays enough to keep a family afloat.
  Together we must change what is not working, and we must keep what is 
working. There are no sacred cows. There are only sacred truths.
  We invite the Republicans and all Americans to join with us. Our 
simple goal for welfare reform, make work pay. Then and only then can 
we return the word welfare to its original and noble meaning.
  Mr. WALKER. The moderator now recognizes the gentleman from Texas 
[Mr. DeLay] in a final argument to speak for the resolution for 2\1/2\ 
minutes.
  Mr. DeLAY. Thank you, Mr. Moderator.
  I congratulate all the participants of this three-way debate, our 
side and the two sides on the Democrats' side.
  Make work pay. Hang on to your wallets, because all I heard was more 
programs, more spending, they call investments, more of the same but 
more expanded of the same. And then we are going to encourage people to 
get a job, and the whole definition has been tried, frankly, time and 
time immemorial, a program that at its inception, carried by the 
Democrats since the 1930's and supposed to be a compassionate safeguard 
against impoverishment of widowed mothers, has clearly become a program 
that is doing more harm than good.
  Those in the system today are demoralized. Even the Democrats have 
acknowledged that tonight.
  What they have failed to concede is that it is our Government that is 
making them that way. The Government has created a monster, and 
President Clinton wants more of it and bigger. He does not know how to 
end welfare as we know it. He and his Democrat colleagues want to 
create more welfare as we know it, and they to preserve more welfare as 
we know it.
  They want to go in every direction at once. Today's welfare system 
has clearly done more harm than good, when we have created 12-year-olds 
having babies, 15-year-olds shooting each other, 17-year-olds dying of 
AIDS, and 18-year-olds who cannot read graduating with diplomas.
  Instead, Republicans ask welfare recipients to engage in a social 
contract--one of those that--if they are to receive the generosity of 
the American people, then they have to earn their benefits. We want to 
change the mind set and create a cycle of responsibility rather than 
dependency.

                              {time}  2040

  It is this cycle of dependency that breeds mediocrity and destroy the 
very inner selves of those trapped in its clutches. As Jack Kemp has 
said, rather than the safety net it was once intended to be, welfare 
has become a hammock.
  Instead, we want welfare to be a trampoline. We want people to bounce 
out of welfare into productive lifestyles and be proud of themselves. 
We don't want them to have to sacrifice their souls and their human 
dignity. we want welfare to be good, rather than harmful.
  Mr. WALKER. I would like to thank both the Republican and the 
Democratic team for a spirited and informative debate. The moderator 
appreciated the courtesies shown to each other. I ended up not being 
confused at all. I thank you for that.
  I want to thank the leadership, both Democrat and Republican, for 
their cooperation in preparing for this debate. I hope that this debate 
has contributed to more Americans understanding the complexities of the 
welfare system, and the proposals for welfare reform.

                          ____________________