[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 52 (Tuesday, March 21, 1995)]
[House]
[Pages H3343-H3351]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




 PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 4, PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY ACT OF 
                                  1995

  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I 
call up House Resolution 117 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 117

       Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this 
     resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 1(b) of rule 
     XXIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the 
     Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of 
     the bill (H.R. 4) to restore the American family, reduce 
     illegitimacy, control welfare spending and reduce welfare 
     dependence. The first reading of the bill shall be dispensed 
     with. General debate shall be confined to the bill and the 
     text of the bill (H.R. 1214) to help children by reforming 
     the Nation's welfare system to promote work, marriage, and 
     personal responsibility, and shall not exceed five hours, 
     with two hours equally divided and controlled by the chairman 
     and ranking minority member of the Committee on Ways and 
     Means and three hours equally divided among and controlled by 
     the chairmen and ranking minority members of the Committee on 
     Economic and Educational Opportunities and the Committee on 
     Agriculture. After general debate the Committee of the Whole 
     shall rise without motion. No further consideration of the 
     bill shall be in order except pursuant to a subsequent order 
     of the House.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon] is 
recognized for 1 hour.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, for purposes of debate only, I yield the 
customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from California [Mr. Beilenson] 
pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During 
consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose 
of debate only.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 117 is a rule providing for general 
debate on H.R. 4, the Personal Responsibility Act of 1995.
  [[Page H3344]] The rule provides 5 hours of general debate, with 2 
hours allocated to the Committee on Ways and Means and 1\1/2\ hours 
each to the Committee on Economic and Educational Opportunities and the 
Committee on Agriculture.
  Debate must be confined to the bill and the text of H.R. 1214, which 
the Committee on Rules intends to make in order as original text for 
amendment purposes in a subsequent rule--which we will put out of the 
Committee on Rules at about 5 p.m. this afternoon. After general 
debate, the rule provides for the Committee of the Whole to rise 
without motion.
  No further consideration of the bill shall be in order except by 
subsequent order of the House.
  Mr. Speaker, the Personal Responsibility Act that the full House will 
begin debating today is an extremely complex and important piece of 
legislation.
  The House has considered this bill to date in a detailed and thorough 
manner.
  House Republicans promised a comprehensive reform of our Nation's 
abysmal welfare system, and we have delivered.
  H.R. 4 was introduced on January 4, 1995, the opening day of this 
session.
  Three House committees--Ways and Means, Economic and Educational 
Opportunities, and Argiculture--held extensive hearings on welfare 
reform. All three committees conducted gruelling marathon markups, 
often deliberating late into the night.
  Chairmen Archer, Goodling, and Roberts then merged their versions of 
the package into one new bill, H.R. 1214 before us now. The Committee 
on Rules intends to make this new bill in order as original text for 
amendment purposes on the floor.
  The committee is scheduled to meet at 5 p.m. this evening to report a 
rule providing for the amendment process for the bill.
  The Committee on Rules held a 7\1/2\-hour hearing on Thursday, March 
16, and took testimony from no less than 60 witnesses.
  Members on both sides of the aisle suggested constructive amendments 
and there was an excellent debate about the many issues the bill 
addresses head-on.
  Mr. Speaker, to demonstrate the importance of this legislation to the 
American public, the Republican leadership has set aside an entire week 
on the House floor for consideration of this bill.
  If anyone should claim that this welfare reform legislation has been 
hasty or ill-conceived, I would ask--``Where was the welfare reform 
legislation when the Democrats held both Houses of Congress and the 
White House?''
  Mr. Speaker, we certainly do not have the time to recount the 
President's many broken campaign promises, but the Clinton 
administration's failure to make good on its pledge to reform the 
welfare system has been outrageous.
  Mr. Speaker, H.R. 4 tackles some of the most difficult issues of our 
day directly and head-on.
  The bill makes fiscal sense by consolidating numerous major programs 
into block grants directly to the States, and that's the way it should 
be. Layers of bureaucracy in Washington will be made unnecessary.
  The savings will be phenomenal--and the States will maintain maximum 
flexibility to help the poor in their areas, and they know how best to 
do it, not us inside the beltway.
  The bill requires welfare recipients to work within 2 years, and bars 
receipt of benefits for more than 5 years.
  Reasonable restrictions are applied to recipients on AFDC to 
encourage self-sufficiency; in other words, to stop them from being 
second, and third and fourth generation beneficiaries of welfare.
  Mr. Speaker, H.R. 4 makes badly needed reforms to the Federal food 
stamp program, to the Supplemental Security Income program and family 
nutrition and child nutrition programs.
  Mr. Speaker, as the House debates welfare reform this week, the 
public should take note of which of these proposals honestly addresses 
the problems of poverty in the United States of America.
  Mr. Speaker, the American people will be asking, and Members had 
better be asking ourselves, which alternative defends the status quo. 
That is the question right here tonight, which alternative defends the 
status quo that has failed so miserably, and which alternative wrestles 
with the issues of illegitimate births, welfare dependency, child 
support enforcement, and putting low-income people back to work.
  Mr. Speaker, the Personal Responsibility Act will prevail when 
scrutinized in this manner. I ask my colleagues to do this. During the 
recent debate on cutting spending I asked this House what is 
compassionate about adding another trillion dollars to the debt on the 
backs of our children and our grandchildren. Is that compassionate? The 
answer was no then. I ask my colleagues today now what is compassionate 
about continuing failed welfare programs that encourage a second, and 
third and fourth generation of welfare dependency? I say to my 
colleagues, ``You know, and I know, the answer is `nothing.'''
  Mr. Speaker, that is why we must not defend the status quo. We must 
make the changes that are so necessary today. We can do it by voting 
for this bill.
  Mr. Speaker, this rule was voted unanimously out of the Committee on 
Rules on Thursday afternoon on a bipartisan basis. The House is eager 
to begin this debate. We should do it now and get on with it.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BEILENSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Speaker, we support this first part of the rule providing for 
consideration of the Personal Responsibility Act. The 5 hours of 
general debate times it provides are essential for the thorough 
deliberation that is required for legislation as comprehensive and as 
drastic as this.

                              {time}  1500

  As has been true of most of the elements of the Contract With 
America, this legislation was hastily drafted and has been sent to the 
House without the benefit of thorough and public discussion or debate. 
We hope these 5 hours of debate will help clarify the controversies 
surrounding this overhaul not only of AFDC, the program most of us 
think of when we talk about welfare, but also of the entire child 
welfare system, of disability benefits for children, and of all the 
major nutrition programs our Nation has provided for many years.
  The Committee on Rules heard a full day of testimony from Members of 
the House, Democrats and Republicans alike, about the need for 
substantive changes in the legislation before us. There was bipartisan 
support for changes in several parts of the bill, including the 
paternity establishment section, which is so restrictive in nature that 
even if a mother fully cooperates, she and her child could be punished 
by the denial of cash aid, if a State dragged its feet on establishing 
paternity.
  There was also bipartisan support for amendments to strengthen the 
child support enforcement section, and for amendments to provide more 
funding for child care for welfare recipients so the mother is able to 
work or to get job training.
  Unfortunately, the Personal Responsibility Act fails to deliver what 
the American people want: A welfare system that expects parents to work 
to support their families, but that also protects vulnerable children.
  We need to pass legislation that ensures parental responsibility 
while also protecting children, encourages State flexibility without 
totally abdicating Federal oversight, and protects taxpayer resources 
by applying fairness and common sense.
  Not only is the Personal Responsibility Act weak on work 
requirements, but it contains no requirement for education, training, 
and support services. If we want poor parents to work, they will need 
these services. They will need child care and transportation, for 
example.
  The goals of the bill include preventing teen pregnancy and out-of-
wedlock births. Unfortunately and incredibly, family planning services, 
the key to reducing out-of-wedlock births, the vast majority of which 
are unintended, are not even mentioned in this bill, which 
[[Page H3345]] does away with the 30-year-old requirement that States 
offer family planning services to all AFDC recipients.
  Meanwhile, in just the past decade the percentage of all children 
born in the United States out of wedlock has doubled, more than 
doubled, to 32 percent. Thirty-two percent of all the babies born in 
this country are born out of wedlock, and there is nothing in this so-
called reform bill that even tries to deal with this enormous problem.
  Mr. Speaker, for these reasons and many others, the Personal 
Responsibility Act requires the lengthy debate that this rule provides. 
We support the rule and urge our colleagues to approve it so that we 
may proceed with consideration of this important and controversial 
legislation today.
  Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
fine gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Goodling], the chairman of the 
committee.
  Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to 
me.
  This is probably the most important debate and perhaps the most 
important issue that we will face, perhaps during my lifetime, 
certainly the most important since I have been in the Congress of the 
United States.
  What is at stake? Well, basically, what is at stake is this: What do 
we do to free millions of Americans from the shackles that the Federal 
Government has placed them in? All of the programs were well meaning. 
Over the years I sat behind several chairmen, one who used to say, 
``Bill, these programs just aren't working the way we had intended 
them.'' And that is true. So year after year, generation after 
generation, we have enslaved these people, so, unless we make a change, 
they will never have an opportunity to get part of that American dream. 
That is destructive to them. That is destructive to our society and to 
our country.
  Making changes is very, very difficult. Change is something that 
people fear, and that is true in no place worse than in the Congress of 
the United States. But if we do not change, then, of course, we are 
going to continue to enslave the very people we have sent over $5 
trillion to try to help. Year after year we will be doing this, and it 
is totally unfair to hose people in our society.
  So it would be my hope that we get away from the rhetoric and pay a 
little attention to the facts and see whether we can do better than we 
have done in the past. I think those people that we have tried to help 
are depending on us to make that change.
  The first thing we have to do is admit that we failed. That should 
not be so difficult. It does not matter which side of the aisle we sit 
on. Just passing more programs and more programs and adding more money 
and more money has not worked. It has disadvantaged the disadvantaged. 
So it is time to make that change. An alcoholic has to admit that he 
has that problem before we can ever do anything to help him or for him 
to help himself to a recovery. It is true of any other drug addict. It 
is equally as true with the legislation we are dealing with today.
  So I would call on my colleagues to listen carefully and participate 
intelligently. Let us not get up and give a lot rhetoric that has 
nothing to do with the facts. We know the facts. We know the facts of 
how we failed, and we know the facts of what it is we are trying to do 
to see whether we can help the most vulnerable in this country receive 
a portion of the American dream that we on the Federal level have 
denied them from receiving all of these years.
  Mr. BEILENSON. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield 4 
minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Florida [Mr. Gibbons], the 
ranking Democratic member of the Committee on Ways and Means.
  Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from California [Mr. 
Beilenson].
  Mr. Speaker, the first thing we should do in starting the debate on 
as serious a subject as this is to puncture the myths that surround 
this debate. The first myth I would like to puncture is that the 
Democrats support the status quo. That is absolutely not true.
  As recently as last year, I introduced and held hearings on a very 
substantial welfare reform program. Unfortunately, it ran into a 
hurricane of Republican filibuster, and it got nowhere. But it was not 
that we did not try.
  Second, the myth is that the Democrats have held control of this 
since 1935 and we have done nothing except perpetuate poverty and the 
miseries of welfare.
  That is not so. In the Johnson and Kennedy eras, we made substantial 
reforms in the welfare program, and we created such programs as Head 
Start and Upward Bound and the Follow Through Program and programs for 
aid to college-bound students and for those who should be bound for 
college but unfortunately could not go.
  As recently as in the 1970's, a Republican President, President 
Nixon, sent us a comprehensive welfare reform bill that unfortunately 
we rejected. It came to us at a time when President Nixon was 
encumbered by the Watergate scandal, and the bill got polluted in that 
environment. At that time, it is important to note, the President 
suggested that we federalize welfare, that we not dump it on the States 
as our Republican colleagues would do today, and that we take the 
entire responsibility because he thought, and I think, that every child 
is a citizen of the United States and every child should have a 
government that cares for him in a humane way. That was the thought of 
President Nixon, and we unfortunately did not adopt it.
  Well, as we all know, Reagan was elected in 1980, and so we did 
nothing for 8 years. We could not even get a squeak out of him about 
making any changes in that program. But during the Bush administration, 
in 1988 we made substantial reforms to the welfare program and crafted 
in it the requirement of work. But it was put in there in a workable 
manner so that if the woman needed a job and was able to work and had 
to have child care because she just could not leave her child or her 
infant at home unattended, she could get that, or if she needed 
training, she could get that. So the myth that we in the Congress have 
done nothing except perpetuate this is, I hope, punctured.
  Let us look at the bill before us. This is a cruel piece of 
legislation. It punishes the children, the innocent children, because 
of the errors of their parent or parents. It punishes them not just at 
birth but it punishes some for a lifetime, and certainly it punishes 
others through all of their childhood era. It will deprive them of the 
basic necessities for food, of clothing, of housing, of education, of 
love. That is what this bill does.
  There is a better way, a far better way, and we have put that 
forward. We will have alternatives for this program on the floor here, 
but they will receive scant notice. They will have perhaps an hour or 
so of debate time, and then it will all be over. But this bill will 
never become law. There is hope out there that something sensible will 
become law.
  Mr. Speaker, let us get on with the debate.
  Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, of course, I take strong exception to the comments about 
the Republican filibuster in the last year. There is no filibuster in 
the House of Representatives. Rather, it is the Republicans who are 
taking the bull by the horns.
  Furthermore, as to the bill, the punishment to our children is, if we 
do nothing, if we maintain the status quo, that is where the real 
punishment to our children comes from. Frankly, I think it is somewhat 
baloney when they say this bill takes away love from children and will 
leave children out there hungry, and so on, and so forth. I think that 
is political rhetoric, and we need to get beyond that to the meat of 
the bill.
  In that regard, Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to my good friend, the 
gentleman from Florida, [Mr. Goss].
  (Mr. GOSS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished gentleman from 
Colorado [Mr. McInnis], a new and hard-working member of the Committee 
on Rules, for yielding me this time.
  Mr. Speaker, we are today indeed launching a very historic debate on 
welfare reform, as Chairman Goodling has outlined. We are going to be 
struggling with some of the most vexing and 
[[Page H3346]] challenging issues of our time that confront our country 
and, more importantly, confront the people of our country.
  One thing is very, very clear: In this most important comprehensive 
reform on welfare programs that we have ever attempted in the House, 
there is no ultimate wisdom. There are going to be disagreements.
  No one has all the answers, and it is likely that we will not get it 
exactly right on all fronts the first time we go through this, but we 
have got to start because we owe it to our children and others in need 
to make the best possible attempt to fix what is broken. And what is 
broken is the system that we have now. It is clearly broken, and it is 
failing. Doing nothing is not the right answer.
  As the gentleman from Colorado [Mr. McInnis] said and as many others 
are going to say, doing nothing only leads to more grief for more 
Americans, because we can see that we are running out of money and we 
can see that we are not succeeding in what we are trying to do.
  This rule allows 5 hours of general debate to get the process 
started, and I look forward to a truly deliberative and productive 
process, bringing together the best judgments of every Member of this 
institution.
  But first, let us review the facts. Mr. Speaker, in the early 1970's 
the United States declared war on poverty. That was the cry, and 
despite the best intentions and $5 trillion of taxpayer funds, we just 
about have to say that we lost the war, that it is time to surrender 
and do something different. Illegitimacy rates and welfare rolls 
continue to soar and as everybody knows, more people live in poverty 
today than when we started the war and before we spent the $5 trillion.
                              {time}  1515

  Worse still, the current system hurt some of the very people it was 
intended to help. The Republican welfare reform bill focus on three 
important things. First, it consolidates programs to minimize 
bureaucracy, fraud, and hopefully gets rid of some of the waste we have 
got, in order to ensure that our finite resources, and they are 
increasingly finite, reach those who truly need the help. In other 
words, we are not going to deal with the marginal cases. We are going 
to deal with the needy.
  Second, the Republican plan is legislation that allows States the 
flexibility to enact programs that are best suited to their individual 
needs while at the same time providing accountability at the local 
level. It is not exactly the same in New York City as it is in Alaska, 
Florida, or someplace in the Midwest. We need that flexibility.
  Finally, the bill does away with many of the destructive 
disincentives that have helped to perpetuate generations of dependency, 
and we all know that.
  Although this bill is estimated to save taxpayers tens of billions of 
dollars over the next 5 years, we have managed to increase spending for 
important programs like WIC and school lunches, despite the rhetoric to 
the contrary we keep hearing, and we have changed the carrots and 
sticks to move people off welfare roles and on to payrolls.
  Mr. Speaker, I spent a good deal of time this weekend meeting with 
people in southwest Florida in my district who are right on the front 
lines, people working within the current system who know the issues, 
who have the expertise to redflag possible problems with this reform. 
And there are some serious and legitimate concerns, especially about 
the block grant approach and the potential for abuse and unfair 
distribution of funds within States.
  We have to make sure we build this into the block grant approach, 
some kind of safeguard to make sure dollars flow to the areas where 
they are most needed. And I support that. That is just one area that we 
need to explore through this process.
  But we have so many opportunities to make improvements and do things 
better. I sat at a Headstart luncheon yesterday with youngsters in the 
prekindergarten and kindergarten program. This is a program that works. 
We are keeping it. We make sure it is funded.
  The things that work, we are trying to save. It is the things that do 
not work we are trying to excise and replace with something better. I 
think the authors of our proposal have done yeoman's work in bringing 
us to this point. Obviously, it is not a finished product, but it is a 
place worthy of beginning debate. Let the debate begin and support the 
rule.
  Mr. BEILENSON. Mr. Speaker, for purposes of debate only, I yield 3 
minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Tennessee [Mr. Ford].
  Mr. FORD. Mr. Speaker, I thank the ranking minority member of the 
Committee on Rules.
  Mr. Speaker, I support the rule for the 5 hours of general debate on 
the Personal Responsibility Act of the welfare bill, but I must rise in 
strong opposition once again to the Personal Responsibility Act because 
when we see how cruel this particular bill would be to children in this 
country, and Republicans are saying that Democrats really do not want a 
welfare bill, that they have had all of these years in order to pass 
one. But I have chaired this subcommittee for many, many years, and we 
have tried to work with the Republicans in the past to structure a 
welfare reform system that would respond to the human needs of people 
in this country.
  I think when we see the Family Support Act of 1988, which was brought 
on by the Democrats, or we have seen certain things put in place, and 
even under the Clinton administration, when he was elected President 
and he campaigned on the fact that we wanted to end welfare as we know 
it, and I think we tried to fashion legislation and we tried to get 
Republicans to come around.
  But even if you think not, I would say to the
   Republicans that it is a time that what we all want to accomplish in 
this is to try to make sure that we move people off welfare into the 
private sector workplace, if possible. That is what we all want to 
accomplish in this welfare reform bill, and the Personal Responsibility 
Act, it does not address that.

  The work requirements are such that people can just roll off of 
welfare, move into no jobs at all, and therefore, under your work 
requirements, that will be counted. We have not placed people in the 
workplace. We have not identified a link between welfare to work at 
all. I think Democrats have said all along that we want work first.
  If Republicans, we could sit down with Chairman Shaw and others and 
do that. But just look at one thing. When we reported this bill, the 
formula has changed four times on the allocation of the $15.4 billion. 
We see now that under the changes that have been made from what we 
reported from the subcommittee, we see Speaker Gingrich's State of 
Georgia gained $45 million in the back rooms of the Committee on Rules. 
His State is picking up an additional $45 million. We see that those 
same private deals reduced California's block grant funding over a 5 
year period by $670 million. In every public discussion on this 
subcommittee, it was very clear that California's share was higher.
  Look at the other ways under the Committee on Rules, in the back room 
of the Committee on Rules, we see New York will take a hit of $275 
million. But we see the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Archer] took care of 
himself. He added an additional $20 million in the back room of the 
Committee on Rules. Not the subcommittee, not the full committee, but 
in the back room of the Committee on Rules.
  Mr. Speaker, I think it is very clear that we are in the protecting 
the children of this country. We see the first State allocation of 
allocation formula being changed, just in back room dealings by the 
Republicans. You too are ashamed of this bill you are bringing to the 
House floor today.
  Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, while I am a little baffled by the gentleman from 
Tennessee's allegations about the back room drafts on this, the rule 
has not even been reported. The Committee on Rules meets at 5 o'clock. 
I invite you to come up and see about the back room thing. There is 
going to be media there. There is no back room drafting.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Delaware [Mr. 
Castle].
  Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Colorado for 
yielding.
  [[Page H3347]]  Mr. Speaker, I would like to discuss this bill. I am 
in support of the rule which we have before us. I do disagree with 
those who would say that this bill is cruel, and I would hope that our 
debate through the general debate and through the amendment process 
which we are going to undertake will be one which is constructive. 
Because maybe this is not the final bill, and I think there are some 
very good ideas. Lord only knows there are a lot of people here who 
have worked in this particular area, and we need to work with them as 
well.
  But welfare as we know it today has basically continued people in 
poverty. There has been a sense of hopelessness attached to it. No real 
opportunity to leave or really to improve your life unless you are so 
self-motivated you can do so. Frankly, it has been generational to some 
degree.
  In Delaware, we put together a program in 1987 under a blueprint for 
change and it became one of the model States for the Family Support Act 
of 1988. We developed an employment and training program to target the 
needs of hard-to-employ long-term welfare client. We developed a case 
management approach to service delivery. We raised the case assistance 
standard of need to bring benefits in line with neighboring States or 
the national average, and we developed indigent medical care programs 
and other programs to help people off of welfare.
  The statistics are interesting on that. Since 1986, over 5,600 
clients have benefited, with 2,779, and that is about one-half, of 
course, working full-time and 2,075 leaving welfare all together. 
Additionally, child care for families and work education and training 
has been increased substantially. We dealt with the problem in the 
State of Delaware, and I was pleased to be able to be the Governor 
during that period of time, and I think we dealt with it successfully.
  Now we look at this program and we look at what we have. We are going 
to have a lot of rhetoric about it. The truth of the matter is the 
President of the United States of America, a good proposal by the 
gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Deal], which we are going to hear about, 
and this bill are not as different from each other as we are probably 
going to hear about.
  They essentially call for an end of welfare at some period of time 
for all families. They all call for work after a couple of years so 
people would have to go to work. It is a big-bang solution to solving 
the problems of welfare.
  The Republican bill does call for block grants and gives more State 
flexibility. But today the House does begin consideration of some very 
important changes in our Personal Responsibility Act and a dialogue 
with the American people and our welfare recipients on replacing that 
failed welfare system with one based on work, individual 
responsibility, family, hope, and opportunity.
  This bill does represent fundamental and dramatic change. We are 
going to have to talk about it. In its best light this bill could 
provide opportunity for those who have none. Democrats and Republicans, 
all agree by removing welfare recipients into work we can help place 
welfare recipients on the road to self-sufficiency, opportunity, and 
hope for their future, where currently frankly there is none. And this 
is not mean-spirited Republican philosophy, but American values.
  Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. CASTLE. I yield to the gentleman from Florida.
  Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, I would like to mention to the gentleman, you 
have not only been a tremendous and a very valuable member of the team 
which has been working over the last year to craft the bill and to get 
us where we are today, but your model, the Delaware model, which is 
continuing now under the present Governor, but from the seeds that you 
planted in Delaware, you have set the pattern, as a few other Governors 
have in this country, in what welfare should be, and taking it from a 
program of dependence to a program promoting independence. I would just 
like to compliment the gentleman in the well for the great work he has 
done as a Governor and a Member of this House in reforming this very 
difficult task of reforming welfare as we know it today.
  Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished chairman for his 
compliments, unsolicited, I might add. I might just say with respect to 
that, I think we as Republicans have a responsibility to make sure as 
we monitor this bill to make absolutely positive that the kinds of 
programs we want are being put into place in the States, with the child 
care, the training, the education which is necessary; that we make sure 
there is no hardship, and we are trying to do something about rainy day 
funds. But that we give people that opportunity.
  I think that is what this is all about. I think there has been some 
misrepresentation, all the way from the food nutrition programs, which 
has been I think misrepresented as to its potential growth, through a 
lot of other things that are happening.
  I would hope, Mr. Speaker, as this day wears on and as the next few 
days wear on, that that story comes out. If there are amendments we 
should adopt, so be it, we should adopt them. But when it is all said 
and done, I hope we will have a welfare system in place in this country 
that will allow people to look at it and know this is giving us hope, 
it is giving us sustenance, it is going to carry us through, we are 
going to be able to take care of our families, but at some point we are 
going to have the hope to be able to grow through it, to be able to be 
employed, if one is employable, and take care of those who are not 
employable, and be able to actually make progress for many people in 
America.
  I look upon this in an optimistic sense, not in the pessimistic sense 
that this is a bill to suppress people. I realize there is a different 
point of view on that. But I hope we listen to each other and balance 
this and carry it out before the week has ended and we actually can 
adopt a piece of legislation that all of us can be very proud of.
  Mr. BEILENSON. Mr. Speaker, for purposes of debate only, I yield 5 
minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Levin].
  (Mr. LEVIN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. FORD. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. LEVIN. I yield to the gentleman from Tennessee.
  Mr. FORD. Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague who is in 
the well now, one who has worked on the Subcommittee on Human Resources 
of the Committee on Ways and Means and one who has been in the 
forefront of the work component of the Democratic piece for welfare 
recipients in this country. I thank our colleague from Michigan, who 
has worked so hard with the full committee ranking member and the 
ranking member of the subcommittee. So I just wanted to first commend 
the gentleman.
  I want to refer to my colleague from Colorado by saying what I am 
really afraid of in all of this is if the formula allocation was 
changed four times from the subcommittee, what bothers me is what the 
gentleman from Delaware [Mr. Castle] talked about earlier.
  Surely, I want to say we Democrats want to work with the Republicans, 
talk this out, work it out, craft a welfare reform package that will 
put people to work and put work first. But what we do not want to do is 
to see when we go back to the Committee on Rules that we are going to 
continue to bring a bill to this floor that will constantly change in 
the allocation formula, and other things that will change in this bill, 
that we did not report out of the full Committee on Ways and Means. It 
was a bad bill that we reported out. It is tough on kids, it is cruel 
to kids in America, and I think we have to continue to discuss this. 
The Personal Responsibility Act is a bad bill for kids in America.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, let me just talk about welfare reform for a 
few minutes.
  Look, the status quo is dead. The only issue is what is going to 
replace the present welfare system, and here is the quandary before the 
Committee on rules. We have only a partial rule, but they are faced 
with a bill that is extreme. It is extreme.
  The school lunch program was just the tip of the iceberg. Then over 
the weekend we heard complaints about the provisions on mothers under 
18, kids being punished if they are mothers under 18, or if they are 
the second kid 
[[Page H3348]] in the family, forever. Well, now there seems to be kind 
of a retreat from that extreme provision.
  Then we also heard over the weekend about day-care. The troops are a 
little restless over there on the Republican side with the extreme 
provision. We had urged in committee and subcommittee, make welfare 
reform work, have day-care. Now maybe you are beginning to get the 
message.
  The trouble is that you have many other extreme provisions in your 
bill. For example, there is no linkage of welfare to work. States can 
meet the participation requirements simply by knocking people off the 
rolls. Period. There is not one more dollar, in fact there are dollars 
less, for work to give States the ability to link welfare with work.
  SSI, there is a potential of knocking 700,000 kids off the SSI rolls. 
There is some abuse in the program, but do not punish truly handicapped 
children because of the abuse of some families.

                              {time}  1530

  That is harsh. Foster care, we put a provision in the bill so you 
could not divert moneys from foster care to some other program and you 
delete that.
  Legal immigrants, this bill takes billions and billions, about $15 
billion under some estimates, in terms of benefits from legal 
immigrants. There needs to be reform, but there does not need to be a 
drastic, drastic kind of measure here.
  The bill that was presented by the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Deal] 
and the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Stenholm], unlike the GOP bill, in my 
judgment has attempted to face these issues fairly and squarely. When 
it was urged that they fell short, their sponsors had an open mind, 
rather than a deaf ear. The Republicans, in contrast, have it 
backwards. Weak on work and tough on kids.
  The only hope for a bipartisan response now is to set aside this bill 
and see if we can put together one that will truly put into effect 
workable welfare reform. We owe it to our constituents to do that. The 
bill before us miserably fails.
  We Democrats stand ready to work with you. The problem is, you have 
been totally unwilling to work with us.
  Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Illinois [Mr. Manzullo].
  Mr. MANZULLO. Mr. Speaker, I want to take this time to commend my 
colleagues for working so hard to develop a welfare reform proposal 
which takes great steps in reforming the welfare system. I support H.R. 
4 for many reasons.
  One of the main reasons is that H.R. 4 reforms the welfare system by 
providing incentives that move people off welfare into work. Many 
States have already developed welfare to work programs that have 
experienced high success rates, my State of Illinois included.
  In the 16th district of Illinois, which I represent, Project Prosper 
is enjoying fantastic success and job training and placement of their 
welfare recipients, and Project Prosper uses no Federal funds. Why? 
Because the developers of that project work day to day with the welfare 
recipients and are able to concentrate on individual needs of 
particular circumstances.
  I stand firm with my colleagues here in Washington, my constituents 
back home and many people across the nation in my conviction that the 
States are in a much better position to create and operate welfare 
programs that best suit their constituencies. These local programs 
provide the necessary incentives that move the welfare recipients in 
the direction of financial independence.
  The welfare reform debate continues, and it is important to keep in 
mind that since 1965, when it first began, the Federal program has 
spent a total of $5 trillion. For cash welfare programs alone, the 
Federal Government has spent $1.3 trillion; for medical programs, $1.8 
trillion; for food programs, $545 billion; and for housing assistance, 
nearly $\1/2\ trillion dollars. With all the money plowed into the 
programs, what do we have? The same poverty rate in 1966 as we do 
today, 14 percent.
  We want to change the system, give children of this country an 
opportunity and incentive to enjoy the American dream, to get off the 
welfare system, to know what the free enterprise system is about. That 
is the purpose of H.R. 4, to imbue that sense of personal 
responsibility back into the welfare system.
  Mr. BEILENSON. Mr. Speaker, for purposes of debate only, I yield 5 
minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from Illinois [Mrs. Collins], 
the ranking minority member on the Committee on Government Reform and 
Oversight.
  (Mrs. COLLINS of Illinois asked and was given permission to revise 
and extend her remarks.)
  Mrs. COLLINS of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the rule 
and 5 hours of general debate.
  Mr. Speaker, if Attila the Hun were alive today and elected to 
Congress, he would be delighted with this bill that is before us today 
and proud to cast his vote for it. H.R. 4, the Personal Responsibility 
Act is the most callous, coldhearted, and mean-spirited attack on this 
country's children that I have ever seen in my life.
  You know, I cannot help but wonder how that could be? How people 
could be so insensitive to the needs of kids. Now, this bill is touted 
as welfare reform. It is intended to move Americans out of the welfare 
system. Well, if throwing children and low-income people in the streets 
is reforming the system, then I guess this bill succeeds at what it 
purports to do.
  What the bill really succeeds in doing is something that is not 
discussed. It creates $69.4 billion in savings to pay for tax cuts for 
the rich folk of this country. That is what the Republicans are eager 
to do.
  The first fundamental flaw of this bill is that H.R. 4 ignores the 
very basic reason that most Americans become welfare recipients and 
stay on welfare. They cannot find jobs. There are very few low-skill, 
entry-level jobs nowadays that pay a living wage, but instead of 
improving our job training program or increasing the minimum wage, or 
providing affordable child care or creating jobs or offering a possible 
alternative to poverty, this bill, which is a hatchet act, punishes 
Americans for being poor. This bill fails to create a single job and 
still creates a whole list of reasons to cut Americans and their kids 
off the welfare rolls.
  This cut and slash bill guts our current system of a safety net for 
the needy by carrying a bad idea to the far extreme. It just wipes out 
the critical entitlement status of most of our current systems and 
replaces them with State block grants and Federal funds with no strings 
attached. Anybody in the State could do whatever they wanted to with 
these things. There are major problems with completely abolishing the 
Federal Government's most successful programs, such as the School Lunch 
Program, the Breakfast Program, the WIC Program and so forth, and 
putting them into State funds that are already inadequate or will be 
inadequate because they are already going to be cut and monitoring or 
establishing no kind of quality standards or no kind of monitoring 
standards by which the States can be held accountable.
  Let us take the School Lunch Program. I mentioned earlier today that 
I had gone to the Henry Suder School in my district. In that school, 
488 kids out of 501 are on the School Nutrition Program. I see some of 
my Members on the other side of the aisle laughing.
  I ask this question, how many of them have ever been hungry? How many 
of them have ever known what it was not to have a meal? How many of 
them have ever known what it was not to have decent shoes, decent 
clothing, a nice place to live? I will bet most of them have had a nice 
room of their own, not shared with any brothers or sisters, maybe five 
or six, have always been able to get their shoes if they wanted, the 
clothing that they wanted, food that they needed, et cetera. They do 
not know about poverty.
  So I challenge them to come to the Seventh Congressional District of 
Illinois, in my district, and walk in the path of these children that 
they are cutting off on welfare. Walk in the path of the truly needy 
people who live by welfare because they have no other means by which to 
live. Not everybody stays on welfare eternally. We all know that. Some 
people do get off. Occasionally people get off of welfare because they 
do find a job, because they are able to get a GED, because they are 
[[Page H3349]] able to get their education. And it happens more than 
once. It happens time and time again.
  There are some people, of course, who have been on welfare for a long 
period of time, but that is not the norm. And we all know it is not the 
norm, and why we stand here and say that it is does not make any sense 
at all to me.
  Let me tell you, I have to wonder when I see young bright kids who 
have every opportunity to learn in this country but who are not able to 
do so because they live in hunger, because they live in poverty, 
because they have no real life, no real life, if you will, that we are 
accustomed to denied the opportunity to live to be full Americans 
because of their lifestyle, because of what they do not have, because 
of the things that are not given to them, because of the enrichment 
programs that we send our kids to but that they do not happen to have 
because they are poor and because they are on welfare. I dread to think 
of the time when a child of mine or yours, in fact, would be denied an 
opportunity to feed your grandchild or my grandchild or anybody else's 
because they have not been able to find a job, because they have been 
laid off from their job for a small period of time, a short time.
  These are the things that we are talking about today. We are not 
talking about welfare forever. We are talking about welfare as a gap, a 
bridge, a bridge over troubled waters.
  If you have never been there, do not knock it. You might drown.
  Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 20 seconds.
  Mr. Speaker, as to the gentlewoman's comments from the State of 
Florida, I take strong exception to her comments that there is laughter 
on this side of the aisle. While we may disagree with her point, her 
comments are taken with respect.
  I rather suspect that her comment about laughter was probably written 
into her speech.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes and 30 seconds to the gentleman from 
Kentucky [Mr. Bunning].
  (Mr. BUNNING of Kentucky, asked and was given permission to revise 
and extend his remarks.)
  Mr. BUNNING of Kentucky. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the 
Republican welfare reform bill.
  Our welfare system has failed us. Everybody agrees on that. Since 
President Johnson launched the War on Poverty in the 1960's, America 
has spend over $5 trillion on welfare programs.
  But, over the last 30 years, the poverty level has actually 
increased, and America's poor are no better off now than they were 
then.
  When you spend $5 trillion on anything, you are bound to get 
something back. And there have been some cases where people on welfare 
managed to climb out of poverty.
  But, as a whole, the welfare system that we have now deserves nothing 
less than a complete overhaul. It traps recipients in poverty, it 
denies them opportunity and it has directly contributed to the moral 
breakdown of the family.
  It is time to end welfare as we know it.
  Recent Federal attempts to reform welfare have gone absolutely 
nowhere. So the Republican welfare bill takes the logical step of 
giving more authority to the States so that they can shape effective 
programs that really work.
  Everyone acknowledges that the States have taken the lead in 
proposing bold changes to welfare. The real innovation in welfare has 
been going on in the State capitals, not in Washington.
  The Republican bill acknowledges this by taking away power from 
Washington
 bureaucrats and giving it to local officials who actually have to make 
assistance programs work on a day-to-day basis.

  This is a practical solution to a practical problem.
  Mr. Speaker, President Clinton and the Democrats in Congress had 
their chance to reform welfare and did nothing. Talk about cruelty to 
children. In 1992, the President campaigned hard on a promise to end 
welfare as we know it. But it was not until last June that we finally 
saw his proposal, and then the Democratic Congress sat on it and every 
other welfare reform bill. It did nothing to change the status quo.
  Now the Democrats are still talking a pretty good game, and in the 
next couple of days they are going to complain a lot about the 
Republican proposal.
  But the fact is that it is the Republicans who are moving ahead and 
reforming welfare. If it was not for the Contract With America and the 
November 8th electoral earthquake, I am sure that we wouldn't be having 
this debate today.
  The Members on the other side of the aisle had their chance on this 
issue and they dropped the ball. And now that they are behind the 
curve, they are resorting to distortions and false attacks like the 
bogus charge that the Republican welfare bill cuts funding to the 
Student Lunch Program.
  By now, everyone on Capitol Hill should know that this bill increases 
funding for child nutrition programs by 4.5 percent per year for the 
next 5 years, and increases WIC spending by 3.8 percent per year over 
the same period.
  But the cold, hard fact is that since Republicans have stepped up to 
the plate on welfare reform, the Democratic leadership's only response 
has been to respond with misleading, partisan attacks like the school 
lunch issue since they were unable to pass welfare reform when they had 
the chance.
  Mr. Speaker, it is time to move past all of this and face the fact 
that the time for real welfare reform has come, and that the Republican 
welfare bill is going to pass.
  I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 4 and to help end welfare as we 
know it.

                              {time}  1545

  Mr. BEILENSON. Mr. Speaker, for purposes of debate only, I yield 5 
minutes to the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Deal].
  Mr. DEAL of Georgia. I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time.
  First of all, I would like to thank the Committee on Rules on both 
sides of the aisle and their staff for allowing a substitute that I 
have proposed to be considered and hopefully we will have the 
opportunity to debate that and proceed with determining where we stand 
on this issue.
  Mr. Speaker, I think it is somewhat ironic that we come here to 
discuss a system that we call well-fair. Recognizing that my comments 
are a play on the phonetic pronunciation of that word rather than its 
literal spelling, nevertheless I would suggest that it is a system 
which is neither well nor fair. It is not well in that it has placed 
actually a plague on our society that has condemned many generations to 
repeat and to fall into its prey. It is certainly not fair, in that it 
does not reward work. In many cases it does exactly the opposite. But I 
would concur with the comments of our colleague on the other side of 
the aisle, the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Goodling], earlier 
today in which he said that we do not need to spend our time with 
rhetoric discussing the failures of the current system. I do not come 
here to justify the status quo. I come here to change it. Our efforts 
in this debate should be focused on how do we best change the current 
system to secure for ourselves and for our constituency the kind of 
system that is humane, the kind of system that rewards work, and a 
system that moves people out of this cycle of welfare.
  I have offered as I indicated a substitute that is the work of many 
of my colleagues that has grown out over a 2-year period. We will 
propose this substitute and I would briefly like to address some of the 
areas that I think its strengths are embodied in it.
  First of all is that we emphasize work. We think that work should 
pay. That the only true way to break welfare is to put people into 
work. But we recognize that for many mothers with dependent children 
that there are two critical ingredients that are presently 
disincentives that we need to change into incentives. First of all, 
they need child care. Second, they need to make sure that by going to 
work, most of which will be at low-paying jobs, that they do not lose 
health care coverage for their children. Our bill significantly 
addresses both of these.
  First of all, CBO has estimated that if we truly wish to move people 
out of welfare and into work, that the cost for child care alone will 
be increased by 
[[Page H3350]] approximately $6.2 billion. We provide the funding in 
our proposal for doing that. We also consolidate our child care 
programs into one particular and single program.
  Second, we recognize that we need an additional year of transitional 
Medicaid so that these mothers will not lose all health care benefits 
for their children. We likewise recognize that if you are going to move 
into the work force, you must have training. We have a 2-year time 
period for a work first program. We make those programs truly tailored 
to the needs of citizens who are going to be trained to go into the 
work force. At the end of that 2-year period if an individual has not 
found a job in the private sector, States will have two options. One is 
a private voucher that can be taken to a private employer to be used if 
they hire a welfare recipient. Second is to place them in a community 
service program where they can likewise learn job skills and later move 
into the private sector market.
  Another important distinction is that we think we can pay for a 
change of the welfare system within the welfare system itself and we do 
not need to reach outside into nutrition programs, and we do not.
  We also in the process of doing this cut the programs by about $25 
billion within the welfare system. We spend $15 billion of that making 
the changes for additional child care and additional training, with a 
net of approximately $10 billion which will be used for deficit 
reduction, and our proposal will be the only plan that will apply the 
savings to deficit reduction.
  As I said, we do not tamper with the children and elderly and WIC 
food programs. We think that they are working and that they are working 
well and do not need to be brought into this net. We do strengthen 
child support enforcement provisions. Currently it is estimated there 
are about $48 billion in child support payments out there, only $14 
billion of which are actually collected. We have a very tough provision 
for a registry for enforcing child support. We likewise recognize that 
teen pregnancy is a big problem. We devote much of our attention to 
that. We think it is an issue that we should not mandate but give 
States the flexibility.
  Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BEILENSON. Mr. Speaker, for purposes of debate only, I yield 2 
minutes to the gentlewoman from Connecticut [Mrs. Kennelly].
  Mrs. KENNELLY. I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time.
  Mr. Speaker, the American people are demanding dramatic change in 
their welfare system. They know it is broken and they are calling upon 
us in the House of Representatives now and later in the Senate to fix 
it. Unfortunately, I do not think we are doing it in exactly the right 
way. I do not think it is dramatic enough and I do not think there are 
enough changes in certain areas that we all know need changes.
  The American people want people who are on welfare and can work to 
work. They want more responsibility for the individual. They definitely 
want to strengthen the family, and they want to protect children.
  When I look at this bill that we are going to have in front of us by 
the majority, some of these things are being done, but some are very 
definitely not. I listened to the gentleman from Delaware [Mr. Castle] 
asking us to listen to each other. We have a rule in front of us today 
that is only partial. There was something like 130 amendments upstairs 
at the Committee on Rules. I am convinced we can make some good 
changes. The gentleman from Florida [Mr. Shaw], the chairman of the
 subcommittee that did welfare, accepted child support enforcement as 
part of welfare reform, and that was a very good move. So I would hope 
that before we finish we could accept amendments, that could make this 
a better bill. We need to improve the work section so that it helps 
people really go from welfare to work. We should accept amendments so 
we really protect children. To take away the minimum standards for 
safety, Federal standards for children is absolutely wrong. We know in 
our own States, every State, these systems are overburdened, we need 
this last safety net for abused children, Federal oversight. So I would 
hope that as we look at this bill now, as we talk about the rule, that 
as the day goes on, we have improvements we can all agree on.

  When I say they are not dramatic, let me tell you block grants are 
not dramatic. What they do is take everything together, send it back to 
the States and say, ``Now it's your problem.'' I think we can do better 
and I hope as the process goes on in the next couple of days we will.
  Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to my good friend, the 
gentlewoman from Washington [Ms. Dunn].
  Ms. DUNN of Washington. I thank the gentleman for yielding me the 
time.
  Mr. Speaker, I am very tired of hearing the Democrats talk about 
cruelty to children. I think we have got to get squared away on just 
where this debate is going.
  I will tell you, Mr. Speaker, that what I consider cruelty to 
children is that $34 billion owed to these children by deadbeat 
parents, who have not paid up and who have not been checked in recent 
years. In this Republican welfare approach, we have taken a long, hard 
look at deadbeat dads and moms and how to get those $34 billion back 
into the system because that is $34 billion that could be used to keep 
these children out of the welfare cycle, out of poverty.
  Mr. Speaker, of that amount, $11 billion leaves the system as 
deadbeat parents leave the State to evade their responsibility. What 
they end up doing not only is not supporting their children but also 
with their irresponsibility requiring that these kids stay on welfare. 
Not only that, Mr. Speaker, but they also end up requiring that the 
Government take responsibility as the parent for these children.
  I support this rule because I think we need to have open debate on 
this issue. Title VII is the child support enforcement part of this 
bill. The plan that we have put before the Congress and will be 
debating in the next few weeks requires a Federal parent locator 
service to be set up at the Federal level that will allow the States to 
access information and locate where those parents are to make them pay 
up. I think it is very responsible, Mr. Speaker. A lot of the 
information in this title VII has come from work between the parties. 
So this can be our bipartisan core of this bill that we all agree on to 
force these parents who have given up all responsibility for their 
supporting their flesh and blood children to get back in the system and 
keep these kids off welfare. That to me, the ultimate cruelty is 
something we can take care of in supporting this bill this week.
  Mr. BEILENSON. Mr. Speaker, for purposes of debate only, I yield 3 
minutes to the gentlewoman from Arkansas [Mrs. Lincoln].
  (Mrs. LINCOLN asked and was given permission to revise and extend her 
remarks.)
  Mrs. LINCOLN. Mr. Speaker, today we will prove to Arkansans and to 
all Americans that we have heard their frustrations and are finally 
prepared to take action on welfare reform. Since I came to Congress in 
1993, I have talked almost daily with constituents who are tired of 
sending their tax dollars to Washington to give people something for 
nothing. I join the people of the First District of Arkansas today in 
enthusiastically saying, ``It's about time for welfare reform.''
  It has all been said, just everyone has not said it, but I will say 
it again here today. Welfare was intended to be a safety net for widows 
and children, but it has become a hammock that has encouraged laziness 
and idleness. Less than 12 percent of the people who receive welfare 
benefits today are actually working and that is why we focus our 
intentions on work.
  We have been paying the other 88 percent to sit at home and watch 
their mailboxes. The Federal Government has been making bigger promises 
than Publishers Clearinghouse. But after this debate ends and the votes 
are counted, I am confident that the House of Representatives will have 
sent a message to their home districts, ``No more something for 
nothing.''
  Over the next few days, we will talk about several proposals for 
changing our welfare system. I challenge all of my colleagues to look 
beyond their party identification and listen closely to the merits of 
each plan, to check their party affiliations at the door and 
[[Page H3351]] look to program reform that is both realistic and puts 
principles and values back into our families.
  The Deal substitute, which I helped to write and cosponsor, puts more 
people to work than the current system, while making it possible for 
people to find a job and stay in it. We offer more job training and 
more child care than the status quo, and for the first time we set a 
lifetime limit of 2 years on welfare.
  Your choices are simple, if you look beyond party lines. Put more 
people to work in less time, or put fewer people to work over more 
years. Put these options with another favorite theme, greater State 
flexibility, and you have an even easier choice.
  The substitute that will be offered by the gentleman from Georgia 
[Mr. Deal], myself, and other conservative Democrats allows States to 
tailor welfare to fit their needs. We give States the option of denying 
benefits to teenage mothers, we let the States decide whether to 
continue giving more money to mothers who have more children while on 
welfare. We also let States decide whether they want to keep people in 
welfare programs for a additional 2 years under community service. And 
we give them the option of recycling a few needy people back into the 
welfare rolls after their time limit has expired.
  We are also the only plan that dedicates the moneys that we save to 
deficit reduction. You will hear more about our plan and the 
differences between the Deal substitute and the other welfare reform 
plans that are offered. I encourage you to think of your constituents 
before your party identification and to look at the reality of our plan 
and what it does for the future not only for us, for this country but 
for our children and our children's children.
  Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of the time remaining 
to the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Shaw].
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. (Mr. Doolittle). The gentleman from Florida 
is recognized for 2\1/2\ minutes.
  Mr. SHAW. I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time.
  Mr. Speaker, in listening to the debate from this side of the aisle, 
you would think that one of the words that really sticks in my head was 
one of the speakers, the gentlewoman from Illinois, for whom I have a 
great deal of respect, referred to our idea as something having to do 
with Attila the Hun. I hear the gentleman from Tennessee refer to us as 
mean. And I hear the other speakers refer to us as being tough on 
children and weak on work.
  I would notice, however, a resounding silence in this Hall when it 
comes to anybody defending the system that we have today, defending the 
system that we were unable and unwilling to change while the Democrats 
controlled this body.
  You look back at some of the good welfare proposals that have come 
down the pike, some that really helped. Take the earned income tax 
credit. That was a Republican proposal. Take the child care that has 
been put in place. And remember the great fight that we had with the 
committee, and we worked together on that particular bill. That was 
bipartisan in nature, and it was signed into law by a Republican 
President.
  Now the time has come to change the balance of the program, to 
change, truly change welfare as we know it today. For the Republicans 
to carry forward, to fulfill the 1992 platform pledge of the Democrat 
Party.

                              {time}  1600

  This is the Republicans carrying through on the pledge of the 
Democrats because of the Democrats' failure to do this. We are going 
to, I hope and pray that we do pass a welfare bill, that we get rid of 
the cruelest system that has ever been known.
  The cruelest system that is out here on the floor is existing law and 
we must change it, we must work together, we must move this process 
forward.
  We have worked long and hard on the Republican side in order to 
change welfare. The bill of the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Deal], 
which will I understand be offered as a substitute sometime later this 
week, that bill itself comes a long way from where the Democrat party 
was just a few short months ago when we could not get a bill to the 
floor, when we could not reform welfare.
  A few short months ago in the last years when the Democrats were in 
charge, we would have been glad to come forward and work on a bill such 
as that. But I tell all of my colleagues to read it carefully; come in 
with specifics. The Republican bill is weak on work? Read the Deal 
bill. The Republican bill is the bill that stands for work. It stands 
for real reform and it stands for the empowerment of people.
  Let us break the chains of slavery that we have created with welfare 
in this country and let us work together for a better America.
  Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I move the previous question on the 
resolution.
  The previous question was ordered.
  The resolution was agreed to.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
  

                          ____________________