[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 52 (Tuesday, March 21, 1995)]
[House]
[Pages H3331-H3332]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]


                        WELFARE REFORM OR CUTS?

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of 
January 4, 1995, the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Volkmer] is 
recognized during morning business for 5 minutes.
  Mr. VOLKMER. Mr. Speaker, I would like to take a little of my time at 
first to talk about what I call the very mean-spirited, very radical 
welfare reform proposal that is being proposed by the majority 
Republican Party that would take money away from school lunches, from 
school breakfast programs, and take it away from needy kids.
  I have spent some time in the last couple of weeks visiting with some 
of those programs. It is not just me saying this, but the State of 
Missouri, the Department of Elementary and Secondary Education, has 
analyzed their proposal and points out that there will be about 10 
percent reduction in some of the programs for our school lunch kids. 
Then I look at the part that has to do with the food stamps and AFDC 
and I see further just cuts, not reform.
  I thought we were here for welfare reform. This is not reform, these 
are just cuts. How do I say that? Not just me again, but again the 
State of Missouri saying the same thing, not Harold Volkmer saying 
that. We know that they are cutting a total of well over 30, $40 
billion from these programs, just cuts, to take things away, along 
with, just like last Thursday, we did the cuts from the elderly for the 
heating assistance in the winter, we cut back on the 
[[Page H3332]] Job Training Partnership Act funds, and I will talk 
about those a little more and show how important they are, they cut 
that back.
  Why did they do all of that? Why did they make all these big cuts? 
Well, here is why. They want to give later on, not next week, not this 
week, a big tax cut. Who gets the big tax cut? Well, if you make over 
$100,000, and members of Congress do that, folks, and they are doing it 
maybe a little bit for themselves, if you make over $100,000, you are 
going to get 51\1/2\ percent of the total cuts. People making that 
money get over half of it.
  How did the people on the low end of the scale, say, zero to $30,000? 
They get 4.8 percent of the cuts. I guess they do not need anything. It 
is the wealthy that needs the money. How about people between the wages 
of $30,000 to $50,000? I have got a lot of those in my district. They 
are middle income. They should get some money. Well, they get 11.6 
percent of the cut.
  People with wages of $50,000 to $75,000, they get 16.4 percent of the 
cuts. And $75,000 to $100,000, now we are getting in the upper brackets 
again, 15.2 percent of the cuts. So we know what they are doing. They 
are taking the money from the poor, the needy, and kids, and they are 
going to give it to the wealthy.
  The other thing I would like to talk about are three young ladies, 
and I met with these three young ladies this last weekend, Ms. Keneetha 
Jackson, Ms. Shauntel Freelon, and Ms. Reba Brown. Who are they? They 
have not made national news or anything, but who are they? They are 
three young ladies who have children who used to be on welfare. They 
are no longer on welfare. Nor do they ever want to be on welfare again. 
They have been through the welfare cycle. They are no longer on the 
welfare cycle because they used some training programs, including 
principally the Job Training Partnership Act which the Republicans just 
cut last Thursday in the rescission bill, just last week cut it. Yet 
that program was primarily responsible so these people did not have to 
continue to stay on welfare.
  They did not want to be on welfare. They did not like being on 
welfare. But one of them specifically pointed out to me in going 
through their life's history, each one of them did, that she had no 
alternative, she tried working after she had her first baby, she tried 
working at McDonald's and fast food places and she could not make it, 
she could not provide for her children and do it. So she found out 
about training programs. She entered into it.
  All three of these are very proud of the fact that they are no longer 
on welfare. We have a lot more people out there that same way that want 
to get off welfare. Under the Deal bill, which will be a substitute for 
the Republican proposal, they will have a lot better chance of getting 
off welfare, of being able to be trained to get off welfare.
  I agree we need to get and help people off welfare. We do not need to 
just give people a handout which we have done in the past. But we need 
to give them a hand up. We need to help them get up out of there. It 
can be done.
  Here are three success cases. I am going to ask all of you, I know 
there are a few people out there who know the answer to this but there 
are not very many. Which one of these 3 that I mentioned this coming 
May will get a bachelor's degree in business administration from my 
alma mater, the University of Missouri in Columbia. That is right, 
folks. They are all determined to continue on this road to success, out 
of welfare.
  I can tell you, it is Ms. Keneetha Jackson. She will be proud to be 
up there in May getting her degree. Then she tells you, that is not the 
end. She wants to go further and she wants her children to go further.
  I dare say that none of these former welfare mothers' children will 
ever be on welfare because they too know what their mother has done.


                          ____________________